Is the IBO a world title?

I think football is bigger than boxing & that has been made to work. Granted it has more of a built in structure from high school to college to the NFL although its not like it always worked like that, but my main point is structurally all you need is the top 300-500 or so fighters under the same umbrella & you can control the sport. I mean look at what HBO Boxing had made possible at their height. They represented elite professional boxing like this fictional entity I'm suggesting they just didn't do anything with it. If HBO Boxing had been willing & able to influence the sport more instead of just showing it they'd have been an NFL of boxing legitly. Matt Damon

**** no. Only reason it even had any attention was because Wlad held onto it. Its a piece of garbage.

IBO title is no less a world title than Rosie O'Donnell is a women. I mean yeah, it's legit, but I wouldn't brag about having it around my waist. Yeah how many years you been a FAN too I would like to know? You can match my 50 years (52 fights)? It started "modern" w/WBC & WBA. My team mate Marlon Starling was king of the Welters back then. You talking going back to only 1988. Next: IBF Next: WBO (takes how long to be accepted?? First the body,....below hvy., then the head..= Hvy). How did the IBO gain? IBF came in quickly when Larry Holmes accepted their belt. How did IBO come in? Thru paying off Antonio Tarver /whom at-the-time....was "hot"! The question to ask I may-as-well..."wear out" on you: Q..do we need FOUR groups? A: No (of course not) Next question you COULD READ MY MIND! Group-5..their IS NO ROOM FOR IT! I won't expound down to the "last nail" right now..but..I have a work to manifest what I am saying here. What we do is to echelon the.. "the..whole of the Sport......" Two echelons. '1e' leave basically alone. '2e' is a FIVE USA STATES VALUE (approx). Male league only. "World titles" only. '2e' must advertise! Gennady is a "Novice fan". Wlad. K. was SAME! ..so far I HAVEN'T READ ANYTHING conclusive that..binds T.fury as being a "IBO"-er- (I'm on "look out" there...no metion in all AP title win stories! Only see it within the IBO itself!) The WBC WBA IBF WBO are GUILTY of poor leadership it appear! "WHO" allow IBO to stay ON with Wlad? Now, with gg? The harm that's done is reflected in the lack of coverage we see in ALL ("every")print newspaper in the world! I myself am for the '2e'. Only thing lacking is a "true" administration. They register with me I will fill out the detain! ('C' cls complication). Men's league only. "World titles" only! johnwilkinson04@iCloud.com (I'm a "pro" making a comeback, too)

I barely recognize the WBO. That only became a world title around 2005... The WBO belt use to be vacated so they could get a shot at the WBC. The IBO to me is like the EU or NABF title. A stepping stone title. The WBO use to be on par with the IBO. The WBO use to not let their champions unify so guys just vacated it.

switch ibf and wbc please WBC lets other champs be Mandos that automatically makes them better than everyone else and the IBF is the worse, in fact as I type this they are worse then the WBA simply because of the Peterson crap.

No, WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO are the only ones that count for anything and even they are losing any importance. They're just an extra chip at the bargaining table when looking for fights now.

I rather not recognize it as it adds more titles. But it should be recognized in replace of the WBA.

The IBO belt means little, it is no more than a meaningless title but to acquire it right now you have to defeat the lineal champ so I figure it became relevant upon Wlad beating Chagaev, at that time the WBA belt became irrelevant until Wlad absorbed it vs Haye. Right now what does holding the WBC and IBF prove ? For me it only becomes a hindrance holding either/or if you want to be formally recognised as the no.1, if Wilder or Martin wanted to be the man they could drop the belt and challenge the champ, instead we all know what these belts are used for, money, bargaining, leverage etc .... The IBO nor any other belt for that matter is really of significance, I guess it creates an illusion to casuals this certain guy holding a strap must be significant, relevant and it is a good fighter worth his salt because he's ' a champ' their is no 'a champ' their is only 'the champ' and that champ is Tyson Fury. Right now Tyson Fury makes the IBO belt relevant and Deontay Wilder, Charles Martin and Lucas Browne make all those other belts irrelevant. The IBO matters more than the WBC, IBF and WBA interim right now as far as I am concerned. I would however like to see all the belts unified so their is only one formally recognised title holder, the champ. Unfortunately that will unlikely happen but in the grand scheme of things it means little, everyone who watches boxing regularly knows who the no.1 man is in the heavyweight division.

This was the case before the WBO became a recognised belt. There was a period of a year or two where the WBO was quickly becoming recognised, and people were unsure. Hopkins cleared that situation up, I think. But there is a difference between Undisputed, and undisputed. 'Undisputed World Champion' is the guy who holds ALL major belts at a weight, which sadly does include the WBO nowadays. Its a boxing concept. Someone who is an undisputed world champion is exactly what it says on the tin - theres no dispute as to who the champion is (irrespective of belts). Fury is the best example now, but former recent examples cover Floyd after beating Manny, Ward at 168 after Froch etc. Its confusing I know, but the separation only came apparent when 4 belts seem impossible to unify Okay thanks for the clarification. It all kinda makes sense now. Hate the fact that there's 4 different belts and now certain fighters want to make the IBO a legit one too, smh.

True. And correct me if I'm wrong but when it comes to being an undisputed champion only the WBA,WBC and IBF belts are required right? The WBO isn't a requirement to be considered undisputed right? Honestly I get embarrassed when I hear the ring announcer saying GGG or Klitschko (before Fury) are defending or still reigning IBO champ. This was the case before the WBO became a recognised belt. There was a period of a year or two where the WBO was quickly becoming recognised, and people were unsure. Hopkins cleared that situation up, I think. But there is a difference between Undisputed, and undisputed. 'Undisputed World Champion' is the guy who holds ALL major belts at a weight, which sadly does include the WBO nowadays. Its a boxing concept. Someone who is an undisputed world champion is exactly what it says on the tin - theres no dispute as to who the champion is (irrespective of belts). Fury is the best example now, but former recent examples cover Floyd after beating Manny, Ward at 168 after Froch etc. Its confusing I know, but the separation only came apparent when 4 belts seem impossible to unify

Wlad and Calzaghe made the title legit if i am not mistaken...kinda like Holmes made the IBF legit I still don't recognize it as legit.

When did WBO belt recognized as a major title? I found this In 2004 the WBC began naming WBO champions on its ranking listings. The IBF did not recognize the WBO in May 2006, but was doing so by February 2007. WBO regulations explicitly recognize the other three sanctioning bodies. For many years, as with the IBF, boxers based in Japan were not permitted to fight for WBO titles. In 2012, the Japan Boxing Commission (JBC) recognized the governing body.

When did WBO belt recognized as a major title? Wlad and Calzaghe made the title legit if i am not mistaken...kinda like Holmes made the IBF legit

WBO was not recognized at that time as a major title When did WBO belt recognized as a major title?

I believe it isn't. When you look up Zab Judahs and Cory Spinks reign as undisputed WW champ, they weren't holding the WBO. WBO was not recognized at that time as a major title

No...but im sure they will make it one very soon just like they did the WBO

Yes, it is. The alleged superiority of the WBA, WBO, IBF, and WBC titles should have to be justified. It shouldn't just be assumed. And the truth is when you really look at them those organisations and the shit they do it's hard to make the argument they have any legitimacy at all. I guess the so-called 'alleged superiority' manifests itself as recognition from nearly every major Boxing media outlet, the IBHOF (and minor state/country HoF's) and arguably most of the hardcore fanbase. When its so widely accepted, I guess its not so much an assumption but the norm.. But you're right on the legitimacy part. Lineal titles are just as illegitimate. Consensus is and always will be the kingmaker. But look at it this way. You can call yourself a recognised world champion (watered down term now, I concede) if you hold one of the big four. Can you do the same for an IBO champion? Not really. Its a stepping stone, or an extra belt.

I never expected that so many people do not recognize WBO belt. I am a fan of boxing since 2012 and this really shock me.

This is the biggest problem with anything in boxing. Too many chiefs not even indians. Everyone trying to be a boss in boxing. Boxing needs some big dog centralized power to come in & KTFO of the current warlords running their own lil corners of the boxing world. That'll get one champion in every division & all these IBF's, WBC's & even IBO's outta business. There needs to be an NFL of boxing that sets the standard of the sport. Til that happens there is always gonna be a ton of **** from silly to highly corrupt going on in boxing that effects it negatively & hurts its overall appeal to the masses greatly. I think that boxing is too big to try to emulate the UFC model.(you mention NFL but UFC I think that is most indicated referred to boxing).