Why do people recognize the WBO?
Why do people recognize the WBO?
How come a large percentage of people on this forum think that the WBO title is a legitimate world title?
I just heard someone saying that Scotty Harrison should have a UNIFICATION fight. What the hell!?
I thought any knowledgable boxing fan knows that the WBO is nothing more than luxury toilet roll?
I know it's the fighter than makes the title but still....
(Typical Brits....)
I just heard someone saying that Scotty Harrison should have a UNIFICATION fight. What the hell!?
I thought any knowledgable boxing fan knows that the WBO is nothing more than luxury toilet roll?
I know it's the fighter than makes the title but still....
(Typical Brits....)
Re: Why do people recognize the WBO?
Whats the hang up you got about belts?? you seem to be the only person on this forum who finds them interesting or important.AlexY2K4 wrote:How come a large percentage of people on this forum think that the WBO title is a legitimate world title?
I just heard someone saying that Scotty Harrison should have a UNIFICATION fight. What the hell!?
I thought any knowledgable boxing fan knows that the WBO is nothing more than luxury toilet roll?
I know it's the fighter than makes the title but still....
(Typical Brits....)
But to answer your question I suppose some people recognise the WBO for the same reason that other, primarily yourself, feel that organisations such the WBC are great.
If only all governing bodies manipulated their rankings, shafted fighters like Granciano Rocchigiani, got fucked in court for $31million, had to file for bankruptcy brought on my their own aviarice, greed and double dealing, put antonio tarver up to making a ridiculous fight offer to Rocchigiani in return for him dropping the case, this despite the fact Rocchigiani has been retired for almost a year never mind the fact that if he took up the offer then the WBC would be shafting every other fighter in their top ten an Tarvers madatory challenger.
Of course who can forget those poignant please from several boxers 'relayed' through the WBCs offices saying how great the organisation was, how much it had done for them, how it had swept then out the gutter and given them opportunities beyohd their wildest dreams.
And at the end of these heart lifting tales?? a plea to Rocchigiani to drop his case and let others have the opportunities they have had themselves.
Yep Alex the WBO is shite but then so are your opinions .
Re: Why do people recognize the WBO?
neil r wrote:Whats the hang up you got about belts?? you seem to be the only person on this forum who finds them interesting or important.AlexY2K4 wrote:How come a large percentage of people on this forum think that the WBO title is a legitimate world title?
I just heard someone saying that Scotty Harrison should have a UNIFICATION fight. What the hell!?
I thought any knowledgable boxing fan knows that the WBO is nothing more than luxury toilet roll?
I know it's the fighter than makes the title but still....
(Typical Brits....)
But to answer your question I suppose some people recognise the WBO for the same reason that other, primarily yourself, feel that organisations such the WBC are great.
If only all governing bodies manipulated their rankings, shafted fighters like Granciano Rocchigiani, got fucked in court for $31million, had to file for bankruptcy brought on my their own aviarice, greed and double dealing, put antonio tarver up to making a ridiculous fight offer to Rocchigiani in return for him dropping the case, this despite the fact Rocchigiani has been retired for almost a year never mind the fact that if he took up the offer then the WBC would be shafting every other fighter in their top ten an Tarvers madatory challenger.
Of course who can forget those poignant please from several boxers 'relayed' through the WBCs offices saying how great the organisation was, how much it had done for them, how it had swept then out the gutter and given them opportunities beyohd their wildest dreams.
And at the end of these heart lifting tales?? a plea to Rocchigiani to drop his case and let others have the opportunities they have had themselves.
Yep Alex the WBO is shite but then so are your opinions .
neil, I never asked for you to reply to my thread. You are a dickhead and have been constantly shown yourself up to be one. Your opinions are ridiculous and you never have anything knowledgable or intelligent to say.
I am more knowledgable than you as many people will agree.
If I wanted to hear from a braindead moron, I would have stated it in the title above.
There you go Ian.. read and learn his views !!!..Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Oh right - don't know if Alex has come out in favour of certain belts or not.
Couldn't agree with you more - ALL belts are a load of shite and I hate the bastards more day by day.
http://www.boxrec.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=19456
Basically, my stand on this is that yes, all belts are crap. I admit that.
It's just that I do favour some belts over the other. I am one of the majority who only recognises the big three. The rest are irrelevent.
I'm not saying any of the big three are great, just that to some extent, I feel that I have to recognize them a bit.
Here's an example:
Vitali Klitschko, Chris Byrd and John Ruiz are WBC, IBF and WBA champs respectivley.
Now, Klitschko is recognised by most as the true world heavyweight champ. But while I think he is the best, I don't recognize him as the "champ".
My reasons for this is because he has lost to Byrd (he quit I know.) and has never fought Ruiz.
So although I think Vitali is the best, untill there is an undisputed champ, there is more than one world champ.
I like The Ring's belt and their policies, but I don't like the idea of a magazine deciding who is the champ or not.
I could go on all day, but I am getting sick of typing this crap over and over.
Those are my opinions anyway, they are most certainly stupid opinions like that neil guy seems to be under the illusion of, I just disagree with him.
It's just that I do favour some belts over the other. I am one of the majority who only recognises the big three. The rest are irrelevent.
I'm not saying any of the big three are great, just that to some extent, I feel that I have to recognize them a bit.
Here's an example:
Vitali Klitschko, Chris Byrd and John Ruiz are WBC, IBF and WBA champs respectivley.
Now, Klitschko is recognised by most as the true world heavyweight champ. But while I think he is the best, I don't recognize him as the "champ".
My reasons for this is because he has lost to Byrd (he quit I know.) and has never fought Ruiz.
So although I think Vitali is the best, untill there is an undisputed champ, there is more than one world champ.
I like The Ring's belt and their policies, but I don't like the idea of a magazine deciding who is the champ or not.
I could go on all day, but I am getting sick of typing this crap over and over.
Those are my opinions anyway, they are most certainly stupid opinions like that neil guy seems to be under the illusion of, I just disagree with him.
I think it was guru who made a decent point on the above thread regarding the IBF. I'm old enough to remember when they came in and for some reason they rapidly got recognition.neil r wrote:There you go Ian.. read and learn his views !!!..Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Oh right - don't know if Alex has come out in favour of certain belts or not.
Couldn't agree with you more - ALL belts are a load of shite and I hate the bastards more day by day.![]()
http://www.boxrec.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=19456
Now Bob Lee is being ordered to do his fornicating time in prison...at last.
The whole lot of them are not worth a rap. Ironically, one of the newbies (IBO) has one of the best ranking systems.
Real Deal is correct when he labels them all a cancer.
-
Eric the Viking
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1354
- Joined: 03 Apr 2003, 21:40
All the sanctioning bodies are crap and cancers on the sport, but until something better comes along that the overwhelming majority of boxing writers and fans can agree on, we're stuck with them. So I just look at the roster of champions the various SBs have had throughout their history, whether they routinely let (or in some cases require) their beltholders to fight utter-crap mandatories, and such. Basically a "the fighter makes the belt, not vice versa" approach. While the WBO has improved in recent years (for an example of how much of a joke they were not long ago, check out the annotation for Tommy Morrison's August '93 WBO Title defense), they clearly come up short, as demonstrated by the frequent occurrence of WBO champs ditching the title as soon as the opportunity to fight for a WBA/WBC/IBF title came along.
-
Chris the fighter
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 121
- Joined: 11 Jun 2004, 11:18
They are no worse or better then any of the other so called "big three". To be honset I find it a bit laughable to say that these three are any better then the WBO now. One might be out of business the other has so many Super and Interim champions that its hard to keep up while the third didn't waste its time stripping Winky Wright of their title. Look the way I see it I look at who I think is the best in the division regardless of title. Calzaghe was always the champion at Super Middle for me because he took out very similar men better then Sven Ottke who held two "big" belts. All four major organastions are round about the same level to me, I would like to see the back of them but who would replace them now thats a good question.
Like I've said before a big reason for the WBO's bargain bucket image is because of it's failure to obtain a universally recognised #1 heavyweight who wants to keep their title and is able to dominate the division.
Also Roy Jones Jr, Shane Mosley, Floyd Mayweather, Bernard Hopkins, Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson, Evander Holyfield, Felix Trinidad, Kostya Tszyu, Fernando Vargas etc.. NONE of these guys have gone near a WBO belt and until they (or the predeccesors) do then things aren't going to change.
Also Roy Jones Jr, Shane Mosley, Floyd Mayweather, Bernard Hopkins, Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson, Evander Holyfield, Felix Trinidad, Kostya Tszyu, Fernando Vargas etc.. NONE of these guys have gone near a WBO belt and until they (or the predeccesors) do then things aren't going to change.
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 45229
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
Theres a theory that due when two females live together in a flat or whatever eventually their menstrual cycles become identical.Goz wrote:No, I think you'll find I 'have' a big prick, not 'am' oneneil r wrote:i take my inspiration from yourself GozGoz wrote: Me too! Neil is very knowledgable but can be a bit of prick to go with it, that's all
I think that both Goz and Alex Y2K4 seem to be going someway to proving this theory. By posting on the same forum they both have managed to synchronise their PMT.
-
Eric the Viking
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1354
- Joined: 03 Apr 2003, 21:40