What do you think of the WBO belt?

**AntonTheMeh** · 06-22-2009, 06:13 PM

all these belts are useless.the only one that means anything is the ring.the wba, on top of having over a dozen divsions, has more than one champion per division.the wbo had a dead guy ranked i think.that's about the craziest **** I've heard of them.the wbc=we be crooks.the ibf strips everybody.so i don't consider any of them the end all be all.its all about the ring championship.

**Chups** · 06-22-2009, 06:16 PM

It should be eliminated.

**sweetpea87** · 06-22-2009, 06:16 PM

The ring is the be no dobt about it.

**Ch@mpBox@PR** · 06-22-2009, 06:16 PM

That it the best Sactioning Body compare to the others

Not that i care that much of them anyways!!!!!!!!!!

**starjammer** · 06-22-2009, 06:41 PM

All of the belts are trash.

They are companies. They don't care about enduring the sport, only creating as much profit as possible.

**Dynamite Kid** · 06-22-2009, 06:47 PM

The WBO = Eubank vs John Jarvis,Calzaghe vs Tocker Pudwill,

**ggurtin** · 06-22-2009, 06:50 PM

If you look at it, the WBO has by far the best rankings and the best champs. I see it as the most legitimate of the 4, wrote a long post about it earlier.

The WBC isn't horrible, but stripping Bradley was some b.s.

The IBF and WBA are total jokes. The IBF should be renamed to the ISF(International Stripping Federation) because thats all they do, leading to a crummy group of champs and don't even get me started with the WBA, I don't have time to mention all of their problems.

**Deja_Vous** · 06-22-2009, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by sweetpea87

In boxing today it seems like every week there are some new bull**** organizations making cracker jack belts for fighters to win. I think it should still be limited to the WBA, WBC, and IBF belts but now the WBO has been around for a while and some people seem to call it a major belt. I think technically you only need to hold the first three and Ring belt to be considered the undisputed champion of the division.

I for one really dont care much about the WBO belt. I know Cotto holds that belt and if Pac fights him and wins he would techincally be considered a champ at weltweight for winning that belt, where as if he won the IBC belt he would not be a legitimate champ . Belts like the IBO, IBA, IBC and whatever else dont mean **** and do not make you a champ and I kind of think the WBO should be with them rather than up there with the main 3. I'm not saying that boxers that hold those belts are not champs but I really think the WBA WBC and IBF should stay the main three. What do you guys think?

Before Frank Warren hijacked the WBO..it was widely accepted as A CONTENDER'S BELT.

The owner of the WBO got first crack at the WBC title holder.

Back then..the WBO champion was AUTOMATICALLY the #1 contender for the WBC Title.

The WBO was initially put in place so the WBC champ CANNOT DUCK YOU.

Nowadays..

The WBO takes it's champions COMPLETELY OFF THE WBC RANKINGS..!!

Not jus the the WBC...but the IBF and WBA as well..!!!!!

So....the modern WBO has become a HAVEN for mofos that DON'T WANT TO FIGHT DANGEROUS OPPONENTS

You can just talk **** KNOWING nobody will answer you.

WBO belt-holders NEVER considered themselves REAL Champions until Calzhage sache'd onto the scene.

NOBODY held a WBO belt for any length of time until Joe Calzhage and Antonio Margarito hit town.

**Ravishing** · 06-22-2009, 07:04 PM

All the ABC's really are **** today. The WBC and IBF have always been ones that have held the most weight as far as crowing THE champ, but today the old NWA wrestling belt holds more relevance than whoever the IBO or WBA champ is. Nobody seems to care anymore.

What do you think of the WBO belt?