How come the IBO never became a major recognised belt?

To get recognized as a major title organization in boxing takes time.

The IBO will have to put on, pay for and promote amazing, high profile fights consistently with great fighters, which Eubank Jr isn't. Once they get a champion or two people care about, who also remain loyal, things may change.

If I recall Wlad helped make the WBO legit along with Hopkins versus Oscar De La Hoya.

 

Warren just before the Saudi involvement was putting on alot of IBO title fights
I get the feeling he was close to trying to do the same thing he did with the WBO

An organisation can not be considered legit without the players in the sport backing it

 

They don't have champs who are recognised as the best in their division. The essence of being 'world champ' is that you're the best. Plenty of world champs with alphabet sanctioning bodies aren't the best, but some of them are. With the IBO, none of them are. The reason the IBF were taken seriously when they started is b/c they had Larry Holmes who was recognised as the best heavyweight in the world. Presumably, that's the same reason Uncle Fester is targeting Usyk - instant credibility if you have the #1 Heavyweight. I would also speculate that the IBO doesn't have significant US links. Without American money in the pipeline, not much will be coming out the other end in terms of international recognition.

 

They most likely didn't get a push or financial backing when the opportunity was there. Also, the boxing community probably saw 4 as enough. It's a 'world title' of convenience, whether it's a fighter not quite good enough (Eubank Jnr), adding another number to the Undisputed, or a small card pushing a 'world title' matchup.

 

The boxers give the belts credibility.

 

Four major belts is more than enough
In saying that Mundine v Geale 1 was for the IBO middleweight title and it was one of the best domestic fights I ever saw live.

 

A few reasons

1)The "big 4" have set up a power sharing system that a 5th wheel would force them to scrap.

2)The WBO served a constituency in boxers from underserved regions who were not getting chances from the big 3. The WBC countered the American WBA and the WBO was meant to counter the American IBF. The IBO is just a 5th sanctioning body with better practices. But people who want to reform the sanctioning bodys don't want there to be 5 sanctioning bodys. Theres no one who really benefits from or is pushing for it going major.

3)The IBO is already recognized as "the fifth body" whether it be major or minor. Ever since the death of the old WBU its been the consensus most major minor belt. What would the purpose of making it major be besides angering people frustrated theres too many belts? The IBO had its moment where it got elevated in prestige in the late 2000s where they got a few champs recognized as lineal. But what was pushing the Big 4 to give then the IBO the title of "major"? Then and today fans very clearly don't want a 5th belt theres no pressure to recognize the IBO at all the "wind" is not in their sails its in their faces.

 

Another thought.

You can argue the IBO has been considered a major belt by boxrec the last few years since they have deleted the WBA from reality. On boxrec site IBO comes up second after IBF.

 

Lots of high profile fighters have had the IBO belt, i think the reason it isnt held in the same regard as other belts as theres no appetite for more belts from the boxers or the fans.

 

Ah the WBU, I thought that was going to be the one to become the 4th or 5th major title at one point

 

Yeah it was certainly stronger then the IBO and even WBO at certain points.

 

No history behind it and simply more recognized belts with historic champions.

When hardcore boxing fans think of alphabet titles the IBO and WBO are always the two that come into the conversation.

 

Exactly. Even four belts is too many belts.

 

The IBO has never been embroiled in scandal to my knowledge

They should be considered a serious belt