No it wasn't. The WBO back then was not a major title at least not at heavyweight. Was the WBO belt up for grabs when Lewis and Holyfield fought for the undisputed heavyweight title? Nope, yet nobody claimed either Lewis or Holyfield needed the WBO belt then to be regarded as undisputed. Fact is the WBO belt at heavyweight has only very recently been regarded as a legitimate belt along with the WBC, WBA and IBF. The Klitschko's did a lot to legitimise that belt, but prior to that it might as well have been an inter continental belt, which is why Mercer, Moorer, Bowe, Akinwande and Sanders all vacated the belt at some point, usually to become eligible to fight for a genuine world title.
Golota wasn’t ready! Brewster caught him off guard before he had enough time to settle into his rythmn
I understand your point about the WBO belt not being prestigious or even noteworthy. In general, it's "to each his own," as they say, as a fan you can value a title or fighter however you see fit. And again, I realize what the consensus fan opinion is. And I certainly don't rate Hide or Nielsen that high (I put Hide well above the Dane though tbh). But in terms of what's official, and whether we like it or not, just open any sports/boxing encyclopedia and you will see the World Boxing Organization and Herbie Hide listed as an official major championship organizing body and official world champion, respectively (including the time period of 1998). We might not like it, yes. The IBO was an organization that I always put fifth. I was always able to tell the difference and perceive only the WBC, IBF, WBA, and WBO, as official trinkets (across the heavyweight division, anyway). Not sure if it works exactly the same across all weight classes though to the best of my knowledge it is the same. But for me, the WBC, IBF, and WBA, have always represented the trinity of professional boxing. The WBO title was the lowest tier prize, it could kind of be thought of as the bronze medal (in a third/fourth place sense). The winner of this title was lucky enough to even win a world title. All in all, though, Hide was lucky enough, that's the moral of the story and what matters. Not in a boxing history sense because he's not an all-time great, but for him and his accomplishments. He can proudly say he was an official world champion. And his fight with Reed, holds the record, despite the fact it's dubious and may not merit as much attention, which I acknowledge. But we must accept that what's done is done and until another heavyweight can snap the 52-second record, it will stand.
As far as what's official, and whether we like it or not, just open any sports/boxing encyclopedia or log onto a major boxing website and you will see the World Boxing Organization and Herbie Hide listed as an official major championship organizing body and official world champion, respectively (covering the time span of 1998). We might not like it, I understand, but we can't change it. The WBO champ always takes a backseat, much like Hide in a great 90s era and much like Joseph Parker among Wilder and Joshua today. But did that or does that declassify Hide and Parker to non-champion status? No, both were/are official world champions, but without the same public recognition and acceptance as their peers. It's up to boxing politics and the higher-ups of the sport to clean up the sport and organizing bodies so that it's not littered with so many titlists. In all honesty, the old system of one champion per division was awesome! Nowadays? Forget about it.
you say this sarcastically as if that isn't more or less how titles and bodies got their start. I'm not saying your point has no merit, but things are not so black and white and I'd not be so harsh on any who academically challenge the tradition of legitimacy in boxing.
So then who do you regard as having scored the quickest knockout in heavyweight title fight history? It can't be Lamon Brewster or Herbie Hide because both held the WBO crown at the time of their 52-second KOs.
I don't know, honestly. It's a tough call. The WBO (I think) is unique in the sense that it wasn't initially viewed as a major title, but later became viewed/accepted as one. I think the Hide victory is debatable. But by the time Brewster beat Golota, the WBO generally was more widely recognized. Then again, if you accept the WBO as a major title at some point, maybe Hide should count retroactively. I can see cases being made various ways. But the WBO definitely wasn't regarded in the same light then that it is now.
James Thunder ko'd someone with the first punch of The fight. The opening bell sounded and they met about half way and Thunder threw a right that connected and out goes the lights. Less than 15 seconds!