Tweet
Came across a nice info page:
Originally By McGrain
Barney Ross SD Jimmy McLarnin, 28/5/1934
What was the catchweight, and why was it used?
The two fought at 143. Barney Ross, the great ***ish lightweight, wanted to come north to McLarnin but was uncomfortable coming up to 147 - he weighed in at only 138 - so McLarnin agreed not to come in over 143 inspite having fought between 144 and 147 only in recent years.
Was the title at stake?
At stake, changed hands, before in was passed between them twice more in no catchweight WW fights.
Did the catchweight negatively affect either man?
McLarnin claimed it did indeed affect his performance and Pop Foster insisted McLarnin's preperation was badly affected by worry at not being able to make the weight, but the decision was exactly the same as the two that would follow this one - a close, disputed decision.
Was the catchweight a good thing or a bad thing?
It got two ATG fighters into the ring together and kept things very, very close which is an accurate reflection of how these two were. A great fight between great fighters that probably wouldn't have been made at 147. A good thing.
Joe Gans D20 Joe Walcott, 20/9/1904
What was the catchweight and why was it used?
Another meeting between the lightweight and welterweight champions, this fought at 138.
Was a title at stake?
No, neither man's title was at stake - this may be because Walcott did not make the weight - Boxrec lists him at 140. However, sources seem to indicate that this may be incorrect, as Walcott was not made to pay the forfiet he had agreed to.
Did the catchtweight negatively affect either man?
Probably it did. 138 was an ask for the Barbados demon and he seems to have struggled to keep the pressure upon Gans, though this may have more to do with Gans being a master boxer!
Was the Catchweight a good thing or a bad thing?
Overall, good getting the two into the ring together was the main thing, and it hurt neither's career with the draw a harmless (though unpopular) result.
Armstrong TKO 6 Jenkins, 7/17/1940
What was the catchweight and why was it used?
The Catchweight was 139 and it was used so that Jenkins, a lightweight, would not be dwarfed by his great opponent.
Was the title at stake?
No; this was a non-title fight - the catchweight was the possible reason with the two weighing in at the semi-recognised 140lb limit.
Did the catchweight negatively affect either man?
No. Armstrong was his destructive self and Jenkins gave him real trouble, injuring both his eyes.
Was the catchweight a good thing or a bad thing?
It was a ****ing great thing. Two ATG's in a thrilling encounter that couldn't have been made at 147 at that time.
Emile Griffith KO9 Dave Charnley, 1/12/1964
What was the catchweight and why was it used?
Again, a lightweight and a welterweight. Charnley wasn't big enough to step all the way up so Griffith agreed to weigh in at no more than 145.
Was the title at stake?
No - the fight was a non-title bought, but Charnley, having lost two of his last three, was not really in position to complain. The fight was more about getting a troubled Griffith out of the US than a genuine contest, and Griffith followed it up with another non-title fight, this time at 147.
Was either man negatively affected?
Only Charnley, who took a sound thrashing. Griffith was very much himself.
Was the catchweight a good thing or a bad thing?
Probably neither; it's hard to imagine any difference at 147.
Terry Norris KO4 Meldrick Taylor, 9/5/92
What was the catchweight and why was it used?
The oddly specific catchweight was 150 1/2lbs. Both men weighed in at 149. The catchweight was in place to make things less difficult for the smaller Norris.
Was the title at stake?
Yes; the WBC light-middleweight title.
Did the catchweight hurt either man?
It's hard to be sure because the fight lasted only four rounds. Probably not.
Was the catchweight a good thing or a bad thing?
A good thing; two outstanding champions brought together for a contest in-between their best weights - what's not to like?
Bernard Hopkins KO9 Oscar DeLa Hoya 18/9/04
What was the catchweight and why was it used?
The catchweight was 158, and it was used to allow the much smaller Oscar some leeway.
Was the title at stake?
Yes; the winner would be #1 at middleweight.
Did the catchweight hurt either man?
Negative; Hopkins showed, once again, what discipline really means. Hopkins had never weighed in so light in all of his career. He was 39 years old. He would only fight 3 more times at 160 before moving up to light-heavy; but he made a mockery of the catchweight coming in at 156.
Was the catchweight a good thing or a bad thing?
Mostly good. Oscar didn't belong up there, but it brought Hopkins overground and netted him a big purse, whilst Oscar was allowed a "nothing to lose" shot at true boxing immortality.
Kelly Pavlik UD Jermain Taylor, 16/2/8
What was the catchweight and why was it used?
Even for the first Pavlik fight, Taylor was struggling to neatly make 160 and offered Kelly a non-title fight at above 160; Pavlik quite rightly told him "no". The second time the two met the catchweigt was agreed primarly in to allow Taylor some relief at the weight.
Was the title at stake?
Niether held a title at 168 where the fight was contested.
Did the catchweight hurt either man?
Probably not - and it certainly helped Taylor who showed no signs of the stamina issue that had hurt him in the first fight, Pavlik boxing him to a decision rather than blowing him out.
Was the catchweight a good thing or a bad thing?
It made for an interesting and competitive fight with a defining result. The only negative was no title was at stake.
So, a pretty normal practice then, with the title often up for grabs.
End Quote
Originally By McGrain
Barney Ross SD Jimmy McLarnin, 28/5/1934
What was the catchweight, and why was it used?
The two fought at 143. Barney Ross, the great ***ish lightweight, wanted to come north to McLarnin but was uncomfortable coming up to 147 - he weighed in at only 138 - so McLarnin agreed not to come in over 143 inspite having fought between 144 and 147 only in recent years.
Was the title at stake?
At stake, changed hands, before in was passed between them twice more in no catchweight WW fights.
Did the catchweight negatively affect either man?
McLarnin claimed it did indeed affect his performance and Pop Foster insisted McLarnin's preperation was badly affected by worry at not being able to make the weight, but the decision was exactly the same as the two that would follow this one - a close, disputed decision.
Was the catchweight a good thing or a bad thing?
It got two ATG fighters into the ring together and kept things very, very close which is an accurate reflection of how these two were. A great fight between great fighters that probably wouldn't have been made at 147. A good thing.
Joe Gans D20 Joe Walcott, 20/9/1904
What was the catchweight and why was it used?
Another meeting between the lightweight and welterweight champions, this fought at 138.
Was a title at stake?
No, neither man's title was at stake - this may be because Walcott did not make the weight - Boxrec lists him at 140. However, sources seem to indicate that this may be incorrect, as Walcott was not made to pay the forfiet he had agreed to.
Did the catchtweight negatively affect either man?
Probably it did. 138 was an ask for the Barbados demon and he seems to have struggled to keep the pressure upon Gans, though this may have more to do with Gans being a master boxer!
Was the Catchweight a good thing or a bad thing?
Overall, good getting the two into the ring together was the main thing, and it hurt neither's career with the draw a harmless (though unpopular) result.
Armstrong TKO 6 Jenkins, 7/17/1940
What was the catchweight and why was it used?
The Catchweight was 139 and it was used so that Jenkins, a lightweight, would not be dwarfed by his great opponent.
Was the title at stake?
No; this was a non-title fight - the catchweight was the possible reason with the two weighing in at the semi-recognised 140lb limit.
Did the catchweight negatively affect either man?
No. Armstrong was his destructive self and Jenkins gave him real trouble, injuring both his eyes.
Was the catchweight a good thing or a bad thing?
It was a ****ing great thing. Two ATG's in a thrilling encounter that couldn't have been made at 147 at that time.
Emile Griffith KO9 Dave Charnley, 1/12/1964
What was the catchweight and why was it used?
Again, a lightweight and a welterweight. Charnley wasn't big enough to step all the way up so Griffith agreed to weigh in at no more than 145.
Was the title at stake?
No - the fight was a non-title bought, but Charnley, having lost two of his last three, was not really in position to complain. The fight was more about getting a troubled Griffith out of the US than a genuine contest, and Griffith followed it up with another non-title fight, this time at 147.
Was either man negatively affected?
Only Charnley, who took a sound thrashing. Griffith was very much himself.
Was the catchweight a good thing or a bad thing?
Probably neither; it's hard to imagine any difference at 147.
Terry Norris KO4 Meldrick Taylor, 9/5/92
What was the catchweight and why was it used?
The oddly specific catchweight was 150 1/2lbs. Both men weighed in at 149. The catchweight was in place to make things less difficult for the smaller Norris.
Was the title at stake?
Yes; the WBC light-middleweight title.
Did the catchweight hurt either man?
It's hard to be sure because the fight lasted only four rounds. Probably not.
Was the catchweight a good thing or a bad thing?
A good thing; two outstanding champions brought together for a contest in-between their best weights - what's not to like?
Bernard Hopkins KO9 Oscar DeLa Hoya 18/9/04
What was the catchweight and why was it used?
The catchweight was 158, and it was used to allow the much smaller Oscar some leeway.
Was the title at stake?
Yes; the winner would be #1 at middleweight.
Did the catchweight hurt either man?
Negative; Hopkins showed, once again, what discipline really means. Hopkins had never weighed in so light in all of his career. He was 39 years old. He would only fight 3 more times at 160 before moving up to light-heavy; but he made a mockery of the catchweight coming in at 156.
Was the catchweight a good thing or a bad thing?
Mostly good. Oscar didn't belong up there, but it brought Hopkins overground and netted him a big purse, whilst Oscar was allowed a "nothing to lose" shot at true boxing immortality.
Kelly Pavlik UD Jermain Taylor, 16/2/8
What was the catchweight and why was it used?
Even for the first Pavlik fight, Taylor was struggling to neatly make 160 and offered Kelly a non-title fight at above 160; Pavlik quite rightly told him "no". The second time the two met the catchweigt was agreed primarly in to allow Taylor some relief at the weight.
Was the title at stake?
Niether held a title at 168 where the fight was contested.
Did the catchweight hurt either man?
Probably not - and it certainly helped Taylor who showed no signs of the stamina issue that had hurt him in the first fight, Pavlik boxing him to a decision rather than blowing him out.
Was the catchweight a good thing or a bad thing?
It made for an interesting and competitive fight with a defining result. The only negative was no title was at stake.
So, a pretty normal practice then, with the title often up for grabs.
End Quote
Comment