Does anyone really care for the WBO as much as the WBC or WBA?

Well it's gotten better attention the past decade or so.
I would include The Ring belts there too.

 

The whole organizational thing is a mess now, too many of the organizations.Don't care for the WBO, WBC, and WBA and IBF too.

 

I guess if you analysed it for long enough, eventually you might come to the conclusion that dog**** smells worse than cow****. At the end of the day though, **** is still ****.

It's baffling that anyone still takes these ****tards seriously after federal Investigations, cash for ratings, multiple champions for the same organisation, overturning a knockout in Tokyo, plucking someone out of the crowd for a title shot, elevating dead fighters in the top 10, and the sheer existence of Jose Sulaiman.

The fighter makes the belt. Any credibility comes from the men you beat and lineage, not from the title.

 

WBA has lost it's credability in my eyes, not saying it isn't a world title but wba is a big fan of their intrem belts and regular champions, IBF is actually the most consistent and least amount of trinkets

 

TBH now its more the fighter that makes the belt, i mean Pacquiao has held the WBO title Bradley holds the WBO title better fighter then broner who holds the WBA version, fighters make the belts not vice versa all 4 are world belts in my eyes

 

Agree. WBA is by far the worst now. Super, regular, interim, or in recess titles so there could be 4 WBA "world" champions at the same time:huh

It was considered the most prestigious 30 or 40 years ago, since it's the oldest organization, but now it's behind 3 other organizations.

Those who think IBF or WBO are less legit than WBA simply live in 1980 now, but the times have changed