Would you rather win in a close fight or one sided but weight cheating your opponent?

[whirlwind]

Originally Posted by Reloaded

You an idiot that does not have the faintest idea about weight in boxing , your like a lawn mower home handy man telling Senna all about a formula 1 car , the dickheads with their baseless theory's on this site is just ridicules .

A handicap that weakens you is not a level playing field !!!

That is the idea. You are the bigger fighter then trick your smaller opponent and made him think you actually will meet him at 144. To make it more believable you signed an agreement about the fight should be at 144. After that you laugh at yourself thinking "that fool he really thinks I give him a level playing field?" lmao.

[ronnie_N.]

Originally Posted by whirlwind

That is the idea. You are the bigger fighter then trick your smaller opponent and made him think you actually will meet him at 144. To make it more believable you signed an agreement about the fight should be at 144. After that you laugh at yourself thinking "that fool he really thinks I give him a leveling field?" lmao.

so why sign the contract in the first place?... those fighters never complain about catch weights... they know their body and well being more than you do...

level playing field?... why floyd only asked for "level playing field" against a lightweight at a catch weight that he never met on his 40th professional fight?... can we also conclude that floyd's first 40 pro fights are not on a level playing field?...

[The Weebler II]

If you're a fighter it's a choice between:

1. Legacy and beating your opponent at his best - greater risk of defeat
2. Money beating your opponent with an advantage - lesser risk of defeat


If you're a fan (not a nuthugger), you want to see your favourite fighter beat their opponent at their best because it's worth more to their legacy.