BoxRec

Is it just me or do more and more fighters seem to be taking this belt a little more seriously now?

I keep seeing (all though the only one I can remember is Barrera) credible fighters either fighting for or working towards this organisation's belt.

Probably, the same happened with the IBF years back - before fighters like Larry Holmes started backing them and they became huge.

ODH has always been a big WBO fan ( an easy first step into a new weight divison ) and yes, Barrera of course.

Then Naz, Freitas, Darius, Joe C, Eubank, Zab...

They're still very much the poor relation to the big three though - but miles better than the rest ( in terms of the qulaity of their champions ).

HBO still refuse to aknowledge them I think? And their Heavyweight belt was always been a bit of a joke too.

The (possible) disintegration of the WBC might provide a void for them to fill.

Yes they are gaining in prominence Lugh and the calibre of fighters is pretty decent as well. Who is there current Heavyweight champ? Is it Lamonn Brewster, i lose track

steve689 wrote:Yes they are gaining in prominence Lugh and the calibre of fighters is pretty decent as well. Who is there current Heavyweight champ? Is it Lamonn Brewster, i lose track

your not colin hart are you?

In the Coca-Cola Championship of belts, they are fourth in the league. 8)

You know, I hate the WBO. They started the rot in my opinion. They were formed in early 1989 and got away with crappy rankings and crappy champions - and other guys in suits thought, who not us? The alphabet explosion followed.

~They certainly seemed to have encouraged

However, surely IBF are the ones to blame, weren't they the first splinter group from the WBA? Mind you blame the WBA I guess, they were the first, or maybe go back to the NY commission.

Let's face it, they are all pudenda, every governing body is culpable for the mess boxing is in to some extent. The IBF were, and possibly are still corrupt as hell, the WBC and Sulaiman, well, least said soonest mended, and the WBA, well probably the best of a bad lot. All of them have dodgy ratings and dubious practices, and until we get an international commission overseeing the sport, (which I doubt will ever happen), so it shall remain.

[quote="jamesmcdonnell
Let's face it, they are all pudenda, .[/quote]

ever thought of being a diplomat mate?

J wrote:[quote="jamesmcdonnell
Let's face it, they are all pudenda, .

ever thought of being a diplomat mate? [/quote]

In the Carl Froch interview elsewhere he refers to wanting to win a "reputable world title belt" which made me chuckle - Is there such a thing?

What pissed me off with the WBO, is that they embraced second-tier fighters as world champs. That really set a precedent for the crappy organisations that followed. At least, the IBF had the best fighters going for their titles and by 1987, four years after they were formed, were regarded as better than the WBC and the WBA (for a while, anyway).
But when the WBO allowed Chris Eubank to defend his middleweight title against Gary Stretch, a ropey light-middleweight, I couldn't believe it.

I can understand the points on this thread explaining peoples opinions of the Sactioning Body. That's fair enough. But in response to the original question, I do agree that fighters are taking this belt more seriously. (at least there have been recent high-profile fights).

In the last year we've had Corrales/Casamayor, DeCorely/Judah (not small fights).
Oscar De la Hoya is a WBO Champ too.

I think it's being seen as "something to bring to the table" when trying to make a match up with an undisputed champ. (I don't include Joe Calzaghe in that statement obviously).

I think their all as bad as each other. I think in this country boxers take the WBO more seriously as for a long time through certain promoters that's all that has been available to them.

At heavyweight especially I think the belt is still viewed as rubbish.

don't like the way a nobody is picked as an opponent then all of the sudden appears in their ratings. Also think being their mandatory means fa

I agree with Bennie. The standard in world title fights dipped considerably when the WBO cropped up. But yes, the WBO has come on since 1989, but it's often lightly regarded.

Look at boxrec ratings - where are the champs?

Medium ABC's champ's rank at boxrec ratings: WBC-2.2 WBA-3.2 IBF-3.5 WBO-4.0 IBO-7.6

So:

- WBC in front
- WBA, IBF, WBO following
- IBO clearly last

Champ's rank at Boxrec ratings for WBC WBA IBF WBO IBO

Heavyweight 1 6 4 13 -
Cruiserweight 4 1 16 3 8
Light Heavyweight 1 1 14 5 1
Super Middleweight 24 41 - 8 4
Middleweight 1 1 1 2 11
Light Middleweight 1 1 3 5 4
Welterweight 2 1 1 3 7
Light Welterweight 7 5 3 7 45
Lightweight 2 6 4 1 12
Super Featherweight 1 5 7 10 4
Featherweight 6 - 3 4 10
Super Bantamweight 1 2 5 4 6
Bantamweight 2 3 1 7 6
Super Flyweight 7 5 4 1 20
Flyweight 1 3 2 4 5 -
Light Flyweight 1 - 4 6 -
Minimumweight 3 10 4 2 23

jamesmcdonnell wrote:~They certainly seemed to have encouraged

However, surely IBF are the ones to blame, weren't they the first splinter group from the WBA? Mind you blame the WBA I guess, they were the first, or maybe go back to the NY commission.

Let's face it, they are all pudenda, every governing body is culpable for the mess boxing is in to some extent. The IBF were, and possibly are still corrupt as hell, the WBC and Sulaiman, well, least said soonest mended, and the WBA, well probably the best of a bad lot. All of them have dodgy ratings and dubious practices, and until we get an international commission overseeing the sport, (which I doubt will ever happen), so it shall remain.

Is it the prostitute who is to blame or the married man that visits?