Pacquiao vs Margarito catchweight will be at 151lb according to Arum

I've edited my posts above to show you what the odds were.

 

So you don't mind the fight itself, but you're worried about, what, the integrity of the WBC light middleweight title?

This is the title whose most recent holder was awarded the title without fighting for it, allowed to hold it without defending it and then vacated it having been champion for a year without ever having been in a fight where the title was at stake.

Perhaps you can demonstrate that your concern for the integrity of this title is not a sudden occurence by pointing us to any previous posts you may have made expressing your outrage about this?

Why can't they express their choice in writing?

 

My opinion is based on all title fights, I don't have separate levels of acceptability depending on how I value the title at the time.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the point at the bottom, you will have to elaborate more.

 

But if you're changing something that has existed through decades of boxing history, there has to be come compulsion for it, surely?

You're happy for a fighter to choose to weigh in lighter than the weight limit, but you want to legislate against him being able to express that choice in writing in the fight contract. Why? How will you stop them making a verbal agreement seperate to the contract?

 

You can't stop them from making a verbal agreement however there is no comeback if someone ignores the verbal agreement and comes in at the limit so it's more of a risk.

I think I've made my point of view perfectly clear in all of this, I believe title fights shouldn't be fought with any weight constraints below the weight maximum, if you don't and think it's acceptable to fight at any weight then that's your opinion.

 

Who says? Would depend entirely on the details of the agreement, whether verbal or written.

But the problem is you cannot articulate why it is important to suddenly change this one thing that had been part of boxing for as long as anyone can remember but not change any of the other things which can often give an advantage in a title fight to one of the fighters.

And because you are unable to articulate why you care, nobody really believes that you actually gave a **** at all before it suddenly became a fashionable stick to use to beat a fighter you don't like. Were you really outraged by Leonard against Lalonde? Were you disgusted by Leonard/Hearns II? Did you blood boil over Whitaker v Chavez? Did you refuse to watch Hopkins/De La Hoya? Why can't you say why all of those fights should not have been allowed?

 

I've never been in favour of catchweights for titles and I can remember having the debate on here how I wouldn't be in favour of Mayweather fighting Martinez at a catchweight for his middleweight title, lets not think I'm just picking on Pacquiao here.

In my opinion catchweights devalue titles, now you can say that the WBC title is **** anyway and I agree but that doesn't mean I should be more accepting of it happening.

In an ideal World we would have one governing body running all of boxings with one title per division, that way boxers looking for advantages could all but be ruled out however I understand why there isn't but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

 

Usually the catchweight is a monetary clause therefore even if there was one governing body running around it wouldn't change anything unless the governing body is the one who distributes the purses. Cotto could have come in at 147 against Pacquiao and he would not have been stripped of his WBO title but he would have had to pay a 2million dollar penalty because of the even bigger advantage he would garner over a JrWW.

Also, history will show you that even when there was 1 title around, there were still title fights at catchweights.



the point here being that if two fighters from two different divisions want to fight each other, then in order to fight on fair terms the fight should be at a catch weight. Also, if either fighter is able to make the fight more meaningful, be it by putting a title on the line or his status as p4p king, then he should do it if he can.

by defending his title at a catchweight, Cotto racks up 1 more defense of his title if he wins, which is a good thing for him. If he loses to a JrWW at a catchweight of 145, will he still consider himself a WW champion even if the title is not on the line?

 

Well im not looking at history, im looking at present day, and more recent history.

Pac's used the catchweight vs two opponents in Cotto + Margarito

but didn't when fighting David Diaz, Hatton or Clottey.

Who's saying Pac will let Marg dictate the terms? And how many advantages does the favorite need?

Keep in mind Margarito did get whooped by the last elite boxer he faced in Shane Mosley

in addition to already being higher ranked and perceived to have the better all around skills

Pacquiao really needs a catchweight to fight Margarito. really now?

1. I think we did answer how you regulate it .. with a contract, it really isn't hard to understand ... I don't see why you're asking this again and again.

You can't stop a fighter from weighing less than the max, they're grown men, and unless it's written into a contract they'll weigh in at what they please.

Fighters have weighed under a catchweight before (Pacquiao, Pavlik, Taylor) and will most likely continue to do so

#2. In some cases a fighter having the fight in his hometown can certainly play a factor. Hometown decisions do happen

but (if drained) weight can have a much more direct effect on the fighters

1. the only advantage going into the Pacquiao fight Cotto had was size. As ranked Pound for pound #1 Manny was the favorite going in. So the catchweight is used to limit the only clear advantage Cotto had .. the size.

2. Okay fine, if two fighters from different divisions Pac's first WW fight .. how come no catchweight was used?

then for his 3rd Welterweight bout vs Clottey a catchweight wasn't used. And if you're considering Pac a JrWW for the Cotto fight ... why didn't that apply when Pacquiao fought DLH or Clottey?

it is dumb to have a champion keep a title when he loses at a catchweight

but IMO using catchweights to win title belts are also pretty lame

**especially considering Henry Armstrong ... the fighter who Bob Arum compares to Pacquiao won his titles without using catchweights.

 

I don't see why a verbal agreement has to be made if a fighter willingly wants to come in under the max weight limit.

What's the issue again? is it this?

"against him being able to express that choice in writing in the fight contract. Why?

because their is a big difference between a fighter willingly weighing 2 lbs under the weight max vs being forced to because of a contract.

if a fighter wants to weigh 2 lbs under that's his choice, let him make it ... no agreement needs to be made

The welterweight division is defined as a division where fighters can weigh up to 147, and despite the long and unfortunate history of catchweight fights I don't think weight restrictions should be written into title fights

where someone can weigh a valid Welterweight fighting weight (146) and be fined for it.

 

It will never be on fair terms when there is only one fighter calling all the shots. In this case pac.

Fight for the title at the proper weight limit or don't fight for it at all. Simple.

 

Explain how a contract exists without both parties being willing to sign it?

Being weight drained has nothing to do with a catchweight. Fighters can be weight drained at a traditional weight or fit to go at a catchweight. I'll bet you I can name more fights that were influenced by location than you can that were influenced by a catchweight. So, which is most likely to have an effect?