How should responsible historians deal with the WBO belt?

[Coverdale]

Obviously if one is a lineal absolutist then one will simply ignore the alphabets. But in practice I think most individuals involved with chronicling boxing history acknowledge the need to name the alphabets to some degree. So what to do with the WBO?

For a long time the WBO belt held a liminal space in boxing. It wasn't recognised in the Ring's almanac until at least 2010. The other sanctioning bodies reluctantly allowed it to join the club in stages. The US generally preferred to ignore it until fairly late in the day compared with other countries. Holyfield preferred not to have the WBO belt on the line for the third Bowe fight because he was concerned it would jeopardise his ranking with the other bodies.

The reason this question is important is because of the heavyweight division, primarily. Eventual lineal champion Wladimir Klitschko seems to have his WBO defences counted in retrospect despite many occurring when Lennox Lewis was champion and it not being a fully recognised belt. How also do we deal with the likes of Tommy Morrison, Herbie Hide and Henry Akinwande?

[Willie Pep 229]

Obviously if one is a lineal absolutist then one will simply ignore the alphabets. But in practice I think most individuals involved with chronicling boxing history acknowledge the need to name the alphabets to some degree. So what to do with the WBO?

For a long time the WBO belt held a liminal space in boxing. It wasn't recognised in the Ring's almanac until at least 2010. The other sanctioning bodies reluctantly allowed it to join the club in stages. The US generally preferred to ignore it until fairly late in the day compared with other countries. Holyfield preferred not to have the WBO belt on the line for the third Bowe fight because he was concerned it would jeopardise his ranking with the other bodies.

The reason this question is important is because of the heavyweight division, primarily. Eventual lineal champion Wladimir Klitschko seems to have his WBO defences counted in retrospect despite many occurring when Lennox Lewis was champion and it not being a fully recognised belt. How also do we deal with the likes of Tommy Morrison, Herbie Hide and Henry Akinwande?

I think TODAY (not necessarily history wise) the top four SBs are valued by whom they are lucky enough to have under their banner at that moment.

If WBO has the right fighter it holds as much prestige as the other three.

History wise: The WBO appeared in the middle '80s and had (almost) no cred until the early 1990s.

When Tyson made his undisputed run in 88-89 it went WBC, WBA, IBF, lineal.

The WBO at that time wasn't a serious enough of a player to get into the 'undisputed HW tourament' of the late 80s.

But in the very late '80s they did have the almost past-it Camacho and a rising star in Moorer at LHW.

But they don't start to take on serious recognition until the 1990s.

It's your call to decide when you think the WBO should be a serious factor in ranking fighters.

I would suggest don't bother looking before 1985.

You'll find some exceptions in the late '80s early '90s, worth noting.

They became one of the standards by the 2000s.

[JAB5239]

An ABC title is only as important as the fighter holding it. If youre the lineal champion and have the WBO belt it holds weight in comparison to if youre only the 4th best fighter in the division but hold that title. Im a firm believer in belts don't make the fighter, the fighters makes the belt.

[Ben Bolt]

For a long time the WBO belt held a liminal space in boxing ... The other sanctioning bodies reluctantly allowed it to join the club in stages.

Do we need any of them? They have messed up so many times that they all should have been disqualified by now.

Andre Ward has expressed his opinion about the orgs on several occasions, but it has fallen on deaf ears, which I think is a great shame.

[Willie Pep 229]

In some ways the multiple belts is boxing's answer to other sports' "play-offs."

Every other sport gets the excitment of multiple championship games in the same season.

Think of the belts as lower level play-off games, but still with a championship vibe.

Plus more revenue.

Even MJB couldn't bare the loss of revenue and in 1969 started play-off games. And baseball is usually resistant to change.

As a purist I hate the multiple belts.

I can't decide if the fighters gain or lose under these conditions.

NEGATIVE: Sometimes they're blocked by SBs, they always get robbed for a purse %.

On the other hand I look at Teofimo Lopez. A total WBC product.

POSITIVE Teo got his first big fight in only his 14th fight, (Commey) and held an undisputed four belt title via his 15th fight, (Loma).

That's great work if you can get it.

NEGATIVE Then Lopez loses all four belts on a ridiculous one point SD decision loss and then he drops from being on everybody's P4P list, to not able to get a serious title shot, only a lower level belt.

All lost because of one fight, by one point. Silly system.

All gained too soon, all lost too quickly.

I'm not sure if the SBs are good or bad for the fighters.

[Coverdale]

Do we need any of them? They have messed up so many times that they all should have been disqualified by now.

Andre Ward has expressed his opinion about the orgs on several occasions, but it has fallen on deaf ears, which I think is a great shame.

I enjoy listening to Ward speak on this subject.

I would settle for a compromise of a return to 2/3 belts and no 'interim' or secondary belts for now.