BoxRec

When did it become accepted that their were 4 governing bodies and not 3?

Good question. The Mercer/Morrison fight was definitely anticipated but then they stripped ray for fighting Holmes.

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑27 Jun 2019, 12:08 When did it become accepted that their were 4 governing bodies and not 3?

Until this day, I still don't accept the WBO as a boxing organization entity. To me, you are not a world champion until you win either the WBC, WBA or IBF belts.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑27 Jun 2019, 12:20 Good question. The Mercer/Morrison fight was definitely anticipated but then they stripped ray for fighting Holmes.

Remember the Mercer/Morrison fight being shown on UK tv (on delay) and definitely wasn’t touted as a world title fight although it was mentioned that it was for the WBO, I think the Klits legitimised it at heavy later on, the brits went a way to promoting it at the lower weights and it slowly crept into the US scene, Oscars first title was WBO if I remember rightly

elmersalsa wrote: ↑27 Jun 2019, 12:27 Until this day, I still don't accept the WBO as a boxing organization entity. To me, you are not a world champion until you win either the WBC, WBA or IBF belts.

I personally feel the WBA and WBC have fallen so far back they are below the WBO. I mean the WBA and WBC are the oldest but you've got the WBA introducing two champions per division in 2001 and now I believe have three available in a lot of cases then you've had all the shit with the WBC from stripping Sergio Martinez because Julio Cesar Chavez JR ducked him and then enlisting Canelo as "diamond" champion, having him fight African American Brooklyn based Danny Jacobs for the "Mayan" belt anow now he's the "franchise" champion whereas Al Haymon's client Jermall Charlo is the full "champion" having fought and beat nobody but because of a cozy relationship and them not wanting Canelo-Charlo they've set that up.

I think the WBO gained whatever legitimacy they had when the others got so bad. I personally feel the WBC are the single worst organization in any of the sports I follow. Mauricio makes Jose seem fair and great.

It was 2004 and the De La Hoya/Hopkins middleweight 'unification'.

We'll remember Hopkins on beating Trinidad in 2001 had been announced recognised and understood as the first undisputed middleweight champion since Hagler. No one cared that [insert name here] was WBO middle champ. This was not long after Lewis had become undisputed champion beating Holyfield. No one cared that Herbie Hide was WBO champ.

In 2004 De la Hoya moved up to middle, was gifted the WBO belt, and then supposedly Hopkins beating him for it made him the undisputed. From that point onwards the Big Three became the Big Four. Thanks a lot, Golden Boy!

maybe you should first win and conesectutivrly hold the linear belt before any other belts.
those should be considered "Co-champion".

Short answer: Never!

I support only the IBC and consider all titles on hold since 1961.

How can one say that one sanctioning body has more credibility than another, when the only comparison you can make is based on your assessment of their most recent decision. E.g. You agree with their decision to strip a particular fighter so you conclude they're OK, but if you don't agree then you label them corrupt.

That's no good because in the end they make every decision based on what is best for their sanctioning body not what is best for the fight game. So on any given day the WBA may seem better than the WBO, but that could quickly change based on a single decision.

Did anyone check out Wikipedia for an opinion? Well anyway if you didn't, check out this anecdote.

Ranking of deceased boxer

The WBO twice moved Darrin Morris up in its super-middleweight rankings in 2001, despite the fact that he was dead. In addition, Morris had only fought once in the three years before his death, beating a fighter with only 17 wins out of 81 fights. Morris was Number 7 at the time of his death and Number 5 when the WBO discovered the error.

I still consider the WBO as a secondary belt. WBA/WBC are the majors to me. IBF a 'tweener.' IBO a never ran.

what determines the legitimacy

jamamb wrote: ↑27 Jun 2019, 22:14 what determines the legitimacy

If you're asking me, it's probably the history. I'm slow to adopt new things.

jamamb wrote: ↑27 Jun 2019, 22:14 what determines the legitimacy

Well, initially some networks in the States refused to acknowledge it's existence and if a WBO champion wanted to fight for another belt, they would have to vacate first. To begin with, their champions were seen by many as just paper title holders.
My question is, when did this change

APerno wrote: ↑27 Jun 2019, 21:23
Did anyone check out Wikipedia for an opinion? Well anyway if you didn't, check out this anecdote.

Ranking of deceased boxer

The WBO twice moved Darrin Morris up in its super-middleweight rankings in 2001, despite the fact that he was dead. In addition, Morris had only fought once in the three years before his death, beating a fighter with only 17 wins out of 81 fights. Morris was Number 7 at the time of his death and Number 5 when the WBO discovered the error.

Wow, that about sums it up !!

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑28 Jun 2019, 04:18 Well, initially some networks in the States refused to acknowledge it's existence and if a WBO champion wanted to fight for another belt, they would have to vacate first. To begin with, their champions were seen by many as just paper title holders.
My question is, when did this change

2004 when Hopkins became the first undisputed champ to add the WBO belt to his collection and then defend them all in 2005.

jamamb wrote: ↑27 Jun 2019, 22:14 what determines the legitimacy

The fighter

To answer the OP what about using The Ring Magazine as the criteria for legitimacy. When did (if ever) Ring acknowledge the WBO?

I think prince naz Hamed and joe calzaghe helped raise it's profile

As far as I notice, it became a major belt in the mid 2000's. However, such fights as Morrison-Mercer were big indeed.

It was a big fight, but literally nobody consider Mercer to be the champion.

For years HBO announcers wouldn't even mention "WBO" on the air. Then they started to. That actually helped legitimize it, for better or for worse.

WBC, IBF, WBA recognized WBO in 2007, and one of the last national commitee to accept them was the japanese one in 2013. So, i will say in mid-2000's but being that champs make the title and WBO was detained twenty years ago by likes of Hamed, Morrison, Mercer, Calzaghe... who cares at the end.

To believe that one group of thieves (a sanctioning body) gains credibility because the other thieves recognized them is just plain silly; a mutual appreciation society of scumbags.

P.S. That also goes for the suggestion we use HBO as a standard of credibility, just more predatory scumbags.