If The WBO Belt Wasn't A Major Title Until 2004, Are All Pre-'04 Titlists Not Legit Champs?

So, so true!
In a nutshell to highlight this bunches craziness, they concocted a heavyweight belt, by pairing Damiani with Johnny DuPlooy to find their heavyweight champion. This was while Tyson was undisputed champion.
Later they compounded their total lack of credibility when they allowed Tommy Morrison to yank out his sparring partner from the audience, Tim Tomachek, as his opponent hadn’t shown up. (Spell check on a couple of these names!)
Wonder why they don’t just trip of my tongue!
Recent years, just a couple more examples. Liam Smith and Billy Saunders, need I say more?
No way can they be deemed legit.
It’s always wbo, lower case, for me.

 

• 
  
  

  ---

  
  

  Click here to register a FREE forum account and REMOVE ADS

  
  
  

wba, wbc, ibf, wbo. The latter two, never "legit," while the former two elected to abandon their credibility in the late 1970's, if not earlier. As far as the boxers (managers, promoters), it's a shame they elected to play sanctioning bodies' game rather than letting them wither and die.

If one of these bodies decided to play it straight, transparent, smart, and above-board, they could help make boxing more popular than ever.

 

The man makes the belt. Anyone who denies that Hamed and Calzaghe were champs but accepts that John Ruiz and Sugar Valuev were champs needs their head checked.

 

I think that’s oversimplified. At one point, 168 was ruled by Ottke and Calzaghe. Ottke got his belt by SD when Charles Brewer showed up in Germany to fight him. That doesn’t strike me as any more legit than beating Eubank or guys who were passing belts around like Reid, Mitchell and Brewer himself, which is what Joe did.

Hamed won “Big 3” belts early in his career and throughout it, but generally dumped them partly because it conflicted with holding the WBO back then.

 

Agree. It all comes down to WHO holds whatever said belt and how many of their contemporaries they beat.

 

The perspective was different in Europe. I remember it being listed in some Euro boxing mag before The Ring/KO, which pretty much monopolized the US. That mag also tended to put much greater emphasis on am results when coming up with rankings.

 

Maybe Boxing News but I don’t really remember. I do remember Tarver being PFP top 10 before he had even fought Harding....Their rankings, not mine.

 

The WBO has been considered legitimate since the mid 90’s by those with enough power in the boxing business to have an opinion that matters and insignificant posters on a boxing forum won’t change that fact

 

When has 2004 become the "turning point" for the WBO? It certainly wasn't for me and many other Americans, and there still hasn't been one. The organization merely adds confusion to an already convoluted situation and it wasn't fully recognized by the other alphabet soups until, what, 2008? I remember watching Miguel Cotto pound out a bunch of fringe guys while holding it until 2006 and never thought he was a "champion". Actually, Bob Arum's relationship with them is what seems to have put them over the hump for many.

 

Yes ...Chris Eubank received a lot of flack ...because he never fight one of the big 3 belt holders