Used to be WBO, now it's the WBA. The Super Champ and unusual rankings and mandatories have really put this organization down.
I don't think any one of the big three can be seen as more prestigous than the others, cause they've all been passed around and have been apart for so long. But the fourth, the WBO which was once seen as a less than title, is now seen as just about as important as any of them over the last few years. None stand out. They are only really meaningful if a fighter holds more than one.....or better yet, holds ALL of them. Then, when all unified, they become something else that they can never be when apart. Sort of like fingers making a FIST!
The WBA is by far the most devalued belt of the bunch. That organization won't give anybody outside of Chagaev, Ruiz, and Valuev a chance at owning it, which makes it a joke of a belt. Absolutely worthless and desperately needing a change of hands. I would say that the WBO belt is on the right track as of late. The fighter makes the belt and that belt has been held by some pretty decent guys in the past 5 years. Lamon Brewster pretty much made it legit. The mandatories haven't been all that bad compared to those of the other sanctioning bodies. Nobody really argued Krasniqi's title shot in '05 nor did they argue Ibragimov's in '07. Tony Thompson, though no worldbeater by any stretch of the imagination, is a decent fighter who earned his shot. Doesn't hurt that the best heavyweight in the world (Wladimir Klitschko) owns the belt and fulfills his mandatories. I think Dimitrenko is the WBO's mandatory and if that is the case well, you got a big, undefeated fighter who can give a lot of guys trouble. I can think of a lot worse fighters that could be getting title shots. It wasn't too long ago that the WBO was considered to be on the same level of the IBO. Just a stepping stone title.