I remmber when the WBO first came on the boxing scean and it semed like it was being treated as one of the many "minor" tittles. It did not have IBF,WBC and WBA status. Today the WBO tittle is regarded as being on the same levil as the WBC, WBA and IBF. When and how did this happen?
There's a longwinded explanation but for the sake of keeping it simple, the WBC, IBF and WBA have all become more and more of a joke over the years while the WBO has had enough quality boxers endorse their belt so that their credibility has risen Now the WBC, IBF, WBA and WBO are all corrupt jokes on roughly the same level
wbo dilutes the titles just as the ibf did when i remember that coming on the scene. there were much better fights when there was only a wba or wbc
i see it still that the wbu is becoming the jouirneyman prospect belt which i feel is a good set. ibo is becoming a good brand aswell when it came out it made it clear only the best get there belt...but sadly just another belt adds to the confusion. i hope ibo becomes the belt of choice as not once has it had corruption charges ,biasedness and a bad line up. but money changes good hearts
Spot on. History doesn't make the WBC, IBF and WBA's corrupt current rankings any more valid than the WBO's crap rankings.
It become mayor since other organizations agreed that their champions can wear WBO belt along with their own.
Get rid of all organizations or combine them all and have one title for every weight class. We'd see who really wanted to be champion then.
Alphabet crap is alphabet crap... If you think dog crap is more important than cat crap that is your call, but perhaps you should keep that sort of thing to yourself, or find a scat forum!
It's funny how with the debate on this board about who has a glass chin, who would have won Vitali/Lewis, is Floyd a runner, could BHop beat Hagler, etc., we can all agree on our disdain for the actions of the sanctioning bodies. :good