Catch weight fights. Like them, hate them, don't care, or undecided?

[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.

[Britkid]

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.

[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.

[brocktonblockbust]

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.

[greynotsoold]

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.

[Primo Carnera]

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.

[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?

[Britkid]

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.

[Spicoli]

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.

[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.

[Britkid]

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.

The amateur sport is clearly related to us, but is not pro boxing, at least until the fighters get to the top of the sport and then now directly get paid. Once at that level there clearly is a money motivation.

[Ron Swanson]

Some stuff being said in this thread that is mindnumbing. Fighters who aren't in it for the money should be banned? Then there is no sport. 99.99% of boxers won't recoup what they put into the sport. I know boxing fans like to be contrarian but come the F on. That's some of the most outlandish shit I have read anywhere, of any kind.

[greynotsoold]

Some stuff being said in this thread that is mindnumbing. Fighters who aren't in it for the money should be banned? Then there is no sport. 99.99% of boxers won't recoup what they put into the sport. I know boxing fans like to be contrarian but come the F on. That's some of the most outlandish shit I have read anywhere, of any kind.

For a long long time every boxer works for free. A lot of hours with no guarantee of any return.

[Britkid]

Some stuff being said in this thread that is mindnumbing. Fighters who aren't in it for the money should be banned? Then there is no sport. 99.99% of boxers won't recoup what they put into the sport. I know boxing fans like to be contrarian but come the F on. That's some of the most outlandish shit I have read anywhere, of any kind.

For a long long time every boxer works for free. A lot of hours with no guarantee of any return.

Absolutely true, but the main motivation has to be the money commodity, or else there has to be questions asked as to weather the fighter is suitable to participate in such a ruthless capitalist environment.

[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.

The amateur sport is clearly related to us, but is not pro boxing, at least until the fighters get to the top of the sport and then now directly get paid. Once at that level there clearly is a money motivation.

Us?