Page 1 of 1
catchweights ....good for boxing or not?
Posted: 15 Jul 2009, 08:25
by medved
lately there seem to be a lot of catchweight fights (mainly from much lower weight fighters trying to go after much bigger fighters)
do you think this is a good thing for boxing?
i mean we already have enough weight classes for fighters to fight at. I can understand the reasoning to be multi-weight world champions and that this may be somewaht easier in the lower weight divisions, given the smaller differences in the weightlimits, but why have catchweight fights at all.
quite often a belt is not on the line, and the guy having to come down is penalised from being his natural weight self. i can understand if a boxer cant make the contracted limit for a title fight and a catchweight is agreed afterwards, but why have a fight at such a weight to start with?
Re: catchweights ....good for boxing or not?
Posted: 15 Jul 2009, 08:33
by Dioufy
I would prefer for them to be banished forever.
Re: catchweights ....good for boxing or not?
Posted: 15 Jul 2009, 08:33
by CheckHook
I'm not really a fan of manufactured catchweights were one guy is trying to get contractual leverage over another. Sometimes I guess its unavoidable, but I can't say I'm a fan. Probably one of the more ridiculous catchweights recently would be Malignaggi Vs Diaz, to be fought at 138.5lb, according to reports... Ridiculous.
Re: catchweights ....good for boxing or not?
Posted: 15 Jul 2009, 08:49
by caffrey
it can get a bit silly and i dont like to see them all the time but if the best are fighting the best than im fine with that
Re: catchweights ....good for boxing or not?
Posted: 15 Jul 2009, 09:08
by jamesmcdonnell
It depends on whether the higher weight fighter is big at the weight.
If a fighter weighs in at 158 routinely, then a catchweight at 157 or 156 is fine if the other guys is moving up from 147.
Catchweights are fine so long as they don't put the bigger fighter in Jeapordy.
Re: catchweights ....good for boxing or not?
Posted: 15 Jul 2009, 09:13
by Autobarn
i don't like them. it just means that there are so few big fights that will make money in any given division. that there are so few big names in this sport that has landed itself in the fringes.
i don't like hopkinsweight, i don't like oscarweight, and i'm starting to dislike money(manny)weight because it's manny v an empty shell who wants to cash out
i wonder what wickyweight is? come in at 147, and maybe get a former super featherweight champ or lightweight champ that's nowhere near as good as pacquiao?
Re: catchweights ....good for boxing or not?
Posted: 15 Jul 2009, 09:16
by banjo
Why do they call them catchweights?
If a fight takes place at 143 for example then it's a welterweight contest because any fighter weighing in at over 140 and no more than 147 is a welterweight. :geek2:
Re: catchweights ....good for boxing or not?
Posted: 15 Jul 2009, 09:28
by Coco
In an ideal world fighters would stick to the weight, but if big fights are coming off it can only be good for boxing
Re: catchweights ....good for boxing or not?
Posted: 15 Jul 2009, 09:30
by Autobarn
i didn't mind the middle/super middle catchweights that were abaraham-miranda 2, miranda-green and pavlik-taylor 2
Re: catchweights ....good for boxing or not?
Posted: 15 Jul 2009, 09:35
by medved
banjo wrote:Why do they call them catchweights?
If a fight takes place at 143 for example then it's a welterweight contest because any fighter weighing in at over 140 and no more than 147 is a welterweight. :geek2:
well yes and no. if you agree a contractual weight then it's a mediation point and outside of the normal weight limits. if you fight a fight at welterweight then the boxing rules say you can weigh up to 147.
catchweight agreements are a way around this and often no sanctioning body will allow a belt to be fought for at that weight.
i can understand smaller fighters wanting an even chance, but to be honest i don't see why they dont just go up to the regular weight that their opponenent fights at. if they lose they can say that they werte fighting out of their natural weight class (like when ricky fought PBF at 147 and now PBF might be fighting at 144), if they win then the win is all that more special.
Re: catchweights ....good for boxing or not?
Posted: 16 Jul 2009, 05:30
by winkveron
I don't think it's a problem. For example, I'd rather watch Cotto/Pacquiao at 143 then Cotto/Jennings at 147. We always talk about the best fighting the best and if this helps that then I'm all for it.
Re: catchweights ....good for boxing or not?
Posted: 16 Jul 2009, 06:10
by Asterix
I don't like catchweights. I think it's far too business-like, and often unfair. It just gives the opportunity for a fighter (who has more pulling power or has a better negotiator) to have an unfair advantage before the bout starts. I would be very happy to see the back of them.
Re: catchweights ....good for boxing or not?
Posted: 17 Jul 2009, 05:37
by Dioufy
Take this Cotto vs Pacquaio fight for example. 145lbs is totally fine, but 143lbs is sickening. To expect Cotto to do that and not be fecked is stupid. Cotto could get really hurt.