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

This is obviously a troll thread And you are stirring it up. Whatever brings you joy I suppose

 

Where's the op to defend this ****?

 

I know. That's also irrelevant to the debate me and this guy are having.

 

All I'm saying is Floyd was bigger than Marquez, Golovkin was bigger than Brook. Brook can weigh whatever he wants, he doesn't carry the mass like Golovkin does because he's a smaller man.

 

Golovkin is more effective at middleweight because he's bigger.

Brook has documented issues with 147, he's still more effective there than Golovkin would be.

And yes, Brook at 175 would technically be a light heavy weight, but he's not suited for that weight. Therefore he's smaller than everyone there (height and reach aside for a moment).

We're debating waaaay too much. The only argument we're having is "Is Brook bigger than Golovkin?" Short answer is NO. My argument to this notion is simple: Brook can carry 147/154 lbs more effectively than Golovkin. Golovkin can carry 160 lbs more effectively than Brook. Therefore, Golovkin is bigger than Brook. Not by much, but he is, and it played a part in their fight.

Brook's struggles at 147 are irrelevant to this discussion, he was undefeated and probably struggled more going back down. In a fight he was actually winning through 6 IMO.

I don't disagree with most of your points, but I strongly disagree with the idea that Brook was bigger than Golovkin or that they were the same size. I think that's ridiculous. Golovkin is naturally bigger because his optimal weight is higher than Brook's.

 

This post actually says a lot about you.

 

I get the feeling this discussion is mostly about the definition of size, which I consider a very interesting question. So forgive me for inserting myself into this conversation.

Going back to the original discussion, what is size? Is it:

- A: height and reach? The most objective of the criteria, because you can't change either of these by training or overeating. But: seems to ignore the fact that some fighters are more thickly built than others. For example: Gilberto Ramirez is a huge SMW in terms of height and reach. Should he be considered bigger than a cruiserweight like Lebedev?

- B: in-ring weight? This (and also a little of A) seems to be the definition advocated by @The Kentucky Cobra. It has its strengths, and it solves the previous problem; however is susceptible to fighters who have bulked up or gotten fat. For example: consider fighter A who is a MW, and fighter B who is a SMW. Fighter A is smaller than fighter B, we'd all agree. But let's say fighter A gets offered a lucrative contract to fight a LHW. He bulks up to give himself a better chance at the higher weight. Is he now bigger than fighter B? He's certainly going to have a higher in-ring weight. What if, rather than bulking up, fighter A simply retired for a bit, got fat, and can't make MW or SMW any more? Does that change anything? Does it make any difference if fighter A had the frame to move up, or not?

- natural weight, i.e. the weight that a certain fighter is best at in a p4p sense. This is a logical definition, and if I understand rightly, is what @alexthegreatmc advocates. I like this definition a lot, but it's not perfect either: i) it seems to underestimate the size of fighters who can drain themselves a lot to fight "smaller" men; ii) there is some subjectivity, as what weight a fighter is best suited to at a particular point in time is not always clear, especially in the case of a younger fighter growing up through the weight classes. iii) some people can bulk up more effectively than others since they have the frame to do so. How is this represented?

 

Adding muscle and/or fat still contributes your size.

If he weighs more and their heights or something is otherwise equal, he would be bigger. That's just the facts. The real question there is not that he's "naturally smaller" or "actually smaller despite being bigger", that's nonsense...the real question is can he be effective with the added weight, how is he going to react to a man bigger than his previous opponents muscling him and hitting him? But see, that's not a question of size. That's ring performance.

Fat is size. That's that. He's likely not going to be as strong or fit as a similar sized man that is bulked in muscle, thought that isn't even a written rule, nor is it related to size. Same weight, carried differently.

For instance, Arreola was a fat 250 pound guy. Doesn't matter if at least 60 of those pounds are fat, he is bigger than a 190 pound man cut from rock.

I've always known that to be "fighting weight" or best fighting weight. Which itself isn't a constant.

Those are also reasonable questions, but they really aren't related to size in the factual sense of the word. It's more about performance and a variety of variables.

You can't say guy has a size advantage over a heavier man, he might have an advantage in power, more experience at said weight, better carried weight..etc., but that'd doesn't change the fact he's smaller.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head for both of us. Well done.

 

mayweather does the opposite, he drags himself up weight classes.

the difference between surefire ATG and possible future HoFers

 

Just because they weigh the same doesn't mean they're the same size. Technically they are but one is NATURALLY that size while the other is more effective at a smaller weight, therefore he's smaller NATURALLY. It is indeed ring performance, but why do you think that ring performance has been affected? Because their size has changed.

I'm not arguing the definition of size, I'm arguing Brook's size in relation to Golovkin. Golovkin is built for 160, Brook is not. Brook is built for 154... a SMALLER weight class.

Everyone has an optimal weight class, Brook's optimal weight class is lower than Golovkin's.

 

He hits harder and appears to take a better punch. Those attributes doesn't make someone bigger.

Because Golovkin has never fought at 147 and Brook's only 160 fight was a loss to Golovkin. I would say when Brook fights at 147, he likely is smaller than Golovkin on fight night. But when Golovkin and Brook actually fought, he had a slight edge in every weigh in, so was not smaller.

We don't know that, best to stay away from hypothetical situations as they open a can of worms and end up being a big nothing.

Sticking to reality, Brook fought at 160 one time, had a weight advantage but got stopped by Golovkin in a competitive fight. Based off that, I'm not ready to say he's just not suited for that weight and too small,

Optimal weight is not size. Holyfield's "optimal" weight was 185 as a mature adult, it doesn't change the fact that when Mike Tyson looked across the corner he saw a 215 pound monster looking back at him, ready to over power him on the inside. I'm sure Tyson was thinking "but but...his optimal weight is smaller than mine" as he got pushed and thrown around the ring by a stronger man, equal in his weight.

 

Then let me rephrase my original claim: Brook's optimal weight, AT THIS TIME, is smaller than Golovkin's. Therefore, his performance was affected negatively. Better?

While Brook and Golovkin were damn near the same size on fight night, that was not Brook's optimal size. His optimal size is smaller than Golovkin's optimal size.

 

Also, I'll add, just because Brook didn't have to bulk up, rather he just didn't cut weight, it doesn't mean he's a natural fit for 160 lbs. Because when we determine a boxer's size, we're arguing through relativity, Brook's optimal weight in relation to his peers. Brook may be perfect at 160, but then he's facing men that don't belong there... see where I'm going with this?

 

When you are writing in contradictions like this you might want to reconsider your position.

Nobody is "naturally" their weight That goes against all rules of biology.

There you go.

And we have their measurements. It only shows Golovkin to have a modest advantage in height and reach.

Some have two optimal..or three, or four...depends.