Back in the 90s during it's early years, no one recognized it. Herbie Hide was a 2 time hw champ and when Bowe was the WBO champ, he was never recognized as being a 2 time champ. Hamed used to avoid mandatories of his other titles and remain loyal to the WBO but it still wasn't being recognized. The first time I remember it being considered major was when DLH was "given" the 160 lb belt in the Sturm fight and then took a dive and gave it to Hopkins. Did DLH and later Bob Arum's check book legitimize the WBO? I personally think the IBO is more credible.
When did the WBO officially become a major title?
Collapse
-
Sometime in late 2006/early 2007 is when it became universally recognized.
The WBA recognized them in 2000
The WBC recognized them in 2004
The IBF recognized them in late 2006/early 2007 -
-
Comment
-
I always looked at Chris Eubank as a world champ when he held the WBO title between 1990 and 1995..... I was just a boy at the time though.
Official or not....... 15 million people tuned into his fights right through that period, and people look back on him as being a world champion.
When the other bodies recognised them dis not really come into it.Comment
-
A man of my vintage. I was on theI always looked at Chris Eubank as a world champ when he held the WBO title between 1990 and 1995..... I was just a boy at the time though.
Official or not....... 15 million people tuned into his fights right through that period, and people look back on him as being a world champion.
When the other bodies recognised them dis not really come into it.
Benn side of the fence so him beating Barkley was big for me.
Still, I didn't see the WBO as the full article until Naz started beating the other champs.
Today, the WBC's making them look like a serious organisation lol.Comment
-
At the end of the day, it comes down to the fights and public perception.
Whether they hold the WBA, WBC, IBF or WBO means literally nothing to me now, and never has.
You can hold the WBO and be passed over, like Crawford or Eubank or Calzaghe have....... conversely you can hold a WBC for 5 years fighting shiat opponents like Wilder did...... all the while claiming you have the most prestigious belt and even naming it.
Means nothing, when fighting Stiverne, Arreola, Washington, Spziltska or whatever.
The title you hold does not define your career in any way to most of the public.Comment
-
Couldn't have said it better.At the end of the day, it comes down to the fights and public perception.
Whether they hold the WBA, WBC, IBF or WBO means literally nothing to me now, and never has.
You can hold the WBO and be passed over, like Crawford or Eubank or Calzaghe have....... conversely you can hold a WBC for 5 years fighting shiat opponents like Wilder did...... all the while claiming you have the most prestigious belt and even naming it.
Means nothing, when fighting Stiverne, Arreola, Washington, Spziltska or whatever.
The title you hold does not define your career in any way to most of the public.Comment
-
If you add Povetkin and a younger Ortiz to this resume, it looks pretty good. Too bad they were too chicken to fight him clean.You can hold the WBO and be passed over, like Crawford or Eubank or Calzaghe have....... conversely you can hold a WBC for 5 years fighting shiat opponents like Wilder did...... all the while claiming you have the most prestigious belt and even naming it.
Means nothing, when fighting Stiverne, Arreola, Washington, Spziltska or whatever.Comment
Comment