Do you recognise the WBO

[Beeston Brawler]

Simple question.

[trotter]

Yep, though at first I didn't and I've recognised no other alphabet titles since.

They've had some great champs, it makes no sense not to...it's not like the other bodies are any more credible.

The IBF were in the same boat at one time, not that much earlier really.

[Diablo]

Its one of the 4 recognised world titles...albeit maybe the lesser of the 4.

But its hard to take any serious..esp the WBA with their super and regular champion nonsense...not to mention giving Holyfield a title shot.

[kosaros]

With it being top 4 you have to recognise it, although it doesn't mean that i like the wbo/frank ******.

[doug.ie]

Its one of the 4 recognised world titles...albeit maybe the lesser of the 4.

But its hard to take any serious..esp the WBA with their super and regular champion nonsense...not to mention giving Holyfield a title shot.

i agree with all of the above...word for word.

i just cant believe the what the wba has done recently...corruption isn't even attempted to be hidden any more...
definetly taking the sporting element out of pro boxing.


.

[El Cepillo]

I'm starting to think none of the sanctioning bodies are worth a damm. Someone really needs to sort the mess they have created out.
I nominate Oscar De La Hoya.

[scurlaruntings]

Yep, though at first I didn't and I've recognised no other alphabet titles since.

They've had some great champs, it makes no sense not to...it's not like the other bodies are any more credible.

The IBF were in the same boat at one time, not that much earlier really.
Larry Holmes was there inaugral champ at heavyweight. The WBO`s was Francisco Damiani. Il let you do the math..

[GazOC]

The IBF were smart when they started out, they 'gave' Larry Holmes, Donald Curry and Marvin Hagler (who were the 3 stand out champions at the time) their belts without having to fight for them.

[scurlaruntings]

It made ALOT of sense as if they were to be taken seriously they had to have legitimate champions. The WBO on the other hand let any tin can fight for there vacant belts and because they`ve been around nearly 20 years now the longevity has allowed them to have some clout. Well see if guys will be saying the same thing 20 years from now about the WBU IBO WBF IBU IBA etc..

[GazOC]

I agree. They were the best fighters in their divisions and the IBF recognized them as champs instead of letting two lesser fighters contest the belt. It gave them a degree of credibility that opposing Holmes, Hagler and Curry wouldn't have.

[BigEars]

Larry Holmes was there inagural champ at heavyweight. The WBO`s was Francisco Damiani. Il let you do the math..

Michael Moorer was the WBO's first Light-heavyweight champion
Thomas Hearns was the first WBO Super-Middleweight champion
Hector Camacho was the first WBO Light-Welterweight champion
John David Jackson was the first WBO Light-Middleweight champion

Michael Spinks was the first IBF Light-heavyweight champion
Murray Sutherland was the first IBF Super-Middleweight champion
Aaron Pryor was the first IBF Light-Welterweight champion
Mark Medal was the first IBF Light-Middleweight champion

What's the point I'm making ?, they both had very good and very ordinary champions to start with. The heavyweight champion for a sanctioning body doesn't make it a great sanctioning body.


Should we recognise the WBO, as much as we should any other sanctioning body......which basically is not a lot.

The sooner we start accepting 6,7,8,9 sanctioning bodies as 'genuine', the sooner people will realise that those belts aren't really making people champions. Normally someone with a 'big 4' belt is only a contender anyway. Take for example any of the big 4 at Light-Welterweight.
Hatton's the real champion and they're all just contenders, and that's not cause Ring magazine say so. it's because it's the truth.

[scurlaruntings]

Ok so 20 years from now will you also recognize the WBE?

[fowler9-is-god]

i recognise the wbo as much as the other big 4, but we do without all of them to be honest. i think the ring belt is slowly turning it into a big 5, and hopefully in time will become the sole focus of all boxers.

[GazOC]

The lineal belt is the one for me, some of the others may carry more or less weight than the others but boxing titles are won and lost in the ring where possible.

[Grant1]

I recognise the fighter holding the belt not the other way around.

[ishy]

All the alphabet belts are meaningless nowadays.

Does it matter if Haye v Vitali will be for the WBC strap or a non-title match? Of course it doesn't.

Hatton v Pac will be for the true LWW championship no matter what Bradley, Holt and the others say.

Calzaghe will be the man at LHW if he decides to fight on. Garay, Erdei and Dawson's alpha straps mean shit all (though Erdei is linear :-(:oops:).

The fans know who the best fighters are in each division, we don't need a belt to tell us that.

[Axl_Nose]

Its hard to recognise the WBO when you've had so many inferior champions holding the belt, desperately trying to convince people that they are a legitimate world champion, it should always be a stepping stone to the 'Big 3' belts unless your a British fighter like Nelson or Calzaghe who kind of hide on these shores under the protection of the WBO knowing that most of the dangerous fighters in all divisions are historically on the road to the WBC .. WBO has its place but it should be regarded like a European title, strictly as a stepping stone to greater glory

[GazOC]

All the alphabet belts are meaningless nowadays.

Does it matter if Haye v Vitali will be for the WBC strap or a non-title match? Of course it doesn't.

Hatton v Pac will be for the true LWW championship no matter what Bradley, Holt and the others say.

Calzaghe will be the man at LHW if he decides to fight on. Garay, Erdei and Dawson's alpha straps mean shit all (though Erdei is linear :-(:oops:).

The fans know who the best fighters are in each division, we don't need a belt to tell us that.

Erdei is a real pain in the arse where the "lineal" question comes up isn't he?:lol:

[ishy]

Erdei is a real pain in the arse where the "lineal" question comes up isn't he?:lol:

:lol: He fucks the whole pro-linear argument up.

[Axl_Nose]

All the alphabet belts are meaningless nowadays.

Does it matter if Haye v Vitali will be for the WBC strap or a non-title match? Of course it doesn't.

Hatton v Pac will be for the true LWW championship no matter what Bradley, Holt and the others say.

Calzaghe will be the man at LHW if he decides to fight on. Garay, Erdei and Dawson's alpha straps mean shit all (though Erdei is linear :-(:oops:).

The fans know who the best fighters are in each division, we don't need a belt to tell us that.


Only once your established in boxing and the public consciousness do the belts mean nothing and you can give them up, World title belts are absolutely important for fighters who dont get much exposure or PPV nights, once your on the level of Calzaghe and Hatton you can throw away the belts because the public want to watch you fight regardless of belts and will pay for it but you must get to that level first, but without belts, Hatton, Calzaghe, Pac etc wouldnt be in a position to choose they're own roads

[ishy]

Only once your established in boxing and the public consciousness do the belts mean nothing and you can give them up, World title belts are absolutely important for fighters who dont get much exposure or PPV nights, once your on the level of Calzaghe and Hatton you can throw away the belts because the public want to watch you fight regardless of belts and will pay for it but you must get to that level first, but without belts, Hatton, Calzaghe, Pac etc wouldnt be in a position to choose they're own roads


If Tzyu had been stripped of his IBF belt prior to facing Hatton, Hatton would still have been recognised as the no.1 LWW in the world after the fight.

Paulie Malignaggi, who's not really a well known fighter, would also have been regarded as the no.1 LWW in the world if he had beaten Hatton. Even Malignaggi and his people realised this as they dropped there alpha strao to make the fight.

[GazOC]

As far as what I regard as the "real" champion is, its not popularity (or not always who's the "best"), its "the man who beat the man". I know its cliched but its the way that boxing always at least tried to make its champions.

[ishy]

As far as what I regard as the "real" champion is, its not popularity (or not always who's the "best"), its "the man who beat the man". I know its cliched but its the way that boxing always at least tried to make its champions.


That's whats so great about boxing-you can trace lineages of titles based on "the man who beat the man".

That's why I believe Marquez is the LW champ even though Campbell has 3 belts but I can't accept Erdei as the LHW champion, I just can't.

[doug.ie]

The sooner we start accepting 6,7,8,9 sanctioning bodies as 'genuine', the sooner people will realise that those belts aren't really making people champions. Normally someone with a 'big 4' belt is only a contender anyway. Take for example any of the big 4 at Light-Welterweight.
Hatton's the real champion and they're all just contenders, and that's not cause Ring magazine say so. it's because it's the truth.

i'll go along with that ^^

[BigEars]

Ok so 20 years from now will you also recognize the WBE?

I think you've kind of missed my point.

Long before the WBO, WBC, WBA and IBF existed boxers had claims to be World Champion.

Sometimes you would have a multiple(up to 4/5) amount of boxers claiming to be the World champion in the one weight class. Other times you would have one fighter on this side of the Atlantic recognised and another fighter on the other side. These claims were only removed when fighter lost to another fighter with a claim(otherwise the victor would just inherit the old fighters claim), this made it as difficult as it is today to proclaim a World champion in most divisions.

But eventually over a course of time, fighters claims would be eliminated and the 2 with claims left would meet and a true World champion would be established. Only for this situation to repeat itself when a champion retired or moved up in weight. Basically things were the exact same before the alphabet boys came to town as they are now.

Is Felix Sturm a World champion ?, well not really he's a contender.
Is Marco Antonio Rubio a World champion ?, no he's a contender too
What about Daniel Geale, yep another contender.

So what separates these fighters ?, is it their belts ?.......some may think it is but it's not. Quality is the answer, they're all contenders and how valid a contender they are is just based on how good they are. The fighter makes the belt etc.

Once people wise up to this situation, and realise that if someone holding the WBE title is better than someone holding the WBC title(and neither is the true champion), then the WBE title holder is just a better contender and neither of them is really a champion then things will start to be okay.

Why should we let corrupt sanctioning bodies dictate to us that there are several 'Champions of the World' !, when in truth we know there should only be one and we know that if the 2 best fighters face in a division(where there isn't already a true champion), then the winner of that fight is the champion of the World. Whether a belt is on the line or not.

Now that situation does leave us with Zoldt Erdei as the Light-Heavyweight World champion, but if we didn't pander to these sanctioning organisations enough pressure would of been put on him and his promoters as the genuine World champion to actually fight someone decent.

To sum it up, the alphabet titles mean nothing on their own, the champion does indeed make the belt and by right it is impossible to have more than one World champion in a division, merely possible to have several people with a claim to it, if there is no other champion.

[GazOC]

That's whats so great about boxing-you can trace lineages of titles based on "the man who beat the man".

That's why I believe Marquez is the LW champ even though Campbell has 3 belts but I can't accept Erdei as the LHW champion, I just can't.

Yep, the lineal should keep his title until he's beaten in the ring and thats a great way to do things IMHO but Erdei is a real cunt for fucking the whole system up.

I might just pretend he never existed.:good

[Haye]

Yep, I guess so. The truth is the promotional companies and the writers and broadcasters like HBO recognise the belt as major. People who 'dont recognise' the WBO belt will probably not dispute that Cotto was a 140 pound titlist. They will not dispute the fact that Calzaghe was a ten year champ....It just becomes confusing, full of double standards.

The belt is just the same as the others really, all have their faults. Its ridiculous that there are so many, and more than 1 to be honest....the WBO is held in slightly lower regard I think, but there is no real reason for that.

[doug.ie]

i was going to start a thread on sanctioning bodies, and corruptness..and the general state of the 'sport' of pro boxing...
dont need to now, as its been touched on well enough here for me...
i'm glad there's folks on here with good common sense.

[ishy]

Erdei is a guy who has something but doesn't realise how valuable he is. All he and his promoters see is the WBO belt and they're happy to defend that against nobodies in their backyard and are willing to keep hold of it.

They don't realise that Erdei is (unfortunately) The Light Heavyweight Champion of the World- the title once held by the likes of Michael Spinks, Bob Foster and Archie Moore. He technically has a duty to defend his title against the top contenders in the division but his WBO belt allows him to defend against bum mandatories and nobodies. The guy is holding the title hostage and alphabet belts are mainly the reason why. As BigEars pointed out, in past eras he would not have been able to do this and would have had to defend against a legit contender.

[TFFP]

It is arguably the best belt in the world.

That includes everyday belts.

[ishy]

It is arguably the best belt in the world.

That includes everyday belts.

Even the faggot 'Jesus loves you' belt?

[TFFP]

Even the faggot 'Jesus loves you' belt?
Pics or STFU.

[ishy]

Pics or STFU.

:lol: Can't believe I googled this shit.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


:hey:hey:hey

[TFFP]

:lol: Can't believe I googled this shit.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


:hey:hey:hey
Was this picture taken inside Flint's wardrobe? :?

Extremely gay.

[ishy]

Was this picture taken inside Flint's wardrobe? :?

Extremely gay.

I suspect it was.

[robpalmer135]

if you look at things closely the IBF is the best belt. its the only one that enforces mandatories and doesn't let its champions go 3 years without fighting mandatories. if champs fail to fight there mando they get striped, they wont let challengers get paid off, they like fighters to have unifications. it doesnt have any particular promoter have all its fighters ranked. they dont let champions fight unranked fighters. it doesnt have 2 champions at once and doesnt have former champs automaticly coming out of 4 year retirements to pick up the belt. they don't rank fighters that dont deserve it. it only allows number 1 and 2 to fight for vacant belts. if you go through the divisions, the ibf has the most no1 ranked champions.

examples of this;

mallignaggi and hatton have both been stripped after no facing the mandos. they have stripped hatton twice. they tried to pay of N'Dou, Urango get paid off and the IBF stopped it. the wbc are allowing Vitali to pay of gomez to fight haye.

most unifications in recent years have involved the ibf

no promotional company has more than 2 IBF champs. the WBO has 12 ranked fighters by frank ******.

they stripped verno phillips when he wanted to fight paul williams, who wasnt ranked by them.

the WBA currently has 2 champions at 5 weight classes.

the wbc has emiruts champs, allowing any fighter that retired as champ to come back and fight for any belt even after 4 years, vitalit klit did this with peter.

the ibf were the only company not to rank amir khan, they did however rank bredias prescott.

the WBO were going to allow there number 3 ranked fighter Enzo Macceranelli fight a guy that wasnt even ranked and almost died of a heart attack at the weigh in.

wlad klit, adameck, dawson, cabalerro, campbell, darchinyan, donaire are all IBF champions that are no1 ranked by the ring magazine or are unifieed champions.

[GazOC]

Good points, but it also means that whoever goes on to hold the IBF lt weter belt is a bit of a joke champ. The winner of Urango and Njougda isn't the best at 140 or the lineal.

[dwilson]

No. The WBO is a fake belt held by fake champions.

[GPater11093]

i do recognise

did i meet it afew years ago

[Axl_Nose]

If Tzyu had been stripped of his IBF belt prior to facing Hatton, Hatton would still have been recognised as the no.1 LWW in the world after the fight.

Paulie Malignaggi, who's not really a well known fighter, would also have been regarded as the no.1 LWW in the world if he had beaten Hatton. Even Malignaggi and his people realised this as they dropped there alpha strao to make the fight.

Your missing the point, your a boxing fan who knows how the sport works but the 'real' money is only to be made when casual fans of the sport buy the PPV's, Hatton is a 'draw' fighter so anybody holding a belt in the LWW division is going to drop the belt because the money is to fight Hatton, but talent wise Timothy Bradley is far superior to Malignaggi but Bradley isnt at that level were he'll get a real 'Marquee' fight, its kinda like Froch, nobody would want to know about Froch if he didnt now hold the belt, Calzaghe wont touch him because Calzaghe is 'Marquee' but because of the belt there are names like Taylor and Pavlik now interested in fighting Froch, if Froch beats Taylor or Pavlik then hes on the road to becoming a 'Marquee' fighter who can choose whether he drops the belt but you need a world championship belt to sure up your position at the negotiating table

[GazOC]

Axl,

So if Malinaggi had of beaten Hatton, who would be the champion at 140? Paulie or the supposedly (not that I'm disputing it) better fighter Bradley?

[JonOli]

It used to mean nothing to little, but now it means a lot more (and others such as the WBC etc are now worth less) - which is kind of worrying, as you get boxers achievements increasing and decreasing with the changing prosperity of a belt. The current kudos of a belt is something that has nothing to do with a boxers real achievements (which were relative to the time, the belts value at that time, and not what it means now).

[safe_pa]

Yes I totally recognise the WBO, it's a maroon colour, has the letters WBO on it and is seen by many as an inferior belt. I would have to agree, how the fuck are you meant to keep your trousers up with a belt like that?

[mike464]

I recognise it as a minor title just like the other minor titles but it isn't as important as the big three.

[Cobbler]

That's whats so great about boxing-you can trace lineages of titles based on "the man who beat the man".

That's why I believe Marquez is the LW champ even though Campbell has 3 belts but I can't accept Erdei as the LHW champion, I just can't.

It all depends how you trace lineage however.

I tend towards the view that, if you are to have a 'linear' champion then there should be an objective standard for establishing a lineage when the title is vacant rather than a subjective one.

The traditional objective standard is the union of the three main belts. Most people these days seem to prefer a subjective standard ('if the two fighters who we think are best in the division fight, we'll call the winner linear').

If the objective standard is followed then Calzaghe rather than Erdei is linear at 175 (although, ironically, Erdei should by rights be Ring champion) and there has been no lineage at 135 since Whittaker.

LHW shows the weaknesses of both arguments, as you do not arrive at a truly staisfactory outcome either way. Either lineage was established without the WBC belt ever being won and the champion is a hideaway German, or lineage was established by Jones picking up vacant belts that had been stripped for spurious reasons without him ever having to fight Michalczewski.

[icemax]

I might just pretend he never existed.:good

:yep:yep

[Haye]

if you look at things closely the IBF is the best belt. its the only one that enforces mandatories and doesn't let its champions go 3 years without fighting mandatories. if champs fail to fight there mando they get striped, they wont let challengers get paid off, they like fighters to have unifications. it doesnt have any particular promoter have all its fighters ranked. they dont let champions fight unranked fighters. it doesnt have 2 champions at once and doesnt have former champs automaticly coming out of 4 year retirements to pick up the belt. they don't rank fighters that dont deserve it. it only allows number 1 and 2 to fight for vacant belts. if you go through the divisions, the ibf has the most no1 ranked champions.

examples of this;

mallignaggi and hatton have both been stripped after no facing the mandos. they have stripped hatton twice. they tried to pay of N'Dou, Urango get paid off and the IBF stopped it. the wbc are allowing Vitali to pay of gomez to fight haye.

most unifications in recent years have involved the ibf

no promotional company has more than 2 IBF champs. the WBO has 12 ranked fighters by frank ******.

they stripped verno phillips when he wanted to fight paul williams, who wasnt ranked by them.

the WBA currently has 2 champions at 5 weight classes.

the wbc has emiruts champs, allowing any fighter that retired as champ to come back and fight for any belt even after 4 years, vitalit klit did this with peter.

the ibf were the only company not to rank amir khan, they did however rank bredias prescott.

the WBO were going to allow there number 3 ranked fighter Enzo Macceranelli fight a guy that wasnt even ranked and almost died of a heart attack at the weigh in.

wlad klit, adameck, dawson, cabalerro, campbell, darchinyan, donaire are all IBF champions that are no1 ranked by the ring magazine or are unifieed champions.

Yet you will notice that the IBF champions are relatively poor. They are very eager to strip their champions when a unification bout appears, as they would rather strip their champion and make him fight a bum, then allow a nice big unification fight. They are also too eager to strip the true, established champions that hold their belt. Take Calzaghe, Hatton, Bell....Taylor.

The list goes on. Its one thing enforcing mandatories, but when they are against bullshit contenders and prevent bigger fights taking place then they are a burden. They wouldn't be if there was just one belt of course, because the rankings would be much better. None of the ABC's are any good really, its pointless trying to rank them.

As I said before, the WBO cant really be ignored. The reason being is that the WBO have had some very good, established champions in their time, Calzaghe being the best example. While he only held the WBO strap for 10 years, nobody, not the media, TV, writers, or fans dispute that he is a long reigning champion. You can say 'I dont recognise the WBO' in one sentence, and talk about Calzaghe's SMW reign in the next. Or Cotto being a 140 titlist in the one after that. Its all double standards.

To those of you who 'dont recognise' the WBO, do you see Calzaghe as only a three year champion? From when he picked up the IBF belt?

Can you/do you say that Wladimir did not truly unify two belts?

Etc, etc.

[mrplow182]

The WBO means less than the big 3 but more than the IBO and WBU, AKA Hattons cash cows

[robpalmer135]

ive never heard of the IBF stripping someone to stop a unification.

[mrplow182]

ive never heard of the IBF stripping someone to stop a unification.


Wasn't it the IBF that robbed N'dou and N'goudjo when they both beat Malignaggi, only to then strip Malignaggi when he wanted to 'unify' the IBF with Hattons Ring and IBO titles?

Confusing.....seemed like they wanted him as champ but then kinda decided they didn't unless he fought the same guy again for the 8 hundreth time?

[scurlaruntings]

Sanctioning bodies don't like unifications. They never have. As soon as a fighter wins another belt whilst ascending through the ranks he is immediately dropped by the other sanctioning bodies from there ranks. The IBF are equally as bad and were investigated successfully by the FBI along with DKP.

[Beeston Brawler]

I think they are also dropped once they commit to a final eliminator.....

Though I could be wrong.

[Chinny]

ive never heard of the IBF stripping someone to stop a unification.

Cotto Margarito for one

[Haye]

ive never heard of the IBF stripping someone to stop a unification.

Well they do it all the time.

[hit me HARDER]

I've always rated it the lowest of the 4 organisations by a long way.

But I always classed Benn & Eubank as legitimate World Champions (even before Benn won the WBC)

[Beeston Brawler]

It is a strange one, because around 1990 neither of them were even the best middle in Britain - that man was of course Herol Graham.

[hitman_hatton1]

all 4 have lost the plot in recent years.

the wbo have always been the worst though.

duff mandatories.

dead fighters in there top 10. :patsch

bobby gunn, damon reed. :roll:

[hit me HARDER]

It is a strange one, because around 1990 neither of them were even the best middle in Britain - that man was of course Herol Graham.

Yes that is a strange one. I wonder what he'd do differently if he could go back.

[hitman_hatton1]

ive never heard of the IBF stripping someone to stop a unification.

the ibf's recent decision to not accept paul williams as a challenger for verno phillips was ridiculous.

and stripping malignaggi was a bad one.

[hit me HARDER]

Malinaggi, Hatton, Naz, Calzaghe = all stripped by the IBF. Some deserved granted.

[robpalmer135]

Wasn't it the IBF that robbed N'dou and N'goudjo when they both beat Malignaggi, only to then strip Malignaggi when he wanted to 'unify' the IBF with Hattons Ring and IBO titles?

Confusing.....seemed like they wanted him as champ but then kinda decided they didn't unless he fought the same guy again for the 8 hundreth time?

The IBO and ring does not count as a unification. it was not the IBF that robbed the fighters, it was the judges, even though paulie won both fight clearly.

[scurlaruntings]

Malinaggi, Hatton, Naz, Calzaghe = all stripped by the IBF. Some deserved granted.
Thats because none of them would honor there mandatorys. For all intents and purposes that was fair.

[robpalmer135]

the ibf's recent decision to not accept paul williams as a challenger for verno phillips was ridiculous.

and stripping malignaggi was a bad one.

how was it ridiclious. Paul Williams had never had a fight at light middleweight, was WBO champion at Welterweight and therefore not ranked by the IBF at light middle.

[robpalmer135]

Malinaggi, Hatton, Naz, Calzaghe = all stripped by the IBF. Some deserved granted.

they would not fight there mandatorys.

i think you got recognize the fact that the WBA was created because the WBC was not enforcing mandatories and allowing world champions to duck people.

[hitman_hatton1]

how was it ridiclious. Paul Williams had never had a fight at light middleweight, was WBO champion at Welterweight and therefore not ranked by the IBF at light middle.

but he was more than worthy to share a ring.

ricky hatton went straight into a title shot at welter.

for the simple reason he was a proven world class fighter.

same goes for paul williams. :roll:

[hitman_hatton1]

Thats because none of them would honor there mandatorys. For all intents and purposes that was fair.

but in hatton and malignaggi's case they weren't even given the chance to fight and then decide that.

same happened with hatton before the urango fight.

n'dou had yet to fight his eliminator at that point. :bart

["TKO"]

they would not fight there mandatorys.

i think you got recognize the fact that the WBA was created because the WBC was not enforcing mandatories and allowing world champions to duck people.

How so when the WBA is the oldest organisation of them all?

On the original question, its no better or worse than any of the other three - I recognise the fighter not the belt!

[ishy]

but in hatton and malignaggi's case they weren't even given the chance to fight and then decide that.

same happened with hatton before the urango fight.

n'dou had yet to fight his eliminator at that point. :bart

Hatton and Malignaggi were told their fight could be for the IBF title if they signed a contract saying they'll fight the winner of Urango v Ngoudgo. Neither did so Paulie was stripped.

[BigEars]

all 4 have lost the plot in recent years.

the wbo have always been the worst though.

duff mandatories.

dead fighters in there top 10. :patsch

bobby gunn, damon reed. :roll:

Bobby Gunn was ranked #15 by the WBO..........and #14 by the WBC.


I recognise it as a minor title just like the other minor titles but it isn't as important as the big three.

So when there's no true champion and the IBF have a terrible champion, and the WBO the best champion in the division, what you do is not only recognise the IBF fighter(no matter how poor) as the World champion(the World champion along with 2 other guys that is), but you also see the WBO champion as a lesser fighter because he obviously isn't a 'World champion', just a contender.

That sounds more corrupt than the sanctioning bodies themselves.

[Beeston Brawler]

I don't think anyone can answer the Bobby Gunn thing, if he was just ranked by the WBO then I am sure we could.

Big Ears....

I think what mike464 is saying is that whilst a guy may be WBO champion, he doesn't consider him a world champion. That is not to say that a fighter isn't the best in a division - and can be classed as such.

After all, Ricky Hatton is recognised by all (not quite but anyways) as the leading 140lb'er. But he isn't a world champ!

[Chinny]

Since the IBF were hammered for corruption they've gone out of their way to enfore their own (often ridiculous) rules. I think that is as far as it goes really.

[Beeston Brawler]

Were the IBF hammered for corruption after the Lewis vs Holyfield debacle?

[Chinny]

No, Bob Lee the then-president went down for accepting bribes from numerous promotors (Cedric Cushner I think was the main one) in exchange for fiddling the rankings.

Do a search on 'Bob Lee', 'IBF' and 'corruption' and you'll find out all about it

[mckay_89]

In general, If you look at the fighters who have held a WBO strap in recent years you can't really say it's much worse than any of the other's.

They definitely have a dodgy relationship with ****** though, remember when they allowed Macca to defend against Ezra Sellers when he was 40 and hadn't fought in something like 3 years? (thankfully the BBBoC stepped in), now i might just be biased due to the fact i really hate Fish Eyed Frank but i don't think the WBO would have allowed that for any of their champions who weren't under SN. I reckon Franks caught the WBO president with a rentboy or something.

[mrbassie]

No. Three is too many titles already. Mind you those are pretty devalued too these days imo.

[robpalmer135]

but he was more than worthy to share a ring.

ricky hatton went straight into a title shot at welter.

for the simple reason he was a proven world class fighter.

same goes for paul williams. :roll:

proven world class at light welter, each time hes stepped up he has lost or got a dodgy decision.

saying the same goes for paul williams is opinion. if he set up a fight with a top 5 ranked fighter it would then be proven. nobody new if paul williams or hatton were any good at those weights. we might as well not have weight divisions. Hatton was also not ranked by the WBA when he got a title shot.

[robpalmer135]

i just recognize the ring champion now, there rules seem fair enough, the titles mean nothing to the ring, however theres clear evidence that the IBF bend there rules the least of the 4.

[Beeston Brawler]

Hatton was WBA 140lb champ at the time though.

If Collazo was WBC or IBF champ the fight either wouldn't have happened or as a non-title affair.