Tweet
The important thing isn't the letters on the front, it's the champion in the middle.
-
-
theyre all the same 2 me! i consider wbu and ibo and ibas world titles too! as in the view that eveygy in the world is allowed to fight for it nulike regional ot national or continental titles!Comment
-
good points, agreed the champ makes the title, not the belt.
WBU and IBO are TOTAL jokes surely?
there appears to be no solid arguement to disrespect the WBO, but WBC make the prettiest belts so there my favourite.Comment
-
Larry Holmes earlier dumped the WBC belt in favor of the, then, newly organized IBF (officially named IBF-USBA) back in 1983, thereby giving the group it's first diaper of some form of legitimacy. Today, however, the IBF has champs like Fana,who took the title from Klassen, who took the title from St. Clair, who took the title from Baloyi, who took it after Barrera (who had taken it from Peden in a unification match) saw no use for it.
Wonder if Fana sleeps well knowing that the guy who owns the IBF belt in the division above him is named Juan Diaz and the one below him is Robert Guerrero.
AS for the WBO...At about the time that Duran gave up the WBC belt, Tommy Hearns was the WBO SuperMiddle champ (its first), and fought Sugar Ray Leonard to a draw with that belt at stake. Hearns vacated the WBO throne in '91 giving way to the meeting between Eubank and Michael Watson, both of whom had met just months earlier for the WBO Middleweight crown.
It was surely in the mid-90's that the WBO started getting some credibility with champions like Barrera, Oscar De La Hoya, Popo Frietas, Johnny Tapia...and yes, Eubank and Benn.
But with all that, I confess that I sometimes forget about the WBO, as I sometimes do about the IBF.Last edited by grayfist; 11-19-2007, 10:49 AM.Comment
-
As per the IBF, that's the sanctioning body's fault. Japan won't recognize it because of the bribery scandal.Originally posted by warp1432 View PostComment
Comment