Catch Weight Fights- Does It Matter if you're forced to lose one or two pounds?

wow immeidate repsonse....goes to show you spend all day on this forum. Thats ok but at least make it productive not this bs Let go of my threads. If you're not going to post anything relevant, then just leave.

Stop stalking me on all of my threads. Get out you troll. wow immeidate repsonse....goes to show you spend all day on this forum. Thats ok but at least make it productive not this bs

stop making pointless threads.....its all been discussed! find something original to post about Stop stalking me on all of my threads. Get out you troll.

Not to put too fine a point on it, I was referring to Roach getting Cotto to fight @ 145. He didn't make that condition on a whim. he must have thought there was something to gain by it. Does that clarify my statement? Yeah I understand, we all know Roach is an excellent matchmaker, so maybe he knew that catch weight would hinder Cotto.

stop making pointless threads.....its all been discussed! find something original to post about

Catch weights have been a part of boxing before many of us here on these message boards have been alive. As long as both fighters agree to make a specified weight, there should be no excuses. I don't agree with them, but catch weights are a part of boxing and it's history and have brought us some memorable fights.

what's this got to do with HOF trainers? Not to put too fine a point on it, I was referring to Roach getting Cotto to fight @ 145. He didn't make that condition on a whim. he must have thought there was something to gain by it. Does that clarify my statement?

Well, put it this way, if Pac thinks a few mils (ie. one millionth of a pound) of blood will lose him a fight and make him weak then what would losing two pounds of body fluids do to someone that already had struggled with the weight in the past?

So wait... the boxers in here are saying yes, it does make a difference, and the non boxers are saying no. speaking specifically about the cotto-pac fight, obviously it did/does make a difference. Why did manny demand the catchweight, when he had previously fought dlh at a heavier weight? there is your answer. not saying cotto would have beat pac that night, he probably still wouldnt have, solely because his gameplanning and training intensity was piss poor. With Steward at the helm now, cotto can outbox manny. fo sho. there was no reason for manny to demand a catchweight, when he had previously fought at the natural weight limit before. If it was his first time at 147, than i could see, but since it wasnt, nada. he wanted to drain cotto a little(physically and mentally).

Specifically speaking about the Manny-Cotto bout. People say that Cotto losing only two pounds is nothing major. However a well fit boxer that's in shape and barely any body fat, can suffer weakness since they have to give up muscle since they have no body fat. If this is the case, then it was a smart move to make Cotto come down to 145. What do you guys think? cotto has made it clear in the past that making 140 was a huge strain on him. when a fighter gets older it becomes harder and harder to shed weight. 2 pounds doesnt sound like much but when your an older guy, had weight issues before and have to lose muscle and etc it can be a significant problem.

Cotto could have come in at any weight he liked and still got a whupping.

i don't agree with catchweight fights..if the fighter cant make the standard weight class then don't fight there..this slacking is killing the sports.. if the smaller ones win "steroid" if the bigger one "his big"...wtf..neverending debates..

weight draining demands are always a pussy move.

Found an interesting write-up pertaining to catch weights on another board.. Barney Ross SD Jimmy McLarnin, 28/5/34 What was the catchweight, and why was it used? The two fought at 143. Barney Ross, the great Jewish 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, 20/9/04 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, 1/12/64 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. http://www.********boxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=159546 :drive:

whats the difference of a catchweight to a cheating of the contacted weight? (overweight of 2lbs)

whats the point of a catchweight? what is the boxer thats asking for the catchweight trying to accomplish A super diamond belt, duh!

a catch weight is a negotiation and not a surprise, so the fighter knows exactly what the terms of the contract are and signs the contract with the full knowledge that a catch weight is in order. a fighter knows his body, a fighter knows what he is capable of, and a fighter knows what he is not capable of, so if a fighter signs a contract at a catch weight, then that is what the fight is and there should be no discrepancy about weight or outcome do to weight, the fighter had full disclosure prior to stepping on the scale and stepping into the ring. if a fighter, his team, and fans think the catch weight is what lost them the fight, they're dead wrong, because signing the fight at the catch weight is where they lost the fight because they gave up their ground in the negotiations, a place where almost all fights are won. in regards of pac vs cotto, pacquiao had a better team for his negotiations, cotto just went along with it and played pacqiuaos game, cotto's bad. catch weights are all pre disclosed prior to stepping on the scale, it is no surprise, and if a fighter signs the contract at a catch weight, then the fight is at that weight and it's official, meaning they already accepted the terms and know what they're getting themselves into. in regards to catch weights, take'em or leave'em, the fighters know what they're getting themselves into.............. whats the point of a catchweight? what is the boxer thats asking for the catchweight trying to accomplish

everyone has body fat , no matter what. fat helps keep us alive. dont beleive me if you dont want to but its true.

Hall of Fame trainers don't ask for contract conditions on a whim. Maybe it's an initiative thing? The opponent starts out reacting to you rather than vice-versa. Maybe it's physical? The last couple of pounds are supposed to be the hardest, right? I'm not a trainer, much less a HoFer, but don't even doubt that it matters. what's this got to do with HOF trainers?

Hall of Fame trainers don't ask for contract conditions on a whim. Maybe it's an initiative thing? The opponent starts out reacting to you rather than vice-versa. Maybe it's physical? The last couple of pounds are supposed to be the hardest, right? I'm not a trainer, much less a HoFer, but don't even doubt that it matters.