Is anybody a fan of catchweight??

First topic message reminder :

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 technically it was a catchweight because of the arrangements, but it was at the Super Middleweight limit.

Scottrf wrote:Maybe technically it was a catchweight because of the arrangements, but it was at the Super Middleweight limit.

Then the 175 belt should not have been on the line. As that belt was on the line, the fight became catchweight.

As an aside, can a catchweight fight be made for the belt over the permitted weight level? I mean a MW belt fight held at 162lbs?

wow_junky wrote:

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.

Amen.

The amount of titles around devalue them, look how many champ get stripped for no reason and the belt becomes vacant.

Titles are there to sell the fights to casual fans. The true boxing enthusiasts know who are the best boxers are and what are the good fights.

Cotto vs Pacquiao was a great fight, any boxing fan should be glad that happened.

azania wrote:As an aside, can a catchweight fight be made for the belt over the permitted weight level? I mean a MW belt fight held at 162lbs?

If you pay Suleman enough money you could fight a badger for one of his titles

How does that logic work? Catchweights are inbetween weights. They fought at a weight class, but the higher weight title was on the line because they came in under that limit too.

No to your previous question. Catchweights have no effect on what fighters can weigh in other than the agreements that the boxers make between themselves. The commissions do not enforce the catchweights. If a catchweight is at 155 for the Middleweight title, they can still come in at 160 and the belt would be on the line.

rowley wrote:

azania wrote:As an aside, can a catchweight fight be made for the belt over the permitted weight level? I mean a MW belt fight held at 162lbs?

If you pay Suleman enough money you could fight a badger for one of his titles

And he'll throw in an inter-species 162lb platinum title free of charge

Badger KO2 Azania

azania wrote:As an aside, can a catchweight fight be made for the belt over the permitted weight level? I mean a MW belt fight held at 162lbs?

Can only hope you're joking with that one, Azania! If (and I don't think it will, even allowing for the outlandish rule bending in boxing these days) that ever did happen, it really would be an absolute joke. At least weights such as 151 lb and 145 lb actually fall within the range of Light-Middleweight and Welterweight respectively.

The way boxing is today and the corrupt nature of many organisations, anything is possible. As long as one fighter is a huge draw the sanctioning bodies will bend over in whatever direction they are asked and take it up the jacksie to get their fees.

Of course it will be a joke, but I can see it happeneing someday.

wow_junky wrote:

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.

The catchweight for the belt made it a silly fight. A large part of the hype behind it was so that Pacquiao could claim another one of those '500,000' belts and call himself a WELTERWEIGHT champion. As he didn't beat the champion at full welter, he's not a full champion, is he?

It's alright saying "Boxers make fights, not the titles", but thae premise of the Cotto fight was FOR A BELT.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:As an aside, can a catchweight fight be made for the belt over the permitted weight level? I mean a MW belt fight held at 162lbs?

Can only hope you're joking with that one, Azania! If (and I don't think it will, even allowing for the outlandish rule bending in boxing these days) that ever did happen, it really would be an absolute joke. At least weights such as 151 lb and 145 lb actually fall within the range of Light-Middleweight and Welterweight respectively.

Don't think it would have made that big of a difference, lets be honest with the weigh in the day before the fight, most fighters are nowhere near their weight class on the day of the fight.


I just want to see good boxing matches.

azania wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Maybe technically it was a catchweight because of the arrangements, but it was at the Super Middleweight limit.

Then the 175 belt should not have been on the line. As that belt was on the line, the fight became catchweight.

Exactly. How can fighting for a LHW belt at anything other than 175 NOT be a catchweight?!? Hell, let's just give Manny a belt in every division going, but set the limit at 147. It's the welterweight limit, so it's not a catchweight, right??

D4thincarnation wrote:


I just want to see good boxing matches.

Steer clear of Mosley v Pacquiao, then.

D4thincarnation wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:As an aside, can a catchweight fight be made for the belt over the permitted weight level? I mean a MW belt fight held at 162lbs?

Can only hope you're joking with that one, Azania! If (and I don't think it will, even allowing for the outlandish rule bending in boxing these days) that ever did happen, it really would be an absolute joke. At least weights such as 151 lb and 145 lb actually fall within the range of Light-Middleweight and Welterweight respectively.

Don't think it would have made that big of a difference, lets be honest with the weigh in the day before the fight, most fighters are nowhere near their weight class on the day of the fight.


I just want to see good boxing matches.

But you satisfy yourself with being a Pacquiao fan obsessive.

BALTIMORA wrote:The catchweight for the belt made it a silly fight. A large part of the hype behind it was so that Pacquiao could claim another one of those '500,000' belts and call himself a WELTERWEIGHT champion. As he didn't beat the champion at full welter, he's not a full champion, is he?

It's alright saying "Boxers make fights, not the titles", but thae premise of the Cotto fight was FOR A BELT.

I can't believe you still watch boxing if you think that was bad enough that it would be better if the fight didn't happen at all. There's always something to complain about, I presume it's just rhetoric.

BALTIMORA wrote:Exactly. How can fighting for a LHW belt at anything other than 175 NOT be a catchweight?!? Hell, let's just give Manny a belt in every division going, but set the limit at 147. It's the welterweight limit, so it's not a catchweight, right??

Right. Catchweights are in between weights. If you weigh in under the limit you can compete for the belt.

Ross-Canzoneri wasn't a catchweight either, they competed for two belts because they weighed in below the lowest limit.

For me the distinction which is key is whether someone chooses to come in below the weight limit of a particular division or there are things in the contract such as financial penalties which would make it preferable or specifically preclude them from doing so. If the first is the case I have no issue with belts being on the line, if the second is the case belts should not be on the line.

D4thincarnation wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:As an aside, can a catchweight fight be made for the belt over the permitted weight level? I mean a MW belt fight held at 162lbs?

Can only hope you're joking with that one, Azania! If (and I don't think it will, even allowing for the outlandish rule bending in boxing these days) that ever did happen, it really would be an absolute joke. At least weights such as 151 lb and 145 lb actually fall within the range of Light-Middleweight and Welterweight respectively.

Don't think it would have made that big of a difference, lets be honest with the weigh in the day before the fight, most fighters are nowhere near their weight class on the day of the fight.


I just want to see good boxing matches.

Christ Almighty D4, you can't actually be suggesting that catchweights for world titles should be allowed even if the catchweight doesn't actually fall within the range of the division itself, surely? As I said, Pacquiao claiming a 'Light-Middleweight world title' and a 'Welterweight world title' at 151 lb and 145 lb respectively was bad enough, but at least those weights actually fell inside the limit. If you're seriously suggesting that a fight should carry a world title over a weight limit then there's really no hope for you. It's the most stupid argument I've seen you make. I see that the IBF Featherweight belt is vacant, maybe they should make the winner of Pacquiao-Marquez III the new champion of it, in that case? Jesus...

BALTIMORA wrote:

wow_junky wrote:

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.

The catchweight for the belt made it a silly fight. A large part of the hype behind it was so that Pacquiao could claim another one of those '500,000' belts and call himself a WELTERWEIGHT champion. As he didn't beat the champion at full welter, he's not a full champion, is he?

It's alright saying "Boxers make fights, not the titles", but thae premise of the Cotto fight was FOR A BELT.

If you can't see passed the CATCHWEIGHT and FOR A BELT part of the Cotto-Pac fight then I'm not sure you can really consider yourself a fan of boxing. It's all well and good having morals for the sport, but you are being ridiculous.

rowley wrote:For me the distinction which is key is whether someone chooses to come in below the weight limit of a particular division or there are things in the contract such as financial penalties which would make it preferable or specifically preclude them from doing so. If the first is the case I have no issue with belts being on the line, if the second is the case belts should not be on the line.

Turning down a fight with SRL is in effect a financial penalty. He represented a career high payday. Asking a boxer to boil down 7lbs to contest a vacant belt with his belt on the line is catchweight.

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:For me the distinction which is key is whether someone chooses to come in below the weight limit of a particular division or there are things in the contract such as financial penalties which would make it preferable or specifically preclude them from doing so. If the first is the case I have no issue with belts being on the line, if the second is the case belts should not be on the line.

Turning down a fight with SRL is in effect a financial penalty. He represented a career high payday. Asking a boxer to boil down 7lbs to contest a vacant belt with his belt on the line is catchweight.

Find me a definition of catchweight that allows for it to be at the weight of an established division.

Scottrf wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Exactly. How can fighting for a LHW belt at anything other than 175 NOT be a catchweight?!? Hell, let's just give Manny a belt in every division going, but set the limit at 147. It's the welterweight limit, so it's not a catchweight, right??

Right. Catchweights are in between weights. If you weigh in under the limit you can compete for the belt.

Ross-Canzoneri wasn't a catchweight either, they competed for two belts because they weighed in below the lowest limit.

LaLonde was asked to come down to 168 to put his LHW title on th eline. It doesn't matter if he is below the LHW limit. Cotto was asked to come down to 145lbs and to put his WW title on the line. That gave his opponent an advantage he would not have had had it been at full WW weight.

Az there is a difference between a fighter figuring the payday is worth the risk than a governing body ignoring it's own rules and allowing a fight to take place for a title when the rules for the fight are contrary to what their own rules dictate and a fight at 151 for the lightmiddle title does this as there rules say a fighter can come in at 154

I'm aware of the difference. But the LaLonde/SRL fight was at catchweight.

Scottrf wrote:

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:For me the distinction which is key is whether someone chooses to come in below the weight limit of a particular division or there are things in the contract such as financial penalties which would make it preferable or specifically preclude them from doing so. If the first is the case I have no issue with belts being on the line, if the second is the case belts should not be on the line.

Turning down a fight with SRL is in effect a financial penalty. He represented a career high payday. Asking a boxer to boil down 7lbs to contest a vacant belt with his belt on the line is catchweight.

Find me a definition of catchweight that allows for it to be at the weight of an established division.

I dont get your point Scott. Are you suggesting that it wasn't at catcheight? if not, was the Cotto fight at CW and the Marg fight?

azania wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:For me the distinction which is key is whether someone chooses to come in below the weight limit of a particular division or there are things in the contract such as financial penalties which would make it preferable or specifically preclude them from doing so. If the first is the case I have no issue with belts being on the line, if the second is the case belts should not be on the line.

Turning down a fight with SRL is in effect a financial penalty. He represented a career high payday. Asking a boxer to boil down 7lbs to contest a vacant belt with his belt on the line is catchweight.

Find me a definition of catchweight that allows for it to be at the weight of an established division.

I dont get your point Scott. Are you suggesting that it wasn't at catcheight? if not, was the Cotto fight at CW and the Marg fight?

Yes, yes and yes.

Scottrf wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:Exactly. How can fighting for a LHW belt at anything other than 175 NOT be a catchweight?!? Hell, let's just give Manny a belt in every division going, but set the limit at 147. It's the welterweight limit, so it's not a catchweight, right??

Right. Catchweights are in between weights. If you weigh in under the limit you can compete for the belt.

Ross-Canzoneri wasn't a catchweight either, they competed for two belts because they weighed in below the lowest limit.

No. A catchweight is any upper weight limit that is not the usual upper limit for the belt which is being fought for. I know the Lalonde fight was at 168, but that's NOT the LHW limit, nor is it even in the LHW weight band. If you're saying it wasn't a catchweight because 168 is the SMW limit, then I think you're plain wrong.

Scottrf wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:The catchweight for the belt made it a silly fight. A large part of the hype behind it was so that Pacquiao could claim another one of those '500,000' belts and call himself a WELTERWEIGHT champion. As he didn't beat the champion at full welter, he's not a full champion, is he?

It's alright saying "Boxers make fights, not the titles", but the premise of the Cotto fight was FOR A BELT.

I can't believe you still watch boxing if you think that was bad enough that it would be better if the fight didn't happen at all. There's always something to complain about, I presume it's just rhetoric.

I'm being a little harsh for emphasis maybe. THe fight taking place I don't mind. That it was touted as a welter championship fight, for a welter belt, and that Cotto was a welter champion all rankle a bit. Fight at 145, by all means, but don't expect the world to accept it as a legitimate welter title fight.

BALTIMORA wrote:No. A catchweight is any upper weight limit that is not the usual upper limit for the belt which is being fought for. I know the Lalonde fight was at 168, but that's NOT the LHW limit, nor is it even in the LHW weight band. If you're saying it wasn't a catchweight because 168 is the SMW limit, then I think you're plain wrong.

Maybe. Depends if Lalonde would have suffered any undue punishment for coming in at 170 or he wanted a chance at the SMW belt. Perhaps it was technically a catchweight fight, although it wouldn't fit any definition of one.

I agree with Balit and Azania. The SRL fight was at a catchweight...

Catchweights are bad for the sport. The only reason they are used is to disadvantage one guy. If the weight made no difference, it would not be requested. Simples.

Scottrf wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:No. A catchweight is any upper weight limit that is not the usual upper limit for the belt which is being fought for. I know the Lalonde fight was at 168, but that's NOT the LHW limit, nor is it even in the LHW weight band. If you're saying it wasn't a catchweight because 168 is the SMW limit, then I think you're plain wrong.

Maybe. Depends if Lalonde would have suffered any undue punishment for coming in at 170 or he wanted a chance at the SMW belt. Perhaps it was technically a catchweight fight, although it wouldn't fit any definition of one.

If he wanted to fight for a SMW belt then the LHW belt shouldn't have been on the line. If the LHW champion and the challenger both weigh in for a LHW fight within the SMW limit, then fine, so long as they had the option to weight up tp 175. By making the limit 168 it was every bit as much a catchweight fight (where the LHW belt is concerned) as if it were at 169lbs.

Well the Leonard/LaLonde fight was without doubt a catchweight fight

On the point of Cotto/Pacquiao I have no problem with the 145lb limit but a title should not have been on the line even it caused the fight to fall through, makes a mockery of things.

I dont see how a fight signed which included the 175lb belt on the line is fought (as per contract) at 168lbs can be anything other than catchweight.

azania wrote:I dont see how a fight signed which included the 175lb belt on the line is fought (as per contract) at 168lbs can be anything other than catchweight.

I said it could probably be seen as one. But by any definition a catchweight is a weight other than the official weight limits, and 168 is an official weight limit.

Scottrf wrote:

azania wrote:I dont see how a fight signed which included the 175lb belt on the line is fought (as per contract) at 168lbs can be anything other than catchweight.

I said it could probably be seen as one. But by any definition a catchweight is a weight other than the official weight limits, and 168 is an official weight limit.

At SMW it is.

Imo there is no probable. It is one.

azania wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

azania wrote:I dont see how a fight signed which included the 175lb belt on the line is fought (as per contract) at 168lbs can be anything other than catchweight.

I said it could probably be seen as one. But by any definition a catchweight is a weight other than the official weight limits, and 168 is an official weight limit.

At SMW it is.

Imo there is no probable. It is one.

Have to agree with Az on this. It was a full SMW fight, but a catchweight LHW fight. No ifs or buts or grey areas.

If catchweight allows fighters from different weights to meet in the ring perhaps its a good idea. Pavlik against Hopkins was a catchweight, a greater diversity of contests can be arranged. A catchweight fight between Hagler and Spinks would be an exciting match up.

In regards to Pacquiao, the catchweight in the Cotto fight was hardly significant. Two lbs of the top limit doesn't make alot of difference, in fact its very common across the weight divisions. The Margarito fight is arguably more controversial. But, I don't think there is any doubt that if Pacquiao and Margarito moved up to LMW, they could fight for titles straight out, which numerous fighters do. I said before, I doubt people would complain if Ward and Froch fought at LHW. If the fighters both deserve to compete for a title and it involves two top stars, then I'd say its good fight to make.

These days the top fighters transcend world titles anyway. There is about 64 of them, sadly its not that great an honour anymore. At one point there were 8 world champions. The big fights draw the accolades (and the money) these days. Pacquiao vs Margarito is a pretty big fight. Any contest involving SRL was high profile and its an exciting prospect, will Leonard be able to defeat the LHW champion. They still need to climb into the ring and do the business, the work hasn't really begun yet.

Margarito didn't deserve a shot in a million years and not sure how you could even consider he was worthy of one, please enlighten me? Any Pacquiao fight is a big fight, Pacquiao against Margarito is not a big fight.

Two pounds obviously does make a difference otherwise it wouldn't have been insisted on. Would also say that Ward or Froch would get a shot straight away at LHW but in so shape or form would it be appropriate for the pair of them to face off in their first fight at the weight with a title being on the line.

The SRL fight was probably the most high profile of Lalonde's career, he no doubt welcomed the match up. According to the rules, Lalonde can defend his title anywhere below the maximum LHW limit. He's within his rights to fight at 168. Boxing has always been a financially driven sport. If the promoters and managers are in favour of a catchweight fight, then thats what happens. Boxing as an industry would rather see a catchweight title fight at LMW than Trout vs Julio.

Is it unfair that a fighter claims a world title via a catchweight? Pacquiao and Leonard both defeated legitimate contenders (or a champion in Leonard's case). Marge is currently rated top 5 at LMW and has a strong pedigree at WW. Not every WW in history has weighed 147 lbs, some welters my be comfortable at 145 and have no problem with a stipulation. Its not necessarily unfair in that situation. Pacquiao has defended twice at WW, so it wasn't a love you and leave you world title. Perhaps, Clottey is more comfortable at 147 lbs than Cotto. If one of the competitors was nowhere near a world title or there was a significant weight disadvantage then it would be unfair.

In years gone by, fighters such as Robinson, Armstrong, Moore regularly moved up and down in weight. In fact at one point welterweight/ featherweight/ etc incorporated the sub divisions. So, weight disadvantages were much more common. A fighter who loses/ gains half a stone and fails to win, may just not have been good enough.

Whats wrong with Margarito? He's been one of the top WWs of the last 10 years. For almost all of that time Margarito has been widely respected in boxing and pretty much nailed on WW top 5. A 3 time champion with around 10 world title defences. Currently, boxrec place him top 7 at LMW and the WBC top 5. So not everyone in boxing agrees with you.

Cotto moved up and fought for a title straight out as did Mayweather, Mosely (bar a 3 round no contest), Marquez at SFW. A long term champ can usually move to a higher division and compete for a title. Margarito and Pacquiao, baring in mind their track records, would be in similar positions.

Alvarez was recently involved in a world title fight against Mathew Hatton, who's not really been a top contender at WW. One can criticise this as a soft option, but then this is not uncommon in the world of boxing. Fighters compete for world titles after all sorts of backroom agreements, sactioned body rulings, etc. This is how modern boxing routinely works. Its common for fighters to milk titles, so its endemic across the whole of boxing. At least Marge and Paquiao have taken on the top stars and paid their dues somewhat.

ArchBritishchris wrote:Whats wrong with Margarito? He's been one of the top WWs of the last 10 years. For almost all of that time Margarito has been widely respected in boxing and pretty much nailed on WW top 5. A 3 time champion with around 10 world title defences. Currently, boxrec place him top 7 at LMW and the WBC top 5. So not everyone in boxing agrees with you.
Alvarez was recently involved in a world title fight against Mathew Hatton, who's not really been a top contender at WW. One can criticise this as a soft option, but then this is not uncommon in the world of boxing. Fighters compete for world titles after all sorts of backroom agreements, sactioned body rulings, etc. This is how modern boxing routinely works. Its common for fighters to milk titles, so its endemic across the whole of boxing. At least Marge and Paquiao have taken on the top stars and paid their dues somewhat.

Margarito was coming off of a defeat to Mosley and a year ban for cheating. The fight wasn't held at LMW it was held at a catchweight of 150lbs so why should the title on the line?

Hatton never deserved the title shot against Alvarez he had never fought at LMW before and wasn't a successful champion moving up in weight.

Chris - the Alvarez Hatton fight was a joke. I dont think you'll find anyone who will claim otherwise. Margarito DIDN'T deserve his shot. He was there because he's on the Top Rank payroll, plain and simple.

The Cotto catchweight has already been discussed: it probably didn't make a difference, but if that's the case, why have it?

If you're trying to justify Leonard fighting for a LHW title at 168-forget it. It's not justifiable.

I'm sorry Chris, but that it a complete load of rubbish. Answer me these questions:

If 2 pound made no difference, why was it requested?
How is gettin knocked out, being banned for a year and beating a journeyman enough to get you a title shot in the weight above?

Looks like we're not getting any answers here lads may as well move on. Anyone watched any good films lately?

Cemetery Junction was surprisingly decent, if you like Ricky Gervais's style of writing.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:If 2 pound made no difference, why was it requested?

The fact that boxers have argued over the colour of gloves is enough to reject this cliched retort.

Hang on - how is it Mannys fight the fight was for a title? Blame the WBCmafia, surely

2 pounds made no difference in all likelihood - twas there to try and gain an additional advantage (an unnecessary one IMO). Cotto could have said no. He didn't - end of story.

Limitless was reasonable, not sure if it is still showing. Definately worth a watch.

oxring wrote:Hang on - how is it Mannys fight the fight was for a title? Blame the WBCmafia, surely

2 pounds made no difference in all likelihood - twas there to try and gain an additional advantage (an unnecessary one IMO). Cotto could have said no. He didn't - end of story.

Its not the end of the story. The WBO threatened to strip him if he didnt sign, Cotto was quoted as saying he wanted 147. He was backed into a corner.

Again I will ask, if two pounds made to difference then why ask for it.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

oxring wrote:Hang on - how is it Mannys fight the fight was for a title? Blame the WBCmafia, surely

2 pounds made no difference in all likelihood - twas there to try and gain an additional advantage (an unnecessary one IMO). Cotto could have said no. He didn't - end of story.

Its not the end of the story. The WBO threatened to strip him if he didnt sign, Cotto was quoted as saying he wanted 147. He was backed into a corner.

Again I will ask, if two pounds made to difference then why ask for it.

They are egotistical.

Do you think who walks into the ring last matters?