Just ignore the WBO from now on

[The Gambler1981]

I do not mind all teh belt, because they tend to get more fighter money and oppurtunies. I always like unification fights also. They are all about the same basically, except that the WBO is much newer, then even the IBF.

It is toughto say, if it never existed I would have no issue. Now that is is around whatever, maybe one of them can eventually become a decent organization in the distant future though (we have more chances with more organizations).

[Steak]

WBO is no worse than any of the others, it has legit champs and crappy ones.

WBA have Valuev and GARAY
WBC have Berto and Fragomenni

Half the IBF belts are vacant and in many cases they don't have a No1 or 2 contender for their belts.

I woulfd get rid of more than one set of belts, two is more than enough. WBA/WBC. and make the intercontinental titles worth something.

the WBA are just as bad in their decisions. especialy theyre super champion+normal champion policy. but they have historical significance, being the first belt and all. they have a reason to exist.

at least the WBC has good champions and enforces mandatories, although theyre idiots too.

the IBF is the best belt most the time, they dont bother having champions if they dont think the fighters a worthwhile and they actually make tournameants for title shots sometimes to decide the mandatory...thats how Povetkin got his shot.
they get in the way the least, and their mandatories are overall the most worthy.

the WBO sprang up out of nowhere and has plagued the boxing world for years now by getting in the way and wasting our time. it has no reason to exist.

[Porter's Dad]

If you want to open up a critique list for all the abc organisations, then it'll soon end up very difficult to tell them apart, I'm afraid.

What mandatories should the WBO have installed on Calzaghe btw? You realise they don't consider eachothers rankings too much, so it's like seperate leagues almost. The problems are rife thoughout all the sport and it's many organisations and belts.

The least corrupt is the IBO, and that's ****.

You gotta love the Calslappy groupies posting to defend the WBO

And the nuthuggery depths sink to a new low...

[AntonTheMeh]

no, they should all be ignored.the only belt that should have any significance should be the ring belt.

[Steak]

no, they should all be ignored.the only belt that should have any significance should be the ring belt.

the Ring belt > the alphabet belts, but at the same time the Ring belt doesnt have mandatories, and in theory a fighter with the Ring belt could just sit on it forever fighting nobodies. which has happened a few times. their rankings are exponentially better than alphabet belt ones though.

another major problem with the Ring belt is that very often their #1 rated guy is the much better fighter in the division than their Champion. but that can happen no matter how perfect a belt is, I guess

[Pullcounter]

If you want to open up a critique list for all the abc organisations, then it'll soon end up very difficult to tell them apart, I'm afraid.

What mandatories should the WBO have installed on Calzaghe btw? You realise they don't consider eachothers rankings too much, so it's like seperate leagues almost. The problems are rife thoughout all the sport and it's many organisations and belts.

The least corrupt is the IBO, and that's ****.

I read somewhere that calzaghe had never heard of any of the bums that calzaghe defended his title against.

[The_One77]

The WBC and IBF titles only became important once Calzaghe won it, up until that point the WBO belt was even more prestigious than the Ring belt cuz of Calzaghe.
Now that Joe has retired all the belts are pretty ****ing meaningless

[Spacey1991]

the less belts the better

Agreed, I think there should just be one title... it will benefit boxing and make more exciting fights happen, and also make each weight class more competitive. So yeah, I think there should just be one title (like the WBC or something).

That's my thoughts anyway... there is no need for having WBO, and there is definitely no need for having 4 world titles per weight class... just 1 will do for me.

[Steak]

ever heard of Artur Gregorian? no? he defended his title 17 times with the WBO belt. tell me how many of these guys youve ever seen before.
http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php...5673&cat=boxer

[The_One77]

ever heard of Artur Gregorian? no? he defended his title 17 times with the WBO belt. tell me how many of these guys youve ever seen before.
http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php...5673&cat=boxer

YOu have to take into account the marketing aspect of the fighter, sometimes a belt isnt neccessary enough especially if the division lacks big names.

Look at Hamed, WBO champion and he was a superstar even before winning the other belts.