Wlad's numbers

[Marchegiano]

I was just browsing the HW records when I noticed something about Wlad I find a bit troubling.

In terms of combined title defenses and combined duration of reigns Wlad is given credit for his WBO wins during a time when the WBO is not officially validated by the other three bodies.

Let's be clear, the WBO is not a major body prior to 2007. Consequently Wlad's pre-07 WBO fights should not be considered major world title fights and should not be used to pump his numbers.

I'm not saying this to hate on Wlad but fair is fair and quite a lot of his numbers are boasted by a title that wasn't anything special for half his reign.

[The Old LefHook]

He was a scrub I could not stand watching.

[Zaroku]

smart guys... weak ... hearts.... white... so love.. belved by whites...

marketability....

my pimp hand is strong...

they had the size... jhonny has a lions heart.. lacks size..

[BattlingNelson]

Originally Posted by Marchegiano

I was just browsing the HW records when I noticed something about Wlad I find a bit troubling.

In terms of combined title defenses and combined duration of reigns Wlad is given credit for his WBO wins during a time when the WBO is not officially validated by the other three bodies.

Let's be clear, the WBO is not a major body prior to 2007. Consequently Wlad's pre-07 WBO fights should not be considered major world title fights and should not be used to pump his numbers.

I'm not saying this to hate on Wlad but fair is fair and quite a lot of his numbers are boasted by a title that wasn't anything special for half his reign.

Since when did validation form other alphabet boys make a belt worthwhile?

In these days, you have to look more closely on resume rather than just number of defenses of an alphabet-belt. Look at the number of top 10 fighters a guy has fought and beaten. That's how you measure.

[PRINCEKOOL]

WBO has been a major organisation since the late 90's.

The only reason why people state that it was not, a major organisation 'Is because america's probably could not be the WBO champions'

[QueensburyRules]

Originally Posted by Marchegiano

I was just browsing the HW records when I noticed something about Wlad I find a bit troubling.

In terms of combined title defenses and combined duration of reigns Wlad is given credit for his WBO wins during a time when the WBO is not officially validated by the other three bodies.

Let's be clear, the WBO is not a major body prior to 2007. Consequently Wlad's pre-07 WBO fights should not be considered major world title fights and should not be used to pump his numbers.

I'm not saying this to hate on Wlad but fair is fair and quite a lot of his numbers are boasted by a title that wasn't anything special for half his reign.

- -Ks occupied the top ring slots starting in 1999 and were ducked by Lewis/Tyson/ Field prior to and after that. Moreover, WBO was a decade old when they won it, and Chris Byrd a tricky lefty that trio of stooges also dicked in the WBO mix.

Fat Lar credited with IBF in spite of being the first guy to own it after ducking his WBC mandatories and stripped. And the IBF founder within months earned a felony sentence to the Big House for fraud or some like offense.

Doodling your noodle with too much time on your hands?

[BoxingYork]

Originally Posted by BattlingNelson

Since when did validation form other alphabet boys make a belt worthwhile?

In these days, you have to look more closely on resume rather than just number of defenses of an alphabet-belt. Look at the number of top 10 fighters a guy has fought and beaten. That's how you measure.

Yes, sadly.
Hard to say that Wlad's WBO title defences don't count, when He won belt of legimate Chris Byrd... and even Ali and Louis had less qualified opponents counting as one of defences of their title.

Amount of title defences lost it's meaning since it got so watered down. It's meaningless statistic now.
That, or just like in case of Middleweights and Monzon vs Hopkins defences, We should only look at defences after establishing status of undisputed or lineal?

[Marchegiano]

Originally Posted by BattlingNelson

Since when did validation form other alphabet boys make a belt worthwhile?

In these days, you have to look more closely on resume rather than just number of defenses of an alphabet-belt. Look at the number of top 10 fighters a guy has fought and beaten. That's how you measure.

The 1960s?

I mean we've literally always had competing titles. Why is it then the Colored or NSC belts are to this day lesser belts while the WBO is not? Did Langford not fight the top colored men of the colorline era? Was the NSC not a body that enforced their own ranks?

I'm not being a smartass, btw, these are honest questions. I wouldn't have made a thread about it if I understood.

Originally Posted by PRINCEKOOL

WBO has been a major organisation since the late 90's.

The only reason why people state that it was not, a major organisation 'Is because america's probably could not be the WBO champions'

I've never heard this explanation, why would my being American affect my view of the WBO?

Originally Posted by QueensburyRules

- -Ks occupied the top ring slots starting in 1999 and were ducked by Lewis/Tyson/ Field prior to and after that. Moreover, WBO was a decade old when they won it, and Chris Byrd a tricky lefty that trio of stooges also dicked in the WBO mix.

Fat Lar credited with IBF in spite of being the first guy to own it after ducking his WBC mandatories and stripped. And the IBF founder within months earned a felony sentence to the Big House for fraud or some like offense.

Doodling your noodle with too much time on your hands?

Image View Removed. Please Click Here.

A little bit yes, but more than that it has to do with research I've been doing into Ring itself and how Ring has influenced fans opinions on subjects like lineal and p4p.

It is important to understand how titles got legitimized and I never questioned the other body narrative because I never really had a reason to consider it.

-------




So, basically, we accept Wlad's pre-acknowledged WBO era because we feel the acknowledgement itself is just formalization of how fans feel anyway and so a bit slower than fan acknowledgement?


Where is the cut off? Hypothetically if the IBO became a major title....which...I don't understand why it isn't a major body if official major body acknowledgement is secondary to fan acknowledgement than surely the IBO is already a major title given fans know it. But anyway, let's say it became a major title tomorrow, would we then acknowledge men who held that title prior to it being considered major? Reigns?



Thanks for the input fellas, I appreciate y'all.

[PRINCEKOOL]

Originally Posted by Marchegiano

I've never heard this explanation, why would my being American affect my view of the WBO?

Deep down that is one of the reasons, as to why certain people attempt to discredit the WBO. Most of the WBO world champions in history, have routinely battered american fighters. Also historically WBO champions have kind of been avoided fighters, by american's.

Weather you like it or not, the WBO is now a prestigious world title. 'WBC' over these past few years has not really had the best ambassadors.

[GhostofDempsey]

The IBF is the only one that held out until 2007 to recognize WBO champions on their rankings. The WBA as early as 2000. Regardless, the WBO has been sanctioning major title fights since the 80s. Interestingly, Tyson was recognized as the undisputed HW champ by the other three, without the WBO title.

He was also beating the same quality level opponents to win the WBO as he did the IBF and WBA. So what matters more, sanctioning bodies or quality of opposition? I actually prefer The Ring titles to the other four sanctioning bodies.