Warren rejected catchweight

Camcas
Cruiserweight
Posts: 881
Joined: 12 Sep 2010, 14:18

Warren rejected catchweight

Post by Camcas »

It was Warren who in fact rejected the catchweight saying it would be 'unfair on Nathan', bad move from Warren IMO
NazNaci1
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4512
Joined: 26 Mar 2009, 00:58

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Post by NazNaci1 »

I think he rejected the catchweight, after SKY told him no title, no PPV.

That's what it came down to.
apophenic
Cruiserweight
Posts: 253
Joined: 17 Apr 2011, 11:58

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Post by apophenic »

:roll:
Cas
Cruiserweight
Posts: 338
Joined: 27 Jan 2011, 10:42

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Post by Cas »

Not impressed. Bellew is at fault here, but a catchweight should have been made.
dondada
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 8872
Joined: 26 Nov 2003, 10:55

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Post by dondada »

Cas wrote:Not impressed. Bellew is at fault here, but a catchweight should have been made.
Massively disagree - the right call has been made, IMO.
Tommy Gunn13
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3290
Joined: 10 Nov 2008, 13:11

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Post by Tommy Gunn13 »

Cas wrote:Not impressed. Bellew is at fault here, but a catchweight should have been made.
Why should Cleverly fight at catchweight??
apophenic
Cruiserweight
Posts: 253
Joined: 17 Apr 2011, 11:58

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Post by apophenic »

Cardiff-Lad1 wrote:Why the hell should Nathan go for a Catchweight???

What next? Bend over and let Bellew give him a dry one.... FFS
if he didnt fancy it then that's his perogative...but is that what happened?
taffytoon
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1762
Joined: 17 Nov 2009, 18:15

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Post by taffytoon »

apophenic wrote:
Cardiff-Lad1 wrote:Why the hell should Nathan go for a Catchweight???

What next? Bend over and let Bellew give him a dry one.... FFS
if he didnt fancy it then that's his perogative...but is that what happened?
Bellew was the one who could not make the LH limit, he has always struggled and always will. Go the CW where he belongs.
orbtastic
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 12549
Joined: 05 Dec 2006, 11:22

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Post by orbtastic »

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:
Cas wrote:Not impressed. Bellew is at fault here, but a catchweight should have been made.
Massively disagree - the right call has been made, IMO.
agree with your disagree. catchweight only favours the last minute sub.
palooka
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 15698
Joined: 20 Jan 2012, 15:31

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Post by palooka »

How is Bellew at fault? He was in training for a fight weeks in front. He stepped up to box at very short notice; if it's not safe to box then that's that but Bellew is not at fault. I've not heard of the man that Nathan is to box. Is he in with any chance at all? How safe is that?
NazNaci1
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4512
Joined: 26 Mar 2009, 00:58

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Post by NazNaci1 »

The polish guy has no chance, absolutely ZERO.

This is all geared for Nathan to win the belt, at all costs.

Nothing against Nathan, he is a good fighter and seems a good lad.
taffytoon
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1762
Joined: 17 Nov 2009, 18:15

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Post by taffytoon »

simon fox wrote:How is Bellew at fault? He was in training for a fight weeks in front. He stepped up to box at very short notice; if it's not safe to box then that's that but Bellew is not at fault. I've not heard of the man that Nathan is to box. Is he in with any chance at all? How safe is that?
By telling his manager he was only 4lb over, then coming into a press confrence knowing full well he was 13lb over and acting like a mad man knowing the fight would never happen, Bad form
palooka
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 15698
Joined: 20 Jan 2012, 15:31

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Post by palooka »

I always imagined that a fighters weight was checked daily, at the gym. I'd have thought that when the call went out and Bellew stepped up that there'd be others that would vouch for his weight.
Coco
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 28517
Joined: 08 May 2007, 05:42

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Post by Coco »

The benefit for Clev to take Bellew at catchweight is that he is not left without a fight or a payday.
For FW though it will mean that it is not a night of world championship boxing etc so he would have to give refunds
palooka
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 15698
Joined: 20 Jan 2012, 15:31

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Post by palooka »

A good, solid fight between 2 men up for it is better than a nondescript world title bout.
leforge
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 7790
Joined: 04 Mar 2005, 12:44

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Post by leforge »

Coco wrote:The benefit for Clev to take Bellew at catchweight is that he is not left without a fight or a payday.
For FW though it will mean that it is not a night of world championship boxing etc so he would have to give refunds
Instead we get this joke of fight with a Polish lemming!
dondada
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 8872
Joined: 26 Nov 2003, 10:55

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Post by dondada »

simon fox wrote:I always imagined that a fighters weight was checked daily, at the gym. I'd have thought that when the call went out and Bellew stepped up that there'd be others that would vouch for his weight.
Absolutely. To think that they couldn't get a third party to check the lad's weight is simply crazy. Or maybe everyone just hoped he'd manage to do it, regardless, or that the Board would pass him.
Final round
Cruiserweight
Posts: 4911
Joined: 20 Oct 2010, 17:02

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Post by Final round »

Cleverley was obviously worried that a heavier 'Bum' might have got the better of him.
WelshDevil
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 536
Joined: 18 Sep 2006, 14:23

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Post by WelshDevil »

Rules are rules and Cleverly is better off fighting a ranked LH than a rival in a catchweight. Plenty of time to make the Bellew fight as a defence.
m1kee50
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4518
Joined: 04 Sep 2006, 11:07

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Post by m1kee50 »

13lb over eh?

A cynical man, such as I, may well conclude that all of this has been a ploy, to build a furore around a future matchup between the two, and that they were never intended to fight this weekend. The alternative, that Bellew intended to to gamble his image and reputation on Cleverley and co. accepting a catchweight fight at short notice, well, such an act of brinkmanship is out of place in our noble sport, surely?
taffytoon
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1762
Joined: 17 Nov 2009, 18:15

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Post by taffytoon »

Final round wrote:Cleverley was obviously worried that a heavier 'Bum' might have got the better of him.

One of the saddest quotes to date :roll: Why not go ask a Middleweight to fight a heavy hitting Light heavyweight because that is what the difference in weight would have been.
palooka
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 15698
Joined: 20 Jan 2012, 15:31

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Post by palooka »

@matt___s wrote:13lb over eh?

A cynical man, such as I, may well conclude that all of this has been a ploy, to build a furore around a future matchup between the two, and that they were never intended to fight this weekend. The alternative, that Bellew intended to to gamble his image and reputation on Cleverley and co. accepting a catchweight fight at short notice, well, such an act of brinkmanship is out of place in our noble sport, surely?
That is suspicious and cynical; it won't be long before F W arren is linked to The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion by some posters on here.
crusader
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 16875
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 20:14

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Post by crusader »

taffytoon wrote:
Final round wrote:Cleverley was obviously worried that a heavier 'Bum' might have got the better of him.

One of the saddest quotes to date :roll: Why not go ask a Middleweight to fight a heavy hitting Light heavyweight because that is what the difference in weight would have been.
Which part of his quote do you disagree with?
m1kee50
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4518
Joined: 04 Sep 2006, 11:07

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Post by m1kee50 »

simon fox wrote:
@matt___s wrote:13lb over eh?

A cynical man, such as I, may well conclude that all of this has been a ploy, to build a furore around a future matchup between the two, and that they were never intended to fight this weekend. The alternative, that Bellew intended to to gamble his image and reputation on Cleverley and co. accepting a catchweight fight at short notice, well, such an act of brinkmanship is out of place in our noble sport, surely?
That is suspicious and cynical; it won't be long before F W arren is linked to The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion by some posters on here.
I wouldn't go that far. Aylesbury's quite far enough.

Seriously though, I consider the second scenario the more likely.
pyenest77
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1491
Joined: 29 Sep 2009, 15:14

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Post by pyenest77 »

Boxing is becoming a laughing stock here first the Khan fiasco now this. I assume thats its still PPV what an utter disgrace!
Post Reply