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

There all **** but the ibf is the hest of the bunch. ive never once seen an interim ibf title match

 

Well they recognize it now, so it is what it is.

 

i think they are both pretty belts....i lean toward IBO as the cooler belt. but it ends right there.

 

u forgot the WBF and IBA......

 

its starts by the organization giving under the table money to chamoins to carry there belt...once they had 90% of the champs holding there version of the strap,it became legit...started in the early 2000's that it was starting to make inroads,and since then its become legit....ibo will eventually get there...pac and hatton fought under the ibo belt.

 

There are only 4 recognized world titles by the American specialists:

1-3 WBA Super, WBC, IBF (in no order, the most prestigious)
4 WBO

And the rest: WBA Regular, IBO, etc., which are some titles but not so significant (not really world).

 

1) the WBO enforces mandatories, IBO doesn't
2) the WBO has had a series of top fighters (mostly with Universum and Frank Warr*n) who have actively tried to defend that title over others, the IBO hasn't
3) the IBO doesn't do corrupt things to try to raise its profile and the WBO does
4) Local sanctioning bodies determines who's recognized as major or not, and only Australia and South Africa have ever recognized the IBO. At the other extreme, Japan still only recognizes the WBC and WBA.

That's probably about 80% of it. I do like the way the IBO does its rankings a lot more than any other sanctioning body, but it's a lot harder to take a title seriously when you can hold it in perpetuity until you lose, even of you just fight scrubs. I don't take it that much less seriously than the others though. The only one that does anything that makes sense is the IBF, and that's only because they were almost dissolved by the US government under racketeering laws and the settlement requires them to actually follow their own rules or else they'll be dissolved. The jurisdictions of the WBC (Mexico), WBO (Puerto Rico) and WBA (Panama) couldn't care less if they're corrupt.

 

If I had to guess it's because the WBO came into existence back on November 4, 1988, Thomas "Hitman" Hearns' 12-round split decision win over James "The Heat" Kinchen, right after 15-round title fights had been completely abolished altogether three months before, but mind you the WBO's ride to its current success state didn't come as quick and easy as the IBF's did a couple of years before but it certainly has been a bigger success story altogether than the IBO.

If I stand corrected the WBO was essentially created by the WBA on a last minute effort to save a major PPV main event fight when two HOF fighters named Hearns and Ray Leonard were in a race with each other to see who would become boxings first 5-time division champion. Leonard was scheduled to face Donny LaLonde for LaLonde's WBC Lightheavyweight belt and the WBC's at the time newly created SuperMiddleweight title on Nov 7, 1988 while Hearns was originally scheduled to fight for the WBA version of the SuperMiddleweight belt against the defending champion Fulgencio Obelejimas on Nov 4, 1988 before Fully Obel suffered an injury and had to pull out. That's when the WBO was created to fill in for Hearns' fill in opponent James Kinchen, who believe it or not had just fought 10-days prior, to save the PPV main event.

Fast forward 24-years and four presidents later the WBO is now shoulder to shoulder with the WBA, WBC and IBF with not to mention some decent fighters representing them as well.

 

IBF

WBO


WBC/WBA


The rest