
Originally Posted by
Primo Carnera

Originally Posted by
Britkid

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.
Bookmarks