why is the WBO more respected then the IBO??both are fringe titles right?

one has a W on it.

 

ALL of the alphabet organization's trinkets are fringe titles. They're ALL *meaningless*...

 

When Brewster knocked out Golota. That's at least when I thought of it as an equal, for whatever that's worth.

 

They don't mean ****, and haven't for some years. It's all about the actual fights; title pick ups, unifications, and defenses mean nothing more than: the range of weight the fight took place at. Despite all the corruption/irrelevance, a title fight does usually serve as an indication of a good or an elite match up at the weight, for people who know no better and scroll through a schedule of the upcoming months of fights.

Nonetheless, the titles will serve in the future as nothing more than to remind people to look into the actual rankings at the time to determine at the time perceptions, for this era and all after it.

Wow, I just ranted about nothing to do with the thread. Answer: I don't know, but I am guilty of it.

 

WBO has more decency than the WBA at the moment.

 

The WBO has been one of the "big 4" since early this century (although seen as the smallest). The IBO never was.

Recent events show they are going the way of the WBA, screwing up everything with stripping good beltholders and protecting the unworthy ones.
Also their rankings suck even more as the WBC and WBA's.

 

What makes it a major title is that the other 3 will remove you from the rankings if you win the WBO title. Not so with the other one. IBO also has some far fringe rankings in some divisions.

 

The WBO is considered an 'official' ranking organisation, meaning it is recognized by the International Boxing Hall of Fame, like the WBA, WBC and IBF. Why this makes it any more respected I do not know, but it's been done for years and shows no signs of changing.

 

The WBO and IBO are garbage, Its about the WBA, WBC, and IBF, no matter how corrupt they are.

 

Oscar De La Hoya made the WBO accepted as a "world title". Its all about who has the title and if he has the bank to make it a legitimate belt, if Floyd or Pacquiao showed off the IBO title then it will become counted as a world title eventually too.

 

Why is the WBA still known as one of the main titles, since they have a few champs per division both Chris John and Gamboa where WBA champs at the same time and Geale and Golovkin are WBA champs, Wlad's the super WBA and there is a regular WBA champ also.

 

WBA is the oldest, going back to the early 1960s. It goes back a bit further under some other name, so it derives its apparent legitimacy from its long legacy.

WBC also started out in the 1960s, IBF in the early 1980s and the WBO in the late 1980s. I'm not sure, but I think the IBF and WBO are spin offs from the the other organisations.

 

I remember the WBO becoming reputable in the early 90's starting with Morrison vs Foreman for the vacant belt and that essentially became a reputable HW belt from there. Nowadays they are essentially on par with the other major titles IMO.