BoxRec

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....)

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....)

Whats the hang up you got about belts?? you seem to be the only person on this forum who finds them interesting or important.

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 .

The lad's opinions aren't shite at all. You've just agreed with him. Almost all the organisations are shitbags.

neil r wrote:

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....)

Whats the hang up you got about belts?? you seem to be the only person on this forum who finds them interesting or important.

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.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:The lad's opinions aren't shite at all. You've just agreed with him. Almost all the organisations are shitbags.

And thank you Ian.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:The lad's opinions aren't shite at all. You've just agreed with him. Almost all the organisations are shitbags.

Ian read his previous posts on what he considers belts that arent "luxury toilet roll"

My point is all 'world' belts are as pointless as each other.

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.

all theses belts are the cancer of boxing.

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.

There you go Ian.. read and learn his views !!!..


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.

neil r wrote:

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.

There you go Ian.. read and learn his views !!!..


http://www.boxrec.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=19456

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.

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.

I recognize it cos i've seen it sooo often over the last 10 years or so.

tend to accept it. I dont hold it in as high regard as the WBA/C OR IBF, but higher than anything else. They have had some credible champions (Calzaghe, DM, Freitas, Guzman etc).

Agree with that perspective Adam - I accept it cause over the years they have had a number of belt holders ranked #1 in the devision (Bowe, Michaelswecki - when Jones was a Supermiddle, Naz, Barrera, and a few others).

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.

I am more knowledgable than you as many people will agree.

I find this comment highly amusing, I am more knowledgable than Yaow!

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.

bugs wrote:

I am more knowledgable than you as many people will agree.

I find this comment highly amusing, I am more knowledgable than Yaow!

Me too! Neil is very knowledgable but can be a bit of prick to go with it, that's all

Goz wrote:

bugs wrote:

I am more knowledgable than you as many people will agree.

I find this comment highly amusing, I am more knowledgable than Yaow!

Me too! Neil is very knowledgable but can be a bit of prick to go with it, that's all

i take my inspiration from yourself Goz

neil r wrote:

Goz wrote:

bugs wrote: I find this comment highly amusing, I am more knowledgable than Yaow!

Me too! Neil is very knowledgable but can be a bit of prick to go with it, that's all

i take my inspiration from yourself Goz

No, I think you'll find I 'have' a big prick, not 'am' one

Probably because of the big letters W..B...O outside their offices?

Trouble with these WBU WBF ABC 123 titles is it stops the board ordering domestic showdowns for the british title. :x

Goz wrote:

neil r wrote:

Goz wrote: Me too! Neil is very knowledgable but can be a bit of prick to go with it, that's all

i take my inspiration from yourself Goz

No, I think you'll find I 'have' a big prick, not 'am' one

Theres a theory that due when two females live together in a flat or whatever eventually their menstrual cycles become identical.

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.

neil r wrote:Theres a theory that due when two females live together in a flat or whatever eventually their menstrual cycles become identical.

I traded in my menstrual cycle for a Vespa Scooter years ago.

Eric the Viking wrote:

neil r wrote:Theres a theory that due when two females live together in a flat or whatever eventually their menstrual cycles become identical.

I traded in my menstrual cycle for a Vespa Scooter years ago.

hahahahaha good one mate

i did actually laugh out loud at that one!