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

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Italian Stallion, Jan 13, 2021.

  1. catchwtboxing

    catchwtboxing Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Jul 4, 2014
    Francesco Damiani not legit? To hell you say!
  2. Soxial experimennt 2.0

    Soxial experimennt 2.0 Trans and proud banned Full Member

    Jan 11, 2021
    how exactly ?
  3. Fergy

    Fergy Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Jan 8, 2017
    Lol, yea I can remember the WBO setting up their champ opposite Tyson! As if people would argue that Damiani was the true champ??
  4. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    Jun 25, 2014
    Can you imagine if Tyson would've fought Damiani for all the belts, like the mafia wanted?

    I never knew Damiani was controlled by a mob family in Italy until I heard that interview with Sammy Gravano last year.
  5. Fuzzykat

    Fuzzykat Member Full Member

    Jun 18, 2019
    Like I said in a previous post, I've long stopped following who holds which titles. Back in the late 70's and early 80's I always knew who held the WBA title vs. WBC. But somewhere in the 80's I stopped following the madness.

    Today, I couldn't tell you which titles, for example, Spence and Crawford hold without looking it up.

    As far as the original question goes, the answer seems pretty clear. The WBO has fighters they considered champs both prior to and after 2004. So, I guess they were WBO champions. If you want to put an asterisk next to some, feel free to do so.