Thread: Is the WBO legit?

I was asking this in another subject and I figure I would made a post about it. Has the WBO become legit after 19 years? I think it was a fracture from the WBA which has sort of dissapeared.

Originally Posted by LegendBoxing65

I was asking this in another subject and I figure I would made a post about it. Has the WBO become legit after 19 years? I think it was a fracture from the WBA which has sort of dissapeared.

Its considered legit over here (UK) because they did the clever thing of handing out their titles to British boxers!

Next stop IBO, WBF, ABCDEF, etc, ect...!

doesn't seem legit anymore

but TV (itv and screensport) made us believe it was legit when BENN and EUBANK held it in the early 1990s

IMO the WBO title is legit....They have the least amount of recognition of all the titles but again they do not have the bankroll of the other three either,,,but the WBO has some good fighters as champions and it is that in which makes the belt......In the 90's the WBO was just a BS title but they have come a long way since then...In 5 yrs look for them to be the more popular of the belts assuming they do not start having the bullS*** polotics of the WBC

No doubt in my mind the WBO is legit and tbh, one of the best run...

The IBf has gone from being one of the best to the worest with these non stop bull shit mandatorys...

The wba making the 'super belt' so they can re-realease the regular belt and have two champions is a fucking joke and discrace...

The WBC is still the best, but its run by a muppet and they try to hand pick thier champions when they can

Originally Posted by petem

doesn't seem legit anymore

but TV (itv and screensport) made us believe it was legit when BENN and EUBANK held it in the early 1990s

I felt with Calzaghe it has gained recognition. But like most belts you need someone like a Calzaghe or Holmes to make the belt more legit.

Originally Posted by Ambski

Originally Posted by LegendBoxing65

I was asking this in another subject and I figure I would made a post about it. Has the WBO become legit after 19 years? I think it was a fracture from the WBA which has sort of dissapeared.

Its considered legit over here (UK) because they did the clever thing of handing out their titles to British boxers!

Next stop IBO, WBF, ABCDEF, etc, ect...!

excellent point. cc.

The IBO is on a fast tract to being credible, because there are NO mandatories. So it is becoming the choice of the Top fighters: Hatton, Klitschko, and Tarver last year.

i think lennox had it for a long time to?

i don't mind the IBO to much, but tbh tho the last thing boxing needs is another belt.

Originally Posted by Preme

i think lennox had it for a long time to?

i don't mind the IBO to much, but tbh tho the last thing boxing needs is another belt.

most of these organizations are terrible. It would have been nice to have one champion who holds a belt but not a belt by an organization, but that is fantasy to think some selfish organization would not want to exploit people for money. Actually the way it was before when you had a WBC and WBA champion, both guys sort of fought the contenders and would clean out a division like Hearns and Leonard did in the early 80s, Then they fought each other after they were sharp after fighting these contenders. So having two champions was not too bad since it made the guys better fighters building up to a unification. But later the IBF came up and it became too confusing, after the IBF the WBO came and people sort of had enough. But now it is gaining recognition.

Originally Posted by LegendBoxing65

Originally Posted by Preme

i think lennox had it for a long time to?

i don't mind the IBO to much, but tbh tho the last thing boxing needs is another belt.

most of these organizations are terrible. It would have been nice to have one champion who holds a belt but not a belt by an organization, but that is fantasy to think some selfish organization would not want to exploit people for money. Actually the way it was before when you had a WBC and WBA champion, both guys sort of fought the contenders and would clean out a division like Hearns and Leonard did in the early 80s, Then they fought each other after they were sharp after fighting these contenders. So having two champions was not too bad since it made the guys better fighters building up to a unification. But later the IBF came up and it became too confusing, after the IBF the WBO came and people sort of had enough. But now it is gaining recognition.

I like to WBO for the reaosn it gives british and mexicans a chance to get on the world scene and have something to offer... Alot of good british and mexican champions have gotten to the world scene because of the WBO

Persoanlly i see the WBC as an organisation who want big american names as their champion where possible... the IBF holds about as much value as the WBU or WBF does now... anyone who can afford to pay them can get ashot, fuck that! WBA just seems to ass kiss the WBC...

The ibf is in the hands of the best fighter in the heavy weight division (until late september rolls around). The ibo is still kind of a joke. The wbo is on shaky ground but its still better than most of the others.

it legit to me

WARREN BOXING ORGINISATION just plain sucks.
it is total bollocks

They're as legit as any of the others, take that for what you will. 3 of the current Ring champions are WBO champions (Joe Calzaghe, Jermain Taylor and Hugo Cazares) and they haven't done any silly bollocks like the WBA did with the super champions, or almost bankrupt themselves by stripping a guy of a belt he won to give it back to another guy after he decided he didn't want to vacate it after all like the WBC, so I don't see why not.