Why has the WBO belt always been worthless at heavyweight?

They are all suspect. Look at the WBC...which should be renamed the PBC. Champions holding belts hostage and defending their titles against journeymen or fighting once per year (Mayweather, Wilder, Stevenson, Charlo, Russell Jr., Thurman, etc.). One thing I do question most about the WBO and IBF is their ranking system. Ranking obscure fighters too high on the list while ignoring others more deserving. The entire sanctioning process is a joke, need to go back to one belt, one champ.

I've been watching boxing since I was a kid, and WBO was just a joke of a secondary title like the IBO is now. I can't remember when WBO became recognized as a world title, but I think it was around the time De La Hoya won the 130 lb title.

It's the WBOgus for a reason man. It's across all weight classes. I'm a big Lomachenko fan since '08 but he needs to get a real belt.

Most corrupt org. No coincidence that Top Rank and Frank Warren fighters are always the champions/mandatories. True facts

I think people's tolerance for new sanctioning bodies has been exceeded. We got to three, and people live with it, but aren't happy with it. Then along comes the WBO or IBO or whatever, and people are like "Fuck off". The only reason that those organisations have any traction at all is because crap fighters like to have pretend world titles. I think maybe people could live with a new sanctioning body if it brought something revolutionary to the table. Something which made it much better than the WBC, WBA and IBF. The WBO and IBO don't have that, they are just trying to get their snouts into the trough, and it is painfully obvious to everyone. Yeah, I know it seems ironic for a Lomachenko fan to be so totally dismissive of the WBO. As someone said above, the fighter makes the belt. The WBO is clearly less credible than the big three, just as Loma is clearly the best fighter in his division.

Its never had value and always had weak champions that nobody in the world ever considered them champion Even now Joseph Parker is seen as the weakest among the top 3 Its usually just seen as a stepping stone to one of the bigger titles ie WBC, WBA or even IBF Regardless of the weight class, the WBO title has always been the least valuable of the recognized titles. For many reasons. It has the least history. It has the least legitimate origins. It was originally founded because the head of the WBA bribery ring was kicked out in disgrace, so he started his own organization. That doesn't mean a WBO title is worthless. It's now a recognized world title. It has value. Just not as much as the others. With that said, you do bring up a valid point. That at heavyweight, the disparity in value is even greater than in other weight classes. The reason for that is pretty simple. Back when heavyweight boxing ruled the world, the public was less forgiving of a new title at that weight. A fourth title at junior bantamweight wasn't going to piss off the public nearly as much as a fourth title at heavyweight. So the WBO heavyweight title was shunned for far longer than it was in other weight classes. Frank Warren could get WBO titles for all of his fighters and sell them as "world championship" fights on UK TV and the UK public would go along with the ruse, because who was it really harming. But at heavyweight, where who the champion was used to be taken so seriously by so many, the WBO title had an immense stigma. Holyfield refused to accept it when he beat the champion. Sanders threw it away to fight for the vacant WBC title. Tyson never went after it even though it would have been easier to win. The goal at heavyweight was always to unify. To those wanting to unify, the last thing they wanted was to make unification even more difficult. Holyfield, Tyson, Lewis, all wanted nothing to do with it. Until the Klitschko brothers came along, the WBO at heavyweight was really completely irrelevant.

I think nowadays the fighter makes the belt, not the other way round. But you could say it's the least prestigious because it hasn't been around as long as the other belts.

I don't think it's just HW If you look at all the divisions, more often then not the WBO has the worst champion It should definitely be looked at as the 4th best belt in the sport

It's not worthless, Parker is about to become a wealthy man because of it, but it was the last of the recognised belts to appear and in the early days of the WBO in particular there were some unworthy holders.