not sure but I think it's been since Benn took the title from DeWitt in 90- then it must have been
Eubank
Collins
Calzaghe
Up for grabs again pretty soon I guess, as whoever wins tonight is likely to vacate it. No way can Kessler handle 4 mandatories, and Joe is heading up.
re the mandatories: it looks like the main challengers will be Brahmer, Inkin and Froch/Tsypko. Braehmer's talented but just doesn't seem to have it mentally. Easy-ish defense. Universum will prob push for it as soehow Brahmer has risen above the vastly superior Inkin in I believe 2 of the sanctioning bodies' ratings (just for beating Mario Veit, revenge win, when Inkin had ALREADY stoppedVeit without fvcking things up)
not sure but I think it's been since Benn took the title from DeWitt in 90- then it must have been
Eubank
Collins
Calzaghe
Up for grabs again pretty soon I guess, as whoever wins tonight is likely to vacate it. No way can Kessler handle 4 mandatories, and Joe is heading up.
Benn took the middleweight belt from Dewitt. So I guess it starts from Eubank Watson 2 for the vacant belt
17 years yes but as a percentage how many of the title challengers have been worthy of their shot? I'd venture 25-30 at the most. Some absolute muppets have fought our guys for this belt.
nickd wrote:17 years yes but as a percentage how many of the title challengers have been worthy of their shot? I'd venture 25-30 at the most. Some absolute muppets have fought our guys for this belt.
the question is, has that given Calzaghe massive confidence in his own abilities & a champion aura. Or will he pay for the too-many fights that proved nothing (Jiminez, Starie, Mgerchian, Pockwell, McIntyre, Salem, Manfredo, Bika, Ashira, Veit, Thornberry, Giminez, Sobot) tonight?
nickd wrote:17 years yes but as a percentage how many of the title challengers have been worthy of their shot? I'd venture 25-30 at the most. Some absolute muppets have fought our guys for this belt.
the question is, has that given Calzaghe massive confidence in his own abilities & a champion aura. Or will he pay for the too-many fights that proved nothing (Jiminez, Starie, Mgerchian, Pockwell, McIntyre, Salem, Manfredo, Bika, Ashira, Veit, Thornberry, Giminez, Sobot) tonight?
nickd wrote:17 years yes but as a percentage how many of the title challengers have been worthy of their shot? I'd venture 25-30 at the most. Some absolute muppets have fought our guys for this belt.
Well yes, very true - some of the most average journeymen you've ever seen have been shipped over here for those 17 years worth of WBO defences - then sent back feet first.
The WBO have no rules or scruples, we established this in the days of Francesco Damiani... Or if you missed that, Herbie Hides illustrious second reign, knocking out a 40 year old fat man, defending against some US club fighter, Willi Fischer, then Vitali thankfully clobbered him.
nickd wrote:17 years yes but as a percentage how many of the title challengers have been worthy of their shot? I'd venture 25-30 at the most. Some absolute muppets have fought our guys for this belt.
Well yes, very true - some of the most average journeymen you've ever seen have been shipped over here for those 17 years worth of WBO defences - then sent back feet first.
The majority not even up to 'Mexican Roadsweeper' standards.
Was it Nigel Benn who coined that phrase? I remember him using it several times.
just off the top of my head - the WBO Light-Heavyweight title must be almost on par with that. Was it Michalczewski beating Barber in 1994? The only blip was a couple of months when Julio Gonzalez took it, but he won and lost it in Germany so in effect the title bouts have continued there for all this time.
Could we get the UK-WBO thing off on a techincality by bringing-in Veit's reign as Interim champion?
Terry D wrote:I think the IBO have better credibility than the WBO.
For years the BBBof C didn't recognise the WBO. I think the IBO are honnest with there rankings and have good challengers but strangly promoters don't want there fighters to go through that, and in the fighters make belts stakes WBO probably holds more clout.
Terry D wrote:I think the IBO have better credibility than the WBO.
For years the BBBof C didn't recognise the WBO. I think the IBO are honnest with there rankings and have good challengers but strangly promoters don't want there fighters to go through that, and in the fighters make belts stakes WBO probably holds more clout.
I think the IBO are the best of all in many departments, they go by rules and wont break them, their ratings are the best by miles and do properly show the best 100 in order. They are weak in a few divisions with their champions and often their champions drop the title to fight for one of the big 4.
josh fg wrote:
For years the BBBof C didn't recognise the WBO. I think the IBO are honnest with there rankings and have good challengers but strangly promoters don't want there fighters to go through that, and in the fighters make belts stakes WBO probably holds more clout.
I think the IBO are the best of all in many departments, they go by rules and wont break them, their ratings are the best by miles and do properly show the best 100 in order. They are weak in a few divisions with their champions and often their champions drop the title to fight for one of the big 4.
That pretty much says what I felt guys. They seem to be run like a real organisation.
I think part of that could be helped if the fans took it more seriously. Its currently rated by a lot of people like the WBU or something when it infact has more scruples than the WBA.
Terry D wrote:I think the IBO have better credibility than the WBO.
For years the BBBof C didn't recognise the WBO. I think the IBO are honnest with there rankings and have good challengers but strangly promoters don't want there fighters to go through that, and in the fighters make belts stakes WBO probably holds more clout.
I think the IBO are the best of all in many departments, they go by rules and wont break them, their ratings are the best by miles and do properly show the best 100 in order. They are weak in a few divisions with their champions and often their champions drop the title to fight for one of the big 4.
Yes, they have good rankings, but that good work is totally undermined by having a top ONE HUNDRED instead of a top 10.
Maybe the IBO are more honest than the rest, but could that be because they make next to no money??
Money can corrupt the best of them, and it would be no surprise, once the big sanction fees start to flow in and the top promoters start calling, that fighters like Bobby Gunn suddenly start to appear in the ratings.
MightyWarrior wrote:Maybe the IBO are more honest than the rest, but could that be because they make next to no money??
Money can corrupt the best of them, and it would be no surprise, once the big sanction fees start to flow in and the top promoters start calling, that fighters like Bobby Gunn suddenly start to appear in the ratings.
I feel it may be the other way round they have no money cos they are less corrupt!
just off the top of my head - the WBO Light-Heavyweight title must be almost on par with that. Was it Michalczewski beating Barber in 1994? The only blip was a couple of months when Julio Gonzalez took it, but he won and lost it in Germany so in effect the title bouts have continued there for all this time.
Could we get the UK-WBO thing off on a techincality by bringing-in Veit's reign as Interim champion?
"T.M.K"
that's true. Mich beat Barber in a very good fight in 93. Gonzalez took it in about 2003 or 3 but he came straight back and lost to Erdei. Technically all the WBO light heavy fights since 2003 have bene waged in Germany (& one in Hungary)
josh fg wrote:
For years the BBBof C didn't recognise the WBO. I think the IBO are honnest with there rankings and have good challengers but strangly promoters don't want there fighters to go through that, and in the fighters make belts stakes WBO probably holds more clout.
I think the IBO are the best of all in many departments, they go by rules and wont break them, their ratings are the best by miles and do properly show the best 100 in order. They are weak in a few divisions with their champions and often their champions drop the title to fight for one of the big 4.
Yes, they have good rankings, but that good work is totally undermined by having a top ONE HUNDRED instead of a top 10.
Oliver, if they just rated to a top 10 and they listed the champions, interim champs etc there would be no one to fight inside the top 10. Remember also many promoters are aligned to certain organisations and so are not ranked by organisations they are unwilling to fight for, also throw the fact the japanese boxers will only compete for WBA and WBC titles, then you need a longer than 10 list. The idea of the top 100 is to show a fair ranking and it shows boxers from say 51-100 how far they are off the true mark. I use the ratings all the time and have followed them for years, they are very accurate.
MightyWarrior wrote:Maybe the IBO are more honest than the rest, but could that be because they make next to no money??
Money can corrupt the best of them, and it would be no surprise, once the big sanction fees start to flow in and the top promoters start calling, that fighters like Bobby Gunn suddenly start to appear in the ratings.
That could not happen, because the ratings are based on results.
