>>> Only Lomachenko and Golovkin can get away with...

There is such thing as a natural weight in boxing, and the unchanging 12 round construct is what sets those parameters on what it takes to be in peak condition for any one weight class you're in.
Golovkin is a natural modern day MW. At 154, he's huge, at 168, he's on the small side especially for his style.
We have seen what Golovkin does against huge MW's too - have an even fight with Jacobs.
Kell Brook is naturally in between 147-154 - making him a true LMW. They were definitely not the same size and there isn't a case for them being the same size. Golovkin just walked all over him and didn't respect him or his size, although Kell did light Golovkin up.

 

***SOB KLAXON***

 

And GGG gets very little credit for beating Brook, Canelo gets very little credit for beating Khan ...

So I guess that's all fair, I personally don't think fighting someone who's not as good p4p from 2 divisions down means a great deal. It can be a decent name on your resume but not much more than that.

Lomachenko also won't get that much credit for beating Rigo, but he might get a little more than the others, because:
- there are quite a lot of people who think Rigo beats him anyway ...
- Rigo is a p4p fighter, Brook and Khan were not.
- it's easier to go up weight-classes at the lower weights.

 

Lol your first response about Brook entering the ring at 180 tells me everything I need to know.

 

Brenda Agenda!

 

Sounds to me like you can't refute anything I said, so you are "Appealing to the Stone"

You asked if a hypothetical 180 pound fighter could be a light heavyweight, and I don't see any reason why they couldn't be. There is nothing absurd about my answer to your question.

 

The term gets used but it's not meant to be literal. It's another way of saying the weight division a fighter is most comfortable competing at during a specific moment in time. Which as we know is not a constant and changes over the course of a boxer's career for a variety of reasons.

There's nothing "natural" about it. Middleweight is simply the division that he feels is ideal for him to compete at.

Nobody is naturally any weight, there is no set weight a human being has to be. It depends on what he eats and how he works out. Brook himself claimed to be a natural Middleweight more than once, meaning he feels more comfortable at that weight.

Actually there is a strong case for them being the same size and it's measurable in hard numbers not opinionated philosophy: Height, Weight, and Reach. That is irrefutable.

This is not a measurement of size. Once more, durability and power is being confused with size. Brook was of equal size to Golovkin, what he lacked was the punching power to check Golovkin, the durability to withstand Golovkin's punches, and the ring iq/skillset to over come those issues. And this is not unique to Brook as dozens of men larger than himself ran into similar issues against Golovkin.

 

10-7 TKC the ref needs to step in and stop this one sided beating already ffs.

 

There are so many things wrong with your post and the way you misunderstand size, it's just too tedious for a response. Size is a major factor in boxing (virtually the most major factor) and you have an idea that's so farfetched that no one who is involved with/follows the sport of boxing has other than UnleashtheFury. Got to agree to disagree this time.

 

Only Loma & GGG? This is factually incorrect. Marvin Hagler 'dragged' both SRL & Duran up! Please post me your previous critique of Hagler on this subject?

You should learn your history. Napoles jumped two to fight Monzon. Hopkins jumped two to fight Tarver. Marlon Starling did it, & didn't Inoue recently do it? It is not uncommon.

 

You can't explain what's wrong with it, because nothing is. You know very well you can't argue against height, weight, and reach as measuring sticks of size. Size in measured terms is not a matter of opinion or some abstract concept only a select few can grasp. Without facts to support your opinion of size, you are left with a "Just Because" fallacy, you have no hope of defending.

That's because you are trying to bend and twist something as simple and measurable as size into a personal creed. You want Golovkin to be bigger than Brook despite all the facts telling you that is not the case.

Size is a major factor in boxing and that's why we have things like measuring tape and scales to document it. What is so farfetched about height, weight, and reach as measuring sticks of size? That's been the accepted standard in boxing for about 70 years now.

Farfetched is someone arguing a man with no real height, weight, or reach advantage was considerably bigger.

 

I really think it would be educational if people put aside their "he's bigger, he walked through him" misconceptions and really watched this fight. Pay attention to the differences between how these men punch and how they take a punch. Brook is accurate and fast, but is he really getting as much torque on his punches as Golovkin is? I would say....NO. Not even close. Golovkin's leverage on his punches is tremendous, you can see his entire torso twist into them, while Brook is often upright or moving away. When Brook is caught, his head is in mid motion, trying to roll or evade the punches. It's not really a surprise, one guy got badly busted up, while the other was only troubled. I would also add Golovkin had superior timing, his jab and combinations were also a huge difference maker.

This content is protected

 

1. I'm not refuting everything because I'm on my phone. Too annoying to cut and paste and type a novel.

2. Not "a hypothetical 180 pound fighter", specifically Kell Brook. By your logic, Marquez vs Mayweather was a match between two welterweights. While technically true, Marquez can make weight no issue, he was not a real welterweight at the time. Brook is not a real middleweight in the sense that Golovkin is. He's never competed against a middleweight.

I'll be on a computer in a bit.

 

This content is protected

If Brook fought at 168 against Curtis Stevens, weighed more than Curtis Stevens on fight night, is taller and longer, Curtis Stevens will still be the stronger, more effective fighter. While Brook is technically bigger, he's the less effective fighter due to weight. Therefore it's easier to call him "smaller", because it's not his effective weight, it's too big for him, it's not his natural size. Anyone can bulk up, doesn't make them the bigger fighter compared to someone who's adept at fighting at that weight.

This content is protected

What is "significantly dwarfed"? What's significant to you might not be significant to someone else. Using my hypothetical example above; while Brook would be FACTUALLY bigger, he's still the naturally the smaller man. He'd probably beat Golovkin at 147.

This content is protected

Since you want to get technical, using your sentence, the man who ends up lighter is smaller.

This content is protected

He's BEEN fighting at welterweight, then made welterweight again and put up a good fight against Spence. We're talking Golovkin, a man who's been fighting at 160 for YEARS, fighting someone who JUST CAME from welterweight and went back RIGHT AFTER. Brook IS smaller than Golovkin. He weighed a few lbs more, allegedly (I don't know the exact weight), sure. But Golovkin is the more effective middleweight than Brook is. Brook would be more effective than Golovkin at welterweight because HE'S SMALLER.

This content is protected

His power and durability is irrelevant to this discussion. He makes 160 comfortably and doesn't rehydrate much because he's a healthy, natural middleweight.

This content is protected

Agreed. But just because someone adjusts their weight, doesn't make them the bigger fighter. Back to the "Brook at 180" example. While technically he's a light heavy, we know he's not actually a light heavy.

Let me reiterate, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying BROOK DOES NOT BELONG AT MIDDLEWEIGHT, HE'S TOO SMALL FOR IT. The men he'd be facing at 160 can fight at 168 and 175. He's too small.

 

And if Brook were facing at welterweight that fight would've played out differently. I don't know why you act like size didn't play a part in this fight. Skill-wise they were very competitive. Size-wise it's no comparison.