Do you recognise the WBO

The IBO and ring does not count as a unification. it was not the IBF that robbed the fighters, it was the judges, even though paulie won both fight clearly.

 

Thats because none of them would honor there mandatorys. For all intents and purposes that was fair.

 

how was it ridiclious. Paul Williams had never had a fight at light middleweight, was WBO champion at Welterweight and therefore not ranked by the IBF at light middle.

 

they would not fight there mandatorys.

i think you got recognize the fact that the WBA was created because the WBC was not enforcing mandatories and allowing world champions to duck people.

 

but he was more than worthy to share a ring.

ricky hatton went straight into a title shot at welter.

for the simple reason he was a proven world class fighter.

same goes for paul williams. :roll:

 

but in hatton and malignaggi's case they weren't even given the chance to fight and then decide that.

same happened with hatton before the urango fight.

n'dou had yet to fight his eliminator at that point. :bart

 

How so when the WBA is the oldest organisation of them all?

On the original question, its no better or worse than any of the other three - I recognise the fighter not the belt!

 

Hatton and Malignaggi were told their fight could be for the IBF title if they signed a contract saying they'll fight the winner of Urango v Ngoudgo. Neither did so Paulie was stripped.

 

Bobby Gunn was ranked #15 by the WBO..........and #14 by the WBC.

So when there's no true champion and the IBF have a terrible champion, and the WBO the best champion in the division, what you do is not only recognise the IBF fighter(no matter how poor) as the World champion(the World champion along with 2 other guys that is), but you also see the WBO champion as a lesser fighter because he obviously isn't a 'World champion', just a contender.

That sounds more corrupt than the sanctioning bodies themselves.

 

Since the IBF were hammered for corruption they've gone out of their way to enfore their own (often ridiculous) rules. I think that is as far as it goes really.

 

No, Bob Lee the then-president went down for accepting bribes from numerous promotors (Cedric Cushner I think was the main one) in exchange for fiddling the rankings.

Do a search on 'Bob Lee', 'IBF' and 'corruption' and you'll find out all about it

 

In general, If you look at the fighters who have held a WBO strap in recent years you can't really say it's much worse than any of the other's.

They definitely have a dodgy relationship with Warren though, remember when they allowed Macca to defend against Ezra Sellers when he was 40 and hadn't fought in something like 3 years? (thankfully the BBBoC stepped in), now i might just be biased due to the fact i really hate Fish Eyed Frank but i don't think the WBO would have allowed that for any of their champions who weren't under SN. I reckon Franks caught the WBO president with a rentboy or something.

 

No. Three is too many titles already. Mind you those are pretty devalued too these days imo.