View Full Version : When did the WBO Title become considered a legitimate world championship?


SBleeder
08-02-2010, 02:29 PM
Settle an argument... for years, the WBO was a peripheral title like the IBC. What year did WBO champions stake a legitimate claim to call themselves "Champions of the World"?

1SILVA
08-02-2010, 02:35 PM
Settle an argument... for years, the WBO was a peripheral title like the IBC. What year did WBO champions stake a legitimate claim to call themselves "Champions of the World"?

I have never and will never consider that trinket a legit world title

Ivansmamma
08-02-2010, 02:48 PM
Maybe around 2000 or late nineties? I dont respect any of the organisations anymore...

Miburo
08-02-2010, 03:55 PM
Mid-late nineties due to high profile British fighters holding the titles. The WBO has always had sort of a tacit British affiliation. It's still sort of considered the lowest title. "WBC stand for We Be Crooks, and WBO, we don't even count that" :lol1:

-CANE-
08-02-2010, 04:01 PM
Mid-late nineties due to high profile British fighters holding the titles. The WBO has always had sort of a tacit British affiliation. It's still sort of considered the lowest title. "WBC stand for We Be Crooks, and WBO, we don't even count that" :lol1:

Well said.

My answer was as soon as british fighters started winning them, then it became legit in england anyway. From 1990 onwards when Benn and Eubank were claiming themselves world champion.

DarkTerror88
08-02-2010, 04:33 PM
The only title i consider legitimate nowadays is when you have all of them.

Obama
08-02-2010, 08:26 PM
Title was only considered worth a damn in the UK in the 90s and early 00s. No one else recognized it. **** didn't become relevant till De La Hoya won it (MW version, not SFW).

Furthermore it only became relevant because it set up the richest Middleweight event in history, and I believe the only unification of the 4 major titles to this day.