The middleweight championship is about to become a laughing stock

Rumours are circulating strongly in the USA that Cotto V Bradley is to be made with Cotto's WBC and Ring Magazine middleweight championship on the line however the fight will be at a catchweight of 156lbs this in my view is a joke

Good fight, pity about the circumstances

Yeah the fight is good ive no problem with that in fact its one i shall look forward too but its the whole 'middleweight' stuff which im unhappy about in a fight which lets face it is between two wealterweights

Yeah I feel the same. Good fight but it's a welterweight contests for the middleweight crown. Always likely to happen, if it isn't Bradley, it'll be Alvarez.

GGG left out in the cold again.

I think GGG will have to move up as it doesnt seem any middleweight worth his salt will fight him

You're probably right

Can anyone say if there was this many Catchweight fights in days gone by for regular titles, or if this is a newish thing?

Derbymanc wrote:Can anyone say if there was this many Catchweight fights in days gone by for regular titles, or if this is a newish thing?

Here's an article by Graham Houston:

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/boxing/news/story?id=3238297

The proliferation of title and weight divisions doesn't help matters. Promoters look to match names these days (as the concept of a champion has gone up in smoke) and aren't particularly bothered whether they reside in the same division (fighters can easily put on/take off weight with modern potions etc. without hampering performance).

Cheers for that Haz, I'm still not a fan of Catchweights but can see why they happen sometimes. On the other hand a title should NEVER be allowed to be fought for at a catchweight.

After all the talk of day before weigh-ins is it not reasonable to suggest that at another point in history, one with same day weigh-ins, Cotto could be a genuine, ableit small, middleweight? If so, then is it really a laughing stock?

(Playing devils advocate)

The idea of a catchweight for the title is a laughing stock. Your fighting for the title of a certain weight, not the weight you decide is right for it.

Demeans the sport and the titles even further

Arum may have floated the idea of Cotto-Bradley, however, Cotto's team themselves have thrown out invitations to Canelo and Floyd.
 
Don't bet against Floyd's "big surprise" being him challenging Cotto/Canelo for the middleweight crown next year.

Oh joy, more talk of a catchweight then

Hagler vs Duran/ Leonard were made.............Duran had never fought at middle..Leonard hadn't fought for three years..

Nunn vs Curry/Starling was made.........

Get over it............and research history..

Sure it ain't good but it's nothing new.

Nope, titles shouldn't be fought over a catchweight, if you can't beat a middleweight at the middleweight limit then you don't deserve to be called middleweight champion. Same at any other weight.

Catchweights should only be used in sparing circumstances and NEVER for titles.

Floyd would get a lot more respect for his Alvarez win with no catchweight etc etc ad nauseum

They had stipulations in the old days..

I know I don't tend to base my opinions on what happened in the past, but to counter that, the weight limits were a bit different then and checking out that article they were mostly used to try and even out some major players to fight each other.

I appreciate that we as fans want to see fighters go up against each other and that at certain times a catchweight is going to be the only way forward BUT I think if your fighting for a certain title it should be in that titles weight range.

I do too.............

But If fighters I agree let them...........

All sorts of things happened in the past and happen now..Turning up the heat in an arena, employing a small ring and choosing reyes gloves when you are fighting a non punching elusive boxer....

and vice versa If your man is the Boxer...

People forget sometimes that Boxing has never been a level playing field..

the only stipulation should be that you can't be OVER the weight limit. If the weight limit is 160 and you want to come in at 156 that's fine, but don't tell the other guy he can't weigh 157, 158, 159 or 160.

Or am I being naïve?

That's what I'm saying Dave, If your the champion at a particular weight you should have to defend that championship in the confines of that weight division, not decide that your opponent ha to weight 5lb's under or what have you.

You wouldn't see the Tiddlywinks championship suddenly be decided by a game using dinner plates

Derbymanc wrote:That's what I'm saying Dave, If your the champion at a particular weight you should have to defend that championship in the confines of that weight division, not decide that your opponent ha to weight 5lb's under or what have you.

You wouldn't see the Tiddlywinks championship suddenly be decided by a game using dinner plates

Great idea for a thread...Buckaroo using a tortoise, Ker-plunk using cucumbers and apples....

When Hamsho and Obelmijas got rematches and Hagler turned round and said "Hearns doesn't deserve a rematch" After punching out the number 1 WBA/WBC contender and unbeaten Shuler and being part of the fight of the decade...

I thought it was a bit of a laughing stock back then..

Did Marv refuse to tip you at the Oyster TRUSS? Just asking as you seem to have a real downer on the man and lack the good grace to try and hide it even remotely

 We could be onto something Dave pity the Men and Motors channel isn't around we could sell the idea to them.


I've only got a vague boxing knowledge when it comes to the glory days Truss and most of that comes from reading (Johnny Owens autobiography is a classic (and a tearjerker))
I understand what your saying though and know that nothings going to change soon, catchweights just wind me up as it's another way that fans can use to berate and belittle fighters achievments and in itself is a way that fighters can stack the odds more in their favour.

I used to be a big fan.............Very proud of him back in the day..

Time moves on a certain re-evaluation takes place..

Don't dislike Marv but...

His treatment of Hearns.............The disrespecting Of Leonard after the fight and the Spinks stuff......

He gets a way with S**t over less liked fighters don't...

There are far more catchweight title fights now then there used to be, the worst of which was Berg defending his 140lb title at the lightweight limit. Oddly he was still considered the lineal champion sometime after it.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:When Hamsho and Obelmijas got rematches and Hagler turned round and said "Hearns doesn't deserve a rematch" After punching out the number 1 WBA/WBC contender and unbeaten Shuler and being part of the fight of the decade...

I thought it was a bit of a laughing stock back then..

Are you sure that you're not mixing up Hagler with Leonard? Leonard is the one who said that he wouldn't give Hearns a rematch unless he admitted that he was legitimately stopped in their first fight. I don't know if Hearns ever admitted to it? Hearns eventually got his rematch but only when he was thought to be shot.

As for catchweights fights, the worst one for me, is Leonard v Lalonde. Being able to win the light heavy title while fighting at super middle was a joke.

He does indeed tend to mix Leonard up with Hagler. Arum publicly admitted he couldn't sell a Hearns vs Hagler rematch due to the comprehensive manner of Hagler's victory until Hagler struggled with Mugabi while Hearns simultaneously wiped out Schuler. It was at this point that Leonard reared his head (after years in the wilderness) and finally offered to face Hagler, who had appeared to have slipped after an arduous hall of fame career.

If anyone can be accused of ducking Hearns it's Leonard.

I don't understand what difference this makes?

They're both teeny Middleweights...

Both guys won't exactly be weighing bang on 160lbs especially Bradley who hasn't even ever fought above the Welterweight limit... It seems a pointless catchweight in my opinion. Cotto weighed in at 155lbs against Martinez, Bradley won't struggle making any weight at all so it all just seems a tad pointless, no?

Not getting Leonard and Hagler mixed up at all...

Well, as far as I remember, Hagler was going to fight Hearns again until Leonard showed up and cut in.

Hearns may not have been dragged into a brawl like he was in their first fight, but I'd have to favour Hagler again. I don't see Hearns stopping Hagler and Hearns didn't have the best chin to imagine him lasting the distance and out pointing Hagler.

Hearns wasn't the same fighter after Hagler mangled him. Few were.

hazharrison wrote:Hearns wasn't the same fighter after Hagler mangled him. Few were.

Mugabi wasn't that's for sure.