WBO was considered a 2nd tier title until 2004

[SBleeder]

To me, all of the alphabet titles are "second tier" to the linear, or Ring championships.

There have been plenty of fighters throughout history who I've considered to be the world champion, despite them not possessing any of the so-called "major" world belts. In addition, just because a fighter captures one of those belts does not automatically make him a "world champion" in my book.

[BennyST]

To me, all of the alphabet titles are "second tier" to the linear, or Ring championships.

There have been plenty of fighters throughout history who I've considered to be the world champion, despite them not possessing any of the so-called "major" world belts. In addition, just because a fighter captures one of those belts does not automatically make him a "world champion" in my book.

Even the 'linear' title has become obsolete. The Ring title is now going against its own rules and starting to make popular fighters the Ring champion despite not being in a position to do so, according to their own strict guidelines. It's all a farce. No title in boxing means **** anymore unless you are the Undisputed with all four titles, which is so rare (and impossible to get any promoter to allow it) it's useless too.

[Ray Corso]

The WBA an WBC were the only recognized organizations from the late 50s up till the promoters took over and added all the "junior" and "super" weight classes. Then some money came out to "make" a WBO IBF ABC & FOX hahahaha!! Thats when the Ring Mag. was all of a sudden the Holy Grail of Boxing!! That was a bunch of crap too but the fans loved it, must have been the pictures!! HA! Ray.