BoxRec

Really makes English look like a mug..

He was an ounce over. If he'd have taken his knickers off he would've probably made it. He didn't want to get his wee winky out infront of his old man though

TheLeprechaun wrote:Really makes English look like a mug..

He was an ounce over mate, really not a big deal

did he lose the ounce ?

littlepug wrote:did he lose the ounce ?

He could've lost that having a danger wank in the disabled toilet

Murray came in over too. I didn't realise there was so much of a height difference between Groves n Murray til I saw the face to face earlier!

Only an ounce, but over is over. If you're fighting for a title, you make the weight, end of. It's a weight-regulated sport, for heaven's sake. Otherwise you end up having some sort of sliding scale, such as:

(a) Less than a pound over - well, that's OK really, isn't it. It's sort of close. Rather like putting 2 + 2 is 4 and a half in a maths exam - that'll do.
(b) 1 lb to 2 lb over - bit naughty, but hey, we shouldn't get too cross. It's not a million miles away after all.
(c) 2 lb to 3 lb - now that really is not very good. Must try harder next time. But let's just pay the other guy some money and carry on with the fight.
(d) 4 lb to 5 lb - boxer uses the "water retention" excuse.
(e) 6lb or more - the Guzman/Fielding school of just missing it.

Was the Eubank weight a second weight after trying to lose some (given that it is a day-before weigh-in), or did he not try to lose any at all?

Stuarty30 wrote:

littlepug wrote:did he lose the ounce ?

He could've lost that having a danger wank in the disabled toilet

Now there's a weight loss technique we can all enjoy.

Stuarty30 wrote:Murray came in over too. I didn't realise there was so much of a height difference between Groves n Murray til I saw the face to face earlier!

Murray must be really little. Groves was certainly shorter than Froch who himself says he is bang on 6', not the 6'1 he is listed at.

Murray looks about 5'9". Odd to list yourself at 6'. Looks a bit silly now, eh.

Murray looked old and a bit drawn to me. I wonder if age is catching up with him and making the weight has been a battle. Groves by KO.

ILikeBeer wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:

littlepug wrote:did he lose the ounce ?

He could've lost that having a danger wank in the disabled toilet

Now there's a weight loss technique we can all enjoy.

Unless you`re waiting outside the toilet for a danger-poop

Stuarty30 wrote:Murray came in over too. I didn't realise there was so much of a height difference between Groves n Murray til I saw the face to face earlier!

Any shots of them face to face with their footwear (or lack thereof) visible? At times Groves was looking 3 inches taller, but I have doubts about whether there's really that much in it.

edit: it looks to me like Murray was barefoot while Groves was in shoes at the weigh-in head to head.

crusader wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:Murray came in over too. I didn't realise there was so much of a height difference between Groves n Murray til I saw the face to face earlier!

Any shots of them face to face with their footwear (or lack thereof) visible? At times Groves was looking 3 inches taller, but I have doubts about whether there's really that much in it.

edit: it looks to me like Murray was barefoot while Groves was in shoes at the weigh-in head to head.

Groves had his platforms on

ILikeBeer wrote:

Stuarty30 wrote:

littlepug wrote:did he lose the ounce ?

He could've lost that having a danger wank in the disabled toilet

Now there's a weight loss technique we can all enjoy.

Think i might try lose some weight when the mrs goes to bed later

olij999 wrote:Only an ounce, but over is over. If you're fighting for a title, you make the weight, end of. It's a weight-regulated sport, for heaven's sake. Otherwise you end up having some sort of sliding scale, such as:

(a) Less than a pound over - well, that's OK really, isn't it. It's sort of close. Rather like putting 2 + 2 is 4 and a half in a maths exam - that'll do.
(b) 1 lb to 2 lb over - bit naughty, but hey, we shouldn't get too cross. It's not a million miles away after all.
(c) 2 lb to 3 lb - now that really is not very good. Must try harder next time. But let's just pay the other guy some money and carry on with the fight.
(d) 4 lb to 5 lb - boxer uses the "water retention" excuse.
(e) 6lb or more - the Guzman/Fielding school of just missing it.

Was the Eubank weight a second weight after trying to lose some (given that it is a day-before weigh-in), or did he not try to lose any at all?

Come on pal I get the point about professionalism and drawing a line, but you could have a p*ss and lose an ounce.

sharpei_louis wrote:

olij999 wrote:Only an ounce, but over is over. If you're fighting for a title, you make the weight, end of. It's a weight-regulated sport, for heaven's sake. Otherwise you end up having some sort of sliding scale, such as:

(a) Less than a pound over - well, that's OK really, isn't it. It's sort of close. Rather like putting 2 + 2 is 4 and a half in a maths exam - that'll do.
(b) 1 lb to 2 lb over - bit naughty, but hey, we shouldn't get too cross. It's not a million miles away after all.
(c) 2 lb to 3 lb - now that really is not very good. Must try harder next time. But let's just pay the other guy some money and carry on with the fight.
(d) 4 lb to 5 lb - boxer uses the "water retention" excuse.
(e) 6lb or more - the Guzman/Fielding school of just missing it.

Was the Eubank weight a second weight after trying to lose some (given that it is a day-before weigh-in), or did he not try to lose any at all?

Come on pal I get the point about professionalism and drawing a line, but you could have a p*ss and lose an ounce.

Which is why he went and skipped it off (as he is allowed to do because of a day before weigh-in) - because it matters.