Is Lennox right?

[leejonesjnr]

Apparently Lennox believes that in his day the IBO belt was more highly regarded than the WBO.
Is he correct?
https://www.facebook.com/IBOboxing/post ... 0769217213

[Nightmare Roy]

Nope, he's talking bollox.

[HomicideHenry]

The WBO and IBO, any belt NOT the WBA/WBC/IBF was considered "second" and "third" tier belts. Especially when you consider that Michael Bennt was the WBO champion at one point.

[ElJefe]

He's 100% correct. Mauro Ranallo (Showtime commentator) claimed that winner of Wilder vs Joshua/Parker would be the first undisputed HW champion since Mike Tyson in '88. Lennox rightly corrected Showtime and said that he became undisputed champion in '99 when he defeated Holyfield. Showtime and their 'research team' then claimed that he wasn't undisputed because he didn't hold the WBO title, whereas Tyson was undisputed because the WBO title didn't exist when Tyson unified the WBC, WBA and IBF. Showtime are wrong because the WBO wasn't required to become the undisputed champion as it wasn't recognised as a major world title during Lewis' reign.



The above tweet explains why Showtime are talking crap.

Lennox himself didn't actually suggest that the IBO was more prestigious than the WBO, just said the WBO was not required to become undisputed champion.

[Like a Boss]

I agree with Tom Gray. Retrospective un-recognizing is just plain B.S.

[leejonesjnr]

My apologies, it was late and I read it as an interview rather than a couple of brief quotes and lots of opinion from the writer.
My question really wasn’t wether or not Lennox was an undisputed champion, it was wether or not the IBO was ever more highly regarded than the WBO as the article suggests.

[jamamb]

i dont think so. as i recall the talk was always about whether the wbo should be grouped in with the other 3 and considered a legit title. the ibo was clearly even further away from being considered legit and in the discussion.

the ibo may actually be at the peak of itself now, and even now its still more of an accessory title that either minor fighters seek out, or that the ibo seeks out to give to major fighters

ppl can say, 'oh, so and so great fighter held this belt, so its legit', but using that logic you can then include belts like the iba, which fighters like de la hoya held.

[leejonesjnr]

i dont think so. as i recall the talk was always about whether the wbo should be grouped in with the other 3 and considered a legit title. the ibo was clearly even further away from being considered legit and in the discussion.

the ibo may actually be at the peak of itself now, and even now its still more of an accessory title that either minor fighters seek out, or that the ibo seeks out to give to major fighters

ppl can say, 'oh, so and so great fighter held this belt, so its legit', but using that logic you can then include belts like the iba, which fighters like de la hoya held.

Since I have been interested in boxing its always been IBF/WBC/WBA followed by WBO.
I think most would agree that IBO sits at number 5. It does seem to be popular in the UK right now, sort of enjoying the spot that was taken by WBU in Hattons early days.

[Boxerbeetle]

Does anyone else completely ignore titles altogether? Like, just pay no attention to who holds which belt? I haven’t even attempted to keep track since the 90s, it’s just too fragmented and pretty much meaningless.

[nitro5912]

Lennox is right and it has nothing to do with the IBO or WBO belt.

The wiki Page for undisputed champions, suggests that until 2007 when the IBF recognised the WBO as a legitimate title, you only needed the WBC,WBA & IBF to be undisputed.

Hence showtime are wrong and Lennox is right. Since 2007 you need all 4 to be undisputed. Of which there has only ever been 3 champions to hold all 4 belts, Bernard Hopkins, Jermain Taylor & Terrance Crawford.

[Noxy]

Does anyone else completely ignore titles altogether? Like, just pay no attention to who holds which belt? I haven’t even attempted to keep track since the 90s, it’s just too fragmented and pretty much meaningless.

Yes, I’m the same

[stujones]

It is an interesting one - I think in America they "tried" to legitimise the WBO belt before Lewis vs Holyfield. Riddick Bowe was for a brief time considered the #1 Heavyweight and WBO champion (yes, he treated it craply - but then he did the same for the WBC belt) and, for me, more importantly when Tyson fought Holyfield the first time US TV networks gave the Akinwande vs Zolkin WBO bout as much air time / respect as Moorer vs Botha IBF bout.

Then there is of course Wladimir Klitchsko - I've not heard a single boxing writer question his run of world title fights / defences - yet a good portion of this was as WBO champion at the same time as Lennox and Holyfield were duking it out. Similarly you've not heard many US boxing writers not call Shannon Briggs a world champion - yet his title was a pre 2007 WBO belt. When Holyfield challenged Ibragimov, people gave it the same level of attention as Holyfield vs Valuev.

So personally, I would say the answer is actually YES to both - I would say the WBO was recognised in Lewis' time, but I would also classify Lewis as a 100% true unified champion because he also beat a reigning WBO champion who was stripped just before he fought Holyfield.

If you are a huge believer in the belt, then I guess you could say no to Lewis ever being a true Unified champion and certainly no to ever holding it long (he was stripped of the WBA in early 2000 for not fighting Ruiz) - but for me its all about the opponents and Lewis had beaten a credible WBO champion (albeit not for the title) was the WBC champion and then beat Holyfield for the other two belts. Even though Ruiz wasn't a bad fighter it is hard to dispute Lewis' claim to being Heavyweight champion from 1999-2004. Although as said, people seem to now be counting Wlad's reign at this time.

[TheGman]

Apparently Lennox believes that in his day the IBO belt was more highly regarded than the WBO.
Is he correct?
https://www.facebook.com/IBOboxing/post ... 0769217213

He is only saying this cause he never won the WBO,i dont think he actually fought for the IBO i think the IBO just gave him a belt pretty much what they do with everyone else

[TheGman]

Apparently Lennox believes that in his day the IBO belt was more highly regarded than the WBO.
Is he correct?
https://www.facebook.com/IBOboxing/post ... 0769217213

He is only saying this cause he never won the WBO,i dont think he actually fought for the IBO i think the IBO just gave him a belt pretty much what they do with everyone else

Oops didnt read all the thread properly before commenting.
In america they didnt recognise the WBO it was always a british thing i thought,the likes of naz eubank collins akinwande welsch hide all fighting for this world title,i remember riddick bowe fighting hide for the belt and i think the sports wrighters were saying he was trying to do what larry holmes done with the ibf and make an established title but when he won it i think he just relinquished it

[fanman]

yeah i think youre right, it was a british belt of sorts. then you had the likes of nas and calzaghe give it some more legitamcy. weve had lomachenko, vlad, kovalev lately holding it and giving it some weight.
its somewhat sought after, but still a paper belt like all the rest really.

[Syntax Error]

Apparently Lennox believes that in his day the IBO belt was more highly regarded than the WBO.
Is he correct?
https://www.facebook.com/IBOboxing/post ... 0769217213

They're both BS belts, but even the WBO belt has always had more 'prestige' than the IBO belt & that's saying something, because the WBO took years to get recognised as remotely 'credible'.

[oogiebe]

He's 100% correct. Mauro Ranallo (Showtime commentator) claimed that winner of Wilder vs Joshua/Parker would be the first undisputed HW champion since Mike Tyson in '88. Lennox rightly corrected Showtime and said that he became undisputed champion in '99 when he defeated Holyfield. Showtime and their 'research team' then claimed that he wasn't undisputed because he didn't hold the WBO title, whereas Tyson was undisputed because the WBO title didn't exist when Tyson unified the WBC, WBA and IBF. Showtime are wrong because the WBO wasn't required to become the undisputed champion as it wasn't recognised as a major world title during Lewis' reign.



The above tweet explains why Showtime are talking crap.

Lennox himself didn't actually suggest that the IBO was more prestigious than the WBO, just said the WBO was not required to become undisputed champion.

I always felt the WBC was the linear belt.

[pablothunder]

Lewis was the undisputed champion, no technicalities required. The showtime bunch are talking out of their arses. Biggest lot of pish I've heard in a while.

[oogiebe]

Lewis was the undisputed champion, no technicalities required. The showtime bunch are talking out of their arses. Biggest lot of pish I've heard in a while.

... that's a lot of pish to slog through!

[Covfefe]

It is an interesting one - I think in America they "tried" to legitimise the WBO belt before Lewis vs Holyfield. Riddick Bowe was for a brief time considered the #1 Heavyweight and WBO champion (yes, he treated it craply - but then he did the same for the WBC belt) and, for me, more importantly when Tyson fought Holyfield the first time US TV networks gave the Akinwande vs Zolkin WBO bout as much air time / respect as Moorer vs Botha IBF bout.

Then there is of course Wladimir Klitchsko - I've not heard a single boxing writer question his run of world title fights / defences - yet a good portion of this was as WBO champion at the same time as Lennox and Holyfield were duking it out. Similarly you've not heard many US boxing writers not call Shannon Briggs a world champion - yet his title was a pre 2007 WBO belt. When Holyfield challenged Ibragimov, people gave it the same level of attention as Holyfield vs Valuev.

So personally, I would say the answer is actually YES to both - I would say the WBO was recognised in Lewis' time, but I would also classify Lewis as a 100% true unified champion because he also beat a reigning WBO champion who was stripped just before he fought Holyfield.

If you are a huge believer in the belt, then I guess you could say no to Lewis ever being a true Unified champion and certainly no to ever holding it long (he was stripped of the WBA in early 2000 for not fighting Ruiz) - but for me its all about the opponents and Lewis had beaten a credible WBO champion (albeit not for the title) was the WBC champion and then beat Holyfield for the other two belts. Even though Ruiz wasn't a bad fighter it is hard to dispute Lewis' claim to being Heavyweight champion from 1999-2004. Although as said, people seem to now be counting Wlad's reign at this time.

I didn’t realise Shannon Briggs ever actually held a title. I thought his fame was from briefly being the man who beat the man.

[tonyevs]

Anybody who says the WBO was as highly regarded as the WBC/WBA/IBF heavyweight title are obviously too young to know/remember.

WBO was most definitely 2nd tier ... seen something as a European world title belt; and was the IBO even around back then?

[banjo]

While Lewis never held the WBO belt he did beat Akinwande who held it at the time.

[banjo]

It is an interesting one - I think in America they "tried" to legitimise the WBO belt before Lewis vs Holyfield. Riddick Bowe was for a brief time considered the #1 Heavyweight and WBO champion (yes, he treated it craply - but then he did the same for the WBC belt) and, for me, more importantly when Tyson fought Holyfield the first time US TV networks gave the Akinwande vs Zolkin WBO bout as much air time / respect as Moorer vs Botha IBF bout.

Then there is of course Wladimir Klitchsko - I've not heard a single boxing writer question his run of world title fights / defences - yet a good portion of this was as WBO champion at the same time as Lennox and Holyfield were duking it out. Similarly you've not heard many US boxing writers not call Shannon Briggs a world champion - yet his title was a pre 2007 WBO belt. When Holyfield challenged Ibragimov, people gave it the same level of attention as Holyfield vs Valuev.

So personally, I would say the answer is actually YES to both - I would say the WBO was recognised in Lewis' time, but I would also classify Lewis as a 100% true unified champion because he also beat a reigning WBO champion who was stripped just before he fought Holyfield.

If you are a huge believer in the belt, then I guess you could say no to Lewis ever being a true Unified champion and certainly no to ever holding it long (he was stripped of the WBA in early 2000 for not fighting Ruiz) - but for me its all about the opponents and Lewis had beaten a credible WBO champion (albeit not for the title) was the WBC champion and then beat Holyfield for the other two belts. Even though Ruiz wasn't a bad fighter it is hard to dispute Lewis' claim to being Heavyweight champion from 1999-2004. Although as said, people seem to now be counting Wlad's reign at this time.

I didn’t realise Shannon Briggs ever actually held a title. I thought his fame was from briefly being the man who beat the man.

Yeah he beat Liakhovich, lost it in his first defence though.

[stujones]

Anybody who says the WBO was as highly regarded as the WBC/WBA/IBF heavyweight title are obviously too young to know/remember.

WBO was most definitely 2nd tier ... seen something as a European world title belt; and was the IBO even around back then?

Yes it was and if I am not mistaken they just gave it to Lewis/Holyfield winner - Brian Neilson was the champion and they just stipped him to give it to Lewis after he beat Holyfield.... so no wonder Lennox, who never held the WBO title, felt it was more prestigious - just a tad bias.

Larry Holmes got a bit of attention fighting Neilson for the IBO belt - he was making comparison with the IBF just more than 10 years previous. Remember most experts thought Holmes beat Neilson (but didn't get the decision) - I didn't see that fight.

[dookus]

The WBO was definitely second-tier at that point in time, regardless of the efforts of British super-middleweights to legitimise it during the 90s. I still think it is.