Why does manny's management stipulate weight?

by MickeyGoldmill Thu 05 May 2011, 11:47 pm

Why has manny (or at least his management) stipulated weight for his last few fights?

Margarito - 150/1
Cotto -145
DLH - 147

Also why DIDN'T they stipulate a weight for the Clottey fight?

I'm a massive fan of manny's attacking style, I think all the fights would have gone the same way at the full weight but maybe he'd had a bit of harder nights work or less stoppage results.

Thoughts?

by BALTIMORA Thu 05 May 2011, 11:50 pm

To give him an advantage on the scales. Although, technically I believe Oscar chose the weight for that fight. More fool him, but it still takes away much of the greatness of the event.

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Thu 05 May 2011, 11:59 pm

Balti tbh Oscar was so shot it could have been at MW and it would have made no difference.

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Fri 06 May 2011, 12:00 am

MickeyGoldmill wrote:
Why has manny (or at least his management) stipulated weight for his last few fights?

Margarito - 150/1
Cotto -145
DLH - 147

Also why DIDN'T they stipulate a weight for the Clottey fight?

I'm a massive fan of manny's attacking style, I think all the fights would have gone the same way at the full weight but maybe he'd had a bit of harder nights work or less stoppage results.

Thoughts?

Think you sort of answered your own question their mate.

by D4thincarnation Fri 06 May 2011, 12:02 am

Oscar offered the fight at 147lbs

by BALTIMORA Fri 06 May 2011, 12:07 am

prettyboykev wrote:Balti tbh Oscar was so shot it could have been at MW and it would have made no difference.

Do you mean full middleweight or 150? Wink

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Fri 06 May 2011, 12:07 am

D4 he is the big name in his fights. He can stipulate the weight and the venue that's how boxing works. The more cash you bring to the table the more influence you have in negotiating the fight.

by D4thincarnation Fri 06 May 2011, 12:08 am

Against Cotto, It had not been long since Pacquiao was fighting at superfeather and Pacquiao was comfortably under the light-welter limit when he fought Hatton.

Pacquiao could have had another fight at 140lbs to fill out at that weight but the like of Cotto and Mosley wanted a piece of the p4p king for a big pay day.

Roach was not willing to put his fighting in his 3 weight class in as many years against a champion where his opponent could outweight him by a stone and a half.

Cotto compromised at 145lbs was the catchweight, not hurting Cotto at all as he weighed 146lbs against Clottey and still had a significant weight advantage in the ring against Pacquiao.

by BALTIMORA Fri 06 May 2011, 12:12 am

Again, if 145 didn't affect the outcome, why stipulate it at all? Can you answer that, D4?

by D4thincarnation Fri 06 May 2011, 12:13 am

MickeyGoldmill wrote:
Why has manny (or at least his management) stipulated weight for his last few fights?

Margarito - 150/1
Cotto -145
DLH - 147

Also why DIDN'T they stipulate a weight for the Clottey fight?

I'm a massive fan of manny's attacking style, I think all the fights would have gone the same way at the full weight but maybe he'd had a bit of harder nights work or less stoppage results.

Thoughts?

Margarito at 150lbs was another huge step up for Manny, but it was at a weight Margarito was happy with and was in great condition for. And Margarito still outweighed Pacquiao by 17lbs on the night.

Now even though Pacquiao gets outweighed twice by over a stone, some people think that Pacquiao has an advantage. Don't know how that works.

Pacquiao beat top fighters while giving away a huge weight advantage.

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Fri 06 May 2011, 12:14 am

145 seemed a strange stipulation to me why not just make it a fight at WW instead of a catchweight.

by D4thincarnation Fri 06 May 2011, 12:17 am

The Clottey fight was after the Cotto fight when Pacquiao showed he can compete at welter.

Before the Hatton fight, when the Cotto was mentioned as an opponent, people were saying that Cotto would kill Pacquiao and they would need to mop Pacquiao up after the fight.

98% of people never gave Pacquiao a hope of beating Cotto because he was unproven at the weight.

by BALTIMORA Fri 06 May 2011, 12:17 am

Exactly, why bother with a stip of 145 when all that achieves is making cynics question the win? Any answer, D4?

by Imperial Ghosty Fri 06 May 2011, 12:17 am

Rehydrating over a stone isn't a good sign you know D4, it's a sign of a fighter in poor condition rather than one who rehydrates very little, this also why Pacquiaos power and strength have improved in recent years because he's not killing himself to make weight.

by D4thincarnation Fri 06 May 2011, 12:18 am

prettyboykev wrote:145 seemed a strange stipulation to me why not just make it a fight at WW instead of a catchweight.

Negotiations.

Roach said 143/144 and Cotto negotiated up to 145lbs

by BALTIMORA Fri 06 May 2011, 12:19 am

D4thincarnation wrote:The Clottey fight was after the Cotto fight when Pacquiao showed he can compete at welter.

Before the Hatton fight, when the Cotto was mentioned as an opponent, people were saying that Cotto would kill Pacquiao and they would need to mop Pacquiao up after the fight.

98% of people never gave Pacquiao a hope of beating Cotto because he was unproven at the weight.

But the Oscar fight was BEFORE Hatton, and it WAS at 147. Further showing that Pacquiao likes to have an advantage on the scales. Roach knew Oscar was shot anyway, whereas against Cotto any little advantage was sought.

by Imperial Ghosty Fri 06 May 2011, 12:20 am

You must realise there is no acceptabe reason to fight for a title at anything other than the full weight limit.

Canzoneri and Leonard have used this tactic and it doesn't get forgotten

by BALTIMORA Fri 06 May 2011, 12:21 am

D4thincarnation wrote:
prettyboykev wrote:145 seemed a strange stipulation to me why not just make it a fight at WW instead of a catchweight.

Negotiations.

Roach said 143/144 and Cotto negotiated up to 145lbs

Yet MORE evidence that Pacquiao wanted to drain Cotto to give himself an advantage.

by D4thincarnation Fri 06 May 2011, 12:23 am

BALTIMORA wrote:
D4thincarnation wrote:The Clottey fight was after the Cotto fight when Pacquiao showed he can compete at welter.

Before the Hatton fight, when the Cotto was mentioned as an opponent, people were saying that Cotto would kill Pacquiao and they would need to mop Pacquiao up after the fight.

98% of people never gave Pacquiao a hope of beating Cotto because he was unproven at the weight.

But the Oscar fight was BEFORE Hatton, and it WAS at 147. Further showing that Pacquiao likes to have an advantage on the scales. Roach knew Oscar was shot anyway, whereas against Cotto any little advantage was sought.

Roach took that fight because he knew Oscar flaws from training him from the Mayweather fight. In that fight Oscar showed he could not pull the trigger anymore.

Pacquiao on 5000-6000 calorie a day diet only managed to come in at 142lb.

Cotto did not have to take the fight and he was happy with the weight he negotiatied and he had the weight advantage.

Pacquiao was much the better boxer and thats why he won, it is really that simple.

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Fri 06 May 2011, 12:24 am

D4thincarnation wrote:
prettyboykev wrote:145 seemed a strange stipulation to me why not just make it a fight at WW instead of a catchweight.

Negotiations.

Roach said 143/144 and Cotto negotiated up to 145lbs

Because it gave manny the slight advantage. Manny doesn't put much fight on between weigh in and fight I think Cotto does.

That's what I meant by being the bigger name.

by D4thincarnation Fri 06 May 2011, 12:26 am

Before the fights with Oscar and Cotto, nobody was complaing. Oscar 1/3 heavy favourite.

by D4thincarnation Fri 06 May 2011, 12:28 am

prettyboykev wrote:
D4thincarnation wrote:
prettyboykev wrote:145 seemed a strange stipulation to me why not just make it a fight at WW instead of a catchweight.

Negotiations.

Roach said 143/144 and Cotto negotiated up to 145lbs

Because it gave manny the slight advantage. Manny doesn't put much fight on between weigh in and fight I think Cotto does.

That's what I meant by being the bigger name.

Yes Cotto outweighs Pacquiao, on the scales and in the ring and Pacquiao as the advantage. Never realised weighing less is and advantage

by BALTIMORA Fri 06 May 2011, 12:28 am

D4thincarnation wrote:
BALTIMORA wrote:
D4thincarnation wrote:The Clottey fight was after the Cotto fight when Pacquiao showed he can compete at welter.

Before the Hatton fight, when the Cotto was mentioned as an opponent, people were saying that Cotto would kill Pacquiao and they would need to mop Pacquiao up after the fight.

98% of people never gave Pacquiao a hope of beating Cotto because he was unproven at the weight.

But the Oscar fight was BEFORE Hatton, and it WAS at 147. Further showing that Pacquiao likes to have an advantage on the scales. Roach knew Oscar was shot anyway, whereas against Cotto any little advantage was sought.

Roach took that fight because he knew Oscar flaws from training him from the Mayweather fight. In that fight Oscar showed he could not pull the trigger anymore.

Pacquiao on 5000-6000 calorie a day diet only managed to come in at 142lb.

Cotto did not have to take the fight and he was happy with the weight he negotiatied and he had the weight advantage.

Pacquiao was much the better boxer and thats why he won, it is really that simple.

So you're admitting that Roach only lets Pacquiao take on fights that look very winnable, ie not 50/50. Which OS something you beaten another boxer for. Face it, Roach and Pacquiao ducked Mosley because he was too good at the time, they only faced Oscar because he was shot, and placed stupid stipulations on Cotto and Margarito. Teddy Atlas has just come out questioning the validity of these big name wins on Pacquiao's record, and with good reason it would seem.

by D4thincarnation Fri 06 May 2011, 12:30 am

Oscar approached Pacquiao

by D4thincarnation Fri 06 May 2011, 12:31 am

Roach offer Mosley the same deal as Cotto.

And at this time Mosley had an offer to fight Mayweather, and Floyd said he won't fight Mosley because he is not a PPV attraction.

by D4thincarnation Fri 06 May 2011, 12:32 am

Atlas is a fool, he hates Pacquiao, and picked all those fighters to beat Pacquiao.

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Fri 06 May 2011, 12:33 am

Was that the odds? I had Manny as a heavy favourite.

by BALTIMORA Fri 06 May 2011, 12:33 am

Roach is on record as stating "Oscar's not (as good as) Share". Duckers. Oscar DID approach Pacquiao, but that changes nothing. Poor win over a dead man walking.

by BALTIMORA Fri 06 May 2011, 12:34 am

D4thincarnation wrote:Atlas is a fool, he hates Pacquiao, and picked all those fighters to beat Pacquiao.

A fool? Because he disagrees with you...

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Fri 06 May 2011, 12:34 am

D4thincarnation wrote:Atlas is a fool, he hates Pacquiao, and picked all those fighters to beat Pacquiao.

Atlas isn't a fool he knows his stuff. He may have picked a few to beat him but saying he hates him isn't right. He is always full of praise for Manny's dedication to the sport.

by D4thincarnation Fri 06 May 2011, 12:35 am

prettyboykev wrote:Was that the odds? I had Manny as a heavy favourite.

Pacquiao was a heavy underdog for the Oscar fight. Most on 606 were picking Oscar to win by KO, I was one of the only ones picking Pacquiao but I said on pts.

You could have gotten 3/1 on Pacquiao

by D4thincarnation Fri 06 May 2011, 12:37 am

prettyboykev wrote:
D4thincarnation wrote:Atlas is a fool, he hates Pacquiao, and picked all those fighters to beat Pacquiao.

Atlas isn't a fool he knows his stuff. He may have picked a few to beat him but saying he hates him isn't right. He is always full of praise for Manny's dedication to the sport.

All I know whenever Altas speaks about Pacquiao he always has something negative to say, I think it obvious he doesn't like him.

Come to think about it it may be Roach that he doesn't like, since he took his job back in the day.

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Fri 06 May 2011, 12:37 am

Wish I was on that. I wasn't on 606 at the time I thought Manny would win by stoppage felt Oscar was past it and Mannys speed would be the killer.

by BALTIMORA Fri 06 May 2011, 12:39 am

D4thincarnation wrote:
prettyboykev wrote:Was that the odds? I had Manny as a heavy favourite.

Pacquiao was a heavy underdog for the Oscar fight. Most on 606 were picking Oscar to win by KO, I was one of the only ones picking Pacquiao but I said on pts.

You could have gotten 3/1 on Pacquiao

Stop giving half a story though. WHY did those people have Oscar as favourite? Answer: because they didn't know how shot Oscar was, nor how badly drained he was in his efforts to make 147.

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Fri 06 May 2011, 12:39 am

D4thincarnation wrote:
prettyboykev wrote:
D4thincarnation wrote:Atlas is a fool, he hates Pacquiao, and picked all those fighters to beat Pacquiao.

Atlas isn't a fool he knows his stuff. He may have picked a few to beat him but saying he hates him isn't right. He is always full of praise for Manny's dedication to the sport.

All I know whenever Altas speaks about Pacquiao he always has something negative to say, I think it obvious he doesn't like him.

Come to think about it it may be Roach that he doesn't like, since he took his job back in the day.

You might be right about Roach not sure though but I have heard him praise Manny a few times. Watch Friday night fights this week him and Brian Kenny are doing some stuff for the fight.

by D4thincarnation Fri 06 May 2011, 12:39 am

prettyboykev wrote:Wish I was on that. I wasn't on 606 at the time I thought Manny would win by stoppage felt Oscar was past it and Mannys speed would be the killer.

66/1 to one 8th stoppage.

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Fri 06 May 2011, 12:40 am

Wow not sure I would have predicted the round correctly known my luck I would have went for the 7th or 9th. Suprised because I thought Oscar was shot.

by D4thincarnation Fri 06 May 2011, 12:41 am

prettyboykev wrote:Wish I was on that. I wasn't on 606 at the time I thought Manny would win by stoppage felt Oscar was past it and Mannys speed would be the killer.

I you can find the old post from around that time you will see all those trying to discredit Pacquiao now, were saying before the fights, that Oscar would KO him, Hatton would KO him and Cotto would kill him.

by BALTIMORA Fri 06 May 2011, 12:42 am

Anyway D4, still waiting for your answer: why DID Pacquiao/Roach insist on any weight stipulation for the Cotto fight?

by D4thincarnation Fri 06 May 2011, 12:43 am

prettyboykev wrote:Wow not sure I would have predicted the round correctly known my luck I would have went for the 7th or 9th. Suprised because I thought Oscar was shot.

Group round betting 7-9 would have 22/1

Not sure the odds on a KO but I would guess around 8/1

by BALTIMORA Fri 06 May 2011, 12:44 am

BALTIMORA wrote:Anyway D4, still waiting for your answer: why DID Pacquiao/Roach insist on any weight stipulation for the Cotto fight?

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Fri 06 May 2011, 12:44 am

Fancied him to beat Oscar and Hatton but tbh I thought Cotto would beat him. To big and unlike Oscar not shot. I am still a big Cotto fan.

by D4thincarnation Fri 06 May 2011, 12:45 am

prettyboykev wrote:Wow not sure I would have predicted the round correctly known my luck I would have went for the 7th or 9th. Suprised because I thought Oscar was shot.

Roach was certain Pacquiao would win, he forgo his fee. The only reason for this was the fight against Mayweather.

by BALTIMORA Fri 06 May 2011, 12:46 am

prettyboykev wrote:Fancied him to beat Oscar and Hatton but tbh I thought Cotto would beat him. To big and unlike Oscar not shot. I am still a big Cotto fan.

D4 just plain fancied him. Expected him to beat Hatton, and same for Cotto. Oscar I didn't really pay much attention to at the time.

by D4thincarnation Fri 06 May 2011, 12:47 am

prettyboykev wrote:Fancied him to beat Oscar and Hatton but tbh I thought Cotto would beat him. To big and unlike Oscar not shot. I am still a big Cotto fan.

It might not surprised you but I picked Pacquiao for all 3 and argued the case against much of 606.

by BALTIMORA Fri 06 May 2011, 12:48 am

BALTIMORA wrote:
BALTIMORA wrote:Anyway D4, still waiting for your answer: why DID Pacquiao/Roach insist on any weight stipulation for the Cotto fight?

by SugarRayRussell (PBK) Fri 06 May 2011, 12:50 am

D4thincarnation wrote:
prettyboykev wrote:Fancied him to beat Oscar and Hatton but tbh I thought Cotto would beat him. To big and unlike Oscar not shot. I am still a big Cotto fan.

It might not surprised you but I picked Pacquiao for all 3 and argued the case against much of 606.

D4 tbh I'm not suprised but it wasn't an outrageous claim. Wasn't like you were saying he would beat Floyd if they ever fought that is crazy. Wink

by D4thincarnation Fri 06 May 2011, 12:52 am

prettyboykev wrote:
D4thincarnation wrote:
prettyboykev wrote:Fancied him to beat Oscar and Hatton but tbh I thought Cotto would beat him. To big and unlike Oscar not shot. I am still a big Cotto fan.

It might not surprised you but I picked Pacquiao for all 3 and argued the case against much of 606.

D4 tbh I'm not suprised but it wasn't an outrageous claim. Wasn't like you were saying he would beat Floyd if they ever fought that is crazy.

I also said Floyd would never fight Pacquiao, and this was back in December 2010 and that Floyd will find an excuse not to fight Pacquiao before all the blood test saga came out.

by BALTIMORA Fri 06 May 2011, 12:53 am

BALTIMORA wrote:
BALTIMORA wrote:
BALTIMORA wrote:Anyway D4, still waiting for your answer: why DID Pacquiao/Roach insist on any weight stipulation for the Cotto fight?

by MickeyGoldmill Fri 06 May 2011, 1:10 am

Don't mention Floyd! Thats not what this post is about.....

The impression the fights did not happen at full weight was to negate the risk for pac man whilst stepping up.
Whilst excellent results, its clear that not fighting at the full weights lessens the value of the victories.

If Pac man beat these guys at full weight it would have been more impressive, correct??

by Sponsored content