Don't mind them but I don't think that there should ever be a catch weight for a title fight.
 |
|
|
|
Thanks: 0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Forum Greatest Of All Time
Array
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.
change me
Array
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!
Forum Greatest Of All Time
Array
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Since when can anyone be forced to fight at a catchweight? If you do not like the terms then do not sign!Originally Posted by IamInuit
Forum Greatest Of All Time
Array
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.
Forum Greatest Of All Time
Array
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
If the fight is for a title, by definition it is not a catchweight fight!
"Boxing is like jazz. The better it is, the less people appreciate it."
George Foreman
Forum Greatest Of All Time
Array
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
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.
If the fight is for a title, by definition it is not a catchweight fight!
My point is that the WBC shouldn't have sanctioned it as a title fight.
Forum Greatest Of All Time
Array
Re: Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?
Both fighters weighed 160 or under, thus it was a Middleweight title 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.
If the fight is for a title, by definition it is not a catchweight fight!
My point is that the WBC shouldn't have sanctioned it as a 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.
Last edited by Britkid; 10-21-2015 at 03:47 AM.
"Boxing is like jazz. The better it is, the less people appreciate it."
George Foreman
Original & Best
Array
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.
Hidden Content
Original & Best: The Sugar Man
Forum Greatest Of All Time
Array
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".Since when can anyone be forced to fight at a catchweight? If you do not like the terms then do not sign!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks