Do You Count Oscars WBO's as Major Accomplishments

In the 90s it was valid but lightly regarded compared with the "Big 3".

Oscar is among those who actually helped usher in acceptance of the WBO's legitimacy as part of a "Big 4".

A case where there isn't too much "chicken or the egg" obfuscation; here the champs made the belts.

 

I tend not to pay much attention to the belts by this era and look more at who he was fighting.

Bredahl was a pretty limited, ordinary fighter and winning a vacant title gainst a past prime Paez is hardly the stuff of legends.Though he blew him out like he should have.

Oscar had some solid wins here, but they tended to be against fighters he had a significant size advantage over and could just brute force....smaller almost natural feather types like Leija and Genaro Hernandez.It's interesting he couldn't just blow through the craftier, slicker Molina who was also of that size.

 

I think Miguel Angel Gonzalez at 140 was the first fight against a good solid opponent he took where the cards weren't well stacked in his favour in terms of size advantage, opponent being past prime etc.You could maybe say Ruelas, but i never rated Rafael.

 

LOL, that a person I respect still tries and rate alphabet **** makes me laugh. What the thread starter is asking is dog **** better than cat ****? Come on IB you are far better than this... I think Oscar was superb, but winning alphabet **** means nothing to me.

 

Totally unimpressed by two-round demolitions of Páez (even if past his prime and punching above his weight) and Ruelas? That early in his development?

Yeesh. Tough room.

 

I still don't particularly rate the WBO title in any division, actually - less so than all three of the others, and I fully recognize that fracturing of every division into fourths (or worse, given the interim & super/regular nonsense) is a big part of what ails the sport these days. My point was that back in the 90's the WBO titles held literally no value as they had no quality lineage as of yet. Someone like ODLH holding the SFW and LW versions did lend them a bit of legitimacy, as did Calzaghe a few years later with his long reign at SMW, among others. I was explaining how the WBO came to be a totally obscure non-entity org to roughly in the conversation with the others. (although yes, all four have major problems and their mere splintered existence is a problem in and of itself)

 

Good/very good wins, particually Rafael but for, I think, an honest counting mistake (well after Gabe's shoulder, a Rueles deserved a break... Sorry, a fair break! ) was unbeaten. But the WBO still meant shi... nothing. It was the names not the titles that showcased De La Hoya as the real deal.

This was not like Holmes and the IBF, who were with the proverbial fig leave, trying to one up the corrupt Suilman, the WBO was just as bad as any other alphabet organization from day one in the late 80s...

 

I actually rank WBA as the sh*ttiest one of the four, followed then by WBO.

Mostly because of their '3 world champions in one division' claims - super, regular and interim. That's complete bullsh*t.

In reality, their regular champion is nothing more than #1 contender for WBA belt, and interim champion is like intercontinental.

Everyone knows that Wlad is THE WBA HW champion since july 2011, yet they pretend like Povetkin and then Chagaev are also WBA HW champions at the same time atsch. In fact they should've been only #1 rated contenders for Wlad's belt.

 

..

 

He beat John John MOlina (barely) and destroyed Hernandez and Leija, these are three excellent wins on any resume.