BoxRec

Herbie Hide held the pathetic WBO belt and nobody gave a fook.

Why, in the name of WBA super belts, do we further complicate matters by now giving credence to the historically wank WBO?

Oh yes, thats why. Wlad K needs the easiest possible 'champion' to unify with, as Maskaev and particularly Chagaev may be inclined to expose that glass chin /mouse heart again.

Not sure about the rest of your rant but Enzo's "reign" as WBO Crusierweight champion just brings into context the credibility of the WBO as a world sanctioning body.

Who cares what belts they're fighting for, seriously. Iggy is a good heavyweight, one that's willing to unify once again after Chagaev dropped out a few months back. Ibragimov's better than a shot Maskaev and much more technically sound than Peter. This can only be good for the HW division.

It's the #1 heavyweight in the World against(imo) the #3(and I think everyone would have him top 5 . What's there to complain about .

I think the criticism and its a valid one is that people get over excited about a "unification" when in reality its for a nothing belt. This is a good defence I guess.

Will take a couple of real unification fights to make anyone the best of the lot hopfuly that will happen and the HW devision will look a lot more tidy.

My beef is adding the historically wank WBO to the mix makes unification more impossible than it already is.

Its not called WBOllocks for nothing. At least thats what we called it in boxrec days of yore when there was mo british scene forum.

its a step closer to sorting out the heavyweight mess but personally i think it will be a boring fight that klitschko wins without too much trouble. even though the skill factor will be lower i think maskaev vs peter will be the more exciting fight.

overhand_right wrote:My beef is adding the historically wank WBO to the mix makes unification more impossible than it already is.

Its not called WBOllocks for nothing. At least thats what we called it in boxrec days of yore when there was mo british scene forum.

The WBO is actually no worse than the others nowadays, notwithstanding their insistence on mismatches like Calzaghe/Viet as "mandatories" - all of the Organisations make some pretty joke decisions at times, and the idea of there being more than one or at most two champions in each division is anathaema to me. Not that anyone would do this, because the sanctioning fees are massive income for them, but I think its high time we had a unification tourney and then scrapped them all!

Overhand makes the simple point that unifying 4 belts is harder than unifying 3. He's not saying Sultan is a bad challenger.

And as such, fighters are less opt to do so.

I fully agree. As I'm sure most here do.

We need less belts not more.

Tantum- i've not seen you on boxrec for years!! Then again, i'm too scared to venture out of the british scene nowadays. Still, a rarity that you agree with me, lets raise a glass.

Exactly right, less is definitely more when it comes to boxing titles.

With champ fighting twice a year, 4 diff titles (plus a super-title) and 4 dodgy mandatories, unification is frickin impossible now.

When Mike Tyson climbed to prominence in 86 he boxed for 2 years approximately once every 3 weeks.. He was facing former Heavyweight championship challengers like Tillis and Marvis , along with cruiserweight world champ Alfonso Ratliff.. Its a shame the heavyweights today haven't a fighting ethic like he did..