Re-writing the history of boxing: WBO belt

I don't know of a single site, but individually lineage in all weight divisions is contained within the below links:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WBA_world_champions

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WBC_world_champions

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IBF_world_champions

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WBO_world_champions

 

I think there's rather a wider issue of comparing defences of lineal title or the only title vs defending any of the alphabet titles, let's say Monzon&Hagler Middleweight title defences vs Hopkins title defences (Before Tito fight at least, if not Oscar).

Wlad did beat one of the better Heavyweights of his era to win the WBO belt and the standards of contenders after that was at least respectable, I'd say certainly superior to Deontay Wilder's level of opposition with the WBC belt, so I don't see why it matters which of the alphabet soup titles was on the line, WBC, WBO, IBO or WBU.

 

Seems a philosophy issue to me. Should a body receive retroactive acknowledgement?

I don't know, I think not, but I'd hear arguments for it. The biggest issue is when you focus on champions rather than time frames. If Wlad is given this then who else is given retroactive respects at the other divisions? I mean to say if you're saying early 2000s WBO has value, you are saying all of the early 2000s WBO has value. Hard sell bud, much harder than selling Wlad.

 

I guarantee you that Foreman would’ve milked it if he’d beaten Morrison.

 

No, Wilder’s WBC reign was a quite a bit better. The only guy who Wlad beat with a pulse in the WBO reign was Byrd to win the belt. Ortiz wouldn’t have a hard night’s work against Byrd and getting a draw against Fury is obviously more difficult than beating Byrd. McCline was okay I guess, but he fought with a sparring partner’s mentality and wasn’t really better than the guys Wilder was beating.

 

My recollection is that it got mentioned as a newly legitimate belt around 2004, when Brewster beat Wlad for it, and went on to have other good fights.

 

The average is dragged up because Wilders last 4 title defenses were much better than his first 6. While Wlads WBO SOS was more consistant.

Wilders got better best defenses but Wlad has better worst ones.

 

You're probably better it was better overall - particulary considering the Fury draw (although I think it was pretty obvious that Fury was not at his best yet, taking this fight very quickly after getting back from the lay-off).

If You ranked all the wins that the two had collectively - Klitschko defending WBO belt and Wilder defending WBC belt, the worst contenders would be on Wilder's side with Szpilka, Molina, Duhaupas, Stiverne II and Washington. Klitschko's WBO opponents were all of superior quality to them.

Yes, that's how I see it too.

 

Wlad only made it to five defenses after winning the belt. Jefferson was past it, Shufford was never very good, and Botha was past it and not very good to begin with. These guys weren’t any better than the bottom rung of Wilder’s reign and Wilder made it to to ten defenses after winning the belt.

I can’t think of anyone who had a worse run of title fights of similar or longer length at heavyweight. But it wasn’t really a title.

 

Thats my personal cutoff.

I'm under the impression offically WBO got recognition across the board in 2004 because of Hopkins v De La Hoya. I don't believe in across the board recognition.

 

I think you have Vitali and Wlad confused. Cause your last sentence is exactly how I feel about Vitalis WBC reign.

 

They were, in fact - better. It wasn't a murderer's row of course so You can write an easy, low effort ctiticism (Past it, never any good etc.), but They were still better than Molinas, Szpilkas and Duhaupases. Wlad's opponents were solid contenders in their era, all with solid wins under their belt. Wilder's opponents were scandalous - even in weak era.

 

No doubt!