Regarded as an actual world title over in Australia? or is it like the WBU was in the UK, the hardcore fans knew it wasnt the real deal but the general public regard is as one of the "real" world titles
Hard to say as the IBO i hate to say this but its very true has had some pretty good Champs compared to the WBU. Lets face it. Im not shitting on anyone but so far here is a list Past Flyweight Champs IBO Vic Darchinyan Nonito Donaire Bantamweight Champs IBO Silence Mabuza Rafael Marquez Vic Darchinyan Abner Mares Featherweight Champs IBO Marco Antonio Barrera Naseem Hamed Cristobal Cruz Jhonny Gonzalez Lightweight Champs IBO Isaac Hlatshwayo Juan Diaz Lenny Zappa Light Welterweight Champs IBO Roger Mayweather Ricky Hatton Manny Pacquiao Welterweight Champs IBO Roger Mayweather Floyd Mayweather Jr Isaac Hlatshwayo Lovemore NDou Light Middleweight Champs IBO Lester Ellis Sergio Martinez Middleweight Champs IBO Daniel Geale Anthony Mundine Super Middleweight Champs IBO Robin Reid Jeff Lacy Sakio Bika Light Heavyweight Champs IBO Roy Jones Jr Antonio Tarver Glen Johnson Chad Dawson Bernard Hopkins Now thats a whos ****ing who of Champs Cruiserweight Champs IBO James Toney Thomas Adamek Danny Green Antonio Tarver Heavyweight Champs IBO Lennox Lewis Hasim Rahman Wlad Klitschko Now ive been through and looked at you cant even compare the two the lists for the IBO Title fights **** on the WBU.
Theres some massive names on that list, but most of them see the belt as a stepping stone to proper world titles. I also doubt whether those big names would be willing to fulfil their obligations of fighting their IBO mandatories. I can understand how the general Aussie sporting public can be bluffed by it, but it irked me a bit when Tomillson was doing his post fight speech and was talking like he had just unified against Floyd Mayweather. Perhaps it was politics, but surely all boxers recognise the IBO for what it is, and arent trying to convince themselves that it's up there with the WBC, IBF, etc?
Its bogus but not as bad as the WBU was. Whenever u get 2 guys ranked about 35 in the IBO computerized rankings you know they are getting desperate like the fight last night. I thought Herera was a solid test for Tomlinson but this to be sanctioned for a vacant world title was a joke. This day and age we need less world titles not more top 35 or 50 rubbish being sanctioned for meaningless belts. The IBO has become an easy belt to win for any Aussie or South African as a 2nd tier belt often for fighters who wont quite make it facing top 15 fighters which is required to win and defend a major 4 belt over a long period of time. With the IBO you can cherry pick the Siaca's and Dominguez's(ranked 60 odd at the time) of this world for years.
It's like scoring a hundred for a Sydney cricket club side and telling your mates it was a test hundred.
WBC, WBA, WBO & IBF those are organizations that are generally considered to be the only meaningful ones. Guys holding those belts are widely recognized as boxing champions... but it happens so that many great fighters use(d) to hold IBO belt as well. Don't thing it means anything though. Maybe in years to come this would be a significant belt but as for now it isn't. Personally I'm against all those alphabetical organizations creatin more and more 'champs'. One belt is enough, the rest is just money... Probably the belts that are held nowadays by the best in their divisions are The RING Magazine's belts
Listen lads if Phil says they're legit then ****ing well legit they are . Phil Austin = ESB atg poster . Word
As shown, they have had some good belt holders but have been a little inconsistent, but I do think they are getting better. But then again I think the same of the WBA with their multiple champs at the same weight, the WBC with their Diamond and Silver belts, and the IBF with the lotteries of their number one and two positions. The WBO also havn't honored some rankings in recent history. The old argument the the big three are still the ones is invalid in my opinion, the systemic corruption of the WBC, WBA & IBF has been going on for years and while the solution isn't more organising bodies, the IBO does have a rankings system in place that while you may not agree with, is transparent at least. I've been watching long enough to see champions stripped after unifying so organisations can continue to collect their fee's. Guys wait two years in the mandatory challengers spot and never get a title opportunity. I'm pretty sure it's all there on their website what they're about, they don't have mandatories and why you can challenge in the top 30 (remember years ago when the champ of one organisation wouldn't even be seen in the top thirty of another?) Take a look at the four other champs in the Super Feather division at the moment. Two of them won their belts contesting for a vacant title. Now, I've taken the time to respond you, why don't you drop the bull**** and admit you made the whole 192 thing up? Or I suppose you'll have to add a rider to that.
I was just using the WBU as an example because of how widespread it was here. Here in the UK, we had our fair share of IBO champs (Colin Lynes, Jason Booth, Jason Cook, none "world class" whatsoever) too you know. seems a few Aussies are quick to defend the IBO I see it as a second tier belt, but I see the WBU, IBA, GBF etc. as 100% menaingless. The IBO is on par with the likes of the WBC's Silver titles in terms of belt holders.
Settle down Leon I'm your mate Francis remember. Nice job here on defending your mates in the IBO. Nice job indeed but the organisation is pretty shocking as are others as you have pointed out. You know full well that the 192 happened with the first weigh-in. Wlod has to make it or he lost a lot of $$$$. Thank god he still performed after cutting so much weight in the 48 hrs before the first weigh-in.:yep Hope you had a good night at the fights last night. Did your boss throw you a bone an compliment you a free ticket in the stands ?
