boxing
Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-15-2013, 01:01 PM   #16
Unforgiven
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,267
vCash: 1000
Default Re: The Founder Of Catchweights

I don't particularly believe in catchweights for world title fights.
It seems to be a regression. I think boxing was at it's best when the divisions became standardized, and the title meant more than the fighter.

If you the king of the middleweights, and we all agree that middleweight is 160 now, then the fight ought to be made at 160.
If you wanna beat the king of the middleweights, and take that title, fight him at 160.

All this extra handicapping is silly.
I mean, there's a new division every 3 - 8 pounds all the way up to 175 pounds anyway ...
Unforgiven is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 01-15-2013, 01:11 PM   #17
Unforgiven
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,267
vCash: 1000
Default Re: The Founder Of Catchweights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dinamita85 View Post
Thanks for that unforgiven , it was an informative read.

btw i completely agree with your opinion on ward v dawson and the pacman light middleweight fiasco.

Ward shoulda stepped up, suppose its also dawsons fault for agreeing to it, in regards to pacquiao he was gift wrapped that title , margs had done nothing to deserve being in another title fight, respect manny for all the challenges hes taken on but the margarito fight being for a title and cotto havings to make 144 145 whatever it was really dont sit well with me.
Exactly.

Yeah, i don't blame Ward for doing what he did, but the promoters and Dawson should have made demands.
It adds nothing to the world of boxing, having a light-heavy champion who lost to the super-middle champ, and no titles changed hands.
And if Dawson had won, it wouldn't have meant an awful lot either. Where's the prestige in saying you can beat the guys in smaller divisions ?
Unless of course it's a dieting/draining contest.

maybe I'm a traditionalist, but climbing the divisions makes more sense that descending them.
Unforgiven is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2013, 03:41 PM   #18
Flea Man
มวยสากล
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: @ferociousflea
Posts: 40,451
vCash: 75
Default Re: The Founder Of Catchweights

Catchweights have ALWAYS happened.

Catchweights for titles? Ray brought that to the forefront for the modern generation no doubt, and wasn't Lea Vs Chavez at a 145lb catchweight for the welterweight title?
Flea Man is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2013, 03:42 PM   #19
OvidsExile
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,258
vCash: 500
Default Re: The Founder Of Catchweights

Honestly, the only time I've ever heard people whining about catch weights is *****s trying to hate on Pacquiao. I still find his victories over much larger opponents inspiring and don't feel they are tainted at all. The guy should be a natural featherweight after all and he's moving up 25 pounds to fight people. I'm sure there must have been people who hated on Duran too for whatever reason, but I confess that I just don't get it.
OvidsExile is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2013, 03:44 PM   #20
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 38,062
vCash: 1000
Default Re: The Founder Of Catchweights

McLarnin-Ross was catchweight.
McGrain is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2013, 05:15 PM   #21
Unforgiven
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,267
vCash: 1000
Default Re: The Founder Of Catchweights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ovid***ile View Post
Honestly, the only time I've ever heard people whining about catch weights is *****s trying to hate on Pacquiao. I still find his victories over much larger opponents inspiring and don't feel they are tainted at all. The guy should be a natural featherweight after all and he's moving up 25 pounds to fight people. I'm sure there must have been people who hated on Duran too for whatever reason, but I confess that I just don't get it.
Obviously, Pacquiao beating bigger men is impressive, and no one should whine about that.

I'd prefer title fights to be contested at the normal limit for the division. Personally, I feel that could give the titles back some prestige over the fighters.

It makes little sense to me to say a guy 'moved up to light-middle' because he made a fight at 150.
Nevermind calling it a world championship.

If that makes me a *****, oh well ..
Unforgiven is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2013, 05:53 PM   #22
Flea Man
มวยสากล
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: @ferociousflea
Posts: 40,451
vCash: 75
Default Re: The Founder Of Catchweights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ovid***ile View Post
Honestly, the only time I've ever heard people whining about catch weights is *****s trying to hate on Pacquiao. I still find his victories over much larger opponents inspiring and don't feel they are tainted at all. The guy should be a natural featherweight after all and he's moving up 25 pounds to fight people. I'm sure there must have been people who hated on Duran too for whatever reason, but I confess that I just don't get it.
He's not a 'natural featherweight' as henwas cutting a stone to make it back then.

That's like saying he's a 'natural flyweight' even though he made Sasakul look like a 7 year old getting laid out by a teenager...after getting the better of the older lad for much of the fight admittedly

If Pacquiao had to weigh in on the day, for much of his career he'd have died on his **** and got misty eyed by jabs as he was when trying to make sub-feather divisions earlier on his career.

If he tried to make feather around the time of Cotto, Clottey, Margarito he'd have died.
Flea Man is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2013, 05:56 PM   #23
Flea Man
มวยสากล
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: @ferociousflea
Posts: 40,451
vCash: 75
Default Re: The Founder Of Catchweights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unforgiven View Post
Obviously, Pacquiao beating bigger men is impressive, and no one should whine about that.

I'd prefer title fights to be contested at the normal limit for the division. Personally, I feel that could give the titles back some prestige over the fighters.

It makes little sense to me to say a guy 'moved up to light-middle' because he made a fight at 150.
Nevermind calling it a world championship.

If that makes me a *****, oh well ..
True, but Margarito and Clottey would've weighed 160+ in the ring. Pacquiao was a solid welterweight White washing basic, bigger guys. Not unheard of throughout history (and far better feats) but added to Pac's career as a whole, they're impressive. Cotto had to make a lb less than he has to his previous fight. The title meant nothing to me but Pacquiao was spectacular; good win.

I agree with you; titles mean **** all. But the wins, sometimes anyway, can have some substance.

Not Margarito though. Shot. Unranked (well, should've been)
Flea Man is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2013, 05:59 PM   #24
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 38,062
vCash: 1000
Default Re: The Founder Of Catchweights

Yeah, I think that's a good post.

It's the "title" more than the catchweight.
McGrain is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2013, 06:00 PM   #25
Boxed Ears
Mirage Athleticism
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surrealistic Regurgitation Format Poster
Posts: 25,670
vCash: 129
Default Re: The Founder Of Catchweights

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain View Post
Well these people aren't looking at history at all. The opposite in fact. They are being careful NOT to look at history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain View Post
It has nothing to do with nostalgia. As far as I can tell there is zero understanding of the history of catchweights and when you bring it up people tend to get upset and confused.

It's to do with the internet, anonymity, and the combination allowing people who hate certain boxers to whinge endlessly about anything negative they can associate with any fighters. Moved up in weight? Scare of X. Moved down in weight? Scared of Y. Catchweight? Wants an unfair advantage. Fights at home? Unfair advantage. Wants a certain kind of glove? What a coward!

Catchweight is just one of many completely made up things for fanboys and haters to whinge about.
Definitely. All of that.
Boxed Ears is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2013, 06:17 PM   #26
Kiwi Kid
The Sweet Scientist
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 31
vCash: 500
Default Re: The Founder Of Catchweights

Yeah title fights at catchweights are BS, and I think they undermine the accomplishments of the past fighters who won the title at the proper wights (Plus, as already mentioned previously, titles are quickly losing there credibility so further discredit shouldn't be needed). People may say catchweights necessary when a smaller guy needs to bigger guy with a hefty size advantage. That is a reasonable concern, but that is the reason there are weight classes in boxing to prevent size mismatches. If that situation does occur however and the catchweight is necessary, there should never be a title on the line because the title should be fought for at the proper weight.
Catchweights can be positive though, as in the past in order for some super fights to occur catchweights have been necessary e.g.
-Joe Gans (lightweight) D20 Joe Walcott (welterweight)
-Henry Armstrong (welterweight) TKO6 Lew Jenkins (lightweight)
-Emiie Griffith (welterweight) TKO9 Dave Charnley (lightweight)
These were needed because there were only 8 divsions at the time which were separated by quite a lot of weight, but now days with all the Jr wight division separated by only a few pounds (as little as 4 lbs, RIDICULOUS!!!), why are catchweights even needed now days between fighters only one division apart?
So all in all my view on catchweights is mixed depending on the circumstances, but one thing I feel strongly about is NO CATCHWEIGHTS FOR TITLE FIGHTS!!!!
Kiwi Kid is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2013, 06:28 PM   #27
TBooze
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South of London
Posts: 11,019
vCash: 1500
Default Re: The Founder Of Catchweights

As mentioned catchweights have always been around, it was years before 'Modern Boxing' started to have weight divisions.

Catchweight matches were often a way of giving a prospect a 'test' without having to pay for better quality fighters. For example John Conteh was well known in the UK for fighting Heavyweights, as a Light Heavyweight.

But you do need to be careful, as then unbeaten Light Heavyweight propsect Nicky Piper found out, when he agreed to a (near literal) last minute substitute against 'journeyman' Cruiserweight Carl Thompson..
TBooze is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 04:02 AM   #28
Unforgiven
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,267
vCash: 1000
Default Re: The Founder Of Catchweights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flea Man View Post
True, but Margarito and Clottey would've weighed 160+ in the ring.
Yeah, you don't wanna get me started on the '36 hour weigh ins' ...

Absolutely agree, Pacquiao's accomplishments are great.
It's the 'divisions' and the 'titles' that I want to 'protect'. It's all linked in with a de-valuing of the titles, which we all know was not caused by catchweight matches, but by the proliferation of alphabets.
Unforgiven is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 04:09 AM   #29
Flea Man
มวยสากล
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: @ferociousflea
Posts: 40,451
vCash: 75
Default Re: The Founder Of Catchweights

I'm on your side all the way on both counts.
Flea Man is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2013, 04:23 AM   #30
Rumsfeld
Moderator
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Go to the Mushroom Mag!
Posts: 19,254
vCash: 75
Default Re: The Founder Of Catchweights

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unforgiven View Post

I can't slate fighters for catch weights.
I think promoters and sanctioning bodies are the ones that can lose prestige from them.
Agreed.

Quote:
It's ridiculous that Pacquiao can contest a vacant light-middleweight title having never fought at that weight AND THEN make it at 150 or whatever !
That makes him a "king" of the 154-pound class ?!!
It's clearly absurd.
Agreed.

Quote:
Also, a fight like Dawson-Ward, the smaller champ should step up to the heavier division, imo. It makes more sense, it has more meaning, it's better for boxing.
Agreed in spirit. Ward should have moved up after Froch disposed of Bute, as at that point there was nothing left for him at 168. At the same time, Dawson did call him out at that weight.

The shame in that, though, is I think Ward would have beaten Dawson badly regardless of what weight they made it at. He would have gotten far more credit had he gone that route, especially if he demanded that when Bute had lost.
Rumsfeld is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump






All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2015