Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
+15
Rowley
BALTIMORA
SugarRayRussell (PBK)
oxring
HumanWindmill
manos de piedra
Adam D
Scottrf
Bob
Valero's Conscience
D4thincarnation
Lumbering_Jack
Imperial Ghosty
88Chris05
TRUSSMAN66
19 posters
The v2 Forum :: Sport :: Boxing
Page 1 of 3
Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
CATCHWEIGHT ...Certainly been interesting back in the 80's with say Spinks-Hagler at 168 or something....Curry-Hagler at 155...Bramble-Nelson at 132....To me however it just seems wrong to fight for a title at 147 etc and force a guy to come in at a lower weight.....Now I'm not having a pop at Manny as guys like Leonard, Mayweather etc have all been guilty of this.......
Maybe if Robbo had forced Maxim in at a lower weight he would now be the undisputed number 1 etc...Certainly swap him for Ali had he done so!!
I don't know I just think we've had weight limits for years and years....tampering to gain an edge on someone seems wrong...fight him at the limit!!
On the otherhand we've probably had fights we wouldn't have had.....Double edged sword....
But maybe it's at too bigger price...
Catchweight is not for me...but is anybody a fan???
Maybe if Robbo had forced Maxim in at a lower weight he would now be the undisputed number 1 etc...Certainly swap him for Ali had he done so!!
I don't know I just think we've had weight limits for years and years....tampering to gain an edge on someone seems wrong...fight him at the limit!!
On the otherhand we've probably had fights we wouldn't have had.....Double edged sword....
But maybe it's at too bigger price...
Catchweight is not for me...but is anybody a fan???
TRUSSMAN66- Posts : 40654
Join date : 2011-02-02
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
I can categorically say that I'm no fan of them, Truss. Seventeen different weight classes, with none of them aside from Cruiserweight being separated by more than 7 lb from the one underneath; is anyone seriously going to argue that this doesn't represent enough scope already to do away with catchweight fights? Just seems ridiculous to me.
Granted, I can see the appeal back in say, the thirties to fifties, where there were far fewer weight classes. I can understand that catchweights were used then and enabled us to see some cracking fights. But with so many weight classes now, whenever I see a catchweight fight announced, more often than not I find myself wondering where the friggin' hell people are going to draw the line.
The weight classes are there for a reason. If someone is clearly too big / small or heavy / light for you, then simply don't fight them is the way I'd see it. And like it or not, the primary aim and result of a catchweight is to put a certain fighter at a disadvantage. The whole "Oh, a couple of lb or so doesn't make any difference" argument gets under my skin a bit. If it doesn't make any difference, then why do you need it?
As I said, back in the day I probably wouldn't have been too fussed by catchweights, and in the days of far fewer divisions they were more of a necessity, no doubt. But nowadays? Not a fan of them at all, seems daft to me considering the weight classes we have in place now.
Granted, I can see the appeal back in say, the thirties to fifties, where there were far fewer weight classes. I can understand that catchweights were used then and enabled us to see some cracking fights. But with so many weight classes now, whenever I see a catchweight fight announced, more often than not I find myself wondering where the friggin' hell people are going to draw the line.
The weight classes are there for a reason. If someone is clearly too big / small or heavy / light for you, then simply don't fight them is the way I'd see it. And like it or not, the primary aim and result of a catchweight is to put a certain fighter at a disadvantage. The whole "Oh, a couple of lb or so doesn't make any difference" argument gets under my skin a bit. If it doesn't make any difference, then why do you need it?
As I said, back in the day I probably wouldn't have been too fussed by catchweights, and in the days of far fewer divisions they were more of a necessity, no doubt. But nowadays? Not a fan of them at all, seems daft to me considering the weight classes we have in place now.
88Chris05- Moderator
- Posts : 9660
Join date : 2011-02-16
Age : 36
Location : Nottingham
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
One of britains greatest ever boxers got screwed over by a catchweight, Jack 'kid' Berg forced to defend his 140lb title against Tony Canzoneri at 135lbs with both titles on the line, never liked them and never will. As much as I rate Sugar Ray Leonard I simply cannot accept him being a 5 weight world champion, his 168lb title meant next to nothing at the time and he never fought at 175lbs.
Imperial Ghosty- Posts : 10156
Join date : 2011-02-15
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
Not for me. We have 17 weight divisions in boxing, more than enough.
Only reason for catchweights is so that the vultures of boxing can gain an unfair advantage on the scales.
Only reason for catchweights is so that the vultures of boxing can gain an unfair advantage on the scales.
Lumbering_Jack- Posts : 4341
Join date : 2011-03-07
Location : Newcastle
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
It is great, bring great fighters from different weight classes together without disadvantaging one too severely.
![Yahoo](/users/3014/26/22/82/smiles/479796.gif)
D4thincarnation- Posts : 3398
Join date : 2011-02-02
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
With just a few pounds between the weights it's totally inexcusable to have catchweights.
Can't see on any level how they cab be justified.
If you can't make the weight, don't fight in it.
Can't see on any level how they cab be justified.
If you can't make the weight, don't fight in it.
Valero's Conscience- Posts : 2096
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 39
Location : Kent/London
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
D4thincarnation wrote:It is great, bring great fighters from different weight classes together without disadvantaging one too severely.
![]()
How to you defend World Title fights at catchweights?
Manny neve fought at 154ibs and never fought a boxer who weighed in on the contracted weigh in day at 154ibs and he and his team have confirmed he'll never fight at 154ibs. How D4, can you say Manny is a champ at 154ibs?
I know you never mentioned Manny but that's all you have on the brain.
Valero's Conscience- Posts : 2096
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 39
Location : Kent/London
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
D4thincarnation wrote:It is great, bring great fighters from different weight classes together without disadvantaging one too severely.
![]()
So you admit Cotto and Marg were disadvantaged severely, just not too severely.......
Bob- Posts : 356
Join date : 2011-01-29
Location : Barnsley
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
Bob wrote:D4thincarnation wrote:It is great, bring great fighters from different weight classes together without disadvantaging one too severely.
![]()
So you admit Cotto and Marg were disadvantaged severely, just not too severely.......
Pacquiao was the one disadvantaged, check the weights on the scales and in the ring, if you don't believe me.
D4thincarnation- Posts : 3398
Join date : 2011-02-02
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
Without titles, why not? If it means the fight might not happen otherwise like Williams-Martines or Pascal-Hopkins then I'm all for it. A title shouldn't be on the line though.
Scottrf- Posts : 14359
Join date : 2011-01-26
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
TRUSSMAN - YOU NEED TO READ YOUR PM.
I have asked you nicely since this afternoon to do so.
I have asked you nicely since this afternoon to do so.
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
Scottrf wrote:Without titles, why not? If it means the fight might not happen otherwise like Williams-Martines or Pascal-Hopkins then I'm all for it. A title shouldn't be on the line though.
These fights should happen anyway without catchweights though. It shouldnt come down to haggling over a few pounds on the scales to make big fights happen.
manos de piedra- Posts : 5274
Join date : 2011-02-21
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
D4thincarnation wrote:Bob wrote:D4thincarnation wrote:It is great, bring great fighters from different weight classes together without disadvantaging one too severely.
![]()
So you admit Cotto and Marg were disadvantaged severely, just not too severely.......
Pacquiao was the one disadvantaged, check the weights on the scales and in the ring, if you don't believe me.
You could argue this greater for Haye vs Valuev.
Haye was outweighed by Valuev by considerably more and disadvantaged in terms of reach, height etc far more than Manny against Marg.
Also Haye was seen as more nimble, quick and skilled etc than Valuev, the same as Manny against Valuev.
Using your reasons, would you give him even greater credit than Manny?
Marg was picked purely because he isn't extremely skilled, slow and will allow himself to stand there and take punches. HE was custom picked by Top Rank for Manny to claim another "World Title".
Valero's Conscience- Posts : 2096
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 39
Location : Kent/London
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
Pavlik vs Taylor II, both fighers happier at 164lbs.
What is the problem.
I couldn't care what weight fighters fight at as long hindered by the excess weight or having to cut too much.
What is the problem.
I couldn't care what weight fighters fight at as long hindered by the excess weight or having to cut too much.
D4thincarnation- Posts : 3398
Join date : 2011-02-02
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
Valero's Conscience wrote:D4thincarnation wrote:Bob wrote:D4thincarnation wrote:It is great, bring great fighters from different weight classes together without disadvantaging one too severely.
![]()
So you admit Cotto and Marg were disadvantaged severely, just not too severely.......
Pacquiao was the one disadvantaged, check the weights on the scales and in the ring, if you don't believe me.
You could argue this greater for Haye vs Valuev.
Haye was outweighed by Valuev by considerably more and disadvantaged in terms of reach, height etc far more than Manny against Marg.
Also Haye was seen as more nimble, quick and skilled etc than Valuev, the same as Manny against Valuev.
Using your reasons, would you give him even greater credit than Manny?
Marg was picked purely because he isn't extremely skilled, slow and will allow himself to stand there and take punches. HE was custom picked by Top Rank for Manny to claim another "World Title".
No different rules apply once you get over 15 stone.
D4thincarnation- Posts : 3398
Join date : 2011-02-02
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
Should, but a lot of things should happen differently in boxing. Not particularly a fan, but it's not a big problem.manos de piedra wrote:These fights should happen anyway without catchweights though. It shouldnt come down to haggling over a few pounds on the scales to make big fights happen.
Scottrf- Posts : 14359
Join date : 2011-01-26
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
Nelson vs Gans catchweight 131lbs.
Great fight.
Great fight.
D4thincarnation- Posts : 3398
Join date : 2011-02-02
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
Hopkins vs De La Hoya catchweight again, come to think of it Hopkins is the catchweight king of recent times?
D4thincarnation- Posts : 3398
Join date : 2011-02-02
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
D4thincarnation wrote:Hopkins vs De La Hoya catchweight again, come to think of it Hopkins is the catchweight king of recent times?
![laughing](/users/3014/26/22/82/smiles/3497602689.gif)
Scottrf- Posts : 14359
Join date : 2011-01-26
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
D4thincarnation wrote:Nelson vs Gans catchweight 131lbs.
Great fight.
Not so.
Ringside weight of 133lb., different thing altogether and very common as a lightweight limit in the day. Gans and Nelson were both genuine lightweights.
How do you fancy Pacquiao v Martinez at catchweight ?
HumanWindmill- VIP
- Posts : 10945
Join date : 2011-02-18
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
What is a pm......
TRUSSMAN66- Posts : 40654
Join date : 2011-02-02
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
I'm quite a fan actually.
Most of the exhibition fights in the days of yore were at catchweights. Where the champion would fight a challenger at a weight set above the belt weight limit. As such - the belt wouldn't be on the line.
SRR, for one, fell foul when he'd set a catchweight of 149 for a WW fight (he'd come in at 147) and his challenger (I temporarily forget who) breached contract and weighed in at 146 - so Robbo's WW title was on the line. SRR was *ahem* slightly annoyed and beat hell out the guy in about 3 rounds.
Mind you - can't blame the challenger. That was always going to be his only shot at SRR - why not make it for a title as well? Even if a bit of a fail.
Anyway - the underlying message is - catchweights have been with us since the dawn of time and allow fighters of different weights to meet.
Belts being laid on the line for catchweight fights - now thats wrong. 151 is not lightmiddle, whatever Arum tells me...
Most of the exhibition fights in the days of yore were at catchweights. Where the champion would fight a challenger at a weight set above the belt weight limit. As such - the belt wouldn't be on the line.
SRR, for one, fell foul when he'd set a catchweight of 149 for a WW fight (he'd come in at 147) and his challenger (I temporarily forget who) breached contract and weighed in at 146 - so Robbo's WW title was on the line. SRR was *ahem* slightly annoyed and beat hell out the guy in about 3 rounds.
Mind you - can't blame the challenger. That was always going to be his only shot at SRR - why not make it for a title as well? Even if a bit of a fail.
Anyway - the underlying message is - catchweights have been with us since the dawn of time and allow fighters of different weights to meet.
Belts being laid on the line for catchweight fights - now thats wrong. 151 is not lightmiddle, whatever Arum tells me...
oxring- Moderator
- Posts : 3782
Join date : 2011-01-26
Location : Oxford
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What is a pm......
Private message Truss. Click on the "you have umpteen new messages" button at the top.
oxring- Moderator
- Posts : 3782
Join date : 2011-01-26
Location : Oxford
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
Private message huh.....I thought he was going to tell me he loved me or something.....
Not some trivial stuff like that..
Not some trivial stuff like that..
TRUSSMAN66- Posts : 40654
Join date : 2011-02-02
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
I don't mind catchweights as long as they aren't for titles. They give the chance of fighters from different weight classes fighting without one having to make a big jump up or the drain down.
They should open the availability of big fights up. Although I do think they've been used to give fighters an advantage over anotherwhen a catchweight isn't nescessary which is poor and gives them a bad reputation.
They should open the availability of big fights up. Although I do think they've been used to give fighters an advantage over anotherwhen a catchweight isn't nescessary which is poor and gives them a bad reputation.
SugarRayRussell (PBK)- Posts : 6716
Join date : 2011-03-19
Age : 39
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Private message huh.....I thought he was going to tell me he loved me or something.....
Not some trivial stuff like that..
Another PM for Trussman
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
Hobo wrote:TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Private message huh.....I thought he was going to tell me he loved me or something.....
Not some trivial stuff like that..
Another PM for Trussman
![Is anybody a fan of catchweight?? 27842-11](https://i.servimg.com/u/f22/16/22/61/53/27842-11.jpg)
Scottrf- Posts : 14359
Join date : 2011-01-26
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
Hobo wrote:TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Private message huh.....I thought he was going to tell me he loved me or something.....
Not some trivial stuff like that..
Another PM for Trussman
Come on Hobo, the guy is joking...
Lumbering_Jack- Posts : 4341
Join date : 2011-03-07
Location : Newcastle
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
I'm to be taken to the Tower of London and tortured Lumbering.......
Tied up and forced to watch Johnny Nelson fights 24/7
Tied up and forced to watch Johnny Nelson fights 24/7
![Wink](https://2img.net/i/fa/i/smiles/icon_wink.gif)
TRUSSMAN66- Posts : 40654
Join date : 2011-02-02
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
Execution would be preferable to the De Leon fight...
Lumbering_Jack- Posts : 4341
Join date : 2011-03-07
Location : Newcastle
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'm to be taken to the Tower of London and tortured Lumbering.......
Tied up and forced to watch Johnny Nelson fights 24/7![]()
Still better than watching him commentate.
Or watching Sprott-Skelton
oxring- Moderator
- Posts : 3782
Join date : 2011-01-26
Location : Oxford
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
execution instead of Deleon......
What the heck would you have instead of Nelson-James Warring?????
What the heck would you have instead of Nelson-James Warring?????
TRUSSMAN66- Posts : 40654
Join date : 2011-02-02
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
But you've still watched all these fights.TRUSSMAN66 wrote:execution instead of Deleon......
What the heck would you have instead of Nelson-James Warring?????
Closet Nelson fan.
Scottrf- Posts : 14359
Join date : 2011-01-26
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
One of the worst nights of my life that was Oxring. Did Skelton not get a title shot after that?
Lumbering_Jack- Posts : 4341
Join date : 2011-03-07
Location : Newcastle
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
Lumbering_Jack wrote:One of the worst nights of my life that was Oxring. Did Skelton not get a title shot after that?
Yeah - against Chagaev who whipped him - in another dull night of action. I remember staying up to watch it thinking - this is the guy who ended Harrison's career (I didn't think he'd ever get another shot, how wrong I was) against a former decent kickboxer - this fight should have fireworks. After the second round I was tired. After the 7th I wanted to fall asleep. After the 12th I couldn't understand whether I had just witnessed boxing or a piece of performance art entitled how to upset the viewing public.
And think - it was supposed to be Harrison
oxring- Moderator
- Posts : 3782
Join date : 2011-01-26
Location : Oxford
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
The benefit of catchweights here's some potential matches they could give us. This would stop fighters having to bulk up or drain down just meet in the middle these are good match ups and wouldn't need a title on the line.
110lbs- Segura vs Wojongkam
120lbs- Donaire vs Arce/Rigondeaux
124lbs- Gamboa vs Rigondeaux
137lbs- Judah vs Marquez/Guerrero/Rios
157lbs- Cotto vs Martinez
164lbs Martinez vs Ward/Froch
110lbs- Segura vs Wojongkam
120lbs- Donaire vs Arce/Rigondeaux
124lbs- Gamboa vs Rigondeaux
137lbs- Judah vs Marquez/Guerrero/Rios
157lbs- Cotto vs Martinez
164lbs Martinez vs Ward/Froch
Last edited by prettyboykev on Wed 11 May 2011, 12:02 am; edited 1 time in total
SugarRayRussell (PBK)- Posts : 6716
Join date : 2011-03-19
Age : 39
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
prettyboykev wrote:The benefit of catchweights here's some potential matches they could give us. This would stop fighters having to bulk up or drain down just meet in the middle these are good match ups and wouldn't need a title on the line.
110lbs- Segura vs Wojongkam
120lbs- Donaire vs Arce/Rigondeaux
214lbs- Gamboa vs Rigondeaux
137lbs- Judah vs Marquez/Guerrero/Rios
157lbs- Cotto vs Martinez
164lbs Martinez vs Ward/Froch
Gamboa and Rigondeux would be an awful fight at that weight.
D4thincarnation- Posts : 3398
Join date : 2011-02-02
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
![Is anybody a fan of catchweight?? 56390](https://2img.net/u/3014/26/22/82/smiles/56390.gif)
SugarRayRussell (PBK)- Posts : 6716
Join date : 2011-03-19
Age : 39
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
Without a title on the line; fine.
With a title on the line: shouldn't be allowed.
With a title on the line: shouldn't be allowed.
BALTIMORA- Posts : 5566
Join date : 2011-02-18
Age : 44
Location : This user is no longer active.
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
Not sure if this has already been said and can't be bothered to go through everyone elses posts. But personally I got the whole catchweight thing back in the day when there were fewer divisions and a wider weight gap between the divisions but in an age of 396 divisions and sometimes no more than a gram between the weights I really don't see the point.
However if we must have them I absolutely and wholeheartedly disagree with belts being on the line for catchweight fights. If a fight is for a title each fighter should be allowed to weigh in at that divisions limits, how can one compare acheivements across eras if fighters are not playing across a broadly level playing field. For me if a fighter cannot weigh in at anywhere he chooses within a weight class it is not a fight in that division and should not be a title fight and nothing will convince me otherwise on this particular point
However if we must have them I absolutely and wholeheartedly disagree with belts being on the line for catchweight fights. If a fight is for a title each fighter should be allowed to weigh in at that divisions limits, how can one compare acheivements across eras if fighters are not playing across a broadly level playing field. For me if a fighter cannot weigh in at anywhere he chooses within a weight class it is not a fight in that division and should not be a title fight and nothing will convince me otherwise on this particular point
Rowley- Admin
- Posts : 22053
Join date : 2011-02-17
Age : 51
Location : I'm just a symptom of the modern decay that's gnawing at the heart of this country.
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
As above, no title on the line then fine
As the welter title doesn't have a limit of 144 or something, it's got a limit of 147.
And i don't see the point in catchweights as the party asking for them are generally trying to handicap the other party. If they didn't make any difference then why ask for them?
Never been a fan, if i had my way we'd get shot of every junior division below super feather as all that's seperating those divisions is a big brown turd before the weigh-in etc!![Wink](https://2img.net/i/fa/i/smiles/icon_wink.gif)
As the welter title doesn't have a limit of 144 or something, it's got a limit of 147.
And i don't see the point in catchweights as the party asking for them are generally trying to handicap the other party. If they didn't make any difference then why ask for them?
Never been a fan, if i had my way we'd get shot of every junior division below super feather as all that's seperating those divisions is a big brown turd before the weigh-in etc!
![Wink](https://2img.net/i/fa/i/smiles/icon_wink.gif)
coxy0001- Posts : 4250
Join date : 2011-01-28
Location : Tory country
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
prettyboykev wrote:The benefit of catchweights here's some potential matches they could give us. This would stop fighters having to bulk up or drain down just meet in the middle these are good match ups and wouldn't need a title on the line.
110lbs- Segura vs Wojongkam
120lbs- Donaire vs Arce/Rigondeaux
124lbs- Gamboa vs Rigondeaux
137lbs- Judah vs Marquez/Guerrero/Rios
157lbs- Cotto vs Martinez
164lbs Martinez vs Ward/Froch
If those were to be made they should be made at the highest weight at which one of them is competing at, why disadvantage Ward, Froch or Judah in order to make things easier for their opponent. Really is no need for catchweights any more
Imperial Ghosty- Posts : 10156
Join date : 2011-02-15
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
Don't like catchweights, but as I've said before I would rather see Pac v Cotto at 145lb rather than Pac - tune up at 147lb.
wow_junky- Posts : 358
Join date : 2011-03-08
Location : Bristol
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
wow_junky wrote:Don't like catchweights, but as I've said before I would rather see Pac v Cotto at 145lb rather than Pac - tune up at 147lb.
With a title on the line I'd rather it hadn't happened. All it did was highlight how little Arum cares about his fighters.
BALTIMORA- Posts : 5566
Join date : 2011-02-18
Age : 44
Location : This user is no longer active.
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
Really? I thought it was an entertaining fight.BALTIMORA wrote:With a title on the line I'd rather it hadn't happened.
Scottrf- Posts : 14359
Join date : 2011-01-26
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
Catchweights for a title strap are a joke. You are deliberately weakening the other guy to get an advantage. What happened to beating the best at the best's natural weight.
As Atom said above, I cannot recognise SRL being a 5 weight champ seeing as the LH and SMW titles were fought in one fight. Ridiculous.
As Atom said above, I cannot recognise SRL being a 5 weight champ seeing as the LH and SMW titles were fought in one fight. Ridiculous.
azania- Posts : 19471
Join date : 2011-01-29
Age : 112
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
BALTIMORA wrote:wow_junky wrote:Don't like catchweights, but as I've said before I would rather see Pac v Cotto at 145lb rather than Pac - tune up at 147lb.
With a title on the line I'd rather it hadn't happened. All it did was highlight how little Arum cares about his fighters.
Pacquiao - Cotto was one of the best fights possible in all of boxing, and you would rather it wasn't made because one of the 500000 belts available was on the line?
Boxers make fights, not the titles.
wow_junky- Posts : 358
Join date : 2011-03-08
Location : Bristol
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
That wasn't a catchweight.azania wrote:As Atom said above, I cannot recognise SRL being a 5 weight champ seeing as the LH and SMW titles were fought in one fight. Ridiculous.
Scottrf- Posts : 14359
Join date : 2011-01-26
Re: Is anybody a fan of catchweight??
Scottrf wrote:That wasn't a catchweight.azania wrote:As Atom said above, I cannot recognise SRL being a 5 weight champ seeing as the LH and SMW titles were fought in one fight. Ridiculous.
I believe it was. LaLonde was the LHW champion and the fight was made at 168 with the LHW as well as the SMW belt up for grabs. In short LaLonde was fighting outside his natural weight hence catchweight.
azania- Posts : 19471
Join date : 2011-01-29
Age : 112
Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
![-](https://2img.net/i/empty.gif)
» Did Manny need Catchweight.... and will it matter anyway?????
» Catchweight fights can be great.
» Help With a Catchweight Question Wanted
» Catchweight fights should be non-title affairs!!!
» Matthysse vs. Peterson: Catchweight @ 141lbs?!
» Catchweight fights can be great.
» Help With a Catchweight Question Wanted
» Catchweight fights should be non-title affairs!!!
» Matthysse vs. Peterson: Catchweight @ 141lbs?!
The v2 Forum :: Sport :: Boxing
Page 1 of 3
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|