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 ...

 

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.

 

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?

 

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 .. :good

 

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 arse 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.

 

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)

 

Definitely. All of that.

 

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!!!!

 

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..

 

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.

 

I'm on your side all the way on both counts.