Do you recognise the WBO

Yep, though at first I didn't and I've recognised no other alphabet titles since.

They've had some great champs, it makes no sense not to...it's not like the other bodies are any more credible.

The IBF were in the same boat at one time, not that much earlier really.

 

Its one of the 4 recognised world titles...albeit maybe the lesser of the 4.

But its hard to take any serious..esp the WBA with their super and regular champion nonsense...not to mention giving Holyfield a title shot.

 

With it being top 4 you have to recognise it, although it doesn't mean that i like the wbo/frank warren.

 

i agree with all of the above...word for word.

i just cant believe the what the wba has done recently...corruption isn't even attempted to be hidden any more...
definetly taking the sporting element out of pro boxing.


.

 

I'm starting to think none of the sanctioning bodies are worth a damm. Someone really needs to sort the mess they have created out.
I nominate Oscar De La Hoya.

 

Larry Holmes was there inaugral champ at heavyweight. The WBO`s was Francisco Damiani. Il let you do the math..

 

The IBF were smart when they started out, they 'gave' Larry Holmes, Donald Curry and Marvin Hagler (who were the 3 stand out champions at the time) their belts without having to fight for them.

 

It made ALOT of sense as if they were to be taken seriously they had to have legitimate champions. The WBO on the other hand let any tin can fight for there vacant belts and because they`ve been around nearly 20 years now the longevity has allowed them to have some clout. Well see if guys will be saying the same thing 20 years from now about the WBU IBO WBF IBU IBA etc..

 

I agree. They were the best fighters in their divisions and the IBF recognized them as champs instead of letting two lesser fighters contest the belt. It gave them a degree of credibility that opposing Holmes, Hagler and Curry wouldn't have.

 

Michael Moorer was the WBO's first Light-heavyweight champion
Thomas Hearns was the first WBO Super-Middleweight champion
Hector Camacho was the first WBO Light-Welterweight champion
John David Jackson was the first WBO Light-Middleweight champion

Michael Spinks was the first IBF Light-heavyweight champion
Murray Sutherland was the first IBF Super-Middleweight champion
Aaron Pryor was the first IBF Light-Welterweight champion
Mark Medal was the first IBF Light-Middleweight champion

What's the point I'm making ?, they both had very good and very ordinary champions to start with. The heavyweight champion for a sanctioning body doesn't make it a great sanctioning body.


Should we recognise the WBO, as much as we should any other sanctioning body......which basically is not a lot.

The sooner we start accepting 6,7,8,9 sanctioning bodies as 'genuine', the sooner people will realise that those belts aren't really making people champions. Normally someone with a 'big 4' belt is only a contender anyway. Take for example any of the big 4 at Light-Welterweight.
Hatton's the real champion and they're all just contenders, and that's not cause Ring magazine say so. it's because it's the truth.

 

Ok so 20 years from now will you also recognize the WBE?

 

i recognise the wbo as much as the other big 4, but we do without all of them to be honest. i think the ring belt is slowly turning it into a big 5, and hopefully in time will become the sole focus of all boxers.

 

The lineal belt is the one for me, some of the others may carry more or less weight than the others but boxing titles are won and lost in the ring where possible.

 

I recognise the fighter holding the belt not the other way around.