Since when did the WBO become a legit world title??? THEY SUCK

The WBA are now worse than the WBO. They're an absolute joke these days.

 

WBO is way more legitimate than WBA these days.

 

Wladimir Klitchsko
Marco Huck
Jurgen Breahmer
Robert Stieglitz
Kelly Pavlik
Sergei Dzindruk
Manny Pacquiao
Tim Bradley
Juan Manuel Marquez
Roman Martinez
Steven Luevano
Juan Manuel Lopez
Fernando Montiel
-
Omar Narvaez
Ivan Calderon
Donne Nietes

Really?

 

So don't recognise either of them. What's next? You get fed up with all the emeritus and diamond crap and start recognising the wbu just to make up the numbers?

 

We can find lots of things to gripe about all the alphabet organizations. Since no1 has yet mentioned the BS coming from the WBC, I submit:

This content is protected

What a joke...

 

The Ring is the true championship of boxing. Forget this silly nonsense about ''WBC, WBA & IBF are real, just not the WBO''. That makes no sense at all. Imagine what the old timers thought when they had just invented the WBC or IBF. I don't want to hear any garbage about how GBP owns The Ring, because that hasn't affected the rankings at all. They didn't even sanction #3 Mosley's fight with #1 Margarito for the vacant Welterweight title. It is a fairly large number of people who decide the rankings, not Oscar or anyone around him.

 

Hahaha! That's good ****!

 

Ring went down in my estimation when they awarded a belt to the winner or Wlad v Chagaev. That decision was made by the managing editor after lobbying from the Klitchsko camp, never referred to the usual rankings panel and went completely against the ethos that a vacancy should be resolved by the best two fighters facing off.

 

The WBO only started in 1988-89, so its only the last 20 years. I don't remember it meaning much until after 2000, that's when the Klitschkos started winning it. Ray Mercer won it after beating Morrison in '91 but then dumped it soon after...so I guess it didn't mean much then...

 

Much depends on how you decide what is the best, do you decide the best organisation has the best champions, best rules, best challengers, do you think there should be interims, mandatorys??? Here are the statistics for November and fights scheduled for December for the value of challengers and their respective ratings:
The WBA had 13 fights incuding interims and the highest rated challenger was ranked 8th, the worst was 113th and 8 were outside the top 35. the average rating of a WBA challenger was 61 and of the 13 challengers 7 have never beaten an opponent ranked in the top 50. The IBF had a challenger at 93 and with 5 fights the average ranking was 31, the WBC and WBO average came at 22, the WBC still had four challengers who have never beaten an opponent in the top 50 including Kevin Johnson who faces Vitali.
You wont like to here that the best quality control is from the IBO, the average ranking of challengers is 19.

 

Really, i have stopped caring about belts some time ago.

 

The champions of the WBO are no worse now then the other titles. Seems legit now. Calzaghe did bring it credibility.

 

If I am not mistaken, Hearns was the first WBO titlist. Not a bad guy to be the first title holder. November 4, 1988, and he defended it 2 times.. Well really once since it was not on the line with Ray, but he was still champion then.

 

I read 'War, Baby' recently about McClellan's career and when he won it in 1991 it was generally considered a piece of garbage, so much so that I think he vacated it by his next fight, it definately has grown in prominence in the last 15 years.

 

erm since when has the WBO not been a major title????

Fwank Warren needs to stop holding them ransom though.