BoxRec

Batley18 wrote:WBU used to have an ok standing about 15-20 years ago, but not now. It is a terrible title and will not ever be thought of differently.

Did it have a standing? It was never considered equal to, let alone above, WBA WBC IBF WBO. It had a "standing" in the UK, but that's because promoters were allowed to essentially mis sell it to the public. BBBOC banning (or not sanctioning) WBU fights is a step in right direction.

Wales wrote:

Batley18 wrote:WBU used to have an ok standing about 15-20 years ago, but not now. It is a terrible title and will not ever be thought of differently.

Did it have a standing? It was never considered equal to, let alone above, WBA WBC IBF WBO. It had a "standing" in the UK, but that's because promoters were allowed to essentially mis sell it to the public. BBBOC banning (or not sanctioning) WBU fights is a step in right direction.

That is why I said an ok standing. Never equal to the main 4, but considered as the 5th best perhaps. You are right in saying that it was sold well to the UK audience...ignorance is bliss.

The belt was sold very well to the UK wasn't it, sometimes I think fighters/results may have been held in a higher regard if they had of been for British or European titles rather than the WBU belt during its hay day

to me there is not much different with the ibo and the WBA plus the ibo as a step above the likes of the wbu and rest

I thought it was the best title out there

biglefthook wrote:to me there is not much different with the ibo and the WBA plus the ibo as a step above the likes of the wbu and rest

I agree. The one thing IBO don't do though is order mandatorys for the big names like golovkin and previously klitshko