Shame if he don't the pretty far to travel not to get paid.smiling assassin wrote:Frank has trouble paying after the fight. Can't see him weighing out when the boy ain't even stepped through the ropes. Hope I'm wrong thoughNaandrew wrote:I hope the Thai lad got paid
Paul Butler - disgrace
-
world ranked
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 2199
- Joined: 21 Jan 2008, 14:21
Re: Paul Butler - disgrace
Re: Paul Butler - disgrace
It's just a real shame for the opponent. There's no excuse for not making weight
-
Marlo Stanfield
- Middleweight
- Posts: 447
- Joined: 17 Dec 2013, 14:38
Re: Paul Butler - disgrace
Warren quoted him as being the "Golovkin of the lighter weights" before he got starched by TeteStuarty30 wrote:What a prat. Very overrated in my opinion anyway. Good fighter but not as good as some on BN would have you believe.
Re: Paul Butler - disgrace
Name that came to my mind was Kieran Farrell. If Butler was in a sauna, I'm glad his fight was called off, for the sake of his own health.jameswilson wrote:Lee Purdy.lefty wrote:My mind has gone blank! Lol. Who was it again? I remember it happenin but I just can't remember who it was.Naandrew wrote:
Saunas and making weight this sounds familiar.........
-
PredatorHayds
- Super Welterweight
- Posts: 4891
- Joined: 08 Jul 2015, 08:23
Re: Paul Butler - disgrace
Can't really call Butler a disgrace.
He's a top bloke who lives the life 100%. He's just too big for the weight.
He tried to lose it couldn't then the whole sauna incident got found out by the BBBoC who wouldn't let the fight go ahead.
Shame the Conlan fight looks highly unlikely now. Still fights available at Bantamweight though but as previously mentioned he will be small for the weight.
He's a top bloke who lives the life 100%. He's just too big for the weight.
He tried to lose it couldn't then the whole sauna incident got found out by the BBBoC who wouldn't let the fight go ahead.
Shame the Conlan fight looks highly unlikely now. Still fights available at Bantamweight though but as previously mentioned he will be small for the weight.
-
Counter-puncher
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 39141
- Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41
Re: Paul Butler - disgrace
Too big for 115lbs but small for the whopping weight of 118lbs, I don't buy that
Re: Paul Butler - disgrace
they get rapidly taller the higher you go in the little weights, butler has outgrown superfly weight wise but will be mostly up against it height wise at bantamCounter-puncher wrote:Too big for 115lbs but small for the whopping weight of 118lbs, I don't buy that
-
Counter-puncher
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 39141
- Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41
Re: Paul Butler - disgrace
Hmm ok how tall is he?
Re: Paul Butler - disgrace
not sure but hes one of the smaller small men, besides the height those extra 3 pounds mean a helluva lot down at the wee weightsCounter-puncher wrote:Hmm ok how tall is he?
-
Counter-puncher
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 39141
- Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41
Re: Paul Butler - disgrace
I'm not going to think that hes too big and therefore draining down too much to 115, but too small at 118, just doesn't make sense to me, like 'unfortunate for butler, its just that the ideal weight for him doesn't exist in boxing, if only there was 116.5lb division hes just too big for 115 and too small for 118'
Re: Paul Butler - disgrace
Stuart Hall is 5'8" according to boxrec which I would say is tall for a bantamweight and Butler beat him anyway. I don't think Butler is going to be dwarfed by his opponents, Haskins is 5'5" and he can't be too much shorter than that...
-
jameswilson
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 13438
- Joined: 08 Jan 2004, 18:01
Re: Paul Butler - disgrace
I'm with you here. We aint talking about a Cruiser going to heavy or a light-heavy to cruiser where there's 20lbs in it. I know the smaller men are obviously smaller but they aren't a quarter of the size of a cruiserweight are they? They are just over half the weight of a cruiserweight and 5/6ths the height more or less. I'v long said the weights below featherweight have too many weights.Counter-puncher wrote:I'm not going to think that hes too big and therefore draining down too much to 115, but too small at 118, just doesn't make sense to me, like 'unfortunate for butler, its just that the ideal weight for him doesn't exist in boxing, if only there was 116.5lb division hes just too big for 115 and too small for 118'
-
Boxerbeetle
- Light Heavyweight
- Posts: 32967
- Joined: 19 Sep 2011, 10:59
Re: Paul Butler - disgrace
Yeah eff it, why not, we already have Canelo-weight, let's have Butler-weight at 116.5Counter-puncher wrote:I'm not going to think that hes too big and therefore draining down too much to 115, but too small at 118, just doesn't make sense to me, like 'unfortunate for butler, its just that the ideal weight for him doesn't exist in boxing, if only there was 116.5lb division hes just too big for 115 and too small for 118'
Re: Paul Butler - disgrace
theres always gonna be cases when a boxers perfect fighting weight doesn't quite slot in to a weight divisions limits, meaning you could end up fighting in the division above but only just, and in the lower divisions every extra pound counts
Re: Paul Butler - disgrace
In fact every pound counts in all divisions or else no one would try to weigh as close to the limit as they do
-
Counter-puncher
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 39141
- Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41
Re: Paul Butler - disgrace
I generally defend the existence of all the lower weights for exactly the reasons you give mate, I'm just not convinced butler or anyone else can be too big for one weight class and too small for the one 3lbs northlittlepug wrote:In fact every pound counts in all divisions or else no one would try to weigh as close to the limit as they do
Re: Paul Butler - disgrace
3Ib is a lot for the little guys, if their was 6Ibs difference between Butler and the Thai, that would have been a big advantage.Counter-puncher wrote:Too big for 115lbs but small for the whopping weight of 118lbs, I don't buy that
Re: Paul Butler - disgrace
am assuming that those who dont understand the small differences in weight in the lower divisions are big guys that could lose 3 pounds just going to the toilet ! its blatant smallism ![[icon_shame.gif] :shame:](./images/smilies/icon_shame.gif)
Re: Paul Butler - disgrace
You assume right !littlepug wrote:am assuming that those who dont understand the small differences in weight in the lower divisions are big guys that could lose 3 pounds just going to the toilet ! its blatant smallism
Re: Paul Butler - disgrace
Some harsh comments about butler, he's obviously can't make the weight and was trying his hardest sitting in a sauna to make the weight, time to move up !
-
GooalaShooola
- Super Middleweight
- Posts: 174
- Joined: 11 May 2013, 18:40
Re: Paul Butler - disgrace
Still believe Hall won that fight (despite the general consensus going in being Butler was levels above) but that's a whole different thread...chinarich wrote:Stuart Hall is 5'8" according to boxrec which I would say is tall for a bantamweight and Butler beat him anyway. I don't think Butler is going to be dwarfed by his opponents, Haskins is 5'5" and he can't be too much shorter than that...
Re: Paul Butler - disgrace
You are not the only one who believes it was a fix.GooalaShooola wrote:Still believe Hall won that fight (despite the general consensus going in being Butler was levels above) but that's a whole different thread...chinarich wrote:Stuart Hall is 5'8" according to boxrec which I would say is tall for a bantamweight and Butler beat him anyway. I don't think Butler is going to be dwarfed by his opponents, Haskins is 5'5" and he can't be too much shorter than that...
-
handsofstone
- Cruiserweight
- Posts: 23227
- Joined: 11 Jan 2011, 17:28
Re: Paul Butler - disgrace
Who do you think won Nick?nick885 wrote:You are not the only one who believes it was a fix.GooalaShooola wrote:Still believe Hall won that fight (despite the general consensus going in being Butler was levels above) but that's a whole different thread...chinarich wrote:Stuart Hall is 5'8" according to boxrec which I would say is tall for a bantamweight and Butler beat him anyway. I don't think Butler is going to be dwarfed by his opponents, Haskins is 5'5" and he can't be too much shorter than that...
Re: Paul Butler - disgrace
I can just imagine a bit of a fat bloke here, sounding off because an 8 stone 6 fighter couldn’t trim off an extra 3lbs.....
Re: Paul Butler - disgrace
From ringside it looked like butler punched gloves and arms and couldn't handle toe to toe and spent the last half running away and still looked like that on the TV after we got back from the fight certainly looked that way from ring sidehandsofstone wrote:Who do you think won Nick?nick885 wrote:You are not the only one who believes it was a fix.GooalaShooola wrote:
Still believe Hall won that fight (despite the general consensus going in being Butler was levels above) but that's a whole different thread...