BoxRec

ten years ago no way but now I really think its on a level with the other
ABC titles for two reasons

1. Improved champions Freiatas, Too Sharp Johnson, Joan Guzman

2. other bodies shooting themeselves in the foot WBA super Champions

The only thing they have not been doing is unification but hopefully that will change. I think that people are down on the WBO because they are still new only been round since 1988. But I think its churlish not to recognise that the orgainastion has improved from the days they got somebody out tof the crowd for a world title fight.

Chris the fighter wrote:ten years ago no way but now I really think its on a level with the other
ABC titles for two reasons

1. Improved champions Freiatas, Too Sharp Johnson, Joan Guzman

2. other bodies shooting themeselves in the foot WBA super Champions

The only thing they have not been doing is unification but hopefully that will change. I think that people are down on the WBO because they are still new only been round since 1988. But I think its churlish not to recognise that the orgainastion has improved from the days they got somebody out tof the crowd for a world title fight.

Improved champions, I dont know about that.

Tommy Hearns was the first WBO champ in 1988

What the WBO has always needed is for their heavyweight champion to be the universally recognised top dog. Instead you've had guys like Riddick Bowe and Henry Akinwande throwing it away the minute something "better" came along, or Herbie "I'm world class, honest" Hide knocking over a guy who could barely stand up to become a 2 time champ.

Vlad Klitschko looked like really putting the WBO on the map for good (assuming he didn't vacate to go for the WBC) but we all know what happened to him.

The WBO has always been (and still is) too much of a stepping stone in heavyweight terms for it to be truly legitimized. Not that I give a shit.

No it isn't. The WBO is a crappy paper title. Always has been, and will be for a long, long time, if not forever.

Sorry mate your wrong your just going by the Ring magazine and what boxing writers tell you.

I rate the WBO higher than the WBA and IBF titles

The IBF were caught by the FBI on video taking bribes from promoters to go into the top 10 rankings – How sick

Don King bought the IBF belt from Lewis for a Million Dollars

The WBA like to have 2 WBA holders in each division if one of their fighters holds another so called world belt – How sick they just want more fees

The WBO is just behind the major 3 and is much better than the crap the fans in england have to put up with such as WBF, WBU and all inter continintal mess.

I dont class the WBU as a title belt, you dont even have number 1 contenders, you can pick any tom dick or harry to fight.

its mad really when the main 3, WBA, IBF, WBC have all either been investigated for corruption or showed major signs of it, and still are thought of as the main bodies

Bollocks. The WBO don't even enforce their mandatories, how long was Freeman Barr the official #1 contender to Calzaghe, was it 18 months? How about Witter, how long was he #1 contender to Judah?

I think the IBF is by far the least credible of the big three, with the WBA being the fairest, and the WBC tainted by Jose Sulaiman, who let's face it is hardly above suspicion.

I must say the WBO has closed the gap on the big three in recent years, more to do with how shit the big three are rather than any vast improvement on their part.

How can you say the WBA is the fairiest when it has two champions its stupid. I actually think that the IBF is the best because it at least makes the fighters deal with their mandatories. The point I was trying to make is that the WBO has improved partly because of the other organastions weaknesses. Their own weakness is a lack of unified champions but i would not call my comment "Bollocks"

The WBO does have some good fighters holding the belt, but it's regarded as a lesser world title in the home of boxing...America. And in my house, too.

I see your point Bennie about America being the home of boxing but there is an example for you. Freitas v's Corrales for the lightweight title for me the winner of that is more of a world champion then Sim or Julio Diaz. Also if Hopkins and de la Hoya meet for all four "major" belts I think that will help the WBO as well.

No doubt Freitas-Corrales is a great match-up. However, we only have to look at Joe Calzaghe when it comes to how much the WBO really means. This guy is the longest-reigning British 'world' champion of all time (he recently snapped the record of fellow Welshman Jimmy Wilde) and has made 14 defences of his belt. But, like Ricky Hatton and his 12 WBU title defences, where has it got him in terms of respect on the world scene? Even boring Sven Ottke was regarded as a better fighter than Calzaghe. That's because, of course, Ottke held the IBF belt for so long and annexed the WBA belt as well near the end of his career.
I think what really irks me about WBU and WBO belts, is they give fighters in this country a chance to bypass the coveted European title. Thus, they haven't even proved themselves the best fighters in Europe. Calzaghe, for example, won the British title, then jumped straight to his WBO title. Scott Harrison did the same thing. It's easier to win a WBO title than a European title (which can't be said of WBC, WBA and IBF titles).
So how can it be a genuine 'world' title?

Chris the fighter wrote:Sorry mate your wrong your just going by the Ring magazine and what boxing writers tell you.

Nope, it's my opinion, in fact, not opinion, but knowledge! It is a fact that the WBO title is not a recognized world title and will not be for many years to come.

If i'm going by what The Ring magazine and boxing writers tell me, then just answer me something, why do they have this opinion in the first place?

Besides, you are just going by what allegedly and SKY TV tell you.

If you want to see my point, then look at the WBO rankings and look at the title's linaege.

IMO it's the rankings and not the champions which let the WBO down.

The WBO has some good champions such as Calzaghe, DLH, Freitas, Corrales and Johnson but still appears to be influenced by certain promoters.

Just a look at their May 10 rankings shows:

Stephen Foster Jnr at no 10 in the 'world' .

David Barnes at no 8 in the 'world'

Graham Earl at no 8 in the 'world' (before the vanzie 'win')

Gavin Rees at no 2 in the 'world'

& Wayne Alexander at no 11 in the 'world'

My T Sharp wrote:IMO it's the rankings and not the champions which let the WBO down.

The WBO has some good champions such as Calzaghe, DLH, Freitas, Corrales and Johnson but still appears to be influenced by certain promoters.

Just a look at their May 10 rankings shows:

Stephen Foster Jnr at no 10 in the 'world' .

David Barnes at no 8 in the 'world'

Graham Earl at no 8 in the 'world' (before the vanzie 'win')

Gavin Rees at no 2 in the 'world'

& Wayne Alexander at no 11 in the 'world'

Good post. It's also well known that WBO mandatory challengers are usually pretty awful. Mger Mkrtchian comes to mind. We'll find out how good William Abelyan is next week, too.

Well, in DLH, Freitas and Calzaghe, you have picked some very rare good WBO champs. This is not the norm usually. Just look at the rest of their champs, Scotty Harrison, Johnny Nelson, LAMON BREWSTER!?

As for William Abelyan, shockingly, the WBO have actually picked a live challenger here, and I personally think Scotty Harrison is an overrated load of crap and Abelyan is very good, you will learn just how good he is on the 19th.

But usually, yes the WBO's challengers and champs alike suck.

I rate WBO 4th. Before I rate any belt highly they atleast have to have frequently mandatories which WBO doesnt do that often.

I sometimes wish we had it like they have it Japan were they only use WBA & WBC belts.

The problem with the Japanese scene though is that they very rarely fight outside that part of the world.

At least they know what't what with the titles though. Although I do rate the IBF.

Neri1983 wrote:its mad really when the main 3, WBA, IBF, WBC have all either been investigated for corruption or showed major signs of it, and still are thought of as the main bodies

The fighters make the belts, not vice versa. Even though all the sanctioning bodies are likely corrupt, the fact is the above are viewed by the vast majority of the fighters themselves as the "big three," if for no other reason that they have a longer tradition behind them than the WBO. True, the IBF is also fairly recent in historical terms, but when they first bestowed their belts they gave them to top guys like Hagler and Holmes - the fact that fighters like that were choosing to accept and defend the title gave it instant (or nearly so) credibility. In most of the world (and especially the U.S.) the WBO has long been seen as a secondary title, something like a European version of the NABF, i.e. a good stepping-stone. That may be changing, but until most of the top fighters treat it similarly as they do the big 3 it will still be a secondary title.

And as far as the WBO somehow being "less corrupt," just consider the recent shenanigans at heavyweight, and that as recently as 1993 we had the infamous "might we have a volunteer from the audience for our titlist to defend against please" incident (see below). You can argue that much has changed in the organization since then and that's perhaps true, but I don't think the names at the top have changed all that much since the organization was started. Anyway, here is the list of WBO HW titlists up through 1999:

Francesco Damiani (5/89) beats Johnny DuPlooy for the newly created title, defnds vs. Daniel Netto (12/89), beats Tony Morrison (6/90; not to be confused with Tommy Morrison) and Bigfoot Martin (10/90) in non-tile bouts, then loses title to
Ray Mercer (1/91), who defends once vs. Tommy Morrison (10/91) and relinquishes the title shortly afterward to fight Larry Holmes in a non-title affair.
Tommy Morrison (6/93) beats comebacking George Foreman for vacant title, "defends" vs. Tim Tomashek (8/93; the BoxRec fight note states: "Tomashek literally came out of the crowd to replace Mike Williams, who refused to leave his dressing room"), then loses it to
Michael Bentt (10/93), who loses it to
Herbie Hide (3/94), who loses it to
Riddick Bowe (3/95), who defends it once vs. Jorge Luis Gonzalez (6/95), fights 3 more times (Holyfield and Golota, twice) in non-title bouts, and goes to prison.
Herbie Hide (6/97) beats Tony Tucker for vacant title, defends vs. Damon Reed (4/98 ), Willi Fischer (9/98 ), then loses it to
Vitali Klitschko (6/99).

So up until Vitali wins the title and later defends it vs. Byrd, the WBO is clearly a lesser title, to be fought over by fading former champs like Bowe, European titlists like Hide and up-and-comers in their way to (hopefully) bigger and better things.

Vitali Klitschko defends (12/99) vs. Obed Sullivan, then loses the title to

Chris Byrd(4/2000), who loses it to
Vlad Klitschko (10/2000), who defends it vs. Derrick Jefferson (3/2001), Charles Shufford (8/2001), Francois Botha (3/2002), Ray Mercer (6/2002), Jameel McCline (12/2002), then loses it to
Corrie Sanders (3/2003).

Sanders, wanting a big-fight payday, informs the WBO that he wants to fight their own #1 contender, David Tua, who has in fact been #1 for some time but has mysteriously not gotten a title shot. (Sanders was basically considered a patsy by Vlad and Kohl but apparently they forgot to inform him of that.) The WBO come back and say, no, you've got to fight Lamon Brewster, who is virtually unknown at the time. Sanders refuses and even sues the WBO in order to be able to fight their own mandatory, but nothing comes of it (not sure what happenec to the suit - perhaps the fact that Kohl made Sanders sign a management contract in order to get to face Vlad had something to do with it.) Sanders eventually ditches the WBO title and winds up facing Vitali K. for the WBC title vacated by the recently-retired Lennox Lewis. Vlad, having beaten a pair of second-raters in the interim, gets to face the second-rate Brewster for the vacant title, and winds up running out of gas and losing. Lamon Brewster, WBO Heavyweight Champion of the world.

They rank as 4th with me, just outside the boundaries of what I'd call a 'real' world title (WBC, WBA or IBF). If a fighter has one of these three then they are, or are on their way to becoming, a 'world champion'. While they have the WBO - or hold one of the 'big three' but fight shit opposition - they are 'world titlists' and nothing more.

Below the WBO (WBF, WBU and worse) the titles are pure paper and matter not a jot. Not because of their name, or their history, but purely because of the opposition they allow (or make mandatory!) their 'champs' face.

The WBO even had Pedro Alcazar in their rankings months AFTER he died!

A dead guy representing their title somehow seems fitting.

The problem with the Japanese scene though is that they very rarely fight outside that part of the world.

sounds familiar

True Wales, but at least they are legit world champs. They might not have real career defining champs, but I certainly respect the Japanese scene more than our own!