Is the WBO a legit world title in your opinion? (Poll)

At this point I don’t see how we can view it as any less or more legit than any of the other sanctioning bodies. If we delegitimize the WBO then why not the WBA or the IBF? I’ve never been a fan of having numerous world organizations but it is what it is.

 

It is as legit as WBA, WBA and IBF. Take it however you want to take it.

However, it wasn't legit pre 2007 and rewriting history calling WBO title holders champions at that time is ridiculous.

 

More so now than the early 90 s.
It has to be I suppose, tho it's easy to forget who's who nowadays.

 

Each matchup should be judged individually. But generally yes.

I don't usually consider the interim title a real belt because its based on getting a high WBO ranking and the WBOs purpose is giving exposure to fighters who aren't ranked high by the other organizations. I generally consider the other interim titles real belts.

Whether its a real belt or not the WBO having major status serves a unique purpose for the sport the other three really don't.

 

My exact thoughts, hence I voted no.
None of them have any legitimacy at this point. The only one to strictly follow it´s own rules is the IBF, but they keep quite literally pulling mandatories out of their ass.
Chisora was the IBF mandatory, but now the winner of Frank Sanchez and Filip Hrgovic will be the mandatory instead? Wtf?

I am still waiting for the WBA to keep their word and to consolidate all of the belts, meaning no more "regular" champ BS.

 

Yeah it’s gotten out of hand. Isn’t the IBO considered a world belt now too ?

 

It's just opinion but

1. WBC
2. WBA
3. IBF
4. WBO

The IBF and WBO are really just WBA splinters so now it takes 3 belts to equal 1 old 1. :lol1: Sometimes 4 because the WBA proper likes a two belt system.

The WBC before the WBA because the WBC's regional bodies are the oldest bodies on the planet.




So, bro, IBF's been real good about not making second tier champions. Even they have an interim but in any given era at any given time you can count on the IBF to have the least interims and such second class champion titles out of the bodies. That alone should be reason enough to sway plenty to the IBF. I respect it. For me I just can't get over the fact that they are really just WBA though.

The WBO has done more for the globalization of boxing than any of the bodies before it. Giving avenues to countries who never had a chance to fight on the world level prior to the WBO forced the WBA, WBC, and IBF to compete in the east. That too, imo, is reason enough to recognize the WBO and if you so choose claim they are the best body.

The WBA did beat the WBC to world status so if that's most important to you, I get it, respect.


For me though, the WBC is kind of sort of the belt that represents Sam Langford and that is dope. Not one of the bodies who crowned Sam are a WBA regional. They are all WBC regional bodies these days.

The WBA was really made and gets its prestige from Dempsey

IBF=Holmes

Wlad, imo, represents the fighter who forced name value onto the WBO. I've seen others cited, but, imo, Wlad.


So even there, name value, you can throw John L and lineal in that mix

Langford
Dempsey
Holmes
Klitschko
Sullivan


But no disrespect to anyone who sees it differently. I know most people like lineal quit a bit more than body belts. No big deal, just not that into fantasy.

 

No more or no less than the other sanctioning bodies.

 

The WBO currently has deserving champs pretty much all the way down* and doesn't do any "regular" and "super" belt BS like the WBA and WBC. They definitely have a case for being the best belt today.

*I don't really know who the tiny champions are.

 

The WBO has been around since 1990 or so, and at this point why wouldn't it be? The titles have become such a joke in boxing and are basically just trinkets at this point.