Catchweights: Agree or Disagree?

Yeah, i know. But my point was to show how adversely DLH was affected in trying to fight at 147. But yeah, techincally i was wrong.

 

That's pretty much how I feel.

 

The slope, she is a-slippery.

 

Does the "Depends on the situation" Option silently mean only if its fighters like Mayweather and Andre Ward?


Look if a fighter signs there are no excuses, he is a professional he has heard the stories of whats happened to fighters when they soaked down this low, its not like he hasnt and if its for a payday thats on him there are no excuses once you sign the dotted line.


I am okay with Catch weights

 

Yes but that's his choice - fighters know their own bodies, if they make a misjudgement on that, that's tough.

Likewise if Pac had got battered in that fight people would say "Well DLH was too big, what's he doing coming up 2 divisions?"

But regardless, that's not a catchweight so as said, bad example.

But as Anthony said a 147 belt is a 147 belt and that's the weight it should be fought at

 

True, but not all boxers can move up or down weight classes easily, it's only the minority that can and be successful for long periods (I can see that there is a, then why are they moving up(?) argument that can be put in place here). If a catchweight allows me to see a competitive bout between two boxers at a comfortable weight (without the title on the line)...then I'm more than happy to watch. None of this being forced to defend the belt crap though.

 

Either fight in your own division or don't fight at all.

 

Then stay put. :conf

See, this is where the fundamental disagreement kicks in. "Comfortable" is hard to define, and not really a constant. The existing class limits provide a fair and equitable standard to hold all boxers to. Go tinkering around with it, and things start getting dodgy.

Who is to say that one party isn't signing the dotted line due to pressure of the other party's negotiating leverage, knowing that cutting down to a catch weight is going to weaken them and provide a competitive disadvantage - but sporting a **** eating grin and saying "Yeah, sure, that sounds...uh...comfortable..."

:good Ever. Not ever is that acceptable.

 

I did actually add this...

...and I can see why people would argue it.

Aye, it's a strong argument, and one of the main reasons I don't like belts being on the line in these type of bouts. But without a belt on the line, again, I am more than happy to watch. Obviously not all catchweights are going to be fair, and I don't think catchweights should be allowed if there is more than one division separating the two boxers (Lopez-Canelo springs to mind, although there wasn't technically 2 divisions separating them).

:good

 

Catchweights aren't such a bad idea for the higher weight classes like cruiserweight or heavyweight. Dawson vrs. Cunningham at 185 or 190 lbs would be a good fight, but it wouldn't be interesting at 180 lbs or 200 lbs.

 

This content is protected

 

17 divisions and we need catchweights atsch

Pac has tried cheating history wayyyy too many times with his Catchweight BS and his nuthuggers eat it up. Just no, no no no.

and yes I know oscar tried to do it to Hopkins and I've never defended it. So don't cry about my above post. :hi:

 

if the fighters agree to it, i see nothing wrong.

 

I never would have guessed. :roll: