Page 1 of 2

Warren rejected catchweight

Posted: 19 May 2011, 15:36
by Camcas
It was Warren who in fact rejected the catchweight saying it would be 'unfair on Nathan', bad move from Warren IMO

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Posted: 19 May 2011, 15:38
by NazNaci1
I think he rejected the catchweight, after SKY told him no title, no PPV.

That's what it came down to.

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Posted: 19 May 2011, 15:38
by apophenic
:roll:

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Posted: 19 May 2011, 15:40
by Cas
Not impressed. Bellew is at fault here, but a catchweight should have been made.

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Posted: 19 May 2011, 15:43
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.

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Posted: 19 May 2011, 15:43
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??

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Posted: 19 May 2011, 15:43
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?

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Posted: 19 May 2011, 15:48
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.

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Posted: 19 May 2011, 15:53
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.

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Posted: 19 May 2011, 15:55
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?

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Posted: 19 May 2011, 15:57
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.

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Posted: 19 May 2011, 16:03
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

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Posted: 19 May 2011, 16:07
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.

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Posted: 19 May 2011, 16:08
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

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Posted: 19 May 2011, 16:09
by palooka
A good, solid fight between 2 men up for it is better than a nondescript world title bout.

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Posted: 19 May 2011, 16:10
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!

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Posted: 19 May 2011, 16:11
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.

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Posted: 19 May 2011, 16:12
by Final round
Cleverley was obviously worried that a heavier 'Bum' might have got the better of him.

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Posted: 19 May 2011, 16:16
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.

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Posted: 19 May 2011, 16:17
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?

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Posted: 19 May 2011, 16:17
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.

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Posted: 19 May 2011, 16:20
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.

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Posted: 19 May 2011, 16:22
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?

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Posted: 19 May 2011, 16:26
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.

Re: Warren rejected catchweight

Posted: 19 May 2011, 16:30
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!