Is it me or does anyone see the noticeable size difference

Translation: Fight Night weight holds meaning to anyone wanting to know the actual weight of a fighter (not their size), at the time of the fight.

So, according to your interpretation of 'size', Butterbean was, at one point, bigger than Valuev.

This content is protected

As previously explained, more than once, the measure of weight, on its own, does not equate to size.

So, it really does matter - especially, when a person, who has consistently made a competitive weight of 154 (or less) - for years - is being made out to be the same size as a guy, who has never in his pro career weighed in below 158.5 and boils down to 159/160 to fight competitively - which is the case you’re trying to make.

This content is protected

Again, a guy who can train down to 147 (compared to another guy who has never weighed in below 158.5) is not the same size as the career Middleweight. The fact Brook was able to make 147, in his very first fight after Golovkin, is clear evidence, to any reasonable person, that he was a blown-up Welterweight. The added irony is that he looked the smaller man against Errol Spence.

What you are failing to realize is that, the fact that Brook was able to weigh in on a par with Golovkin on their fight night and then go back to 147, goes to prove my point. Kell Brook didn't become magically bigger and then magically smaller again.

So, again, as already explained, weight is not the sole measure of size - as the known events demonstrate.

Thanks for that. I really don’t know how I have managed all this time, without that revelational insight.

Seriously though - I am not the one confused, here. The problem really comes down to you not knowing much about what is being discussed and not really even understanding the basics. This means you don't know what you're talking about.

Proof of this is in your inability to grasp the simple concept that weight does not necessarily equate to size, i.e. my original point - weight is not the sole measure of size.

I actually can't see you ever grasping this idea, because it doesn't fit with the position you have decided to take, no matter how questionable that position is. It's what I've come to expect from you. It never changes, is never likely to and it never really gets interesting, either.

Have a good evening.[/QUOTE]

 

Sure, and weight is important in the determination of size in boxing.

To be blunt this is an "Accident" fallacy. As I explained already Butterbean and Valuev are such extreme exceptions you can't use them as analogy for general application, it's against the rules of logic period.

While they are irrelevant to this discussion, I will indulge since you keep trying to work your argument back to this. This may sound like a cop out but I don't see an argument either way. You are comparing the heaviest man to the tallest man, that's just going to come down to a personal preference.

This content is protected

There are two types of water in the human body. Intracellular and extracellular water. Both are included in lean body mass calculations. There are no exceptions. All water is accounted for.

Lean body mass (including all body water) and fat all make up your physical space and mass. There is no dividing things out to determine a true size. It is what it is. If you are 174 pounds, you are 174 pounds. Did that really need to be explained...is this what it has come to?

When you hydrate after a weigh in, you are restoring the weight you lost by dehydrating, not adding significant excess. Once you are hydrated and metabolism restored, that's that. You could drink gallon after gallon and just end up peeing your trunks.

The human bladder can only hold 16 ounces of water. Which is .06 of a pound. This small fragment is what is usually called "artificial or excess water weight" If someone is retaining more than half a pound of excess water they have a serious health issue. Something's not working.

I've already addressed this.

If they weigh the same in the ring, than they weigh the same in the ring.

This content is protected

You don't need magic to gain or lose weight. Size isn't a constant. Interesting you brought lean body mass even into the equation, given it's first rule is that it's variable.

I've already addressed this.

post #156

"We have weight divisions in this sport, not height divisions. Weight is by far the most important measuring stick of size in the sport. Height and reach are secondary but should be noted. Size is about volume, a collective of height and weight."

This is really bizarre, I specifically responded to your assumption that weight was not the sole measure of size and explained myself. But you have carried on as if that never happened and dismissing me for something I never said.

I have to doubt if you are even reading my posts now. So you are free to assume whatever what you want.

 

What part of weight and size are you having a problem with? The problem is that you think somebody is arguing. People are just stating what they see and you're huffing and puffing and trying to tell people that what they see with their own eyes is wrong. What you on about? You all on the forum talking about lean body mass calculations and measurements and a whole bunch of other yak that don't nobody care about but you. It was a simple question posed by the TS and you are having a hard time answering it with any degree of common sense. Is that a cry for help cause there are places out there where you can get some help for your problem. I think you got cerebral fecalousis. Look into that.

 

As if we needed any more evidence that you don’t know what you are talking about, you just keep delivering it.

In brief, the definition of an 'Accident Fallacy' is when one attempts to apply a general rule to all situations, when clearly there are exceptions to the rule. To be clear, the fallacy is committed when one attempts to ignore the exception.

Given it is you who is peddling the ‘general rule’, i.e. weight = size (not me, as you have tried to imply, above) and it is also you, who is dismissing the exception I provided to your rule, then it is YOU who is committing the fallacy.

QED


Now tell me - Why should I even bother reading your posts now?

 

I honestly don't understand this question. What are you trying to ask?

I don't believe any poster here is a stranger to disagreements, so why the faux outrage?

Do you have poster "Man_Machine" on ignore? He introduced lean body mass calculations to the thread, which I have been arguing against the use of.

Interesting. Why do you feel I'm having a hard time answering the question and without common sense?

By any measure my position is really not that hard to understand and I honestly don't believe you have the posters I've been conversing with on ignore, do you have a cognitive disorder?

 

lol basically the same size. May dwarfed pac in every way.

 

By definition I can't IGNORE the exception when I pointed out the exception.

As explained far too many times.... "weight=size" is not my rule. You are now peddling a Straw Man fallacy. Good job!

For me to be guilty of an Accident Fallacy, I would have to apply the same rules of size to Golovkin/Canelo as I would for Valuev/Butterbean. Which I refused to do. You are in fact the one who suggested an illogical application be made.

Because I'm educating you. Thanks to me, you now know what lean body mass actually is, what excess water actually is, how fighters cheat the scales with dehydration, and you are learning about logic. You should be calling me Sensei.

 

More like, 'Senseless'!

You must be the only poster I have seen on here who, no matter the topic of a given thread you're involved in, is virtually guaranteed to take that topic, the evidence therein and mash it into incoherent gibberish, whilst remaining blissfully unaware of the same - to the extent you are confident that your utter nonsense is actually educating others.

It's too funny.

 

Lol, you are absolutely right. Dude has no desire to make sense, his only drive is his need to dissent.

 

golovkin has big hands blizzy

 

In what way?
He was a couple of inches taller and weighed basically the same.
Exact same scenario as GGG-Canelo

 

The Cobra's Position: "Size is a description of mass. From the measurements we have, Golovkin is marginally taller and Canelo is marginally heavier. That is a fair trade off of mass."


Man Machine's Position: "Canelo is noticeably smaller than Golovkin. If it isn't apparent to some already, it will become so, on the night of the fight. Weight does not necessarily equate to size. Regardless of their height and their starting weight, boxers train down to a weight that more closely resembles their lean body mass. Lean body mass is a clearer indication of their actual size. Absorbing fluid and the associated water-weight, between the official weigh-in and the fight itself, does not change lean body mass.

I can see the size difference and I am influenced by measures of temporary water-weight, on fight night. I am referring to excess water, whether retained or associated with existing body fat or increased carb intake, after weigh-in. Weight can be gained at a rapid rate, as part of a refueling strategy, following the official weigh-in.
This can temporarily inflate a person's weight. But in 24-36 hours, at that stage before the fight, it’s not forming quality mass. Fluid retention, caused by dehydration, whether short-term, gradual or otherwise, can also take a while to reset, as the body re-balances itself."


Your position unfortunately boils down to the nonsensical conclusion that "Not only can I just see it but....one man's pound is lighter than another man's pound." In attempt to support this conclusion you have cooked up a hot steaming mess that is not only incredibly hard to follow logically but as I pointed out is factually wrong in several key points. Worse, one of your chief arguing points was the idea of Lean Body Mass not including water weight, which is flat out wrong.

You can pose all you want and pretend that's not how it went down but unfortunately you made an ass out of yourself here. Which tends to happen if you arrogantly attempt to argue a position that goes against all known rules of science and logic.

 

Golovkin is noticeably smaller than Canelo. If it isn't apparent to some already, it will become so, on the night of the fight. Weight does not necessarily equate to size. Regardless of their height and their starting weight, boxers train down to a weight that more closely resembles their lean body mass. Lean body mass is a clearer indication of their actual size. Absorbing fluid and the associated water-weight, between the official weigh-in and the fight itself, does not change lean body mass.

I can see the size difference and I am influenced by measures of temporary water-weight, on fight night. I am referring to excess water, whether retained or associated with existing body fat or increased carb intake, after weigh-in. Weight can be gained at a rapid rate, as part of a refueling strategy, following the official weigh-in.
This can temporarily inflate a person's weight. But in 24-36 hours, at that stage before the fight, it’s not forming quality mass. Fluid retention, caused by dehydration, whether short-term, gradual or otherwise, can also take a while to reset, as the body re-balances itself.

 

You clearly find matters in general hard to follow, including basic English, since you have managed to misquote me, which is really quite exceptional, given the simplicity of the text involved. Not only that, but you have also made a colossal misinterpretation of my position, culminating with your summary, which goes beyond being an unfathomable exaggeration. Why am I not surprised? Because, this is your standard M.O.

In the meantime (and throughout the discussion, in general), you have done nothing to refute the points I have made and, in turn, done nothing to deter me from, a) using my own eyes to assess the differences in size between two people and, b) considering the concept of Lean Body Mass, as being a better indicator of size than a measure of weight, alone.

You have, however, proven that you do not know what either an 'Accident' or a 'Straw Man' fallacy are; that you don't realize when you are committing the very fallacies you accuse others of using; that you can both misquote and take quotations out of context; that you can't even interpret the evidence you yourself have presented, correctly; let alone any explanations I have provided. This litany of errors is the best case description of your behavior in this thread.

At worst, you have become so desperate as to purposely distort and obfuscate any contributions made to the discussion of the subject matter, which is the type of puerility of someone, who doesn’t like to or is unable to contend with reasonable arguments reasonably. This possibility cannot be dismissed since it takes a special kind of stupidity to exhibit all of those behaviors above in writing, such as you have. It goes beyond 'special' to do so with the blatantly mistaken assertion that you are in the right.

If, by some miracle, you could manage to string a coherent counterargument together (note the word 'coherent’), which does not bollix the representation of points already put to you in this discussion, I'll gladly read them. But, this will involve you having to undo the tangled mass of misinterpretations you've already made.

I know this is unlikely.

 

I used as many of your words as I could but had to paraphrase a few. I believe my summary was accurate and you confirm as much below.

You accuse me of a "colossal misinterpretation" and "misquotes" but then bring up the very points I contributed to you in my summary of your argument. A. "You just see it" and B. "Lean Body Mass>Actual Weight"


A) I refuted this by stating all evidence points to both men weighing roughly in the same range on fight night whether you see it or not.

B) Given what Lean Body Mass actually is, it cannot be a better indicator of size than actual weight because it excludes fat which makes up on average 6 to 13% of the male athlete's body weight. That's anywhere between 10 to 20 pounds on two fit men like Canelo and Golovkin.

What are you trying to get at with this Lean Body Mass business? It's just your weight minus fat, and given both Canelo and Golovkin are ripped guys, I don't see it's value here. You erroneously assumed it excluded excess water weight, which in a healthy adult should be less than a pound. So even by that measure it's irrelevant.

You are being deliberately vague because you have no means to argue any of these claims. Not once have you even attempted to address my actual position, despite being corrected multiple times, hence the Strawman accusation. Once more, my position:

Size is the dimensions or mass of an object. Known measurements have shown Golovkin to be marginally taller and Canelo to be marginally heavier, so I must conclude there is no overall size advantage for either man.

If you find your own contributions to the subject matter confusing, that's not my fault nor an indicator of my intelligence or lack thereof.

Your points have been refuted quite thoroughly twice over. Just because you chose to ignore my rebuttals, doesn't mean they don't exist.