When did the WBO become a "major" world title? (VIDEO)

“We don’t even count that”
-James Toney

 

The magazines used to call it the WBOgus title.

There was a couple of years there where I just couldn't follow boxing as closely as I wanted...maybe 2003-2005, because was working long hours and didn't have cable or internet. When I got an internet connection in 2006 or so, and started reading up on what I had missed, I was shocked to find that the WBO was being mentioned in the same breath as other titles.

Makes sense, really, they do a better job than the WBA or WBC, and though the IBF is better these days, they were the one that were caught and almost sued out of existence (why did that not happen?!). So why not?

 

2010 the year we make contact

 

I wonder how many belts in history have been successfully killed off once they begin.

Perhaps the past can teach us lessons about how to kill off some of the current ones.

Only two I can think of off the top of my head are the segregated belts (died with Louis) and the Police Gazette belt (curbstomped by Sullivan).

 

I wonder if Langford had a belt made up after he beat Iron Hauge. He was considered the world champion by some due to Johnson’s blatant disntrest. Though Sam didn’t consider himself the champion he was also still looking for a fight with Stanley and was willing to come in at 158lbs I wonder how the lineage of the imaginary Langford belt looks. I just might make myself a fun little thread.

 

"The WBC stands for 'We Be Crooks'..."

I watched that interview live on Jonathan Ross at the time. I'd never seen Toney fight before at that time and thought 'This guy is a badass!' and immediately ordered a tape to see some of his fights. He then became my favourite fighter at that time.

 

Toney is a true fighter.

 

I guess it started when it became clear that the WBC, WBA and IBF were all hack organisations with no real legitimacy themselves. In that light, why wouldn't the WBO be a 'real' world title. They're all just straps to me now.

The fighters don't care, though. As long as they get to call themselves 'World Champion', they'll keep these organisations going.

The one thing that's changed since the early 90s is that there are far more unification fights than there were then. Do you remember when fighters were stripped for attempting to unify the titles? Now, that doesn't happen as much. But I think that's because the WBC and WBA have just made up some more titles for themselves so they can name more than one fighter as their champion. In that light, the WBO looks legit.

 

Do you think we will ever see a Primo Carnera video?

 

None of these organisations cover themselves in glory.

yet still it is easy to research who the real champion is at each weight.

I think The champion is the guy who wins an important fight that decides the best in that division. And the championship thread stays with that guy…not the belt

If two guys meet in a vacant title bout. And neither one of them is regarded the top banana in the division, then it is not a title bout.

If you use the heavyweight division. Terrell vs Machen was not a title bout. Woodcock vs Savold was not a title bout. Tate vs Coetzee was not a title bout and neither was the chain of men that came off of that.

Holmes vs Norton might have been. And if that wasn’t, Holmes vs shavers or Holmes vs Ali probably was. Or the combination of those results decided it.

witherspoon vs Page was not a title fight. And neither was any of the bouts that came from that.

Ali vs Frazier was.

Holmes vs Spinks was.

Spinks vs Tyson was.

Tucker vs Douglas was not.

Lewis vs Ruddock was not.

Lewis vs Holyfield was.

That kind of thing.

But the WBO was just as bogus as all the other belts in themselves. Without a top banana, all of the straps are Just a ridiculous token without meaning.

 

Few heavyweight s won the belt then chucked it.

 

No love for Prince Naseem Hamed in this video? I consider his long run as WBO feather titlist being a big reason WBO got some legitimacy.

 

Very enjoyable video, Rummy. Thanks for posting. One thing I know is that Naseem Hamed held the WBO featherweight title for five years and no one thought he wasn't the legit champ. Although, that may have been more about Hamed than the WBO.

 

I agree that the WBO and IBF seem to have the least egregious processes since the WBO became major and the IBF reformed after the big trial.

At the same time, it doesn't seem to be reflected in the quality of their beltholders. I check on this from time to time and they don't seem to have the best champs, at least the difference doesn't jump off the page.

I wouldn't call Andrade the best at 160 or Casimero the best at 118. Castaño (based on my view that he beat Charlo) and Crawford might be the best in their divisions. It's a mixed bag.

The WBO and IBF seem to have had more than their fair share of low ambition types who only face mandatories. Could be that the WBC and WBA are better known to the general public. The WBC belt is what I picture when I think of a boxing belt. So maybe the best fighters will come to get those for PR reasons even if their processes suck.