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

Heres an old post from Aug 2011 about the WBO SMW title. Details have changed a bit since but can get the idea below

Where you have written for the WBO vs limited competition.
I just wanted to highlight some details to you.
The SMW divisions first world champs were WBC 1988, WBA 1987, IBF 1984 & WBO 1988.
Now for a start it is a new division so no belt has any more prestige than the other as they were all started at a similar time. So the WBO SMW title has no less prestige than the others.
Consider also that the WBO at SMW has been involved in 4 unification bouts.
The IBF has been involved in 2
The WBA in 3
WBC in 4 also
This shows that the WBO has been as willing to make top fights at SMW as much as any other governing body.

Now look at the list of champs in each and who they defended against and you can see that the WBO SMW title has produced the best defences overall better than all of the other govening bodies in this particular weight division so far.
Consider how much critism Bute gets now for his IBF defences.
Consider M Beyer defending his WBC title against 26-14-5 fighter who was coming off of a win against a 0-2-0 fighter
Or that Mundine when defending the WBA title against a 24-13-5 fighter who was the same fighter that WBC champ Beyer was defending against above.

People bring up Eubank who helped mould the belt that was good enough to give T Hearns a slice of history making. Out of Eubanks 18 WBO SMW title fights 14 of those fights were against fighters who were, had been or became top 10 SMWs. One was a unification and another was against the undefeated former IBF SMW champ (relinquished his title). In fact 6 of the fighters he faced had been or became world champs

 

It was generally considered to be a semi-worthless belt.
The Ring refused to recognise it.
Showtime refused to recognise it and only got involved in Benn-Eubank II because Benn had the WBC belt
HBO refused to recognise it calling it an 'off brand belt'.

 

wbo= lame belt that brits fight for so they can be called champs

 

We all know that. Im simply stating the WBO has been part of the big 4 for a while now. It has produce and has had many legends and champions just like the other three WBA, IBF, and WBC. We also know that any other belts other than those 4 dont mean anything. We also have to notice they all have their moments but also their downs. One great example the WBC has become a joke as of latety.

 

These are some of the past and current WBO champs:

Ricardo Lopez
Calderon
Cazares
Montiel
Tapia
Arce
Nonito
Barrera
Juanma
Hamed
Marquez
DLH
Freitas
Camacho
Cotto
Judah
Bradley
Margarito
Pacquiao
Cintron
Winky
Santos
Hopkins
Taylor
Pavlik
Hearns
Calzaghe
Bowe
Wladimir

And so many names. The WBO has done very well for its short time. Not everything is perfect but slowly things will improve.

 

would you say calzaghe is a two weight world champion in this case? because people argue that he never won a major belt at 175

 

it still should be worthless look at their lhw rankings for example

CHAMPION NATHAN CLEVERLY GB
1 Dmitry Sukhotsky (Int-Cont) RUS
2 Braimah Kamoko (WBO Africa) GHA
3 Eduard Gutknecht GER
4 Soulan Pownceby (Asia-Pacific) NZ
5 Marcus Vinicius de Oliveira (Latino) BRA
6 Robin Krasniqi (WBO Europe) GER
7 Kariz Kariuki KEN
8 Karo Murat GER
9 Andrzej Fonfara POL
10 Dustin Dirks GER
11 Denis Simcic SVN
12 Viacheslav Uzelkov UKR
13 Tomas Kovacs SVK
14 Isaac Chilemba MAL
15 Tony Bellew GB

 

No, it was no more legit than the IBA or WWE title is now. People have a selective memory and bad judgement.

 

So the IBA and WBU can create new weight classes and create titles out of thin air and the titles will have prestige and legitimacy? Your observation that the WBO has produced great defenses at 168 is ****ing ******ed. Bums like Pudwell and Ashira fighting up weight classes don't qualify as quality defenses. what does it matter where a fighter is ranked if the rankings are based on bull**** rankings, mostly based on the willingness to pay sanctioning fees.

 

c'mon the belt has only been considered legit for like 15 years or so . . . how in the hell can it have as many legands as the WBA and the WBC?

the WBA and the WBC has ****ed up its brand and by default the WBO and IBF have become the more legit of the trinkets. Until recently the Ring belt has been the most prestigious but even that has lost its luster with the takeover by GBP

 

Means more now than then........................

 

In the 90's Barrera and Oscar made it legit

 

it was so important, most heavyweights who won it, released it the next day to purse the heavyweight championship

 

oscar took the wbo approach so he wouldnt have to fight the real champions at that weight

 

heavyweight champs
1998

WBA, IBF -Holyfield
WBC - Lewis
WBO - Herbie Hide vs Will Fischer (NUFF SAID)