Is the IBO a world title?

[Larry the boss]

When did WBO belt recognized as a major title?

I found this

In 2004 the WBC began naming WBO champions on its ranking listings.[2] The IBF did not recognize the WBO in May 2006,[3] but was doing so by February 2007.[4] WBO regulations explicitly recognize the other three sanctioning bodies.[5] For many years, as with the IBF, boxers based in Japan were not permitted to fight for WBO titles. In 2012, the Japan Boxing Commission (JBC) recognized the governing body.[6]

[Razcal26]

Wlad and Calzaghe made the title legit if i am not mistaken...kinda like Holmes made the IBF legit

I still don't recognize it as legit.

[techliam]

True. And correct me if I'm wrong but when it comes to being an undisputed champion only the WBA,WBC and IBF belts are required right? The WBO isn't a requirement to be considered undisputed right?

Honestly I get embarrassed when I hear the ring announcer saying GGG or Klitschko (before Fury) are defending or still reigning IBO champ.

This was the case before the WBO became a recognised belt. There was a period of a year or two where the WBO was quickly becoming recognised, and people were unsure. Hopkins cleared that situation up, I think.

But there is a difference between Undisputed, and undisputed.
'Undisputed World Champion' is the guy who holds ALL major belts at a weight, which sadly does include the WBO nowadays. Its a boxing concept.

Someone who is an undisputed world champion is exactly what it says on the tin - theres no dispute as to who the champion is (irrespective of belts). Fury is the best example now, but former recent examples cover Floyd after beating Manny, Ward at 168 after Froch etc. Its confusing I know, but the separation only came apparent when 4 belts seem impossible to unify

[IFightDirty]

This was the case before the WBO became a recognised belt. There was a period of a year or two where the WBO was quickly becoming recognised, and people were unsure. Hopkins cleared that situation up, I think.

But there is a difference between Undisputed, and undisputed.
'Undisputed World Champion' is the guy who holds ALL major belts at a weight, which sadly does include the WBO nowadays. Its a boxing concept.

Someone who is an undisputed world champion is exactly what it says on the tin - theres no dispute as to who the champion is (irrespective of belts). Fury is the best example now, but former recent examples cover Floyd after beating Manny, Ward at 168 after Froch etc. Its confusing I know, but the separation only came apparent when 4 belts seem impossible to unify

Okay thanks for the clarification. It all kinda makes sense now. Hate the fact that there's 4 different belts and now certain fighters want to make the IBO a legit one too, smh.

[Jewish-Reptile]

The IBO belt means little, it is no more than a meaningless title but to acquire it right now you have to defeat the lineal champ so I figure it became relevant upon Wlad beating Chagaev, at that time the WBA belt became irrelevant until Wlad absorbed it vs Haye. Right now what does holding the WBC and IBF prove ? For me it only becomes a hindrance holding either/or if you want to be formally recognised as the no.1, if Wilder or Martin wanted to be the man they could drop the belt and challenge the champ, instead we all know what these belts are used for, money, bargaining, leverage etc .... The IBO nor any other belt for that matter is really of significance, I guess it creates an illusion to casuals this certain guy holding a strap must be significant, relevant and it is a good fighter worth his salt because he's ' a champ' their is no 'a champ' their is only 'the champ' and that champ is Tyson Fury.

Right now Tyson Fury makes the IBO belt relevant and Deontay Wilder, Charles Martin and Lucas Browne make all those other belts irrelevant. The IBO matters more than the WBC, IBF and WBA interim right now as far as I am concerned. I would however like to see all the belts unified so their is only one formally recognised title holder, the champ. Unfortunately that will unlikely happen but in the grand scheme of things it means little, everyone who watches boxing regularly knows who the no.1 man is in the heavyweight division.

[Raonic]

I rather not recognize it as it adds more titles. But it should be recognized in replace of the WBA.

[Ryn0]

No, WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO are the only ones that count for anything and even they are losing any importance. They're just an extra chip at the bargaining table when looking for fights now.

[Gentblue]

switch ibf and wbc please

WBC lets other champs be Mandos that automatically makes them better than everyone else and the IBF is the worse, in fact as I type this they are worse then the WBA simply because of the Peterson crap.

[Pigeons]

The IBHOF recognizes the WBA, WBC, IBF, and WBO as major world titles.

Every other title is minor or regional.

[joe strong]

I barely recognize the WBO. That only became a world title around 2005... The WBO belt use to be vacated so they could get a shot at the WBC. The IBO to me is like the EU or NABF title. A stepping stone title. The WBO use to be on par with the IBO. The WBO use to not let their champions unify so guys just vacated it.