Do you recognise the WBO

Even the ****** 'Jesus loves you' belt?

 

Pics or STFU.

 

Can't believe I googled this ****.

This content is protected

:hey:hey:hey

 

Was this picture taken inside Flint's wardrobe? :?

Extremely gay.

 

I suspect it was.

 

if you look at things closely the IBF is the best belt. its the only one that enforces mandatories and doesn't let its champions go 3 years without fighting mandatories. if champs fail to fight there mando they get striped, they wont let challengers get paid off, they like fighters to have unifications. it doesnt have any particular promoter have all its fighters ranked. they dont let champions fight unranked fighters. it doesnt have 2 champions at once and doesnt have former champs automaticly coming out of 4 year retirements to pick up the belt. they don't rank fighters that dont deserve it. it only allows number 1 and 2 to fight for vacant belts. if you go through the divisions, the ibf has the most no1 ranked champions.

examples of this;

mallignaggi and hatton have both been stripped after no facing the mandos. they have stripped hatton twice. they tried to pay of N'Dou, Urango get paid off and the IBF stopped it. the wbc are allowing Vitali to pay of gomez to fight haye.

most unifications in recent years have involved the ibf

no promotional company has more than 2 IBF champs. the WBO has 12 ranked fighters by frank warren.

they stripped verno phillips when he wanted to fight paul williams, who wasnt ranked by them.

the WBA currently has 2 champions at 5 weight classes.

the wbc has emiruts champs, allowing any fighter that retired as champ to come back and fight for any belt even after 4 years, vitalit klit did this with peter.

the ibf were the only company not to rank amir khan, they did however rank bredias prescott.

the WBO were going to allow there number 3 ranked fighter Enzo Macceranelli fight a guy that wasnt even ranked and almost died of a heart attack at the weigh in.

wlad klit, adameck, dawson, cabalerro, campbell, darchinyan, donaire are all IBF champions that are no1 ranked by the ring magazine or are unifieed champions.

 

Good points, but it also means that whoever goes on to hold the IBF lt weter belt is a bit of a joke champ. The winner of Urango and Njougda isn't the best at 140 or the lineal.

 

No. The WBO is a fake belt held by fake champions.

 

i do recognise

did i meet it afew years ago

 

Your missing the point, your a boxing fan who knows how the sport works but the 'real' money is only to be made when casual fans of the sport buy the PPV's, Hatton is a 'draw' fighter so anybody holding a belt in the LWW division is going to drop the belt because the money is to fight Hatton, but talent wise Timothy Bradley is far superior to Malignaggi but Bradley isnt at that level were he'll get a real 'Marquee' fight, its kinda like Froch, nobody would want to know about Froch if he didnt now hold the belt, Calzaghe wont touch him because Calzaghe is 'Marquee' but because of the belt there are names like Taylor and Pavlik now interested in fighting Froch, if Froch beats Taylor or Pavlik then hes on the road to becoming a 'Marquee' fighter who can choose whether he drops the belt but you need a world championship belt to sure up your position at the negotiating table

 

Axl,

So if Malinaggi had of beaten Hatton, who would be the champion at 140? Paulie or the supposedly (not that I'm disputing it) better fighter Bradley?

 

It used to mean nothing to little, but now it means a lot more (and others such as the WBC etc are now worth less) - which is kind of worrying, as you get boxers achievements increasing and decreasing with the changing prosperity of a belt. The current kudos of a belt is something that has nothing to do with a boxers real achievements (which were relative to the time, the belts value at that time, and not what it means now).

 

Yes I totally recognise the WBO, it's a maroon colour, has the letters WBO on it and is seen by many as an inferior belt. I would have to agree, how the **** are you meant to keep your trousers up with a belt like that?

 

I recognise it as a minor title just like the other minor titles but it isn't as important as the big three.

 

It all depends how you trace lineage however.

I tend towards the view that, if you are to have a 'linear' champion then there should be an objective standard for establishing a lineage when the title is vacant rather than a subjective one.

The traditional objective standard is the union of the three main belts. Most people these days seem to prefer a subjective standard ('if the two fighters who we think are best in the division fight, we'll call the winner linear').

If the objective standard is followed then Calzaghe rather than Erdei is linear at 175 (although, ironically, Erdei should by rights be Ring champion) and there has been no lineage at 135 since Whittaker.

LHW shows the weaknesses of both arguments, as you do not arrive at a truly staisfactory outcome either way. Either lineage was established without the WBC belt ever being won and the champion is a hideaway German, or lineage was established by Jones picking up vacant belts that had been stripped for spurious reasons without him ever having to fight Michalczewski.