If catchweights are suppossed to benefit the smaller fighter...

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by caneman, Apr 30, 2012.


Page 9 of 10
  1. Vidic

    Vidic Rest in Peace Manny Full Member

    13,207
    11
    Nov 23, 2010
    Let me ask you two (one) guy(s) this

    If Martinez fights Manny Pacquiao

    at 168 lbs

    Who does it benefit more, Pacquiao, or Martinez?

    Who would have the advantage?
     
    Vidic, May 1, 2012
    Vidic, May 1, 2012
    #121
  2. Cormega

    Cormega Quadruple OG Full Member

    10,487
    6
    Oct 16, 2005
    It's not a benefit to the bigger guy at all. I'ts a concession made by the bigger guy to help make a more level playing field for the smaller guy. Otherwise, why in the **** would a smaller guy ask for a catchweight instead of moving up to fight the bigger guy in his own weightclass?
     
    Cormega, May 1, 2012
    Cormega, May 1, 2012
    #122
  3. caneman

    caneman 100% AllNatural Xylocaine Full Member

    16,472
    1
    Aug 5, 2009
    The same reason Martinez won't move down to 147 to fight Pac or Floyd for $$$. It would be unhealthy for Sergio to go that far down. So he is asking for a catchweight of something closer to 160. Obviously, the heaviest weight Pac fought was 150, so anything close to 160 wouldn't be healthy for him. The bigger fighter concedes a few pounds while the smaller fighter concedes natural size and meet in between. That's why it's called a catchweight. It's a weight both fighters work towards that is not too compromising to their health so a big payday can take place.

    Again, if you insist that it benefits the smaller man, history will always disagree with you given the fight results.
     
    caneman, May 1, 2012
    caneman, May 1, 2012
    #123
  4. caneman

    caneman 100% AllNatural Xylocaine Full Member

    16,472
    1
    Aug 5, 2009
    That's just it. Why is the question only for Pac? Why must one forget what others did in the past and question one fighter? Why do people overlook other fighters when doing something, then when one particular fighter does the same exact thing, he is crucified for it? Where are all the other ***** threads when recent fights were held at catchweights?

    :think
     
    caneman, May 1, 2012
    caneman, May 1, 2012
    #124
  5. Cormega

    Cormega Quadruple OG Full Member

    10,487
    6
    Oct 16, 2005
    There wouldn't be anything at all "unhealthy" about Pacquiao agreeing to a fight with a weight limit of 160 aside from the fact that he'd be fighting a naturally much bigger guy at full strength and would likely get KTFO.

    History shows that the benefits of having a guy come down to a catchweight are usually not enough to overcome the benefits of being the naturally bigger guy. To say that means catchweights don't benefit the smaller guy at all is ****ing idiotic.
     
    Cormega, May 1, 2012
    Cormega, May 1, 2012
    #125
  6. canucks9314

    canucks9314 Iron Chinned ATG Warrior Full Member

    11,933
    7
    Jun 21, 2011
    On ESB, there are 2 situations:

    Not making weight involving Floyd = bad for his opponent

    Not making weight involving Pac = bad for him

    See I can do it too.

    :hi::hi:
     
    canucks9314, May 1, 2012
    canucks9314, May 1, 2012
    #126
  7. rayhogan

    rayhogan Dont worry Pac, you wont Full Member

    22,780
    350
    Aug 26, 2006
    You mean Pac realize that even at 145 pounds cotto will still be drain? I got a question if 145 pound is nothing then why Pac demanded to fight Cotto at a catchweight instead of the ww limit?
     
    rayhogan, May 1, 2012
    rayhogan, May 1, 2012
    #127
  8. caneman

    caneman 100% AllNatural Xylocaine Full Member

    16,472
    1
    Aug 5, 2009
    Cotto said he'd be drained at 143. 145 was the lowest Cotto would go without being drained. So Pac accepted a fight with a non-drained Cotto. As far as your last question, maybe you still don't understand the concept of catchweight. It's having 2 fighters of 2 different divisions meeting in between to fight. Why 145? If it was good enough for Whitaker-Chavez, it was good enough for Pacquiao-Cotto. In fact, it was good enough for many others that nobody cares to ***** and whine about.

    :deal
     
    caneman, May 1, 2012
    caneman, May 1, 2012
    #128
  9. caneman

    caneman 100% AllNatural Xylocaine Full Member

    16,472
    1
    Aug 5, 2009
    It benefits his pockets fighting a big name in the weight division above him. As far as fight results, it benefits him a little, while it benefits the larger opponent much more. Results speak for themselves.
     
    caneman, May 1, 2012
    caneman, May 1, 2012
    #129
  10. caneman

    caneman 100% AllNatural Xylocaine Full Member

    16,472
    1
    Aug 5, 2009

    :think One didn't even bother trying and had the contract changed overnight. The other nearly killed himself trying, had to wear heavier gloves, was only allowed to have spoiled milk instead of water in that first fight.

    Great comparison.

    :good
     
    caneman, May 1, 2012
    caneman, May 1, 2012
    #130
  11. canucks9314

    canucks9314 Iron Chinned ATG Warrior Full Member

    11,933
    7
    Jun 21, 2011
    Exactly my point, moron. Every situation is unique.
     
    canucks9314, May 1, 2012
    canucks9314, May 1, 2012
    #131
  12. caneman

    caneman 100% AllNatural Xylocaine Full Member

    16,472
    1
    Aug 5, 2009
    You mean like draining opponents by catchweight is unique to Pac? :think
     
    caneman, May 1, 2012
    caneman, May 1, 2012
    #132
  13. rayhogan

    rayhogan Dont worry Pac, you wont Full Member

    22,780
    350
    Aug 26, 2006
    But pac destroyed de la hoya at 147 pounds in which u keep bragging about that one remember? It was at the ww limit. So if thats the case then why not pac vs cotto at the ww limit instead of a bs catchweight? Sh4t pac after cotto fought clottey at the ww limit in which clottey is bigger then cotto. How come clottey dont have to be in a catchweight with pac but cotto has too? You see what i'm getting at? Or you're that ******ed?
     
    rayhogan, May 1, 2012
    rayhogan, May 1, 2012
    #133
  14. canucks9314

    canucks9314 Iron Chinned ATG Warrior Full Member

    11,933
    7
    Jun 21, 2011
    No. Not every catchweight fight is surrounded by the same circumstances.
     
    canucks9314, May 1, 2012
    canucks9314, May 1, 2012
    #134
  15. KO KIDD

    KO KIDD Loyal Member Full Member

    30,027
    5,554
    Oct 5, 2009
    whats also interesting is those past catchweight fights didnt allow the guy losing weight to have 24 hours to put it on and rehydrate they weighed in and fought

    but of those catches did any have the same circumstance as Oscar? coming down 7 pounds at 35ish to a weight you havnt been in yrs

    that wasnt a good version of oscar he didnt look himself at all so he was either old or didnt handle the weight well

    all in all oscar was an intelligent guy and was a biz man and boxer by then isnt oscar at fault for agreeing to the weight
     
    KO KIDD, May 1, 2012
    KO KIDD, May 1, 2012
    #135
Page 9 of 10