Undisputed champion

How is the WBO not a legitimate belt? Of course it is. Look at its titleholder's: Heavyweight - Wladimir Klitschko (lineal) Cruiserweight - Marco Huck (lineal) Light heavyweight - Sergey Kovalev (lineal) Welterweight - Manny Pacquiao Lightweight - Terrence Crawford (lineal) Featherweight - Vasyl Lomanchenko Super Bantamweight - Gulliermo Rigondeaux (lineal) Okay so some of the other WBO champions aren't to be taken that seriously i.e Salido, Abraham, Andrade. If anything the WBA is the biggest joke. 3 titles in each weight division is a joke. Good post And theres no doubt in my mind that Pac and Loma are the best at their weight class

How is the WBO not a legitimate belt? Of course it is. Look at its titleholder's: Heavyweight - Wladimir Klitschko (lineal) Cruiserweight - Marco Huck (lineal) Light heavyweight - Sergey Kovalev (lineal) Welterweight - Manny Pacquiao Lightweight - Terrence Crawford (lineal) Featherweight - Vasyl Lomanchenko Super Bantamweight - Gulliermo Rigondeaux (lineal) Okay so some of the other WBO champions aren't to be taken that seriously i.e Salido, Abraham, Andrade. If anything the WBA is the biggest joke. 3 titles in each weight division is a joke.

I still think of the wbo title as a belt you win on the way to the world title. Look at the WBO rankings, they are outrageous. Most WBO champs can avoid going against the better champions while being able to tell people they are a champion. Some good fighters have won wbo belts, but their accomplishments made them good, not the wbo title.

The fans should determine what is legit, not the sanctioning organizations or the IBHOF. They have an agenda, the fans just want what's best for the sport. 4-5 major titles in 17 weight classes in not good for the sport IMO. I agree, but the WBO is still a major title, equal to the other three

That's not very smart. Klitschko and Golovkin hold IBO belts, you want to call them legit as well? There are enough sanctioning orgs in boxing. The WBO is not one of them.Except the IBO is not a major title that is recognized by the other major sanctioning bodies and the IBHOF. Its as legit as the WBC, IBF, and WBA

With the emergence of the WBO belt as geniunely well regarded title, would you say that you have to hold it to be the undisputed champion of a division? Are all four big belt necessary to be held as undisputed in this era? If so is it unfair as fighters used to only have to hold the WBA/WBC/IBF to be undisputed? No, I would not say that. The WBO, not sure if they actually went through with it, threatened to strip Chris Algieri, their champion at 140, for accepting the fight with Manny Pacquiao, their champion at 147, in anticipation of Pacquiao's move down to 140. WBC/WBA/IBF are the only unified belts that matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_undisputed_boxing_champions Criteria 1920-1963, a boxer who held both the NYSAC and NBA (WBA) titles simultaneously. 1963***8211;1983, a boxer who held both the WBA and WBC titles simultaneously. 1983***8211;2007, a boxer who held the WBA, WBC, and IBF titles simultaneously. 2007***8211;Present, a boxer who holds the WBA, WBC, IBF and WBO titles simultaneously. By February 2007, all four major organisations were recognised by each other.

News to me. Well Loma, Rigo, Crawford, Pac, Kova and Wlad all have the WBO strap so I think it's fair to call it a good belt now.

With the emergence of the WBO belt as geniunely well regarded title, would you say that you have to hold it to be the undisputed champion of a division? Are all four big belt necessary to be held as undisputed in this era? If so is it unfair as fighters used to only have to hold the WBA/WBC/IBF to be undisputed? News to me.