Its not a major title any more today than when Fransico Damiani held it while Tyson was Undisputed champion, it is a money making tool to bill fights as world title fights along with the WBU, WBF IBA etc. Complete irrelevance, especially in the heavyweight division today.
The WBO is recognized whether you say so or not, your word in the matter really doesnt matter. If Calzaghe dropped his WBA and WBC belts and held on to the WBO he would still be undisputed, as would Kelly Pavlik. WBO has officially become a fair belt.
Thats nothing to do with the WBO belt, he held that for years but it was only when he won Lacy`s and Kesslers belts did he get recognition. If he dropped all his belts he would still be champ just as Foreman was when Moorer, Tyson and Holyfield picked up the belts that he never lost.
He was already widely considered champ without Kesslers or Lacy's belts. If Pavlik were to drop the WBC he is still champ in my book and everyone elses.
The WBO is not recognised by the Ring nor by the hall of fame. It is probably the most prestigious of the second tier of world titles but it is not one of the big three.
From the mid 90's it started to get recognized as being much better than any other minor belt but not at the same 'level'(and I hate saying that because they are all us bad as each other) as the major 3 . By the late 90's early 2000's the WBO had caught up with the other 3 and although many thought of it as the weakest it had become part of the 'big four'.........except at Heavyweight . It was Lamon Brewster who gained recognition for the organisation at heavyweight(and thus overall making it equal to the rest of the big 4) , Brewster was the most active heavy by a long way and was getting some decent wins . Many had him ranked #1(if not #2 to Chris Byrd) and because of this the belt he was holding was considered 'legitimate' Nowdays I see them all as being as bad as the rest . I put the WBF and WBC on the same level......it is the fighters and fights that make Champions and Championships . I'd also like to note that those that classify the WBC as being somehow better to the other belts are being crazy , that is unless they think it's better merely because they prefer the green colour of the belt to the others......the WBC as an organisation are as bad as any other .
Isn't it in our interests as boxing fans not to recognise it as a proper world title? People complain about the number of titles out there then as soon as one of their favourites wins a Micky Mouse title they start calling it a real world title. I was a Johnny Nelson fan for a long time and I never got any ideas about him being a world champion despite the length of time he held the WBO title. Same with Calzaghe and his long WBO reign and Hatton with his long WBU reign.
The WBO gained genuine credibility when it declared Herbie Hide as heavyweight champion of the world.
Many would disagree with you about this. Like it or not we still need the alphabets & the big three are the ones that serve the best purpose. I agree. Nothing like a good ole' WBC/WBA/IBF unification.
You're a legend.:rofl I think you should put that thing you said about Tyson in your signature. It was brilliant.
Lewis was the undisputed champion when he beat Holyfield and won the WBA/WBC/IBF titles. No one cared that Hide was WBO champion. Hopkins was undisputed at middleweight when he won the WBC/WBA/IBF Same with Bell at cruiser.
Barrera and Oscar (the first time) brought it into the spotlight. It was recognized circa 1999-2000 as a legitimate major belt.