When did the WBO officially become a major title?

If you add Povetkin and a younger Ortiz to this resume, it looks pretty good. Too bad they were too chicken to fight him clean. Yeah, and while you are at it, add the David Haye fight to Fury's CV as he ducked him twice and took a year out of his career. :rofl:

You can hold the WBO and be passed over, like Crawford or Eubank or Calzaghe have....... conversely you can hold a WBC for 5 years fighting shiat opponents like Wilder did...... all the while claiming you have the most prestigious belt and even naming it. Means nothing, when fighting Stiverne, Arreola, Washington, Spziltska or whatever. If you add Povetkin and a younger Ortiz to this resume, it looks pretty good. Too bad they were too chicken to fight him clean.

At the end of the day, it comes down to the fights and public perception. Whether they hold the WBA, WBC, IBF or WBO means literally nothing to me now, and never has. You can hold the WBO and be passed over, like Crawford or Eubank or Calzaghe have....... conversely you can hold a WBC for 5 years fighting shiat opponents like Wilder did...... all the while claiming you have the most prestigious belt and even naming it. Means nothing, when fighting Stiverne, Arreola, Washington, Spziltska or whatever. The title you hold does not define your career in any way to most of the public. Couldn't have said it better.

A man of my vintage. I was on the Benn side of the fence so him beating Barkley was big for me. Still, I didn't see the WBO as the full article until Naz started beating the other champs. Today, the WBC's making them look like a serious organisation lol. At the end of the day, it comes down to the fights and public perception. Whether they hold the WBA, WBC, IBF or WBO means literally nothing to me now, and never has. You can hold the WBO and be passed over, like Crawford or Eubank or Calzaghe have....... conversely you can hold a WBC for 5 years fighting shiat opponents like Wilder did...... all the while claiming you have the most prestigious belt and even naming it. Means nothing, when fighting Stiverne, Arreola, Washington, Spziltska or whatever. The title you hold does not define your career in any way to most of the public.

I always looked at Chris Eubank as a world champ when he held the WBO title between 1990 and 1995..... I was just a boy at the time though. Official or not....... 15 million people tuned into his fights right through that period, and people look back on him as being a world champion. When the other bodies recognised them dis not really come into it. A man of my vintage. I was on the Benn side of the fence so him beating Barkley was big for me. Still, I didn't see the WBO as the full article until Naz started beating the other champs. Today, the WBC's making them look like a serious organisation lol.

I always looked at Chris Eubank as a world champ when he held the WBO title between 1990 and 1995..... I was just a boy at the time though. Official or not....... 15 million people tuned into his fights right through that period, and people look back on him as being a world champion. When the other bodies recognised them dis not really come into it.

The WBO is the weakest of the bunch.The WBC must be the silliest of the bunch.

Sometime in late 2006/early 2007 is when it became universally recognized. The WBA recognized them in 2000 The WBC recognized them in 2004 The IBF recognized them in late 2006/early 2007 You really know your stuff on this. Very impressive.

The WBO is the weakest of the bunch.

Sometime in late 2006/early 2007 is when it became universally recognized. The WBA recognized them in 2000 The WBC recognized them in 2004 The IBF recognized them in late 2006/early 2007