Do the Mannyweight fights hurt Pacquiao's Resume?

pugi nani scared of the question:rofl:rofl That ***** will neve admit Manny doing anything wrong..he is in love with Pac like no other...:rofl He likes that Manny dick.

 

I give him credit for all his wins...he earned it, but he aint doing nothing unprecedented like some people are trying to make out...that 8th "title" was a gift....anyway their are guys before him that beat guys with out all those stipulations and people today would probably put Manny p4p over them.

McClarnin-started and flyweight and was koing welterweights and won the title no catchweight

Canzoneri was a three weight champ 126,135,140...started at bantamweight drew with the champion their and won his higher titles without catchweights

Armstrong 126,135,147(record for titles defenses), drew at 160 no catchweights

This content is protected

...IMO Bradley and Marquez will be his only opponents in years who werent coming off bad beatings or showings before he fought them has to be considered

 

from ESB poster McGrain

Barney Ross SD Jimmy McLarnin, 28/5/34​

What was the catchweight, and why was it used?​

The two fought at 143. Barney Ross, the great Jewish lightweight, wanted to come north to McLarnin but was uncomfortable coming up to 147 - he weighed in at only 138 - so McLarnin agreed not to come in over 143 inspite having fought between 144 and 147 only in recent years.​

Was the title at stake?​

At stake, changed hands, before in was passed between them twice more in no catchweight WW fights.​

Did the catchweight negatively affect either man?​

McLarnin claimed it did indeed affect his performance and Pop Foster insisted McLarnin's preperation was badly affected by worry at not being able to make the weight, but the decision was exactly the same as the two that would follow this one - a close, disputed decision.​

Was the catchweight a good thing or a bad thing?​

It got two ATG fighters into the ring together and kept things very, very close which is an accurate reflection of how these two were. A great fight between great fighters that probably wouldn't have been made at 147. A good thing.​

Joe Gans D20 Joe Walcott, 20/9/04​

What was the catchweight and why was it used?​

Another meeting between the lightweight and welterweight champions, this fought at 138. ​

Was a title at stake?​

No, neither man's title was at stake - this may be because Walcott did not make the weight - Boxrec lists him at 140. However, sources seem to indicate that this may be incorrect, as Walcott was not made to pay the forfiet he had agreed to.​

Did the catchtweight negatively affect either man?​

Probably it did. 138 was an ask for the Barbados demon and he seems to have struggled to keep the pressure upon Gans, though this may have more to do with Gans being a master boxer!​

Was the Catchweight a good thing or a bad thing?​

Overall, good getting the two into the ring together was the main thing, and it hurt neither's career with the draw a harmless (though unpopular) result.​

Armstrong TKO 6 Jenkins, 7/17/1940​

What was the catchweight and why was it used?​

The Catchweight was 139 and it was used so that Jenkins, a lightweight, would not be dwarfed by his great opponent.​

Was the title at stake?​

No; this was a non-title fight - the catchweight was the possible reason with the two weighing in at the semi-recognised 140lb limit.​

Did the catchweight negatively affect either man? ​

No. Armstrong was his destructive self and Jenkins gave him real trouble, injuring both his eyes.​

Was the catchweight a good thing or a bad thing?​

It was a ****ing great thing. Two ATG's in a thrilling encounter that couldn't have been made at 147 at that time.​

Emile Griffith KO9 Dave Charnley, 1/12/64​

What was the catchweight and why was it used?​

Again, a lightweight and a welterweight. Charnley wasn't big enough to step all the way up so Griffith agreed to weigh in at no more than 145. ​

Was the title at stake?​

No - the fight was a non-title bought, but Charnley, having lost two of his last three, was not really in position to complain. The fight was more about getting a troubled Griffith out of the US than a genuine contest, and Griffith followed it up with another non-title fight, this time at 147.​

Was either man negatively affected?​

Only Charnley, who took a sound thrashing. Griffith was very much himself.​

Was the catchweight a good thing or a bad thing?​

Probably neither; it's hard to imagine any difference at 147.​

Terry Norris KO4 Meldrick Taylor, 9/5/92​

What was the catchweight and why was it used?​

The oddly specific catchweight was 150 1/2lbs. Both men weighed in at 149. The catchweight was in place to make things less difficult for the smaller Norris.​

Was the title at stake?​

Yes; the WBC light-middleweight title.​

Did the catchweight hurt either man?​

It's hard to be sure because the fight lasted only four rounds. Probably not.​

Was the catchweight a good thing or a bad thing?​

A good thing; two outstanding champions brought together for a contest in-between their best weights - what's not to like?​

Bernard Hopkins KO9 Oscar DeLa Hoya 18/9/04​

What was the catchweight and why was it used?​

The catchweight was 158, and it was used to allow the much smaller Oscar some leeway.​

Was the title at stake?​

Yes; the winner would be #1 at middleweight.​

Did the catchweight hurt either man?​

Negative; Hopkins showed, once again, what discipline really means. Hopkins had never weighed in so light in all of his career. He was 39 years old. He would only fight 3 more times at 160 before moving up to light-heavy; but he made a mockery of the catchweight coming in at 156.​

Was the catchweight a good thing or a bad thing?​

Mostly good. Oscar didn't belong up there, but it brought Hopkins overground and netted him a big purse, whilst Oscar was allowed a "nothing to lose" shot at true boxing immortality.​

Kelly Pavlik UD Jermain Taylor, 16/2/8​

What was the catchweight and why was it used?​

Even for the first Pavlik fight, Taylor was struggling to neatly make 160 and offered Kelly a non-title fight at above 160; Pavlik quite rightly told him "no". The second time the two met the catchweigt was agreed primarly in to allow Taylor some relief at the weight.​

Was the title at stake?​

Niether held a title at 168 where the fight was contested.​

Did the catchweight hurt either man?​

Probably not - and it certainly helped Taylor who showed no signs of the stamina issue that had hurt him in the first fight, Pavlik boxing him to a decision rather than blowing him out.​

Was the catchweight a good thing or a bad thing?​

It made for an interesting and competitive fight with a defining result. The only negative was no title was at stake.​

So, a pretty normal practice then, with the title often up for grabs.


http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=159546

 

These are facts not my opinion

1)Jennings is nobody, and what happened before the Clottey fight,I guess you forgot about how Margarito beat Cotto to a pulp huh,

2) Margarito didnt even win a round against Mosley and got kayoed

3), Mosley hadnt won a fight in 2 years once he fought drew with Mora and dominated by Mayweather

4)DLH got busted up by a much smaller forbes at 150, had just lost to Mayweather prior

This content is protected

 

get out of this thread ******ed lawyer.

 

This content is protected

 

I've never been that upset about the catchweight issue. If the other dude agrees to it for the payday, then that's life. Not ideal, but so be it.

 

cotto looked ok against clottey. he was supposed to get beaten but performed well even with a cut and expected to struggle against clottey's style. who has looked good against clottey before? also it was basically a pick-em fight back then in ESB.

margarito was coming from a suspension and a tune-up fight that he won. didn't look spectacular but came to fight and motivated against pacquiao. not much credit aside from margarito's name and him being much bigger than pac.

mosley i agree was shot. i always maintained that he was shot even in the floyd fight after 15 months of inactivity. but if floyd get's credit for the one, pac had just fought him 12 months later.

delahoya cherry-picked pac from 135 with pac having just one fight at lightweight. oscar is also a clear favorite to beat pac. also even if he got busted by forbes, he won wide on the scorecards and it ddin't stop people from picking him against pacquiao.

aside from these, he have victories over hatton and clottey and is now fighting tim bradley.

 

This guy started fighting at 112 to 154......who has done that in boxing history?

 

but you said armstrong and mcclarnin doesn't fight at catchweights?

 

some guys did that if not more

Georges Carpentier started and flyweight and became lightheavyweight champions also fought dempsey

Sam Langforde started out as a lightweight and beat some of the best heavyweights and lightheavweights of his day

"Barbados" Joe Walcott was 5'0" a welterweight champion beating heavies and lightheavies

McClarnin started and flyweight and won the true welterweight title by kayo

Mickey Walker started as a small welterweight won the title and middleweight title and beat light heavies and some decent heavies


what Manny is doing is impressive but their are guys that did more that gets forgotten

 

they did...but they werent coming off huge beatings either..did Manny beat his opponents after great wins or a great roll? NO

he fought them after looking vulnerable then also wanted a catchweight for some

 

forget 8 titles in as many divisions, name one fighter who has been the lineal champ at 4 different weight class?