BoxRec

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.

It's just a real shame for the opponent. There's no excuse for not making weight

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

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.

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.

Too big for 115lbs but small for the whopping weight of 118lbs, I don't buy that

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

Hmm ok how tall is he?

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

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'

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...

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.

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

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

In fact every pound counts in all divisions or else no one would try to weigh as close to the limit as they do

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

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.

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

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

You assume right !

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 !

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...

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...

You are not the only one who believes it was a fix.

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...

You are not the only one who believes it was a fix.

Who do you think won Nick?

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.....

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...

You are not the only one who believes it was a fix.

Who do you think won Nick?

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