Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Batley18
Super Middleweight
Posts: 567
Joined: 18 Sep 2012, 06:29

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by Batley18 »

Absolutely spot on. I really think that World title holders should be banned from catchweight fights altogether. People want to see belts on the line. The worst was Peterson Vs Garcia, two champs fighting at catchweight - no belts on the line. Absolutely pathetic.

If someone is thinking of jumping a weight class, and want to go for a catchweight in between the jump, I have no issue with that.
Dancin' Dan
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 172
Joined: 05 Jan 2002, 20:00

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by Dancin' Dan »

Catch weight fights for titles shouldn't be allowed however there is presidence in doing so back to the beginning of the sport.

Wish guys on this site would stop making stuff up to serve their point of view.... Have the balls to have a point of view. Rubio in no way annilated Leumiex. Watch the fight he lost the entire fight till Leumiex gassed (aka just like Klitscho and others have done too). Tell us you think GGG is gonna destroy him cool. Tell us you are a huge fan of Cotto.... Awesome, he is an all time great in my book. I don't blame him for carefully picking fights for the most money now (and Canelo is gonna be a very tough fight). Exciting times in the middleweight division.
Baby Face Finster
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 17425
Joined: 29 Dec 2004, 23:34

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by Baby Face Finster »

Catch weights are only OK when a belt isn't on the line. Winning a belt under a catch weight stipulation sucks donkey balls. I used to be a fan of Cotto until he turned into a prima donna.
ikorolev
Middleweight
Posts: 4895
Joined: 21 Sep 2013, 19:08

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by ikorolev »

Dancin' Dan wrote:Catch weight fights for titles shouldn't be allowed however there is presidence in doing so back to the beginning of the sport.

Wish guys on this site would stop making stuff up to serve their point of view.... Have the balls to have a point of view. Rubio in no way annilated Leumiex. Watch the fight he lost the entire fight till Leumiex gassed (aka just like Klitscho and others have done too). Tell us you think GGG is gonna destroy him cool. Tell us you are a huge fan of Cotto.... Awesome, he is an all time great in my book. I don't blame him for carefully picking fights for the most money now (and Canelo is gonna be a very tough fight). Exciting times in the middleweight division.
Do you mean Washington fighting Adams at a catch-weight ? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Seriously speaking, Cotto vs Canelo is a really exciting fight, but it is a mockery of a MW title fight.
Syntax Error
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 9011
Joined: 22 Apr 2005, 08:00

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by Syntax Error »

Lemieux is spot on.

Cotto should either drop down to 154 & try & win a title there, or man up & be a middleweight.

Nothing should amaze me with the sanctioning bodies in boxing, but it does amaze me that this is allowed to happen.
caldo2025
Super Welterweight
Posts: 4417
Joined: 16 Dec 2014, 07:37

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by caldo2025 »

Dancin' Dan wrote:Catch weight fights for titles shouldn't be allowed however there is presidence in doing so back to the beginning of the sport.

Wish guys on this site would stop making stuff up to serve their point of view.... Have the balls to have a point of view. Rubio in no way annilated Leumiex. Watch the fight he lost the entire fight till Leumiex gassed (aka just like Klitscho and others have done too). Tell us you think GGG is gonna destroy him cool. Tell us you are a huge fan of Cotto.... Awesome, he is an all time great in my book. I don't blame him for carefully picking fights for the most money now (and Canelo is gonna be a very tough fight). Exciting times in the middleweight division.
Absolutely correct. These goons that have that canned response "GGG killed Rubio and Rubio demolished Lemieux so GGG's going to just stomp over Lemieux" will be the ones that don't buy the fight in 3 weeks and miss a classic fight for however long it lasts.

Lemieux lost both of his fights for one reason and one reason alone, conditioning. It's something that critics doubt to this day even after years of dedicating himself to better conditioning and being in 12 round shape. At the time of those 2 losses, Lemieux was 21 years old and knocking everyone out thinking he was on top of the world and that no one could hang with him. Like most 21 year olds that think they are unstoppable and never wrong, he found out the hard way.

Look, i think GGG wins this fight by KO but it's just because GGG is just unstoppable right now. But I do think that Lemieux has the better chance of winning than anyone else before him. He's got thunder in both hands and i just hope that we get 5 or more rounds of bombs by both guys before it's over.
Shirow
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1718
Joined: 29 Nov 2003, 11:15

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by Shirow »

I agree that Lemieux won't lose because of his stamina. He will lose because he is nothing like good enough to take on GGG. He has very good stamina, I said after the N'Dam fight i don't remember seeing a fighter miss so many haymakers for 12 rounds and not be totally exhausted.

About the sanctioning bodies - what can they do other than enforce minimum as well as maximum weights? If Canelo weighs in at the MW limit the fight is still on for the belt but it will be Cotto who might want to pull the plug.
If the contracts state they they must weigh in even lower there isn't much they can do about it. I think it would be very difficult for them to get involved in contract negotiations to make sure that weight advantages aren't included somehow.
Bobbyptsd
Cruiserweight
Posts: 1858
Joined: 24 Apr 2011, 00:58

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by Bobbyptsd »

After Lemieux gets smashed early, it will put his criticism of a HOF fighter into perspective.
Taansend
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 11890
Joined: 10 Jul 2004, 17:38

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by Taansend »

I've been a Cotto fan for a long time but completely agree with Lemieux's comments. Not sure what Bazookas argument is.
beatdown337
Super Middleweight
Posts: 131
Joined: 21 Jun 2013, 12:20

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by beatdown337 »

it seems like alot of people dont like the fact that it was lemieux that made this statement, but everyone complains about catchweights. Saying that lemieux wont have much to say after meeting ggg has nothing to do with his opinion of cotto. Truth be told, i believe that none of this will matter after canelo beats cotto down in a few months.

My question then becomes, if the winners of those two bouts face each other (which in my mind will be ggg and canelo) do the losers face each other as well. I can assure you, that there is no way cotto would take the risk of fighting lemieux no matter if he calls him out 1000 times.
Bobbyptsd
Cruiserweight
Posts: 1858
Joined: 24 Apr 2011, 00:58

Re: Lemieux re: Cotto's catchweight BS

Post by Bobbyptsd »

beatdown337 wrote:it seems like alot of people dont like the fact that it was lemieux that made this statement, but everyone complains about catchweights. Saying that lemieux wont have much to say after meeting ggg has nothing to do with his opinion of cotto. Truth be told, i believe that none of this will matter after canelo beats cotto down in a few months.

My question then becomes, if the winners of those two bouts face each other (which in my mind will be ggg and canelo) do the losers face each other as well. I can assure you, that there is no way cotto would take the risk of fighting lemieux no matter if he calls him out 1000 times.
Yes it does. Cotto is a great fighter, Lemieux is not. And no, not everyone is getting excited over a couple of pounds.
Post Reply