IBF vs WBO

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by lategreat604, Jul 4, 2014.


Page 1 of 3
  1. lategreat604

    lategreat604 New Member Full Member

    22
    0
    Nov 4, 2007
    Serious question - how come the IBF became accepted as a legit belt pretty quickly in the eighties while the WBO is still questioned to this day as part of the "big four" in certain sections? As I understand it there was only a few years between the IBF and the WBO being created, yet the difference in rep seems to be huge. Is it just the fact that there's been more controversy over WBO rankings or what? Or the fact that more European fighters held the WBO in its early days? Could some of the more knowledgeable/old skool people please enlighten me, it's something that's always puzzled me . . .
     
    lategreat604, Jul 4, 2014
    lategreat604, Jul 4, 2014
    #1
  2. grumpy old man

    grumpy old man Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,029
    4
    Jun 1, 2014
    The world champion in each weight division is not decided by which abc belt they have around their waste. It's who they have beaten that earns them that accolade.
     
    grumpy old man, Jul 4, 2014
    grumpy old man, Jul 4, 2014
    #2
  3. Vysotskyy

    Vysotskyy Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    3,457
    385
    Oct 1, 2013
    Larry Holmes dropped his WBC title rather than face #1 rated Greg Page so he could fight 10-0 Marvis Frazier instead. IBF was created and he took their belt "legitimizing" it.
     
    Vysotskyy, Jul 4, 2014
    Vysotskyy, Jul 4, 2014
    #3
  4. moparfan

    moparfan ESB's glass jawed fraud Full Member

    21,942
    2,042
    Jul 13, 2012

    When the WBO started out in the late 1980's alot of their Champions were not "Champion" material & the WBO got labeled as a mere steppingstone or gateway belt to the major sanctioning bodies.

    Sort of how the NABF is now-a-days.
     
    moparfan, Jul 4, 2014
    moparfan, Jul 4, 2014
    #4
  5. lategreat604

    lategreat604 New Member Full Member

    22
    0
    Nov 4, 2007
    I agree - I'm just wondering why the popular perception amongst fans seems to be so different about certain abc's
     
    lategreat604, Jul 4, 2014
    lategreat604, Jul 4, 2014
    #5
  6. grumpy old man

    grumpy old man Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,029
    4
    Jun 1, 2014
    Fair question. But to me, and to you as well by the sound of things, it's all pretty meaningless really.
     
    grumpy old man, Jul 4, 2014
    grumpy old man, Jul 4, 2014
    #6
  7. lategreat604

    lategreat604 New Member Full Member

    22
    0
    Nov 4, 2007
    So are you an advocate of the "one belt per division" school of thought then Grumpy Old Man? I used to be, but I must admit there's something special about a unification or even an undisputed "all belts on the line" kind of fight that we sometimes get
     
    lategreat604, Jul 4, 2014
    lategreat604, Jul 4, 2014
    #7
  8. lategreat604

    lategreat604 New Member Full Member

    22
    0
    Nov 4, 2007
    Having said that, the politics of getting those big fights together can be frustrating for the fans, and they don't happen nearly as often as they should
     
    lategreat604, Jul 4, 2014
    lategreat604, Jul 4, 2014
    #8
  9. lategreat604

    lategreat604 New Member Full Member

    22
    0
    Nov 4, 2007
    Thank you for the other replies in this thread by the way - they shed some interesting light on my question
     
    lategreat604, Jul 4, 2014
    lategreat604, Jul 4, 2014
    #9
  10. grumpy old man

    grumpy old man Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,029
    4
    Jun 1, 2014
    How many true unification bouts do we get in each division?

    Instead what we have is hundreds of fighters running around masquerading as world champions.

    It's really all about greedy organisations manipulating things for their own greatest financial benefit. We all know that.
     
    grumpy old man, Jul 4, 2014
    grumpy old man, Jul 4, 2014
    #10
  11. Stonehands89

    Stonehands89 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    10,774
    300
    Dec 12, 2005
    Really? What?

    Read this and, hopefully, come away with a different view of it:

    http://www.thesweetscience.com/wonderland
     
    Stonehands89, Jul 4, 2014
    Stonehands89, Jul 4, 2014
    #11
  12. Eastcoast

    Eastcoast Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,763
    2
    Dec 1, 2005
    The commissions got together recently and there's talk about allowing an undisputed unified champion. When a fighter unifies atleast three of the titles they will be exempt from having to make regular mandatories and will only be required to defend againt the other champions. At least the orgs will be pushing for a grand champion finally.
     
    Eastcoast, Jul 4, 2014
    Eastcoast, Jul 4, 2014
    #12
  13. lategreat604

    lategreat604 New Member Full Member

    22
    0
    Nov 4, 2007

    You're both right, and I know it too - it's just that people (or I) get suckered in when you see your favourite fighter parading round with 3-4 belts instead of one. At this point I guess the fact that the abc's aren't planning on going anywhere means that people do start seeing it that way but it isn't the best situation, all things considered
     
    lategreat604, Jul 4, 2014
    lategreat604, Jul 4, 2014
    #13
  14. thehawk

    thehawk Member Full Member

    104
    0
    Jun 3, 2007
    nobody wants to fight for the ibf because they have a 10lb rehydration limit after the official weigh in. in this day and age its a big hurdle for weight cutters

    the wbo mostly has had more sensible ratings and champions lately, so they have improved their credibility but are fairly new and dont have the history behind them

    the wba keeps shooting itself in the foot with multiple belts per division and bull**** title defense rules even though they are the oldest organisation.

    the wbc is crooked as **** favoring mexicans and makes rules up as they go along but they have prestige and history

    they all have their downsides but fighters and promoters need belts so take ur pic
     
    thehawk, Jul 4, 2014
    thehawk, Jul 4, 2014
    #14
  15. lategreat604

    lategreat604 New Member Full Member

    22
    0
    Nov 4, 2007
    Yeah hawk, but it seems like some people refuse to accept the WBO as a legit title when they all seem to have their downsides - maybe it's just the longer history with the others but the fact that the IBF is not that much older than the WBO is what really got me wondering. Although I realise the other side of this accepting every WB-this and IB-that that comes along which obviously isn't a good idea
     
    lategreat604, Jul 4, 2014
    lategreat604, Jul 4, 2014
    #15
Page 1 of 3