Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Joe Boxer
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 216
Joined: 27 Jan 2006, 13:43

Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by Joe Boxer »

"Cotto, he shouldn't be fighting at middleweight... if you want to fight at middleweight, make 160... But you want to have the status of a middleweight but you don't want to make middleweight- you're not a real middleweight. If you're scared to fight at 160 and you want to have the status of a middleweight but you don't want to make 160- then you shouldn't be a middleweight."

http://m.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sp ... -1.2329949

I agree 100%
kidbazooka1
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 959
Joined: 14 Dec 2007, 13:56

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by kidbazooka1 »

Says the guy that got annihilated by Rubio.

Lemiuxe would get wrecked by lil cotto so its best be just keeps his mouth shut.

His 15mins of fame will be over when he faces the mexican/khazak.
handsofstone
Cruiserweight
Posts: 23087
Joined: 11 Jan 2011, 17:28

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by handsofstone »

kidbazooka1 wrote:Says the guy that got annihilated by Rubio.

Lemiuxe would get wrecked by lil cotto so its best be just keeps his mouth shut.

His 15mins of fame will be over when he faces the mexican/khazak.
Whats Lemieux getting KO'd by Rubio have to do with what he's saying?
kidbazooka1
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 959
Joined: 14 Dec 2007, 13:56

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by kidbazooka1 »

handsofstone wrote:
kidbazooka1 wrote:Says the guy that got annihilated by Rubio.

Lemiuxe would get wrecked by lil cotto so its best be just keeps his mouth shut.

His 15mins of fame will be over when he faces the mexican/khazak.
Whats Lemieux getting KO'd by Rubio have to do with what he's saying?
A lot.

He's talking like he's a shot caller the kid hasn't accomplished half of what cotto has.

Him getting destroyed by Rubio tells you a lot it tells you lemiuxe doesn't have what it takes to beat the elite at mw.

He got destroyed by a guy GGG annihilated in 2 rds.

And please dont come at me with "but he's a better fighter now".
davie
Cruiserweight
Posts: 6763
Joined: 21 Aug 2010, 00:45

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by davie »

kidbazooka1 wrote:
handsofstone wrote:
kidbazooka1 wrote:Says the guy that got annihilated by Rubio.

Lemiuxe would get wrecked by lil cotto so its best be just keeps his mouth shut.

His 15mins of fame will be over when he faces the mexican/khazak.
Whats Lemieux getting KO'd by Rubio have to do with what he's saying?
A lot.

He's talking like he's a shot caller the kid hasn't accomplished half of what cotto has.

Him getting destroyed by Rubio tells you a lot it tells you lemiuxe doesn't have what it takes to beat the elite at mw.

He got destroyed by a guy GGG annihilated in 2 rds.

And please dont come at me with "but he's a better fighter now".
It has absolutely zero relevance to what he's saying.
The only thing that matters is that he's right, which he is.
It wouldn't be any more accurate if Golovkin said it or any less relevant if some 8-66-3 journeyman said it.
Hell i can say it and Cotto could kick my teeth in, I would still be right
johnswan1
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3348
Joined: 27 Feb 2005, 18:03

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by johnswan1 »

davie wrote: Hell i can say it and Cotto could kick my teeth in, I would still be right
More likely he'd punch them in.
Nightmare Roy
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 16632
Joined: 18 May 2003, 17:29

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by Nightmare Roy »

He's 100% right, the sanctioning bodies are a joke for letting this happen.
caldo2025
Super Welterweight
Posts: 4417
Joined: 16 Dec 2014, 07:37

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by caldo2025 »

kidbazooka1 wrote:
A lot.

He's talking like he's a shot caller the kid hasn't accomplished half of what cotto has.

Him getting destroyed by Rubio tells you a lot it tells you lemiuxe doesn't have what it takes to beat the elite at mw.

He got destroyed by a guy GGG annihilated in 2 rds.

And please dont come at me with "but he's a better fighter now".
You seem to be the only person ok with the lineal Middleweight Champion defending the title below the Middleweight pound allowance limits. If Kovalev fights Wlad in a few years when Wlads knees are shot and he's 40 year old sitting duck (like Sergio was) and wins the Heavyweight Title, will you be ok if Kovalev only defended the Heavyweight Belt at 189 lb limit?

Lemieux is a current world champion and is one win away from facing either Cotto/Canelo so don't you think that he is allowed to have an opinion about the weight limit proposed in that unification fight if he should be lucky enough to get there? Absolutely he should. Lemieux is much improved since his back to back losses. Since those losses he's 9-0 with 7 KO's and knew that it was conditioning that cost him those two bouts. Those losses were 4 years ago. That's a lifetime in boxing time. I choose to access a fighter for what he's doing recently instead of pointing to a loss 4 years ago when he was freaking 21 years old. Silly statements.

Btw, Cotto hasn't accomplished jack. He's lost every single big fight he's been in and none of the fighters he's beaten recently were worth a damn. You obviously have blind love for Cotto because he's the most overrated fighter in the history of the game.
ikorolev
Middleweight
Posts: 4895
Joined: 21 Sep 2013, 19:08

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by ikorolev »

- Lemieux is absolutely right

- current Lemieux would destroy Cotto at 160
davie
Cruiserweight
Posts: 6763
Joined: 21 Aug 2010, 00:45

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by davie »

johnswan1 wrote:
davie wrote: Hell i can say it and Cotto could kick my teeth in, I would still be right
More likely he'd punch them in.
Most likely

But that's not the thing that worries me most
At 6'2" and 218lbs, it the making weight so far below the middleweight limit that really scares me
koolkc107
Middleweight
Posts: 2032
Joined: 31 Oct 2013, 10:54

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by koolkc107 »

Lemieux has a point. If the belt says 160 then that should be the limit.

But, folks will do what they want with money involved.

And sometimes, the catchweight is not giving any fighter an advantage.

In those cases, it doesn't matter as much. In other cases it can be everything.
kidbazooka1
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 959
Joined: 14 Dec 2007, 13:56

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by kidbazooka1 »

caldo2025 wrote:
kidbazooka1 wrote:
A lot.

He's talking like he's a shot caller the kid hasn't accomplished half of what cotto has.

Him getting destroyed by Rubio tells you a lot it tells you lemiuxe doesn't have what it takes to beat the elite at mw.

He got destroyed by a guy GGG annihilated in 2 rds.

And please dont come at me with "but he's a better fighter now".
You seem to be the only person ok with the lineal Middleweight Champion defending the title below the Middleweight pound allowance limits. If Kovalev fights Wlad in a few years when Wlads knees are shot and he's 40 year old sitting duck (like Sergio was) and wins the Heavyweight Title, will you be ok if Kovalev only defended the Heavyweight Belt at 189 lb limit?

Lemieux is a current world champion and is one win away from facing either Cotto/Canelo so don't you think that he is allowed to have an opinion about the weight limit proposed in that unification fight if he should be lucky enough to get there? Absolutely he should. Lemieux is much improved since his back to back losses. Since those losses he's 9-0 with 7 KO's and knew that it was conditioning that cost him those two bouts. Those losses were 4 years ago. That's a lifetime in boxing time. I choose to access a fighter for what he's doing recently instead of pointing to a loss 4 years ago when he was freaking 21 years old. Silly statements.

Btw, Cotto hasn't accomplished jack. He's lost every single big fight he's been in and none of the fighters he's beaten recently were worth a damn. You obviously have blind love for Cotto because he's the most overrated fighter in the history of the game.
If cotto hadnt accomplished jack well then lemiuxe must be a bum of the highest degree.

Lemiuxe trying to talk like he calls shots he dont command shiit.

And once ggg makes him his bitch he wont ever get near cotto or canelo.
caldo2025
Super Welterweight
Posts: 4417
Joined: 16 Dec 2014, 07:37

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by caldo2025 »

kidbazooka1 wrote:
If cotto hadnt accomplished jack well then lemiuxe must be a bum of the highest degree.

Lemiuxe trying to talk like he calls shots he dont command shiit.

And once ggg makes him his bitch he wont ever get near cotto or canelo.
I don't think he'll beat GGG but he's one of the current World Champions at Middleweight and only 26 years old (same age Cotto was when he won his first). Only 3 people hold world titles at MW right now and he's one of them so he's got more of a right to have an opinion than you or I. If Lemieux shocks the world then he can say anything he damn well pleases.
palooka
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 15698
Joined: 20 Jan 2012, 15:31

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by palooka »

caldo2025 wrote:
kidbazooka1 wrote:
If cotto hadnt accomplished jack well then lemiuxe must be a bum of the highest degree.

Lemiuxe trying to talk like he calls shots he dont command shiit.

And once ggg makes him his bitch he wont ever get near cotto or canelo.
I don't think he'll beat GGG but he's one of the current World Champions at Middleweight and only 26 years old (same age Cotto was when he won his first). Only 3 people hold world titles at MW right now and he's one of them so he's got more of a right to have an opinion than you or I. If Lemieux shocks the world then he can say anything he damn well pleases.
I agree, Cotto is a marvellous fighter and has paid his dues over again; Lemieux is correct in what he has said.
Nightmare Roy
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 16632
Joined: 18 May 2003, 17:29

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by Nightmare Roy »

This situation baffles me, if the weight for the title is 160, how the hell can he demand that fighters weigh in less? A non title catch weight sure that's fair enough.
Ricky_
Middleweight
Posts: 8896
Joined: 16 Oct 2013, 08:03

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by Ricky_ »

kidbazooka1 wrote:Says the guy that got annihilated by Rubio.

What does that matter?

I'm a Cotto fan but David is spot on, Cotto is too scared to compete at the Middleweight Weight Limit... but calls himself a Middleweight champ. He's no the 160 champ, he;s never fought there, he's a catchweight champion.
palooka
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 15698
Joined: 20 Jan 2012, 15:31

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by palooka »

Ricky_ wrote:
kidbazooka1 wrote:Says the guy that got annihilated by Rubio.

What does that matter?

I'm a Cotto fan but David is spot on, Cotto is too scared to compete at the Middleweight Weight Limit... but calls himself a Middleweight champ. He's no the 160 champ, he;s never fought there, he's a catchweight champion.
:TU: there's not even an argument for it.
sucracristo
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 1828
Joined: 24 Dec 2011, 23:47

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by sucracristo »

boxers should be able to contract for any weight they want to meet at, but the
sanctioning belts are a joke for allowing titlists to contract for less than the division
weight. if it's a middleweight title fight, they should only have to make 160.
the belts are actually a joke for many more reasons but that is just one
Nightmare Roy
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 16632
Joined: 18 May 2003, 17:29

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by Nightmare Roy »

:TU:
sucracristo wrote:boxers should be able to contract for any weight they want to meet at, but the
sanctioning belts are a joke for allowing titlists to contract for less than the division
weight. if it's a middleweight title fight, they should only have to make 160.
the belts are actually a joke for many more reasons but that is just one
:TU:
Tanzio
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 12264
Joined: 04 Feb 2012, 09:17

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by Tanzio »

koolkc107 wrote:Lemieux has a point. If the belt says 160 then that should be the limit.

But, folks will do what they want with money involved.

And sometimes, the catchweight is not giving any fighter an advantage.

In those cases, it doesn't matter as much. In other cases it can be everything.
Right, koolturB, just say it, "catch weights involving my Lil Floyd do not matter. All others are egregious."
koolkc107
Middleweight
Posts: 2032
Joined: 31 Oct 2013, 10:54

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by koolkc107 »

Tanzio wrote:
koolkc107 wrote:Lemieux has a point. If the belt says 160 then that should be the limit.

But, folks will do what they want with money involved.

And sometimes, the catchweight is not giving any fighter an advantage.

In those cases, it doesn't matter as much. In other cases it can be everything.
Right, koolturB, just say it, "catch weights involving my Lil Floyd do not matter. All others are egregious."
:roll:

Actually, I was thinking of Cotto's upcoming fight with Canelo.

This IS a thread about one of them, right?
Tanzio
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 12264
Joined: 04 Feb 2012, 09:17

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by Tanzio »

koolkc107 wrote:
Tanzio wrote:
koolkc107 wrote:Lemieux has a point. If the belt says 160 then that should be the limit.

But, folks will do what they want with money involved.

And sometimes, the catchweight is not giving any fighter an advantage.

In those cases, it doesn't matter as much. In other cases it can be everything.
Right, koolturB, just say it, "catch weights involving my Lil Floyd do not matter. All others are egregious."
:roll:

Actually, I was thinking of Cotto's upcoming fight with Canelo.

This IS a thread about one of them, right?
It is ALWAYS a thread about your Lil Floyd and/or Pac with you, koolturB.
koolkc107
Middleweight
Posts: 2032
Joined: 31 Oct 2013, 10:54

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by koolkc107 »

Tanzio wrote:
koolkc107 wrote:
Tanzio wrote:
Right, koolturB, just say it, "catch weights involving my Lil Floyd do not matter. All others are egregious."
:roll:

Actually, I was thinking of Cotto's upcoming fight with Canelo.

This IS a thread about one of them, right?
It is ALWAYS a thread about your Lil Floyd and/or Pac with you, koolturB.
Except, in your genius, you've overlooked the fact that you are the only one mentioning either one here.

:TU:
Tanzio
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 12264
Joined: 04 Feb 2012, 09:17

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by Tanzio »

koolkc107 wrote:
Tanzio wrote:
koolkc107 wrote: :roll:

Actually, I was thinking of Cotto's upcoming fight with Canelo.

This IS a thread about one of them, right?
It is ALWAYS a thread about your Lil Floyd and/or Pac with you, koolturB.
Except, in your genius, you've overlooked the fact that you are the only one mentioning either one here.

:TU:
Lil Floyd won't be happy with you, koolturB.
ClivePatrickLyons
Super Welterweight
Posts: 2811
Joined: 07 Aug 2014, 22:10

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by ClivePatrickLyons »

Come to Auzzie land you can challenge any-one Miguel fu.. we don't care about wei :lol: ght whats that.
Post Reply