The world title situation

[blegit]

As if 17 weight classes are not enough..they are well on the way to unofficially adding a few more. Its all convoluted and watered down. We should call bullshit on catch weight as often as possible. Would be fans do not have the tolerance for the splitting of hairs.

You make the greatest point. 17 weight classes not enough? Kind of like the nearing 17 belts in each division not enough? Margarito/Pac and Abraham/Froch for a title? How? Boxing is digging its own grave.

[luvfightgame]

17 weight classes with at least 4 "world" titles per class.

68 "champions" without even getting into regionals.

Everytime I read about a fight with someone who I know as a fighter beating a no name they won some title. Minto won something this week. Toney is a belt holder. No wonder it's hard to find it on tv.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

An interesting character I once met on holiday told me that years ago, he'd considered the idea of buying a Lordship as he was tired of being shunned in various business ventures.
He figured people would take him more seriously if he was 'Lord Businessman' rather than 'Mr. Businessman'. Not a bad idea as a stand alone implementation but can you imagine if everybody started doing it?

Exactly!

[Fenster]

I don't see the big problem with catchweights. The most important thing is the fighters agree to fight not the title or weightclass. The agreed upon weight is meant to make the contest more of an even playing field. So if both fighters can comfortably meet the requirements what's the problem?

Catchweights have been around forever. It's not a modern phenomenon (Both fighters take risks in catchweight bouts - Boxing - ESPN)

Pacquiao seems to be unfairly targeted as the catchweight bully yet just in recent times we've had another "great" fighter - Bernard Hopkins - recording some of his best wins at a catchweight - Winky and Pavlik 170. I don't think history will focus on Hopkins dragging naturally smaller men way above their optimum fighting weight just that he scored a great win.

[erics44]

I don't see the big problem with catchweights. The most important thing is the fighters agree to fight not the title or weightclass. The agreed upon weight is meant to make the contest more of an even playing field. So if both fighters can comfortably meet the requirements what's the problem?

Catchweights have been around forever. It's not a modern phenomenon (Both fighters take risks in catchweight bouts - Boxing - ESPN)

Pacquiao seems to be unfairly targeted as the catchweight bully yet just in recent times we've had another "great" fighter - Bernard Hopkins - recording some of his best wins at a catchweight - Winky and Pavlik 170. I don't think history will focus on Hopkins dragging naturally smaller men way above their optimum fighting weight just that he scored a great win.

all that is true dude and a good point with hopkins

was the pac cotto fight for the wbo welterweight champ?

if so has pac really been welterweight world champion when the fight wasnt really at welterweight?

i personally think the answer is no

if they asked wlad to fight pac at 12 stone and if pac won would he be heavyweight world champ?

[:::PSL:::]

I don't see the big problem with catchweights. The most important thing is the fighters agree to fight not the title or weightclass. The agreed upon weight is meant to make the contest more of an even playing field. So if both fighters can comfortably meet the requirements what's the problem?

Catchweights have been around forever. It's not a modern phenomenon (Both fighters take risks in catchweight bouts - Boxing - ESPN)

Pacquiao seems to be unfairly targeted as the catchweight bully yet just in recent times we've had another "great" fighter - Bernard Hopkins - recording some of his best wins at a catchweight - Winky and Pavlik 170. I don't think history will focus on Hopkins dragging naturally smaller men way above their optimum fighting weight just that he scored a great win.

all that is true dude and a good point with hopkins

was the pac cotto fight for the wbo welterweight champ?

if so has pac really been welterweight world champion when the fight wasnt really at welterweight?

i personally think the answer is no

if they asked wlad to fight pac at 12 stone and if pac won would he be heavyweight world champ?

You do understand that 147 lbs is the welterweight limit right? Which means anyone can still be fighting as ww even if they are at 141.

[erics44]

I don't see the big problem with catchweights. The most important thing is the fighters agree to fight not the title or weightclass. The agreed upon weight is meant to make the contest more of an even playing field. So if both fighters can comfortably meet the requirements what's the problem?

Catchweights have been around forever. It's not a modern phenomenon (Both fighters take risks in catchweight bouts - Boxing - ESPN)

Pacquiao seems to be unfairly targeted as the catchweight bully yet just in recent times we've had another "great" fighter - Bernard Hopkins - recording some of his best wins at a catchweight - Winky and Pavlik 170. I don't think history will focus on Hopkins dragging naturally smaller men way above their optimum fighting weight just that he scored a great win.

all that is true dude and a good point with hopkins

was the pac cotto fight for the wbo welterweight champ?

if so has pac really been welterweight world champion when the fight wasnt really at welterweight?

i personally think the answer is no

if they asked wlad to fight pac at 12 stone and if pac won would he be heavyweight world champ?

You do understand that 147 lbs is the welterweight limit right? Which means anyone can still be fighting as ww even if they are at 141.

yep i understand your dudeness

and if cotto and the wbo agreed then who am i to argue

i suppose it wasnt a massive difference to make the fight a farce

[Fenster]

I don't see the big problem with catchweights. The most important thing is the fighters agree to fight not the title or weightclass. The agreed upon weight is meant to make the contest more of an even playing field. So if both fighters can comfortably meet the requirements what's the problem?

Catchweights have been around forever. It's not a modern phenomenon (Both fighters take risks in catchweight bouts - Boxing - ESPN)

Pacquiao seems to be unfairly targeted as the catchweight bully yet just in recent times we've had another "great" fighter - Bernard Hopkins - recording some of his best wins at a catchweight - Winky and Pavlik 170. I don't think history will focus on Hopkins dragging naturally smaller men way above their optimum fighting weight just that he scored a great win.

all that is true dude and a good point with hopkins

was the pac cotto fight for the wbo welterweight champ?

if so has pac really been welterweight world champion when the fight wasnt really at welterweight?

i personally think the answer is no

if they asked wlad to fight pac at 12 stone and if pac won would he be heavyweight world champ?

That's a poor example dude. Has Wlad ever seen 12 stone? Probably popped out his mummy around that weight. If Pac did fight Wlad though I think it's highly doubtful Wlad's china-chin would stay solid through a Pac attack.

AS for Cotto-Pac. The silly WBO said it was for the welterweight title. Cotto, the WBO champion, agreed to the fight, so Pacster became the WBO "world" champion. It's pretty simple.

[Tysonbruno]

I understand Pavlik and Winky coming to 170lbs but i think it makes a difference when a fighter is having to work even harder to come down in weight it weakens fighters. It is Cottos and Margarito's fault i suppose for agreeing to this but at same time if Pacquiao wants to fight for Welterweight and Light Middleweight titles then let your opponent weigh what he wants as long as he weighs no more than 147lbs or 154lbs. I think even though there fighting inside the weight limit if there not using the governing bodies 147lbs or 154lbs limit then shouldn't be for a world title.