Moving up in weight is a sign of boxer laziness

Common sense is on my side. All athletes in every sport maximize their advantages within the rules, and boxing history is replete with examples of fighters draining to make weight.

If you are suggesting a rule change, I'm right there with you. I don't like these huge cuts, either.

 

I would say most fighters aren't actually fighting at their actual weight and actually starve themselves down to get a physical size advantage which gets more difficult for them as they get older.

So have no choice but to move up in weight.

 

Yeah probably two camps.
You have the lazy 'athletes' who can't stop getting fat despite training being their 'job', so as soon at the metab slows down a bit in their thirties they simply can't maintain the original weight, even though plenty of normal people can (outside of the USA of course).
Then you have the drainers who can't maintain the drain after a while and have to move up.

THEN you have people like GGG, who just avoided moving up because he was worried about Ward's power and didn't want dat work while trying to take food of Ward's table in Oakland yo.

 

Chase the money. **** it. If you are well backed and have decent dance partners in your weight class and interest, you can stay and build a legacy on defences. But if you arent getting paid well for your talent and accomplishments. Chase it.

Taylor for example got undisputed, then fell off without a big payday getting beaten by Crawford would have gave him. Im sure he will get paid well for the catterall rematch but not in the same ballpark. Id say hes done alright in total.

 

It's the manner inwhich it happens. Moving up, picking the easiest to beat titlist, NOT defending or trying to unify and moving back down. That is not something we need.

This isn't a black and white thing. I've already said TWICE some are legit. But because you think this is about Canelo, you get all defensive.

Do you even pay attention to what Tank didi? Won a title at 140, immediately dumoped it, and against guys his own size, ASKED for a catchweifght fight. That's all good to you? IT's quite clear yo are more a fan of a few boxers, not necessarily boxing as a whole. And that's fine. But you don't see the big picture.

Yes, moving as your body matures is fine. They willl still grow some. But that's not always the case. It takes a great level of dedication to stay at one class to work for undisputed. Any popular fighter can title hop around. If you like that, well, good on you. Maybe if you were in to boxing decade ago, you'd feel different.

 

That excuse is mostly used by posters here when their guy loses.

 

Did Spence claim that? Or the tons of fans on this site?

 

"Musical chairs" has been around for decades. It is easier to become a legend via winning belts in multiple divisions then it is by having a long title reign. The former requires a few fights the latter requires many fights. Belts not mattering so much as the profile of your opponents and contenders in your division aren't going to have the same profile as a champion in another division.

Also ignoring all that the difference between weight classes are 7 pounds. Most fighters are capable of competing in at least 3(just looking at the weight not the fighters in the class). The current system is designed to give as many top fighters belts as possible and have them fight each other. It is not designed for champions to run their division until a contender beats them.

 

Back to aka whether or not I like the fighter. I see it as moving up to beat a guy they see with a belt they feel they're better than and proving it. All the gymnastics these guys do up amd down weights amd around each other can't bother me that much because they all do the same **** to a degree. I hate catchweights for belts, outside of that I could care less if both parties agree to the terms. I'm a fan of good fighters and entertaining fights. Period. What I'm not a fan of is hypocritical commentary. It does take a great deal of discipline to stay in one class and it's not as great historically as winning in multiple classes that just is what it is. You do realize in the 3 belt era there's probably something like less than 20 undisputed champions.....in the entire sport. Add the 4 belt era and that's plus 9. So in like 40 years across 17 weight classes there havent even been 30. Not everyone becomes undisputed. And I indeed have been a fan, for decades. I stated watching boxing in the 80s.

Does he need to when everyone and their mama said it for him? Amd he immediately moves up to 154 instead of attempting to take the undisputed title from Bud? With interviews scattered throughout his career alluding to killing himself to make weight? He never needed to say it. He's already said enough.

 

who cares what fans claim. If Spence didn't use it as an excuse, then who gives a sh*t...

Did Miguel Cotto outgrow 147 when he moved to 154 after getting demolished by Pac? No. Sometimes when a champ loses , they have no where else to go but up in weight.

Same happened to OScar post Tito. Same with Shane after Forrest.

 

They need to get down to 1title per division and remove a few of those weight classes while they are at it.

 

We do apparently because we discuss plenty of things a fighter didn't say here don't we?

 

I'd keep the 4 belts but definitely get rid of a handful of these in between classes.

 

Then don't attribute what fans say to the boxer. And I’m starting to see a trend with you. Most of your posters are simply what posters say. Do you discuss actual fights? Technique? Skill levels? Or is your interest just what posters claim here? I used to have you on my block list. Guessing there was a good reason for that.

 

WTF?? You actually want 4 champs per division???