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

Francesco Damiani not legit? To hell you say!

 

how exactly ?

 

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

 

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.

 

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.