Do YOU count the WBO title?

there all a loads of bollocks really but the wbc, wba, ibf and wbo have more respect than the others. I think the ibo has a lot of respectable champs (it did a few years ago)

 

Some of the best fighters in some divisions fight or have fought mainly for that one. Besides, fighters make belts, the belt doesn't make the fighter.

 

The WBO is not one of the big 3 belts, WBA, IBF, and the WBC are the only ones that should be recognized, all the other 50 or so belts are just fakes.

 

I'm starting to rate teh WBO above the IBF due to their stupid mandatory policy for unified champs.

At least Haye wont have that problem.

 

Every belt has it's problems, the WBC certainly has over the last 3 or so years with the whole Vitali Klitskcho mess and fighters like Maskaev holding belts for a year and a half without fighting real competition, or how the WBA keeps finding ways to get undeserving guys like Golota and Ruiz title shots and chances left and right, also the WBO having a reputation of giving fighters who have long layoffs chances at the title without fighting stiff competition, like Brewster fighting Wlad the first time, being out for 16 months, or Liakhovich being out 15 moths before fighting Brewster, or the fact that Shannon Briggs was able to capture a title by knocking out a supposed tough oppenent out in the 12th round, a time when Briggs usually is having asthma attack and only throwing a punch every 30 seconds.


I got nothing against the WBO, but it has had a tradition of representing the weakest of title holder in the Heavyweight division, and the tradition was proven right saturday night when Wlad showed everyone how limmited Iggy truly was.

 

I see the WBC and WBA as being the best 2 belts, the IBF slightly behind them and the WBO being of little significance.

 

all 4 organizations are slimy money-grubbing corporations. the fighter makes the belt not the other way around. historical value of the wbc and wba have been overtaken by the skullduggery of don king.

where is that dude barneyrub with that ridiculous arguement that maskaev is the champ because he has the wbc.

so maskaev is the reall hw champ despite the fact he has fought 1 time in the last 18 months and that was against world beater peter ohkello atsch

 

To me it all depends on the division ... some titles have more lineage than others.
In the case of Joe Calzaghe and the super middleweight division (which is not that old) Calzaghe has made the WBO a bit more prestigious considering he's held it for over 10 years and defended it over 20 times.

In the case of Antonio Margarito it didn't hold much weight in the welterweight division. You had the more prestigious WBC and WBA titles.

 

one thing for the WBO it doesn't take much to obtain a top 10 ranking. Its usually the first title up for grabs for an up and coming title contender.

 

It depends who's holding it. That goes for all Belts.

 

i first heard of it when hamed was holding it.
yes i count it now as one of the world title.

 

No

 

The WBO comes in for criticism but I feel the WBA has sunk the lowest with this confusing title business within each weight class. For instance, I keep seeing Mundine being described as the WBA Super Middleweight champ which is a farce. Calzaghe took the WBA belt off Kessler after Kessler had previously battered Mundine. So how the hell Mundine comes out in front of Kessler and with some sort of title is ridiculous