if you work your ass off and put your body on the line to win a world title, then i dont care what body it's sanctioned by you will be proud of it, and you will want to showcase it to the world, so yeah, it's prestigious.....
I agree, in fact if the IBO replaced the WBA that would actually mean one 'champion' less in a lot of divisions.
IBO is WAY better than WBOGUS which should NEVER have been recognised as far as I'm corcerned, Atleast the IBO doesn't have its belt on bums. Since WBOGUS got recognised does that mean all the fromer WBOGUS champs in the 80s and 90s are recognised world champs?
this thread does not merit 4 pages. Look at the title. Is the IBO important and prestigeous Its not even close to being one of them, let alone both.
There seems fair support for the IBO from those that have taken the time to understand what the IBO is about. There is a degree of negativity from some because it is a 5th belt. I am from the IBO, we are here to help boxing and are totally non corrupt, you will not see us making interim titles, super champions, taking bungs, fixing ratings. Every fight is taken into consideration and if you win good quality fights you get rewarded in our ratings, fighters that rack to 25-0 without fighting fighters that were ranked in the top 100 do not get rated. I think it is fair to say that the IBO is less prestigeous than the other main 4 but we are held in high regard by many and have some of the best champions in Vladimir, Chad Dawson, Manny Pac, and we are working on increasing our roster. It is not easy perhaps in time we will be thought of as better than the other 4. Tomas Adamek's promotional team did not pay the sanction fee that is why he is not the IBO champion.
For the moment IBO can't be compared of course with the big 4. But it is the most important and prestigious of the other "World" organisations(IBA , IBC , IBU etc) So , we can say it is in the middle
How ome they are threatening to strip Strawweight Joyi if he fights in an IBF eliminator then??? I personally take the IBO slightly more seriously than the WBO
You cant be the IBO champion and then fight an elimiation contest for another organisation. We allow and encourage unifications but to be our champion you must make defences or obtain permission for a non title fight.
IBO more prestigous than the WBO? Surely if any company falls out of the top four itll be the WBA... Anyway this conversation is ridiculous, its all about the fighter, if the best fighter in the world holds the IBO then the IBO is the belt togo for.
Look I respect what the IBO is trying to do, I really do, but the fact is we don't want to accept you as a ligit title because then we'd have 5 (6 Counting The Ring). 6 titles is 5 titles too much, we would never have a undesputed champ. As far as the IBO ges I take it more personally than both the WBC and WBA but we can't have a "Big 6". If you want to be big try taking one of the existing "big 4" out.
Maybe the thing to consider is that two belts are really one too many, but if there is 2, 3, 4, 5 etc what does it matter, each extra belt devalues the others, Superchamps and interims do as much damage, further with more belts it means that the better fights and big money fights generally involve the coming together of 'champions' of the organisations, if you look at the last few years there have been far more unification matches than previous. The difference is that the IBO is trying to make unifications whilst others strip fighters by trying to unify. You the punters want want unifications, fair ratings and a fair chance, you should be supporting the organisation that serves the public better its for you to decide what organisation is 'best' but just because certain ones were first may carry less clout in time. Maybe too much emphasis is placed on the belt although as many have said its more about beating the man and if the best man at heavyweight is IBO champ, so be it. If its the IBF middleweight holder who rules so be it.