Paul Butler - disgrace

world ranked
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2199
Joined: 21 Jan 2008, 14:21

Re: Paul Butler - disgrace

Post by world ranked »

smiling assassin wrote:
Naandrew wrote:I hope the Thai lad got paid
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 though
Shame if he don't the pretty far to travel not to get paid.
Loynesy
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1767
Joined: 26 Sep 2003, 08:29

Re: Paul Butler - disgrace

Post by Loynesy »

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

Post by Marlo Stanfield »

Stuarty30 wrote:What a prat. Very overrated in my opinion anyway. Good fighter but not as good as some on BN would have you believe.
Warren quoted him as being the "Golovkin of the lighter weights" before he got starched by Tete :doh:
olij999
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1242
Joined: 14 Jun 2004, 08:22

Re: Paul Butler - disgrace

Post by olij999 »

jameswilson wrote:
lefty wrote:
Naandrew wrote:
Saunas and making weight this sounds familiar.........
My mind has gone blank! Lol. Who was it again? I remember it happenin but I just can't remember who it was.
Lee Purdy.
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.
PredatorHayds
Super Welterweight
Posts: 4891
Joined: 08 Jul 2015, 08:23

Re: Paul Butler - disgrace

Post by PredatorHayds »

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.
Counter-puncher
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 39141
Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41

Re: Paul Butler - disgrace

Post by Counter-puncher »

Too big for 115lbs but small for the whopping weight of 118lbs, I don't buy that
littlepug
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 5351
Joined: 03 Jul 2012, 07:17

Re: Paul Butler - disgrace

Post by littlepug »

Counter-puncher wrote:Too big for 115lbs but small for the whopping weight of 118lbs, I don't buy that
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 bantam
Counter-puncher
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 39141
Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41

Re: Paul Butler - disgrace

Post by Counter-puncher »

Hmm ok how tall is he?
littlepug
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 5351
Joined: 03 Jul 2012, 07:17

Re: Paul Butler - disgrace

Post by littlepug »

Counter-puncher wrote:Hmm ok how tall is he?
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 weights
Counter-puncher
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 39141
Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41

Re: Paul Butler - disgrace

Post by Counter-puncher »

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'
chinarich
Middleweight
Posts: 6890
Joined: 29 Dec 2013, 13:20

Re: Paul Butler - disgrace

Post by chinarich »

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
Heavyweight
Posts: 13439
Joined: 08 Jan 2004, 18:01

Re: Paul Butler - disgrace

Post by jameswilson »

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'
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.
Boxerbeetle
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 32967
Joined: 19 Sep 2011, 10:59

Re: Paul Butler - disgrace

Post by Boxerbeetle »

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'
Yeah eff it, why not, we already have Canelo-weight, let's have Butler-weight at 116.5
littlepug
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 5351
Joined: 03 Jul 2012, 07:17

Re: Paul Butler - disgrace

Post by littlepug »

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
littlepug
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 5351
Joined: 03 Jul 2012, 07:17

Re: Paul Butler - disgrace

Post by littlepug »

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
Heavyweight
Posts: 39141
Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41

Re: Paul Butler - disgrace

Post by Counter-puncher »

littlepug 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
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 north
Anzi
Super Middleweight
Posts: 1317
Joined: 13 Jan 2013, 18:29

Re: Paul Butler - disgrace

Post by Anzi »

Counter-puncher wrote:Too big for 115lbs but small for the whopping weight of 118lbs, I don't buy that
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.
littlepug
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 5351
Joined: 03 Jul 2012, 07:17

Re: Paul Butler - disgrace

Post by littlepug »

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 :shame:
Anzi
Super Middleweight
Posts: 1317
Joined: 13 Jan 2013, 18:29

Re: Paul Butler - disgrace

Post by Anzi »

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 :shame:
You assume right !
pimp
Super Middleweight
Posts: 288
Joined: 27 Nov 2012, 16:55

Re: Paul Butler - disgrace

Post by pimp »

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

Post by GooalaShooola »

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...
Still believe Hall won that fight (despite the general consensus going in being Butler was levels above) but that's a whole different thread... :brick:
nick885
Middleweight
Posts: 298
Joined: 05 Apr 2014, 18:05

Re: Paul Butler - disgrace

Post by nick885 »

GooalaShooola wrote:
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...
Still believe Hall won that fight (despite the general consensus going in being Butler was levels above) but that's a whole different thread... :brick:
You are not the only one who believes it was a fix.
handsofstone
Cruiserweight
Posts: 23227
Joined: 11 Jan 2011, 17:28

Re: Paul Butler - disgrace

Post by handsofstone »

nick885 wrote:
GooalaShooola wrote:
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...
Still believe Hall won that fight (despite the general consensus going in being Butler was levels above) but that's a whole different thread... :brick:
You are not the only one who believes it was a fix.
Who do you think won Nick? :OhYes:
magwitch
Middleweight
Posts: 4753
Joined: 30 Jun 2014, 20:04

Re: Paul Butler - disgrace

Post by magwitch »

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.....
nick885
Middleweight
Posts: 298
Joined: 05 Apr 2014, 18:05

Re: Paul Butler - disgrace

Post by nick885 »

handsofstone wrote:
nick885 wrote:
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... :brick:
You are not the only one who believes it was a fix.
Who do you think won Nick? :OhYes:
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 side :wave:
Post Reply