Talk:World Boxing Organization

Former Champions
Now there is the List of WBO world champions, I suggest we can remove the "Former champions"-chapter from this article. Does anyone disagree?Jeff5102 09:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The 4th sanctioning body
I'm surprised this article makes no reference to the face that the WBA, WBC and IBF are considered to be the 3 major sanctioning bodies in boxing, and the WBO has always been referred to as a 4th belt, or stepping stone belt. The true definition of undisputed champ has always been to hold WBA/WBC and IBF belts at once. In fact i'm sure this article used to say just that. I know that wikipedia entires for 'WBA' 'WBC' 'IBF' and 'Undisputed Champion' all do.

That is a far too general statement, and at various times has been totally untrue. Currently the WBO Heavyweight, Cruiserweight and middleweight champions are considered to be the legitimate recognized champions, and there are numerous examples of times when the WBO belt has cast a shade of doubt on the legitimacy of champions who held other belts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.147.48.225 (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section
Please keep an eye out for people trying to remove the "Criticism" section of the article. The fact that the WBO kept a boxer in its top 10 rankings -- and even moved him up in the rankings twice -- after he had died is certainly relevant to an understanding of the WBO. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO criticism is always a relevant section when discussing any organisation as long as it is not given undue weight and it is sourced correctly, but I'll keep an eye out.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I note that the Criticism section was removed once again, and I have restored it. The person who deleted it stated in their edit summary that if the article about the WBA doesn't have a criticism section, then this one shouldn't either. I would strongly disagree with this, because if there is properly sourced and relevant criticism of the WBA, then that should be covered in the WBA's article. Omissions from other articles do not mean that we need to have omissions in this article as well; rather, we should try to improve both articles. Trying to cover up the WBO's faults is not going to be helpful. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I came here to comment that section after reverting a bit of vandalism. The curious thing is that this isn't criticism but rather a Frankestein-like section, which oddly enough, lacks some real criticism. The ranking of a dead man is something that could be included in a new section discussing the ranking system used by the WBO, which can be easily worked using their webpage. The "Initial holder of heavyweight title" part is just silly, since the WBO was a minor organism back there and selecting obscure boxers for title fights is exactly what minor organisms do most of the time, it seems out of place and maybe even a little biased in that matter, so I would personally remove that statement altogether. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  21:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem as I see it is that the WBO seemed to be saying at the time that Francesco Damiani and Johnny DuPlooy were better boxers than Mike Tyson at the time, because they were allowed to compete for the initial WBO heavyweight title and Tyson was not. Such an opinion would have found few supporters in the boxing community at the time. On the other hand, the situation may have been one where the WBO inquired as to Tyson's management whether he was interested in being considered for the WBO heavyweight title, but they didn't want to endorse the WBO or pay the WBO sanctioning fees or something like that. In that case, it would be helpful to find a quote from a WBO official saying that Damiani and DuPlooy were the top heavyweights who expressed interest in seeking the WBO title, as opposed to the WBO having considered them to be able to beat Tyson. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that such a statement will ever appear. In this case, Tyson's management most likely declined paying the fee for a minor title. That is common practice even today, unless you are Ricky Hatton (j/k). -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  21:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)