Tweet
The point is that boxers are using their strong position in negotiations to secure conditions that benefit them and disadvantage their opponent.
Catchweights are one example. If someone establishes a reputation at 160, what's to say he's still just as good at 156? And therefore, what's to say you deserve as much credit for beating him. Catchweights mean that might not be seeing who the better fighter really is.
So to me, this is part of the problem I have with it. It's just big names using their popularity to take advantage of their opponent. I'm consisent on the issue. I also disagree with people doing it when it comes to the size of the ring as well.
If one guy is an aggressive, short, power puncher and the other is a fast, skillful, chinny slickster, then the size of the ring matters. That's why people had a problem with David Lemieux having a 15.5ft ring when he faced Ayala. It's also why people had a problem with Mundine having a larger than usual ring when he faced Echols.
In both instances the two guys who won the fight were local/national draws who could afford to give their opponents good paydays. Because of this, their opponents accepted whatever ring size was in the contract. But what does it matter if both agree to it? Well, it matters because maybe in a different ring the outcome would've been different.
Once you start using your financial leverage to ensure a ring size or a catchweight that gives you an advantage, you make it so that people are going to say 'well hold on a minute, maybe if this guy wasn't a big draw he wouldn't have that advantage, and then maybe the fight would go down differently'.
Then a bunch of fans start going on about 'haters' when the reality is that the boxer himself is to blame. You want credit for a win? Don't bring people above or below their weight division just because you hope it'll hinder their performance. You want credit for a belt? Win the belt at the same weight that almost everyone else won it at.
Catchweights are one example. If someone establishes a reputation at 160, what's to say he's still just as good at 156? And therefore, what's to say you deserve as much credit for beating him. Catchweights mean that might not be seeing who the better fighter really is.
So to me, this is part of the problem I have with it. It's just big names using their popularity to take advantage of their opponent. I'm consisent on the issue. I also disagree with people doing it when it comes to the size of the ring as well.
If one guy is an aggressive, short, power puncher and the other is a fast, skillful, chinny slickster, then the size of the ring matters. That's why people had a problem with David Lemieux having a 15.5ft ring when he faced Ayala. It's also why people had a problem with Mundine having a larger than usual ring when he faced Echols.
In both instances the two guys who won the fight were local/national draws who could afford to give their opponents good paydays. Because of this, their opponents accepted whatever ring size was in the contract. But what does it matter if both agree to it? Well, it matters because maybe in a different ring the outcome would've been different.
Once you start using your financial leverage to ensure a ring size or a catchweight that gives you an advantage, you make it so that people are going to say 'well hold on a minute, maybe if this guy wasn't a big draw he wouldn't have that advantage, and then maybe the fight would go down differently'.
Then a bunch of fans start going on about 'haters' when the reality is that the boxer himself is to blame. You want credit for a win? Don't bring people above or below their weight division just because you hope it'll hinder their performance. You want credit for a belt? Win the belt at the same weight that almost everyone else won it at.
Comment