Did the wbo title matter in the 80's/90's ?

well WBO was barreras title of choice throughout hes career..
and concidering he was one of the best P4P id say yer it does matter

 

Was a fringe belt. Some big names held it, but it was still more a stepping stone belt then a hugely sought after title.

 

I remember when the IBF was the ugly sister . . . yeah the WBO was pretty damn useless back in the day and then over night almost it became legit

 

It's complicated, and sometimes the person that held the title's quality gives the gravitas and not the regard the title was held in. Generally, a lot of the hardcore guys on this subject began to count the WBO only when it first became ALLOWED to be unified with other titles, as I understand it. But, before that there's a lot of man-making-the-belt sentiment. Like, for instance, Barrera, or Carbajal getting his last go on Arce. I don't think there's an across-the-board consensus on this issue, really. Some still refuse to acknowledge them, even now, which I find ridiculous, personally.

 

Calzaghe made the WBO matter

 

Damned insightful there BE, ya *******.

 

Does the WBOgus championship matter nowadays?

Personally I'd take Ring, WBC, WBA or IBF over it, not that any of these alphabet titles mean a lot either (not talking about the Ring title ofc), only thing the alphabets do is secure a lot of unworthy mandatories with money in their back and fake champions hiding in their backyard for years

 

1. The Ring
2. WBC
3. WBA
4. IBF
5. WBO

 

To Euro chumps maybe. DLH had a WBO before Joe C even knew how to stay at home fighting scrubs.
(Being facetious BTW)

 

Thanks, mate.

What? Ottke didn't even have the WBO title. He had the WBA and IBF titles. What do you mean matter "nowadays"? It's very obvious that it's only increased its legitimacy while the WBC with its diamond belt bonanza and Sulaiman's runaround on Martinez, etc, and WBA's regular champ/super champ policy have only lost credibility during the same time period. The WBO is nothing great, but for ****'s sake, they are far and I mean FAR from a lesser organization to the WBC, WBA and IBF, in terms of credibility and respectability.

 

You caught me, but as you can see it was edited while you wrote your post, though i stand corrected.

 

I hate it when someone does that to me. It's nicer to be on this end.

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl

 

The WBO has always been part of the big 4:deal I understand why some will mention the Ring, but officially in the past it was never part of the big 4. IBF, WBC, WBO, and WBA, the rest just forget about them:good