Is size the be all and end all

To my knowledge, nobody on this forum has ever denied that weight discrepancies become more significant when they represent a greater percentage of the fighters' overall weight. But all things being equal, what reason is there, if any, to think that a 40-lb gap generally would be less important for a 180-lb fighter than a 20-lb gap for a 160-lb fighter?

 

I'm not sure which is less important.
I just wanted to hear his reasoning and maybe learn something.
I also wanted to add that the heavier you are, the less a 20lb difference makes. And vice versa.

 

That went into my analysis and the examples I gave. IE 40 pounds means more between a fight between 180 and 220 pounders than 20 pounds means between 160 and 180 pounders.

Edit, just saw the further discussion on this. Yes, tbh I actually used a calculator to 100% verify the percentages before I even made my initial post lol. The 40 lb gap was significantly larger than the twenty lb.

Edit #2. Just to be clear, by percentages, I mean the percentage difference between the two fighters. My main point from my original point was in a way, similar to Reznicks: actual specific weight matters less than percentage difference between the fighters.

 

Can't speak for him but I assume his reasoning is based on the fact that 40 pounds is a much larger percentage of a 180-lb fighter's body weight (22%) than 20 pounds is for a 160-lb fighter (12.5%).

For frame of reference, as a percentage of body-weight, that's basically the difference between a featherweight fighting a junior-middleweight v. a featherweight fighting a junior-welterweight.

 

Missed this reply when I was typing mine!

 

Haha I checked the percentages too right before seeing your post.
So knowing you were using percentages to arrive at your example makes total sense, and it's a really good point.
It's clearly a much better way at "valuing" size differences in matchups.

And to this point:

I think that thinking comes from the fact that there were at least a good 4-5 all time punchers in that weight range throughout the last century, who didn't seem to struggle with dropping bigger men any more than they did smaller men.

But I think Golovkin is making the case that a 160lb guy may have that capability too. Depends whether the gym stories and testimonials are enough to convince you, or if you'd need to see it happen in the ring to consider him capable of knocking out heavyweights. I don't think there's ever been a MW who hit as hard as him, granted the vast drought of early 20th century footage.

 

I was referring to the heavyweights only. The very big fighters usually didn't do very well in the pastl. Today, they dominate to such an extent that another division needs to be created.

 

Leave the gym stories right where they are, Golovkin and his team obviously don't feel confident in fighting bigger men or else he would have move up a division or two. The smart money says he would struggle like mad at SMW or LHW.

 

The super-heavyweight class as in the Olympics has been suggested for such behemoths as Vlad and Vitaly.
Why they insist on throwing in boxers who weigh a mere 200 pounds against those who can outweigh them by 60 pounds in the pros is beyond me.

 

Yea, but you forgot to mention gravity!

 

How come?
He hasn't unified the titles yet, and he is in great form at MW.

 

lol

proportions is the word to use, not size.

 

Exactly. The 35-year old Golovkin would be a 3 or 4 division champion and consensus p4p #1 by now, had his people had the confidence in him that those gym war stories suggest.

 

This content is protected