WBO in the 1990's

Yep, for quite some time the WBO straps were viewed even slightly below current IBO status, only marginally above the WBF(ederation) for a while.
But it got bigger fast, after a couple of big names started fighting for it and other current beltholders turning out to be pretty good.
The WBA regular is below the IBO when there's a Super beltholder in place in my opinion. And the interim even less.
Things can get complicated with those belts though, if they get promoted or as the higher tier beltholder ducks the lower tier one, which regularly happens.

 

I'm only 27 so I can't really comment on how it was regarded at the time. However, I do know the WBO was not regarded the same as the other major belts like the WBA or WBC. To me, it looked like a major title held by guys who were not recognized as the top dog. I would say it was not a "premier title" but it was definitely legit and nothing like the IBO.

 

The WBO belt at heavyweight was pretty meaningless until Wlad's era. You saw some good heavyweights hold belts but they always dropped the belt when a shot at a better belt came available, like when Sanders dropped the WBO belt to fight Vitali. Why not unify the belts? Answer not worth the sanctioning fee.

At lower weights it was always the champion that made the belt rather than the belt making the champion. The WBO was just a stepping stone belt which is why you saw some good champions with WBO belts.

 

It has jokingly been referred to as a European title in a way. It was the only title that guys outside the U.S. could get their hands on in the late 80s and most of the 90s. WBC,WBA,and IBF titles were held by big money makers until the rise of Naseem Hamed being a big draw with the WBO belt. Nobody was willing to sacrifice million or hundreds of thousands for a foreign belt with no history.

 

Heres an old copy and paste post of mine and was talking about the WBO SMW title but you will get the idea even though it will now be well out of date
Below...




Where you have written for the WBO vs limited competition.
I just wanted to highlight some details to you.
The SMW divisions first world champs were WBC 1988, WBA 1987, IBF 1984 & WBO 1988.
Now for a start it is a new division so no belt has any more prestige than the other as they were all started at a similar time. So the WBO SMW title has no less prestige than the others.
Consider also that the WBO at SMW has been involved in 4 unification bouts.
The IBF has been involved in 2
The WBA in 3
WBC in 4 also
This shows that the WBO has been as willing to make top fights at SMW as much as any other governing body.

Now look at the list of champs in each and who they defended against and you can see that the WBO SMW title has produced the best defences overall better than all of the other govening bodies in this particular weight division so far.
Consider how much critism Bute gets now for his IBF defences.
Consider M Beyer defending his WBC title against 26-14-5 fighter who was coming off of a win against a 0-2-0 fighter
Or that Mundine when defending the WBA title against a 24-13-5 fighter who was the same fighter that WBC champ Beyer was defending against above.

People bring up Eubank who helped mould the belt that was good enough to give T Hearns a slice of history making. Out of Eubanks 18 WBO SMW title fights 14 of those fights were against fighters who were, had been or became top 10 SMWs. One was a unification and another was against the undefeated former IBF SMW champ (relinquished his title). In fact 6 of the fighters he faced had been or became world champs

 

Did he really covet the belt or was it simply the first sanctioning body that would give him a title shot. He won the WBO belt in only his 12th fight, would he be ranked back then by the other organisations?

 

The fighter makes the belt imo.

The WBO have had some great champions over the last 20+ years.....they've also had some mediocre ones but that can be said of all "major" organisations.

 

At the time, when British fighters were fighting for a WBO title, fight fans were used to the elite in the sport, and when certain fights were announced for a WBO strap it was hyped up, yet fans when finding out who the Champion was were like "Who".

 

You weren't around, so you don't actually know, so you don't get a say.

Yes there happened to be a couple of legit guys holding their belts in the org's infancy, but there are plenty of legit champs now who elect to also hold, say, the IBO strap just to bolster their collection even though it doesn't have 100th the value of the Big 4 currently. Same thing. It was just another thing you could have to show off with a bunch of belts dangling over your chest at photo ops, and since they were new the sanctioning fees were low, so why not? It was most assuredly NOT taken seriously in the 90s, however, by any serious fans, journalists or industry people. Again, you said yourself that you weren't around following the sport then, so don't second guess those who actually were.

 

I mean, off the dome I think Hekkie Budler for instance was strictly IBO and content with that for a while. Some other "name" guys as well. Same deal I think, with the WBO in the 90s they presented themselves as this cheaper alternative to a "real" title, many of which got held hostage or hot-potatoed between the same handful of guys over and over, and both the WBO and IBO seem to have employed the same strategy of targeting a specific region. For the WBO it was Europe, while the IBO seem tok be concentrating on Africa to build up their name until such time if and when they become a "respectable" global player.