Gennady Golovkin - Would He Have Hammered The Raging Bull?

Interesting fight. I would like to see the Las Vegas Odds for this one.

 

Golovkin would get behind his jab and win fairly comfortably

 

The OP remarked on LaMotta's devastating power-neither the record/his KO% or testimony backs this up.
GGG was better technically.
Bigger when in shape.
He may not be stopped, but despite his workrate I do not see him landing often enough to take a decision.
Oh & Jake one one of 6 fights vs. SRR, not 5.

 

He was talking about GGG.

 

Jake a MW cum L-HW, GGG would have been a L-HW cum HW then...

he's always the Bigger man, so he would have been fighting the L-HWs and up, there is a very strong reality that they would never have met... but GGG would likely get the victory if they did.

Jake also fought a lot of WW's cum MWs, which has to be noted, Triple G too big, generally speaking.

 

LaMotta's walk-around weight was probably more than Golovkin's. He was regularly shaving 30-to-40lbs to make the 160 limit.

I can't see how this makes Golovkin a "L-HW cum HW" in LaMotta's day and, conversely, with a day-before weigh-in, LaMotta could well have entered the ring the heavier man.

 

Jake was never dropping that much weight during Busy periods, maybe 20lbs or so, at times when there was a lull in active fighting... just like every other fighter then.

and that of coarse is the Point, THEN, GGG - the Naturally Bigger Man, wouldn't even have entertained MW, he would have done the exact same thing as all the other fighters of his stature, which would have been, a L-HW weight fighter - men that size, then, Didn't ever see themselves as Less than what they were... You, People, Fighters, we ALL do exactly the same as the world we live in...

and 1940s men 5'10/11 were 'typically' L-HW's and then of coarse moving up, and fought many Catchweight Fights - i.e in & around 180 odd pounds...

GGG THEN is a Natural L-HW cum HW, just like the rest of who would have been his peers then.

 

Not according to LaMotta...

This content is protected

Even if LaMotta's own words don't dispel your idea that he wasn't dropping that much weight, your reasoning doesn't work, anyway. LaMotta keeping active and, at the same time, in theory, being kept closer to the Middleweight limit, doesn't make him the naturally smaller man.

What weight does Golovkin walk around at?

 

it amazes me some people get Stuck on weight - STATURE means the whole package of a person - HEIGHT, weight, build, and can be used to also include, strength and/or fitness.

GGG's Stature, He IS the BIGGER Man and because of His Size, men that size, Height and walking around in & around 180lbs Did NOT Even think of themselves as middleweights, they were L-HW's cum HW...

GGG in the 1940's is not going to buck the trend, again, men his size were L-HW's.

 

Sorry, but I could say the same about those, who seem obsessed with bringing size into these types of cross-era, divisional debates in the first place. They invariably introduce the factor with sweeping overstatement, as you have done here, concerning a disparity in size between LaMotta and Golovkin.

You categorically stated that LaMotta was "

This content is protected

", in response my informing you that he was cutting 30 to 40lbs. So, now strong evidence has been provided that he was shedding that kind of weight, it has become a secondary factor in your idea of size and you now introduce the word "stature", i.e. height, to make the distinction.

Was Robinson bigger than LaMotta?
Were Williams, Basora, Kochan, Costner all bigger than LaMotta?

Do you not think LaMotta could have campaigned at LHW?

And, on that area of the topic, you state that "

This content is protected

". This, despite being quite sure that LaMotta himself would lose 20lbs to make 160.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that this decision to lose 20lbs, in order to make the Middleweight division limit, was dependent on whether or not a boxer was under 5'10"???

You're statement's aren't adding up to a whole lot of sense, to be honest.


As it happens, I know that weight alone does not equate to size (neither does height, alone) and it is more to do with a combination of factors, including body composition and shape (or type) - but let's not forget that you stated: "

This content is protected

" for LaMotta, which clearly isn't the case (and no amount of BLOCK-CAPITAL-LETTER-EMPHASIS is going to change that).

Like LaMotta wasn't fighting 5'10" and taller middleweights or natural light-heavyweights in his day.

Likewise, there are more modern-day examples of LaMotta's Middleweight frame who, like him, were naturally big Middleweights, despite their slightly shorter "stature" (or is it "STATURE" ), e.g. Tony Sibson, Juan Roldan, Jorge Castro.

And to the point you make that Golovkin wouldn't have even bothered campaigning at Middleweight in the '40s, you can't possibly know that. You also do not factor in what Golovkin's optimum fighting weight would have been, during the 40s, with a more active schedule and available diet.

The truth is, as is so often the case in these types of debate, you have overstated your case for size disparity. That is to say, it is not the factor you think it is.

 

I did address the 30 - 40lbs weight dropping, he wasn't doing that during his More Busy Fight schedule period - maybe occasionally when he had long periods between fights, yes - so I did address that.

Generalizing, you know, the way conversations are sometimes implied, and used to be understood as such.

Generally Speaking, 5'10, 5'11 inch fighters were L-HWs back then, MOST of them... were there 'smaller' L-HWs, sure of course their was, but they were the minority and not the majority... were there MWs taller than 5'8. 5'9 inches tall, again, of course, but they were the minority.

did I ever think, Jake could have fought at L-HW, of course, he was a big middle, weight wise, But that doesn't bode well for him as a fighter and or his legacy, but that is a different conversation.

I addressed all of it, I just disagree... GGG would have operated as a L-HW back then, just like MOST of his would be then peers of equal size.

He is Always the Bigger Man, no matter where you place them in time.

 

Well - you did take it upon yourself to adjust the amount to "

This content is protected

", i.e., up to less than half of what LaMotta himself claims to be the case.

"Well, I always had trouble making a hundred and sixty pounds... ...because, after a fight, I'd always put on thirty to forty pounds." - Giacobbe "Jake" LaMotta

And, again, you have no way of knowing this. It is a pure fantasy of yours.

I don't think a fighter who, in his physical prime, re-hydrated to less than 170lbs, following a day-before-weigh-in (and weighed as little as 165lbs at 30-days out), is always the bigger man against LaMotta and certainly not "too big" for a guy built like LaMotta, which is the idea you are trying to sell.

 

I don't think the two are that far apart in size. Certainly GGG is a slight bit taller with a 3 inch reach advantage. But they're both thick in the torso which makes it hard to estimate. I think Golovkin's heaviest rehydrated weight might have been 175 or 173 iirc. If LaMotta ballooned 30lb after a fight then it sounds to me that he hit the buffet circuit.

 

That might well be, but was not a fair portion of the weight he carried at his heaviest fat?
It was not like Marciano, who at ~ 203 I do not think was even chubby.
But he drained & likely sacrificed a bit of muscle to lose 15 or more lbs for fights. For better endurance & speed.

He was more like Duran ar his more dissipated between bouts-Jake was not built like say Quai.