-
Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Whether you love them or hate them someone is going to disagree with you. Personally I don't care one way or another, a fight is a fight to me. Some boxing fans seem to think they will ruin boxing and some fans always seem to have a catch weight fight they want to see floating around in the back of their heads.
So, what is your pleasure and why?
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
I've never liked catchweights. I think weight limits are close enough as it is... 6-7 pounds in most cases. I particularly don't like catchweights for championships, so I'm not fond of this aspect of the Cotto-Canelo fight. The fight itself will be extremely crowd-pleasing, so I'm glad it's occurring at any level. In the end though, I prefer seeing terrific catchweight fights than seeing fights at the established weights that aren't any good.
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Don't have a problem with them as long as it suits both fighters. So Cotto-Canelo fighting at 155 is fine. However, Cotto making Geale come down to 157 with a 160 title on the line is a liberty.
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Catch weight fights are fine, if two naturally 150lb guys want to fight for the middleweight title go for it, but don't expect the next guy who is an actual middleweight to do the same. It's bordering on pathetic.
As far as I'm concerned intentionally tampering with someone's weight (bringing them down below the championship limit) is every bit as bad if not worse than tampering with gloves or using PEDS.
-
In theory they are fine. In fact in theory I rather like them. But in practice they aren't used to make things fair, quite the opposite. They are used to give one fighter an advantage.
Cotto/Canelo is the rare exception where it suits both. But let's not pretend it is a true MW title fight.
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Don't mind them but I don't think that there should ever be a catch weight for a title fight.
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
You want to have a childish silly catchweight for some super fight, then go for it. Just leave the titles on the mantle at home so you can still rub one off after the fight. Dont be asking or demanding using cash or blowjobs that a champion drop his weight so you can challenge for his title that has a limit that you cant muster. Then don't challenge twerp. If you cant challenge a weight at that weight for a title that represent that weight then PISS OFF!
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Memphis
Catch weight fights are fine, if two naturally 150lb guys want to fight for the middleweight title go for it, but don't expect the next guy who is an actual middleweight to do the same. It's bordering on pathetic.
As far as I'm concerned intentionally tampering with someone's weight (bringing them down below the championship limit) is every bit as bad if not worse than tampering with gloves or using PEDS.
While someone fighting at waay below their normal fighting weight can be very detrimental to their health.... it still boils down to the fighter's choice, unlike being subjected to tampered gloves or PEDS from the other guy.
-
To me hey if both fighters don't care then why should I care.
A fighter that demands another fighter move up or down is being a wimp if you are the welterweight champion and you demand that the junior middleweight comes down to you or the other way around if you are the middleweight champion and you demand the Superwelterweight champion to come up to you then that is wimpy
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
To me hey if both fighters don't care then why should I care.
A fighter that demands another fighter move up or down is being a wimp if you are the welterweight champion and you demand that the junior middleweight comes down to you or the other way around if you are the middleweight champion and you demand the Superwelterweight champion to come up to you then that is wimpy
Then scrap the belts. What do you need them for? They are nothing but an artificial construct? Why do you need 17 divisions? Greb never asked Tunney to drop to 170. Langford never asked for a pound. Just drop the belts and let it go. You know REAL pound for pound stuff. If a welter thinks he can beat a middle then just both men show up at their best fight night weight. I mean both are fighting south of where they should be right?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
To me hey if both fighters don't care then why should I care.
A fighter that demands another fighter move up or down is being a wimp if you are the welterweight champion and you demand that the junior middleweight comes down to you or the other way around if you are the middleweight champion and you demand the Superwelterweight champion to come up to you then that is wimpy
Then scrap the belts. What do you need them for? They are nothing but an artificial construct? Why do you need 17 divisions? Greb never asked Tunney to drop to 170. Langford never asked for a pound. Just drop the belts and let it go. You know REAL pound for pound stuff. If a welter thinks he can beat a middle then just both men show up at their best fight night weight. I mean both are fighting south of where they should be right?
Yeah that's exactly what I'm saying. Nobody should ask somebody else to meet them at their weight that is wimpy. Fight the person at whatever weight what's wrong with that. I feel you are agreeing with what I said. Now in terms of scrapping the belts completely we could not do that because for example just say that Floyd Mayweather challenges golovkin and there is no catch weight just come in at the wait they choose to come in at. Well if Mayweather beats golovkin and we have scrapped all the belts are you implying that may weather is not now the new 160 pound champion then?. The winnner would have to be rewarded for having won a title at the weight of their opponent right?
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
They are an excellent tool in the sport. They have led to many a decent fight, and sometimes a bumper pay day too.
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
You want to have a childish silly catchweight for some super fight, then go for it. Just leave the titles on the mantle at home so you can still rub one off after the fight. Dont be asking or demanding using cash or blowjobs that a champion drop his weight so you can challenge for his title that has a limit that you cant muster. Then don't challenge twerp. If you cant challenge a weight at that weight for a title that represent that weight then PISS OFF!
Since when can anyone be forced to fight at a catchweight? If you do not like the terms then do not sign!
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
To me hey if both fighters don't care then why should I care.
A fighter that demands another fighter move up or down is being a wimp if you are the welterweight champion and you demand that the junior middleweight comes down to you or the other way around if you are the middleweight champion and you demand the Superwelterweight champion to come up to you then that is wimpy
Then scrap the belts. What do you need them for? They are nothing but an artificial construct? Why do you need 17 divisions? Greb never asked Tunney to drop to 170. Langford never asked for a pound. Just drop the belts and let it go. You know REAL pound for pound stuff. If a welter thinks he can beat a middle then just both men show up at their best fight night weight. I mean both are fighting south of where they should be right?
Yeah that's exactly what I'm saying. Nobody should ask somebody else to meet them at their weight that is wimpy. Fight the person at whatever weight what's wrong with that. I feel you are agreeing with what I said. Now in terms of scrapping the belts completely we could not do that because for example just say that Floyd Mayweather challenges golovkin and there is no catch weight just come in at the wait they choose to come in at. Well if Mayweather beats golovkin and we have scrapped all the belts are you implying that may weather is not now the new 160 pound champion then?. The winnner would have to be rewarded for having won a title at the weight of their opponent right?
Sooo, Brock and IamInuit are walking hand in hand now? :lickish: Fact, as Fenster says? ;D Hmmm.....interesting. As Dark Lord Al asys. ;D
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Catchweights are ok for making some decent match ups, but let's not kid ourselves, it is impossible to make a good argument for any title fight having a catchweight. There are weight divisions for a reason, fucking 17 of them!!!
The worst thing is that the governing bodies actually allow it.
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Catchweights are ok for making some decent match ups, but let's not kid ourselves, it is impossible to make a good argument for any title fight having a catchweight. There are weight divisions for a reason, fucking 17 of them!!!
The worst thing is that the governing bodies actually allow it.
If the fight is for a title, by definition it is not a catchweight fight!
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
There's been more of them historically than I'd first realised.
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Catchweights are ok for making some decent match ups, but let's not kid ourselves, it is impossible to make a good argument for any title fight having a catchweight. There are weight divisions for a reason, fucking 17 of them!!!
The worst thing is that the governing bodies actually allow it.
If the fight is for a title, by definition it is not a catchweight fight!
Well you would think so wouldn't you? So how do you define the Cotto v Geale fight? It was for a title, and there was a 157lb weight limit.
My point is that the WBC shouldn't have sanctioned it as a title fight.
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Catchweights are ok for making some decent match ups, but let's not kid ourselves, it is impossible to make a good argument for any title fight having a catchweight. There are weight divisions for a reason, fucking 17 of them!!!
The worst thing is that the governing bodies actually allow it.
If the fight is for a title, by definition it is not a catchweight fight!
Well you would think so wouldn't you? So how do you define the Cotto v Geale fight? It was for a title, and there was a 157lb weight limit.
My point is that the WBC shouldn't have sanctioned it as a title fight.
Both fighters weighed 160 or under, thus it was a Middleweight title fight...
Nearly thirty years ago the WBC were sanctioning a title fight for two different weights; if the money is right there is no issue.
A catchweight fight is when for example a 199lbs fighter fights in a non title fight against a 165lbs boxer. If it were for a title; if sanction it would be a 'Cruiserweight' fight.
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Catchweights are ok for making some decent match ups, but let's not kid ourselves, it is impossible to make a good argument for any title fight having a catchweight. There are weight divisions for a reason, fucking 17 of them!!!
The worst thing is that the governing bodies actually allow it.
If the fight is for a title, by definition it is not a catchweight fight!
Well you would think so wouldn't you? So how do you define the Cotto v Geale fight? It was for a title, and there was a 157lb weight limit.
My point is that the WBC shouldn't have sanctioned it as a title fight.
Both fighters weighed 160 or under, thus it was a Middleweight title fight...
but Geale was told if he weighed in over 157, the fight was off. Dress it up how you like , but who actually runs the show here, the WBC or the promoters?
Nearly thirty years ago the WBC were sanctioning a title fight for two different weights;
if the money is right there is no issue.
Actually there is an issue. Are we here to see who the best fighters are in each division, or just let people do what they want because "the money's right?
A catchweight fight is when for example a 199lbs fighter fights in a non title fight against a 165lbs boxer. If it were for a title; if sanction it would be a 'Cruiserweight' fight.
like I said, dress it up and make it sound how you like, but if a Fight is for the MW World title, then either boxer is entitled to come in up to the 160 limit. Therefore, for example, Geale should've been allowed to come in at 160 and Cotto can come in at whatever fucking weight he wants to , up to 160.
Because that was not the case, this means there was an agreed weight limit , i.e. A catchweight. Or is it ok because "the money was right."
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
like I said, dress it up and make it sound how you like, but if a Fight is for the MW World title, then either boxer is entitled to come in up to the 160 limit. Therefore, for example, Geale should've been allowed to come in at 160 and Cotto can come in at whatever fucking weight he wants to , up to 160.
Because that was not the case, this means there was an agreed weight limit , i.e. A catchweight. Or is it ok because "the money was right."
Boxing is with the possible exception of Formula One, the most capitalist driven sport in the world, it is ultimately about money, because if you are stepping into the ring to fight and money is not your main motive for doing so, you should for your own health, not be allowed to fight.
Geale got a pay day against a top name fighter; a pay day he may not of got against any other fighter in his division; same went for Lalonde against Leonard. So there really is no issue, and there is no catchweight title fights, that truly is a contradiction in terms...
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
like I said, dress it up and make it sound how you like, but if a Fight is for the MW World title, then either boxer is entitled to come in up to the 160 limit. Therefore, for example, Geale should've been allowed to come in at 160 and Cotto can come in at whatever fucking weight he wants to , up to 160.
Because that was not the case, this means there was an agreed weight limit , i.e. A catchweight. Or is it ok because "the money was right."
Boxing is with the possible exception of Formula One, the most capitalist driven sport in the world, it is ultimately about money, because
if you are stepping into the ring to fight and money is not your main motive for doing so, you should for your own health, not be allowed to fight.
Geale got a pay day against a top name fighter; a pay day he may not of got against any other fighter in his division; same went for Lalonde against Leonard. So there really is no issue, and there is no catchweight title fights, that truly is a contradiction in terms...
I would venture to say that less than 1% make big money! and for the vast majority that according to you shouldn't be allowed to box, money is not their main motive. Also , money has never been the amateur boxers' main motive now or in the past.
I would also say money wasn't the main motive for many,many boxers in the 30's , 40's, 50's and 60's .
Without these people, the sport you like to watch would not even exist.
This is a whole sport, don't get carried away with the top 1%.
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Apologies for butting in but actually, I think it is you who is getting carried away with the 1%.
Sorry. I just have a very strong sense of irony.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beenKOed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
You want to have a childish silly catchweight for some super fight, then go for it. Just leave the titles on the mantle at home so you can still rub one off after the fight. Dont be asking or demanding using cash or blowjobs that a champion drop his weight so you can challenge for his title that has a limit that you cant muster. Then don't challenge twerp. If you cant challenge a weight at that weight for a title that represent that weight then PISS OFF!
Since when can anyone be forced to fight at a catchweight? If you do not like the terms then do not sign!
Perhaps you don't recall Pacquiao/Cotto negotiations? Cotto said no to the catchweight so the sanctioning body said make the fight or be stripped of your title. TR was not offering a fight at 147 though so he could not agree to fair terms. His options were agree to be weakened or lose his belt. It was not as simple as just "do not sign".
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jimanuel Boogustus
Apologies for butting in but actually, I think it is you who is getting carried away with the 1%.
Sorry. I just have a very strong sense of irony.
Not sure exactly what you mean, but if you mean it is way less than 1%, I agree.
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
like I said, dress it up and make it sound how you like, but if a Fight is for the MW World title, then either boxer is entitled to come in up to the 160 limit. Therefore, for example, Geale should've been allowed to come in at 160 and Cotto can come in at whatever fucking weight he wants to , up to 160.
Because that was not the case, this means there was an agreed weight limit , i.e. A catchweight. Or is it ok because "the money was right."
Boxing is with the possible exception of Formula One, the most capitalist driven sport in the world, it is ultimately about money, because
if you are stepping into the ring to fight and money is not your main motive for doing so, you should for your own health, not be allowed to fight.
Geale got a pay day against a top name fighter; a pay day he may not of got against any other fighter in his division; same went for Lalonde against Leonard. So there really is no issue, and there is no catchweight title fights, that truly is a contradiction in terms...
I would venture to say that less than 1% make big money! and for the vast majority that according to you shouldn't be allowed to box, money is not their main motive. Also , money has never been the amateur boxers' main motive now or in the past.
I would also say money wasn't the main motive for many,many boxers in the 30's , 40's, 50's and 60's .
Without these people, the sport you like to watch would not even exist.
This is a whole sport, don't get carried away with the top 1%.
First, define big money. PPV big money? Canelo big money? Manny big money? Flyweight big money? Heavyweight big money?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beenKOed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
like I said, dress it up and make it sound how you like, but if a Fight is for the MW World title, then either boxer is entitled to come in up to the 160 limit. Therefore, for example, Geale should've been allowed to come in at 160 and Cotto can come in at whatever fucking weight he wants to , up to 160.
Because that was not the case, this means there was an agreed weight limit , i.e. A catchweight. Or is it ok because "the money was right."
Boxing is with the possible exception of Formula One, the most capitalist driven sport in the world, it is ultimately about money, because
if you are stepping into the ring to fight and money is not your main motive for doing so, you should for your own health, not be allowed to fight.
Geale got a pay day against a top name fighter; a pay day he may not of got against any other fighter in his division; same went for Lalonde against Leonard. So there really is no issue, and there is no catchweight title fights, that truly is a contradiction in terms...
I would venture to say that less than 1% make big money! and for the vast majority that according to you shouldn't be allowed to box, money is not their main motive. Also , money has never been the amateur boxers' main motive now or in the past.
I would also say money wasn't the main motive for many,many boxers in the 30's , 40's, 50's and 60's .
Without these people, the sport you like to watch would not even exist.
This is a whole sport, don't get carried away with the top 1%.
First, define big money. PPV big money? Canelo big money? Manny big money? Flyweight big money? Heavyweight big money?
Anyone that can reward themselves sufficiently to set them up in a good lifestyle for the rest of their lives, not necessarily Helicopters and stuff.
If you want a price put on it, I would say anyone who earns over half a million a fight.
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Memphis
Catch weight fights are fine, if two naturally 150lb guys want to fight for the middleweight title go for it, but don't expect the next guy who is an actual middleweight to do the same. It's bordering on pathetic.
As far as I'm concerned intentionally tampering with someone's weight (bringing them down below the championship limit) is every bit as bad if not worse than tampering with gloves or using PEDS.
While someone fighting at waay below their normal fighting weight can be very detrimental to their health.... it still boils down to the fighter's choice, unlike being subjected to tampered gloves or PEDS from the other guy.
I don't disagree with you so let me rephrase. Miguel Cotto (for his part in the Daniel Geale fight) is not as bad an individual as say Luis Resto, they don't compare.
But, he and anyone else (including Geale) who sanctioned, promoted or participated in that fight in any way should have a good look at themselves.
What they did is disregard good sense and ignore precedent in allowing a healthy man to enter the ring against a man who was clearly crippled by weight. They collectively took all the hard lessons we have learned about fighter safety and dehydration and threw them in the bin, all in the name of paper titles and making a buck.
Geale may have been well compensated for his efforts (or lack thereof) but had things gone tits up in there, his medical bills would have carried on growing long after his pay day was gone. We would then as a boxing community be looking at the governing body, the promoter and the athletic commission to be providing support to him and his family.
It is a fighters choice, but how many fighters have the luxury of turning down career high paydays? The sanctioning bodies in certain circumstances should remove the opportunity to say yes in my opinion.
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Memphis
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TitoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Memphis
Catch weight fights are fine, if two naturally 150lb guys want to fight for the middleweight title go for it, but don't expect the next guy who is an actual middleweight to do the same. It's bordering on pathetic.
As far as I'm concerned intentionally tampering with someone's weight (bringing them down below the championship limit) is every bit as bad if not worse than tampering with gloves or using PEDS.
While someone fighting at waay below their normal fighting weight can be very detrimental to their health.... it still boils down to the fighter's choice, unlike being subjected to tampered gloves or PEDS from the other guy.
I don't disagree with you so let me rephrase. Miguel Cotto (for his part in the Daniel Geale fight) is not as bad an individual as say Luis Resto, they don't compare.
But, he and anyone else (including Geale) who sanctioned, promoted or participated in that fight in any way should have a good look at themselves.
What they did is disregard good sense and ignore precedent in allowing a healthy man to enter the ring against a man who was clearly crippled by weight. They collectively took all the hard lessons we have learned about fighter safety and dehydration and threw them in the bin, all in the name of paper titles and making a buck.
Geale may have been well compensated for his efforts (or lack thereof) but had things gone tits up in there, his medical bills would have carried on growing long after his pay day was gone. We would then as a boxing community be looking at the governing body, the promoter and the athletic commission to be providing support to him and his family.
It is a fighters choice, but how many fighters have the luxury of turning down career high paydays? The sanctioning bodies in certain circumstances should remove the opportunity to say yes in my opinion.
I'm sure it'll come across as an inevitable defense of Cotto, but while I agree that a fighter's wellbeing and safety come before all else, it's hardly the opponent's responsibility to gauge whether "X" amount of weight loss is going to physically hurt the other fighter. As with all other fighters who have established catchweights, Cotto set the weight and Geale's camp accepted. Maybe Geale was willing to make the sacrifice in order to secure the payday. But his people are the ones who should've known better. Sadly, this is neither the first nor the last time this type of thing has happened, and it may take a near-tragedy in the ring to set people's minds straight.
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
like I said, dress it up and make it sound how you like, but if a Fight is for the MW World title, then either boxer is entitled to come in up to the 160 limit. Therefore, for example, Geale should've been allowed to come in at 160 and Cotto can come in at whatever fucking weight he wants to , up to 160.
Because that was not the case, this means there was an agreed weight limit , i.e. A catchweight. Or is it ok because "the money was right."
Boxing is with the possible exception of Formula One, the most capitalist driven sport in the world, it is ultimately about money, because
if you are stepping into the ring to fight and money is not your main motive for doing so, you should for your own health, not be allowed to fight.
Geale got a pay day against a top name fighter; a pay day he may not of got against any other fighter in his division; same went for Lalonde against Leonard. So there really is no issue, and there is no catchweight title fights, that truly is a contradiction in terms...
I would venture to say that less than 1% make big money! and for the vast majority that according to you shouldn't be allowed to box, money is not their main motive. Also , money has never been the amateur boxers' main motive now or in the past.
I would also say money wasn't the main motive for many,many boxers in the 30's , 40's, 50's and 60's .
Without these people, the sport you like to watch would not even exist.
This is a whole sport, don't get carried away with the top 1%.
I stand by what I wrote. If you are fighting for a £Million or for £50; if that money is not your primary motivation, you should not be in the ring.
In this instance Geale I suspect got good to great money because he agreed to fight at 157lbs. What you are suggesting is that, that is wrong. I am not, I want to see fighters make as much money as possible and in some circumstances contract clauses on weight, or indeed catchweight matchmaking can help this.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
like I said, dress it up and make it sound how you like, but if a Fight is for the MW World title, then either boxer is entitled to come in up to the 160 limit. Therefore, for example, Geale should've been allowed to come in at 160 and Cotto can come in at whatever fucking weight he wants to , up to 160.
Because that was not the case, this means there was an agreed weight limit , i.e. A catchweight. Or is it ok because "the money was right."
Boxing is with the possible exception of Formula One, the most capitalist driven sport in the world, it is ultimately about money, because
if you are stepping into the ring to fight and money is not your main motive for doing so, you should for your own health, not be allowed to fight.
Geale got a pay day against a top name fighter; a pay day he may not of got against any other fighter in his division; same went for Lalonde against Leonard. So there really is no issue, and there is no catchweight title fights, that truly is a contradiction in terms...
I would venture to say that less than 1% make big money! and for the vast majority that according to you shouldn't be allowed to box, money is not their main motive. Also , money has never been the amateur boxers' main motive now or in the past.
I would also say money wasn't the main motive for many,many boxers in the 30's , 40's, 50's and 60's .
Without these people, the sport you like to watch would not even exist.
This is a whole sport, don't get carried away with the top 1%.
I stand by what I wrote. If you are fighting for a £Million or for £50; if that money is not your primary motivation, you should not be in the ring.
In this instance Geale I suspect got good to great money because he agreed to fight at 157lbs. What you are suggesting is that, that is wrong. I am not, I want to see fighters make as much money as possible and in some circumstances contract clauses on weight, or indeed catchweight matchmaking can help this.
I don't want to harp on about this, it could go on forever, but I would be more worried about allowing a Boxer to fight if he was fighting for £50 or £500 so as not to be flippant, and Money was his main motive. If he was that desperate that would be a worry.
Whereas if somebody was boxing for that money or indeed nothing as a lot of amateurs do , but their main motive was the sport and their own self pride and determination , I don't think it's so bad.
My point about the Geale fight is that if its for a title, Geale should be allowed to come in at 160, and it is the WBC that decides that, not COTTO!
I'm all for boxers earning as much as they can, and good luck to them. But when they start to dictate what weight their opponent comes in at, then the tail starts to wag the Dog!
You will say "Geale could've turned it down," but what should happen is that the WBC should've decided who fights and at what weight.
Infact, we can agree that Money was the main motive for Geale to drop to 157 and box at the lightest he has for many years. Yet if you remember seeing him on the Scales, or in the fight, where he was clearly drained and had No punch absorbency, then surely it is he who shouldn't have been allowed to fight from a safety perspective, and that has to be the No. 1 factor, above all including Money.
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
like I said, dress it up and make it sound how you like, but if a Fight is for the MW World title, then either boxer is entitled to come in up to the 160 limit. Therefore, for example, Geale should've been allowed to come in at 160 and Cotto can come in at whatever fucking weight he wants to , up to 160.
Because that was not the case, this means there was an agreed weight limit , i.e. A catchweight. Or is it ok because "the money was right."
Boxing is with the possible exception of Formula One, the most capitalist driven sport in the world, it is ultimately about money, because
if you are stepping into the ring to fight and money is not your main motive for doing so, you should for your own health, not be allowed to fight.
Geale got a pay day against a top name fighter; a pay day he may not of got against any other fighter in his division; same went for Lalonde against Leonard. So there really is no issue, and there is no catchweight title fights, that truly is a contradiction in terms...
I would venture to say that less than 1% make big money! and for the vast majority that according to you shouldn't be allowed to box, money is not their main motive. Also , money has never been the amateur boxers' main motive now or in the past.
I would also say money wasn't the main motive for many,many boxers in the 30's , 40's, 50's and 60's .
Without these people, the sport you like to watch would not even exist.
This is a whole sport, don't get carried away with the top 1%.
I stand by what I wrote. If you are fighting for a £Million or for £50; if that money is not your primary motivation, you should not be in the ring.
In this instance Geale I suspect got good to great money because he agreed to fight at 157lbs. What you are suggesting is that, that is wrong. I am not, I want to see fighters make as much money as possible and in some circumstances contract clauses on weight, or indeed catchweight matchmaking can help this.
I don't want to harp on about this, it could go on forever, but I would be more worried about allowing a Boxer to fight if he was fighting for £50 or £500 so as not to be flippant, and Money was his main motive. If he was that desperate that would be a worry.
Whereas if somebody was boxing for that money or indeed nothing as a lot of amateurs do , but their main motive was the sport and their own self pride and determination , I don't think it's so bad.
My point about the Geale fight is that if its for a title, Geale should be allowed to come in at 160, and it is the WBC that decides that, not COTTO!
I'm all for boxers earning as much as they can, and good luck to them. But when they start to dictate what weight their opponent comes in at, then the tail starts to wag the Dog!
You will say "Geale could've turned it down," but what should happen is that the WBC should've decided who fights and at what weight.
Infact, we can agree that Money was the main motive for Geale to drop to 157 and box at the lightest he has for many years. Yet if you remember seeing him on the Scales, or in the fight, where he was clearly drained and had No punch absorbency, then surely it is he who shouldn't have been allowed to fight from a safety perspective, and that has to be the No. 1 factor, above all including Money.
If you think safety comes above money, then you will be struggling to justify the existence of the sport! Money has to be the main object of 'professional' boxing, and thus catchweight fights or contracted weights need to be tools in the sport.
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Catch weight fights have happened throughout history Chavez v Whitaker and Oscar v B Hop but that does not mean they are right. They should be banned and outlawed - simple.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Catch weight fights have happened throughout history Chavez v Whitaker and Oscar v B Hop but that does not mean they are right. They should be banned and outlawed - simple.
Look how quick he uses the word ban.
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
The majority, a huge majority, of fights are fought at a contractually agreed upon weight that has zero to do with the established weight classes. I know a junior welter that always fights at 145, 146. Though he can go lower, his opponents are often coming in on 2 weeks notice, for example, and they fight at a contractually agreed upon weight.
It is curious to me how this works out...A guy has been cutting to weigh 147 (160, whatever) for as long as it takes him to get on and off the scale. The he rehydrates to 165 and wins that is ok. But if somebody ropes him into having to weigh 145 (157, whatever) for that few minutes before he rehydrates to 165 and he loses...then the whole thing is horrible and unjust.
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Catch weight fights have happened throughout history Chavez v Whitaker and Oscar v B Hop but that does not mean they are right. They should be banned and outlawed - simple.
Look how quick he uses the word ban.
Nice one, I have to say.;D
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
like I said, dress it up and make it sound how you like, but if a Fight is for the MW World title, then either boxer is entitled to come in up to the 160 limit. Therefore, for example, Geale should've been allowed to come in at 160 and Cotto can come in at whatever fucking weight he wants to , up to 160.
Because that was not the case, this means there was an agreed weight limit , i.e. A catchweight. Or is it ok because "the money was right."
Boxing is with the possible exception of Formula One, the most capitalist driven sport in the world, it is ultimately about money, because
if you are stepping into the ring to fight and money is not your main motive for doing so, you should for your own health, not be allowed to fight.
Geale got a pay day against a top name fighter; a pay day he may not of got against any other fighter in his division; same went for Lalonde against Leonard. So there really is no issue, and there is no catchweight title fights, that truly is a contradiction in terms...
I would venture to say that less than 1% make big money! and for the vast majority that according to you shouldn't be allowed to box, money is not their main motive. Also , money has never been the amateur boxers' main motive now or in the past.
I would also say money wasn't the main motive for many,many boxers in the 30's , 40's, 50's and 60's .
Without these people, the sport you like to watch would not even exist.
This is a whole sport, don't get carried away with the top 1%.
I stand by what I wrote. If you are fighting for a £Million or for £50; if that money is not your primary motivation, you should not be in the ring.
In this instance Geale I suspect got good to great money because he agreed to fight at 157lbs. What you are suggesting is that, that is wrong. I am not, I want to see fighters make as much money as possible and in some circumstances contract clauses on weight, or indeed catchweight matchmaking can help this.
I don't want to harp on about this, it could go on forever, but I would be more worried about allowing a Boxer to fight if he was fighting for £50 or £500 so as not to be flippant, and Money was his main motive. If he was that desperate that would be a worry.
Whereas if somebody was boxing for that money or indeed nothing as a lot of amateurs do , but their main motive was the sport and their own self pride and determination , I don't think it's so bad.
My point about the Geale fight is that if its for a title, Geale should be allowed to come in at 160, and it is the WBC that decides that, not COTTO!
I'm all for boxers earning as much as they can, and good luck to them. But when they start to dictate what weight their opponent comes in at, then the tail starts to wag the Dog!
You will say "Geale could've turned it down," but what should happen is that the WBC should've decided who fights and at what weight.
Infact, we can agree that Money was the main motive for Geale to drop to 157 and box at the lightest he has for many years. Yet if you remember seeing him on the Scales, or in the fight, where he was clearly drained and had No punch absorbency, then surely it is he who shouldn't have been allowed to fight from a safety perspective, and that has to be the No. 1 factor, above all including Money.
If you think safety comes above money, then you will be struggling to justify the existence of the sport! Money has to be the main object of 'professional' boxing, and thus catchweight fights or contracted weights need to be tools in the sport.
You are fucking kidding me , right? Seriously , you must be trolling. So it don't matter if a few blokes are Brain damaged as long as a few blokes at the top make serious money?
You talk about justifying the existence of the sport, well if it wasn't for the guys that earn little or no money , the sport would definitely not exist.
The welfare and safety of the boxers, and not just the superstars that you watch has to be the first and foremost priority.
And back to your "Money has to be the Prime motive" drivel, An example, and I don't want to embarrass anyone, is a guy on this forum that you are probably aware of called Tam Seddon. He regularly posts about his fights, and I may be wrong, and if I am , I hope he corrects me, but I would bet my house that his prime motive is not Money. Are you saying he shouldn't be allowed to box?
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
You are fucking kidding me , right? Seriously , you must be trolling. So it don't matter if a few blokes are Brain damaged as long as a few blokes at the top make serious money?
You talk about justifying the existence of the sport, well if it wasn't for the guys that earn little or no money , the sport would definitely not exist.
The welfare and safety of the boxers, and not just the superstars that you watch has to be the first and foremost priority.
And back to your "Money has to be the Prime motive" drivel, An example, and I don't want to embarrass anyone, is a guy on this forum that you are probably aware of called Tam Seddon. He regularly posts about his fights, and I may be wrong, and if I am , I hope he corrects me, but I would bet my house that his prime motive is not Money. Are you saying he shouldn't be allowed to box?
Is not what you talk about initially, boxing? We enjoy a sport where the ultimate idea is to punch your opponent to the point they are floored and are unable to rise for a ten count.
If you think that is safe in anyway, you are deluded.
Because of this risk, this sport is rightly mainly about money. There is no moral high ground if we want to continue to watch this sport. There is a need to minimize risks, but they are of at most a secondary concern and indeed a by product of the need to make money. That is the blunt truth, which shows you how good this sport is, because I still watch it!
As for Tam Seddon, if he is a pro boxer and his main motive is not money, yes he should be banned.
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
When I think catchweight I think two top dogs in different divisions or on the high and low side of one finding middle ground to make a mega fight that appeals to fans and will make bank for all involved. Chavez v Whitaker, Norris v Taylor though Taylor took a beating from Gleenwood Brown. Unfortunately what we see more and more of is CW being used as a tool to manipulate-protect or insure trinkets..Peterson v Matthysse..and in worse case they are used to make showcase fights for a heavy favorite against guys who were already in very deep. The proverbial stacked deck on opponents who are just glad to be in the conversation and make a decent payday. Its empty. Danny Garcia v Rob Salka FFS. Ward v Smith ??? The list is becoming endless. We have 17 divisions and the backroom haggling and splitting hairs by guys who will not make the full step on is sad. As far as titles the limits should be there and not chopped down or diluted with asterisks. Its as simple as meeting or making available the division requirements.
-
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Britkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera
You are fucking kidding me , right? Seriously , you must be trolling. So it don't matter if a few blokes are Brain damaged as long as a few blokes at the top make serious money?
You talk about justifying the existence of the sport, well if it wasn't for the guys that earn little or no money , the sport would definitely not exist.
The welfare and safety of the boxers, and not just the superstars that you watch has to be the first and foremost priority.
And back to your "Money has to be the Prime motive" drivel, An example, and I don't want to embarrass anyone, is a guy on this forum that you are probably aware of called Tam Seddon. He regularly posts about his fights, and I may be wrong, and if I am , I hope he corrects me, but I would bet my house that his prime motive is not Money. Are you saying he shouldn't be allowed to box?
Is not what you talk about initially, boxing? We enjoy a sport where the ultimate idea is to punch your opponent to the point they are floored and are unable to rise for a ten count.
If you think that is safe in anyway, you are deluded.
Because of this risk, this sport is rightly mainly about money. There is no moral high ground if we want to continue to watch this sport. There is a need to minimize risks, but they are of at most a secondary concern and indeed a by product of the need to make money. That is the blunt truth, which shows you how good this sport is, because I still watch it!
As for Tam Seddon, if he is a pro boxer and his main motive is not money, yes he should be banned.
Pro boxer, semi-pro boxer, amateur boxer, what does it matter? People start in the sport for the competitive edge, desire, will to win, self pride, pure blood and guts. As they proceed, there may be some financial recompense, but unrealistic to make money the Primary motive. Then, if you are exceptionally talented, you might be able to make a humble living, but more likely to mix it in with a part time/ full time job.
And then , if you are lucky you move into title contention and can start making money and thinking about it more.
Finally, if you are really blessed, and everything falls into place, you can make it all about the money. But for every one big money earner, there are thousands , pro and amateur that realistically are there for the guts and glory.
