canelo vs rocky fielding

[ewenhay]

You've missed the point though. He's challenging Fielding for his title but insisting on rules which aren't those specified by the governing body. You can see surely why people don't like that attitude.

Especially from someone who recently failed his drug test

Exactly plus he’s a pound for pound top 10 fighter. Who else in that 10 is modifying the rules. Weight climbers like Crawford are relying on transferable skills and natural size adjustments rather than contract clauses.

This makes it exciting as there’s now the challenge of size...obviously not the best example with Crawford as he’s already a decently sized ww.

Anyway this modifying will continue and the advantage Canelo got at the lighter weights won’t be allowed agaisnt him. Ironic if that’s the right word for it.

I agree completely. Unfortunately we appear to be in the minority. A lot of modern fans seem to like all these weight clauses etc.

Maybe I'm too much of a traditionalist where I like achievements through the weights to be meaningful

[boxing_rocks]

You've missed the point though. He's challenging Fielding for his title but insisting on rules which aren't those specified by the governing body. You can see surely why people don't like that attitude.

Especially from someone who recently failed his drug test

Exactly plus he’s a pound for pound top 10 fighter. Who else in that 10 is modifying the rules. Weight climbers like Crawford are relying on transferable skills and natural size adjustments rather than contract clauses.

This makes it exciting as there’s now the challenge of size...obviously not the best example with Crawford as he’s already a decently sized ww.

Anyway this modifying will continue and the advantage Canelo got at the lighter weights won’t be allowed agaisnt him. Ironic if that’s the right word for it.

I agree completely. Unfortunately we appear to be in the minority. A lot of modern fans seem to like all these weight clauses etc.

Maybe I'm too much of a traditionalist where I like achievements through the weights to be meaningful

Catch weights in title fights and rehydration clauses is prerogative of divas.

[Thomastearns]

Where does this nonsense end? If you want this fight ($$$$$$) then you can't rehydrate > 10lbs.

How about going further? You wear the gloves I chose, I pick the referee and judges, the venue, the date and time etc etc.

How about a set of standard rules that at least gives the appearance of fairness rather than enforced prostitution? Albeit for a good sum of money.

What other sport sanctions this kind of bullshit? One set of rules please.

[tiny_acres]

Where does this nonsense end? If you want this fight ($$$$$$) then you can't rehydrate > 10lbs.

How about going further? You wear the gloves I chose, I pick the referee and judges, the venue, the date and time etc etc.

How about a set of standard rules that at least gives the appearance of fairness rather than enforced prostitution? Albeit for a good sum of money.

What other sport sanctions this kind of bullshit? One set of rules please.

Post of the day This is the thing that drives me crazy about the sport. If you can draw money you get to pick the judges, the weight the venue, rehydration clauses. Glove size ring size and whatever else you can think of.
It is enough to drive you nuts

[Enlightened-One]

Unfortunately we appear to be in the minority. A lot of modern fans seem to like all these weight clauses etc.

Maybe I'm too much of a traditionalist where I like achievements through the weights to be meaningful

Catchweights and rehydration clauses have been part and parcel of the sport of boxing for decades.

The 1906 bout between Joe Gans and Battling Nelson was a catchweight fight (at 133lbs).

I believe that another example of a catchweight bout, occurring more than eighty years ago, was when Henry Armstrong captured the world welterweight title from Barney Ross.

Kid Gavilan competed in several catchweight bouts between 1951 and 1954.

Roberto Duran's 1972 bout against Esteban De Jesus included a catchweight limit.

Sugar Ray Leonard and Donny Lalonde competed for the light heavyweight title, despite both men not being allowed to weigh more than 168lbs.

I seem to recall rehydration clauses being around for about a decade, but perhaps I’m wrong about this, as they may have existed even longer than that.

The reason why rehydration limits are a newer phenomena than catchweights, is because up until the 1980’s, the official weigh-in’s took place on the very same day of the fight, whereas nowadays it’s the day prior.

If the rules regarding official weigh in’s for bouts staged a century ago were the same as those that are currently used, then rehydration clauses would have been implemented back then also.

Simply put: catchweights and rehydration limits aren’t new concepts. There’s no point in pretending otherwise!

[Ricky]

Unfortunately we appear to be in the minority. A lot of modern fans seem to like all these weight clauses etc.

Maybe I'm too much of a traditionalist where I like achievements through the weights to be meaningful

Catchweights and rehydration clauses have been part and parcel of the sport of boxing for decades.

The 1906 bout between Joe Gans and Battling Nelson was a catchweight fight (at 133lbs).

I believe that another example of a catchweight bout, occurring more than eighty years ago, was when Henry Armstrong captured the world welterweight title from Barney Ross.

Kid Gavilan competed in several catchweight bouts between 1951 and 1954.

Roberto Duran's 1972 bout against Esteban De Jesus included a catchweight limit.

Sugar Ray Leonard and Donny Lalonde competed for the light heavyweight title, despite both men not being allowed to weigh more than 168lbs.

I seem to recall rehydration clauses being around for about a decade, but perhaps I’m wrong about this, as they may have existed even longer than that.

The reason why rehydration limits are a newer phenomena than catchweights, is because up until the 1980’s, the official weigh-in’s took place on the very same day of the fight, whereas nowadays it’s the day prior.

If the rules regarding official weigh in’s for bouts staged a century ago were the same as those that are currently used, then rehydration clauses would have been implemented back then also.

Simply put: catchweights and rehydration limits aren’t new concepts. There’s no point in pretending otherwise!

Rehydration clauses are very rare. They should be outlawed entirely and if they become more common will result in serious injury/death & a big fat lawsuit.

[adislav123]

Okidoki! Rehydration clause discussed.

Still it's a shitty stipulation favouring the smaller guy who is supposed to be pound for pound nr.1 in the world against a much taller titleholder who is widely not regarded as an A level fighter.

[ewenhay]

Okidoki! Rehydration clause discussed.

Still it's a shitty stipulation favouring the smaller guy who is supposed to be pound for pound nr.1 in the world against a much taller titleholder who is widely not regarded as an A level fighter.

If you're not big enough to step up and fight fair and square at super middleweight then there's an easy answer, stay at middleweight

[Deleted_Scenes]

Simply put: catchweights and rehydration limits aren’t new concepts. There’s no point in pretending otherwise!

This is correct, but the fact that something has been around for a long time is not an argument in favour of said practice.

[tiny_acres]

Okidoki! Rehydration clause discussed.

Still it's a shitty stipulation favouring the smaller guy who is supposed to be pound for pound nr.1 in the world against a much taller titleholder who is widely not regarded as an A level fighter.

If you're not big enough to step up and fight fair and square at super middleweight then there's an easy answer, stay at middleweight

Probably can't make middleweight easily without peds

[Enlightened-One]

Simply put: catchweights and rehydration limits aren’t new concepts. There’s no point in pretending otherwise!

This is correct, but the fact that something has been around for a long time is not an argument in favour of said practice.

I stated facts regarding the practice of weight related pre-fight agreements that have affected the sport for a very long time. And it’s utterly bizarre to still see people forgetting this fundamental aspect of our beloved sport.

There are a few exceptional occasions whereby catchweight limits and rehydration clauses can be applied reasonably.

It would be ignorant to claim otherwise.

In terms of the Canelo-Fielding bout, the 10lbs rehydration clause is quite clearly a non-issue.

And I’ve already listed several reasons why, but it seems that people are actively seeking an opportunity to criticise the Mexican rather than bothering to pay any attention to the thoughts of the so-called British “victim”.

It’s clear that people enjoy complaining, but they don’t want to expend any effort researching the validity of their complaints.

[Deleted_Scenes]

Simply put: catchweights and rehydration limits aren’t new concepts. There’s no point in pretending otherwise!

This is correct, but the fact that something has been around for a long time is not an argument in favour of said practice.

I stated facts regarding the practice of weight related pre-fight agreements that have affected the sport for a very long time. And it’s utterly bizarre to still see people forgetting this fundamental aspect of our beloved sport.

There are a few exceptional occasions whereby catchweight limits and rehydration clauses can be applied reasonably.

It would be ignorant to claim otherwise.

In terms of the Canelo-Fielding bout, the 10lbs rehydration clause is quite clearly a non-issue.

And I’ve already listed several reasons why, but it seems that people are actively seeking an opportunity to criticise the Mexican rather than bothering to pay any attention to the thoughts of the so-called British “victim”.

It’s clear that people enjoy complaining, but they don’t want to expend any effort researching the validity of their complaints.

I've read your reasons. They centre around recent comments to the press, stating Fielding doesn't cut/rehydrate much anyway.

The reality is, Fielding missed weight for a commonwealth super middleweight title fight by 6 3/4 pounds. Yes, that was 4 years ago, but 30% of his fights since then have been fought in the light heavyweight range.

17 of Fielding's 28 career fights have been fought above the 168 limit - with a career high of 179.

Fielding and Hearn will publicly say whatever makes Canelo happy. They've won the lottery, financially. That doesn't make what they say to the press true. Fielding is a big super middleweight, who has only actually fought within that limit 11 times (less than 40% of his fights).

You may ask next why Fielding accepted the fight, if he's going to be so drained - he is, whatever Hearn says (he's also trying to sell the fight - telling his viewers one of the fighters may be a zombie in the ring is not an effective way of doing that). The answer is money. People risk their health for a fat wad of cash. Always have, always will.

My argument here, is that commissions should have rules in place preventing fighters putting themselves at unnecessary increased risk. Frankly, it's a joke they don't, especially for title fights. Anyone entering the ring dehydrated, runs a massively increased risk of suffering neurological trauma. That's a fact. And whatever Hearn has been saying, Fielding's history suggests he does not make 168 easily.

Limiting rehydration should be banned, period. It's a dangerous practice. Ideally, fighters should not cut water at all, but that's another topic.

Canelo beats the crap out of Fielding whatever weight they're allowed to be. Fielding is domestic level. Nothing more.

[Enlightened-One]

This is correct, but the fact that something has been around for a long time is not an argument in favour of said practice.

I stated facts regarding the practice of weight related pre-fight agreements that have affected the sport for a very long time. And it’s utterly bizarre to still see people forgetting this fundamental aspect of our beloved sport.

There are a few exceptional occasions whereby catchweight limits and rehydration clauses can be applied reasonably.

It would be ignorant to claim otherwise.

In terms of the Canelo-Fielding bout, the 10lbs rehydration clause is quite clearly a non-issue.

And I’ve already listed several reasons why, but it seems that people are actively seeking an opportunity to criticise the Mexican rather than bothering to pay any attention to the thoughts of the so-called British “victim”.

It’s clear that people enjoy complaining, but they don’t want to expend any effort researching the validity of their complaints.

I've read your reasons. They centre around recent comments to the press, stating Fielding doesn't cut/rehydrate much anyway.

The reality is, Fielding missed weight for a commonwealth super middleweight title fight by 6 3/4 pounds. Yes, that was 4 years ago, but 30% of his fights since then have been fought in the light heavyweight range.

17 of Fielding's 28 career fights have been fought above the 168 limit - with a career high of 179.

Fielding and Hearn will publicly say whatever makes Canelo happy. They've won the lottery, financially. That doesn't make what they say to the press true. Fielding is a big super middleweight, who has only actually fought within that limit 11 times (less than 40% of his fights).

You may ask next why Fielding accepted the fight, if he's going to be so drained - he is, whatever Hearn says (he's also trying to sell the fight - telling his viewers one of the fighters may be a zombie in the ring is not an effective way of doing that). The answer is money. People risk their health for a fat wad of cash. Always have, always will.

My argument here, is that commissions should have rules in place preventing fighters putting themselves at unnecessary increased risk. Frankly, it's a joke they don't, especially for title fights. Anyone entering the ring dehydrated, runs a massively increased risk of suffering neurological trauma. That's a fact. And whatever Hearn has been saying, Fielding's history suggests he does not make 168 easily.

Limiting rehydration should be banned, period. It's a dangerous practice. Ideally, fighters should not cut water at all, but that's another topic.

Canelo beats the crap out of Fielding whatever weight they're allowed to be. Fielding is domestic level. Nothing more.

First of all, you can’t pretend to know more about Fielding’s ability to make weight more than he does. He hasn’t struggled making weight since he started working with leading boxing nutritionist James Morehen and his team at Liverpool University, which I believe was during his last ten bouts.

Second, the 10lbs rehydration clause for the Canelo-Fielding bout seems no different than the IBF’s morning of the fight weigh-in rules. I’ll concede the fact that this belt isn’t being contested for, but the same rules seem to be applied.

I’m sure if Rocky Fielding had been offered a shot at Jose Uzcategui’s IBF title instead of the WBA’s regular strap previously owned by Tyron Zeuge, the Brit would have taken it. And nor would you be hideously outraged about the fact the Brit would’ve been forced to weigh less than 178lbs on the morning of that bout either.

And finally, I’m not an advocate for catchweight limits and rehydration clauses, but there are exceptional occasions where they can be applied reasonably, such as when they have almost no impact whatsoever (i.e. the Canelo-Fielding bout) or if they can safely and fairly level the playing field (i.e. Hopkins-De La Hoya).

A lot of big fights wouldn’t have been made without them (i.e. Rigondeaux wouldn't have faced Lomachenko without there being a rehydration clause in place).

[Deleted_Scenes]

First of all, you can’t pretend to know more about Fielding’s ability to make weight more than he does. He hasn’t struggled making weight since he started working with leading boxing nutritionist James Morehen and his team at Liverpool University, which I believe was during his last ten bouts.

Second, the 10lbs rehydration clause for the Canelo-Fielding bout seems no different than the IBF’s morning of the fight weigh-in rules. I’ll concede the fact that this belt isn’t being contested for, but the same rules seem to be applied.

I’m sure if Rocky Fielding had been offered a shot at Jose Uzcategui’s IBF title instead of the WBA’s regular strap previously owned by Tyron Zeuge, the Brit would have taken it. And nor would you be hideously outraged about the fact the Brit would’ve been forced to weigh less than 178lbs on the morning of that bout either.

And finally, I’m not an advocate for catchweight limits and rehydration clauses, but there are exceptional occasions where they can be applied reasonably, such as when they have almost no impact whatsoever (i.e. the Canelo-Fielding bout) or if they can safely and fairly level the playing field (i.e. Hopkins-De La Hoya).

A lot of big fights wouldn’t have been made without them (i.e. Rigondeaux wouldn't have faced Lomachenko without there being a rehydration clause in place).

I'm not claiming to know more than Fielding. I'm not even claiming he finds making 168 difficult anymore. I'm saying he's a big super middleweight who regularly fights as a light heavyweight - as recently as march this year.

The points you make around rehydration clauses and the IBF, of course he takes those fights, and of course the Canelo clause is the same as the IBF.

That doesn't change my point - that rehydration clauses should be banned outright (including by the IBF). What is intended as a protective measure to discourage excessive water cutting, actually encourages fighters to cut the same amount but rehydrate less, leading to dehydrated fighters entering the ring. It's asking for someone to be inflicted with life changing injuries.

Catchweight, I more or less agree with you on. Limiting rehydration, never. You can't argue with the science. It's dangerous.

What should actually happen in an ideal world, is fighters are weighed at regular intervals in the month leading up to the fight, and must pass a hydration test alongside a weight check (to prove they haven't cut water). That way, you get fighters fighting at their correct weights, you can bring back same day weigh-ins, and you protect against dehydration related neurological trauma.

Of course, that makes too much sense, and this is boxing, so it's not happening.

Lomachenko vs Rigondeaux is a bad example. That fight shouldn't have been sanctioned. It was always going to be a mismatch. I picked Loma by comfortable stoppage, or shutout points win if he didn't press the action, from day 1. It baffles me how people thought it would be competitive. Does Lara stand a chance against Callum Smith or David Benavidez??

[Enlightened-One]

First of all, you can’t pretend to know more about Fielding’s ability to make weight more than he does. He hasn’t struggled making weight since he started working with leading boxing nutritionist James Morehen and his team at Liverpool University, which I believe was during his last ten bouts.

Second, the 10lbs rehydration clause for the Canelo-Fielding bout seems no different than the IBF’s morning of the fight weigh-in rules. I’ll concede the fact that this belt isn’t being contested for, but the same rules seem to be applied.

I’m sure if Rocky Fielding had been offered a shot at Jose Uzcategui’s IBF title instead of the WBA’s regular strap previously owned by Tyron Zeuge, the Brit would have taken it. And nor would you be hideously outraged about the fact the Brit would’ve been forced to weigh less than 178lbs on the morning of that bout either.

And finally, I’m not an advocate for catchweight limits and rehydration clauses, but there are exceptional occasions where they can be applied reasonably, such as when they have almost no impact whatsoever (i.e. the Canelo-Fielding bout) or if they can safely and fairly level the playing field (i.e. Hopkins-De La Hoya).

A lot of big fights wouldn’t have been made without them (i.e. Rigondeaux wouldn't have faced Lomachenko without there being a rehydration clause in place).

I'm not claiming to know more than Fielding. I'm not even claiming he finds making 168 difficult anymore. I'm saying he's a big super middleweight who regularly fights as a light heavyweight - as recently as march this year.

The points you make around rehydration clauses and the IBF, of course he takes those fights, and of course the Canelo clause is the same as the IBF.

That doesn't change my point - that rehydration clauses should be banned outright (including by the IBF). What is intended as a protective measure to discourage excessive water cutting, actually encourages fighters to cut the same amount but rehydrate less, leading to dehydrated fighters entering the ring. It's asking for someone to be inflicted with life changing injuries.

Catchweight, I more or less agree with you on. Limiting rehydration, never. You can't argue with the science. It's dangerous.

What should actually happen in an ideal world, is fighters are weighed at regular intervals in the month leading up to the fight, and must pass a hydration test alongside a weight check (to prove they haven't cut water). That way, you get fighters fighting at their correct weights, you can bring back same day weigh-ins, and you protect against dehydration related neurological trauma.

Of course, that makes too much sense, and this is boxing, so it's not happening.

Lomachenko vs Rigondeaux is a bad example. That fight shouldn't have been sanctioned. It was always going to be a mismatch. I picked Loma by comfortable stoppage, or shutout points win if he didn't press the action, from day 1. It baffles me how people thought it would be competitive. Does Lara stand a chance against Callum Smith or David Benavidez??

This comment isn’t directed at you, but it’s an observation that is relevant to our discussion…

[*]Guillermo Rigondeaux agreed to compete at a higher weight class to face an opponent, Vasyl Lomachenko, whose official competitive weight was 8lbs higher than his own natural habitat, as long as a rehydration clause was included in the contract.

The vast majority of the members of this forum said almost nothing about the rehydration clause. And those that did, really didn’t seem all that bothered it.

[*]Canelo agreed to compete at a higher weight class to face an opponent, Rocky Fielding, whose official competitive weight was 8lbs higher than his own natural habitat, as long as a rehydration clause was included in the contract.

Those that have voiced their opinion about this matter seem utterly outraged about the rehydration clause. Nobody supports Canelo’s stipulation.

Yet in both scenarios, the smaller fighters demanded rehydration clauses in order to agree to facing bigger opponents that campaigned in weight classes that were 8lbs heavier than their own.

Therefore, people choose to employ double-standards depending on whether the situation involves a “heroic” or “villainous” fighter.

Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting that you personally think this way, but it’s clear that other people intentionally choose to apply different sets of rules or principles to different fighters based on whether they like them or not.

[adislav123]

You should get a pulitzer nomination the least for this magnificent discovery about (people) boxing fan's applying different standards regarding (people) boxers they like and/or don't: "people's "but it’s clear that other people intentionally choose to apply different sets of rules or principles to different fighters based on whether they like them or not."

Seriously i absolutely envy you for how you convey your thoughts & you clearly have a vast knowledge about boxing but you also have a condescending streak in your comments overobjectifying every aspect of a subject over again & again that's already objectifyed to death. you seem to have an extremely hard time accepting the most natural thing in any discussion, people missing the point.

Didn't make sense, right? Sorry i'm on vaccation in slivo-land.

Canelo is regarded numero uno PfP. Fielding is regarded a b level fighter. Rehydration clause brought forward & favoring the number one fighter in the world. That is the dilemma that bothers me and others a bit. And i'm neither a fan of canelo nor rocky, like them both. Absoletuley despise de lo hayo!

[Deleted_Scenes]

First of all, you can’t pretend to know more about Fielding’s ability to make weight more than he does. He hasn’t struggled making weight since he started working with leading boxing nutritionist James Morehen and his team at Liverpool University, which I believe was during his last ten bouts.

Second, the 10lbs rehydration clause for the Canelo-Fielding bout seems no different than the IBF’s morning of the fight weigh-in rules. I’ll concede the fact that this belt isn’t being contested for, but the same rules seem to be applied.

I’m sure if Rocky Fielding had been offered a shot at Jose Uzcategui’s IBF title instead of the WBA’s regular strap previously owned by Tyron Zeuge, the Brit would have taken it. And nor would you be hideously outraged about the fact the Brit would’ve been forced to weigh less than 178lbs on the morning of that bout either.

And finally, I’m not an advocate for catchweight limits and rehydration clauses, but there are exceptional occasions where they can be applied reasonably, such as when they have almost no impact whatsoever (i.e. the Canelo-Fielding bout) or if they can safely and fairly level the playing field (i.e. Hopkins-De La Hoya).

A lot of big fights wouldn’t have been made without them (i.e. Rigondeaux wouldn't have faced Lomachenko without there being a rehydration clause in place).

I'm not claiming to know more than Fielding. I'm not even claiming he finds making 168 difficult anymore. I'm saying he's a big super middleweight who regularly fights as a light heavyweight - as recently as march this year.

The points you make around rehydration clauses and the IBF, of course he takes those fights, and of course the Canelo clause is the same as the IBF.

That doesn't change my point - that rehydration clauses should be banned outright (including by the IBF). What is intended as a protective measure to discourage excessive water cutting, actually encourages fighters to cut the same amount but rehydrate less, leading to dehydrated fighters entering the ring. It's asking for someone to be inflicted with life changing injuries.

Catchweight, I more or less agree with you on. Limiting rehydration, never. You can't argue with the science. It's dangerous.

What should actually happen in an ideal world, is fighters are weighed at regular intervals in the month leading up to the fight, and must pass a hydration test alongside a weight check (to prove they haven't cut water). That way, you get fighters fighting at their correct weights, you can bring back same day weigh-ins, and you protect against dehydration related neurological trauma.

Of course, that makes too much sense, and this is boxing, so it's not happening.

Lomachenko vs Rigondeaux is a bad example. That fight shouldn't have been sanctioned. It was always going to be a mismatch. I picked Loma by comfortable stoppage, or shutout points win if he didn't press the action, from day 1. It baffles me how people thought it would be competitive. Does Lara stand a chance against Callum Smith or David Benavidez??

This comment isn’t directed at you, but it’s an observation that is relevant to our discussion…

[*]Guillermo Rigondeaux agreed to compete at a higher weight class to face an opponent, Vasyl Lomachenko, whose official competitive weight was 8lbs higher than his own natural habitat, as long as a rehydration clause was included in the contract.

The vast majority of the members of this forum said almost nothing about the rehydration clause. And those that did, really didn’t seem all that bothered it.

[*]Canelo agreed to compete at a higher weight class to face an opponent, Rocky Fielding, whose official competitive weight was 8lbs higher than his own natural habitat, as long as a rehydration clause was included in the contract.

Those that have voiced their opinion about this matter seem utterly outraged about the rehydration clause. Nobody supports Canelo’s stipulation.

Yet in both scenarios, the smaller fighters demanded rehydration clauses in order to agree to facing bigger opponents that campaigned in weight classes that were 8lbs heavier than their own.

Therefore, people choose to employ double-standards depending on whether the situation involves a “heroic” or “villainous” fighter.

Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting that you personally think this way, but it’s clear that other people intentionally choose to apply different sets of rules or principles to different fighters based on whether they like them or not.

Yes, people do need to be consistent. You're either in favour of something, or you're not.

I think in some cases though, what is the same clause on paper can come about via very different processes. A mutually agreed compromise isn't always the same as a diva getting everything his own way (I'm not relating that to the Canelo/Fielding rehydration clause specifically, as Fielding was happy to agree).

Fighters who bring money into the sport will always attract criticism, because the money they bring allows them to call the shots. I think you can allow some leeway, because they offer lower profile fighters a chance to earn some serious money themselves. It can get taken too far though, and I personally feel some things should be off limits in negotiations (catchweights for title fights, for example). The problem is with the system more than any individual though.

I'm against rehydration clauses in all cases, based on medical evidence. If someone is too big for you, just don't fight them. Simple.

[ewenhay]

I'm not claiming to know more than Fielding. I'm not even claiming he finds making 168 difficult anymore. I'm saying he's a big super middleweight who regularly fights as a light heavyweight - as recently as march this year.

The points you make around rehydration clauses and the IBF, of course he takes those fights, and of course the Canelo clause is the same as the IBF.

That doesn't change my point - that rehydration clauses should be banned outright (including by the IBF). What is intended as a protective measure to discourage excessive water cutting, actually encourages fighters to cut the same amount but rehydrate less, leading to dehydrated fighters entering the ring. It's asking for someone to be inflicted with life changing injuries.

Catchweight, I more or less agree with you on. Limiting rehydration, never. You can't argue with the science. It's dangerous.

What should actually happen in an ideal world, is fighters are weighed at regular intervals in the month leading up to the fight, and must pass a hydration test alongside a weight check (to prove they haven't cut water). That way, you get fighters fighting at their correct weights, you can bring back same day weigh-ins, and you protect against dehydration related neurological trauma.

Of course, that makes too much sense, and this is boxing, so it's not happening.

Lomachenko vs Rigondeaux is a bad example. That fight shouldn't have been sanctioned. It was always going to be a mismatch. I picked Loma by comfortable stoppage, or shutout points win if he didn't press the action, from day 1. It baffles me how people thought it would be competitive. Does Lara stand a chance against Callum Smith or David Benavidez??

This comment isn’t directed at you, but it’s an observation that is relevant to our discussion…

[*]Guillermo Rigondeaux agreed to compete at a higher weight class to face an opponent, Vasyl Lomachenko, whose official competitive weight was 8lbs higher than his own natural habitat, as long as a rehydration clause was included in the contract.

The vast majority of the members of this forum said almost nothing about the rehydration clause. And those that did, really didn’t seem all that bothered it.

[*]Canelo agreed to compete at a higher weight class to face an opponent, Rocky Fielding, whose official competitive weight was 8lbs higher than his own natural habitat, as long as a rehydration clause was included in the contract.

Those that have voiced their opinion about this matter seem utterly outraged about the rehydration clause. Nobody supports Canelo’s stipulation.

Yet in both scenarios, the smaller fighters demanded rehydration clauses in order to agree to facing bigger opponents that campaigned in weight classes that were 8lbs heavier than their own.

Therefore, people choose to employ double-standards depending on whether the situation involves a “heroic” or “villainous” fighter.

Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting that you personally think this way, but it’s clear that other people intentionally choose to apply different sets of rules or principles to different fighters based on whether they like them or not.

Yes, people do need to be consistent. You're either in favour of something, or you're not.

I think in some cases though, what is the same clause on paper can come about via very different processes. A mutually agreed compromise isn't always the same as a diva getting everything his own way (I'm not relating that to the Canelo/Fielding rehydration clause specifically, as Fielding was happy to agree).

Fighters who bring money into the sport will always attract criticism, because the money they bring allows them to call the shots. I think you can allow some leeway, because they offer lower profile fighters a chance to earn some serious money themselves. It can get taken too far though, and I personally feel some things should be off limits in negotiations (catchweights for title fights, for example). The problem is with the system more than any individual though.

I'm against rehydration clauses in all cases, based on medical evidence. If someone is too big for you, just don't fight them. Simple.

Catch weights for title fights should definitely be out.