Is it me or does anyone see the noticeable size difference

You really have issues with English comprehension, don't you?

You do not seem to understand what the terms 'misquotation' and 'quoting out of context' actually mean. You do not know what it is to 'refute' a case. I don't think you even know what the word 'vague' means, either.

Regarding your position on size, which is it - "dimensions" or "mass"? Do you know what mass is? Do you know the difference between mass and measurable dimensions?

Golovkin has larger, physically measurable dimensions. Golovkin has consistently trained down to a greater weight than Canelo. Canelo has, up until less than a year ago, consistently trained down to a weight less than that of Golovkin. Indicating that, in their respective, leanest competitive states, Golovkin is bigger than Canelo.

Golovkin looks bigger than Canelo when the two have appeared together. Hence my initial statement, in answer to this thread:

This content is protected

Is any of this making sense to you or is it all too vague for you? It isn't all that scientific and it certainly isn't rocket science.

 

The Kentucky Snake should delete his handle after this fiasco.

Amir Khan was the same weight as Canelo in the ring when they fought. I guess Khan is bigger than Golovkin too yeah?

 

Disregarding weight it's pretty obvious Golovkin is the structurally bigger man.

 

Yes, exactly. Canelo is a stocky, broad chested guy (no homo), but GGG is longer (no homo).
There are plenty of guys out there that weight exactly the same but look way different. How did
Mark Breland weigh 147 pounds and stand 6'3" for example.

 

I'm not going to argue petty semantics. A disagreement on the definition of a few words is not the issue here.

This is such an obvious red herring and you will find I am too smart for this. You cannot refute my point so you are attempting to muddy things with a semantic debate.

I bet you would just love it if we spent page after page arguing the exact definition of "mass" like idiots with no lives. Not happening, freak.

My disagreement with you on this point does not come out of ignorance or a misunderstanding but a greater consideration of all information available. Once more, it's what these men weigh when they step into the ring fully hydrated that counts. Canelo may have tipped the scales at 155 against Anuglo but in the ring he was 174 pounds., heavier than Golovkin was against Adama.

Canelo reportedly stepped inside the ring last Saturday night at 174 lbs for his bout against Alfredo Angulo (22-4, 18 KO’s) at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, Nevada. In contrast, WBA middleweight champion Gennady Golovkin recently weighed 170 lbs for one of his title defenses at middleweight. In other words, Canelo out-weighed even a middleweight champion like Golovkin.-boxingnews24

I disagree that Golovkin looks bigger in the overall sense, he only appears to be slightly taller. Canelo appears to be stockier.

For what I was calling deliberately vague see the 3rd quote box in post#181. If you wish to be specific with any of those nameless
accusations you are welcome.

 

He's taller to be sure. But as you know, weight can be pretty important in boxing and can't be disregarded.

 

It isn't just being taller, he looks at least to me, to have a more sinewy build and larger bone structure. Canelo looks more like a guy who's artificially bulked himself up to the weight. Just my opinion, I don't feel like getting into a long-winded debate over it.

 

Well that sort of thing is hard to argue, as we just don't have the means.

Canelo is bulkier, no dobut. But "muscle mass" vs. for lack of better term "big bones" or "more natural bulk" is a completely different argument. I think Golovkin is the stronger guy, despite weighing marginally less. My observation on the site in recent months is people subbing "larger" for "stronger" which I disagree with. Kovalev for instance is not really bigger than Ward, they are roughly same height and weight, but he is stronger and better built for power at that weight.

 

It's difficult to have a discussion with someone who continually misuses words, in the hope it will make their argument read better. It doesn't. It just makes you look ignorant.

Here's another case in point. You've described your definition of size as:

This content is protected

LOL - The dimensions of an object and the mass of an object are two different things and you are stating 'size', as being one OR the other. Please explain which one of these you consider to be representative of size or correct your definition. I do realize this means you taking a step back or two and that this is unlikely to happen - knowing your MO.

You referring to my simple question about YOUR definition being a "red herring" is a hilarious deflection. Why don't you admit that your current definition is unclear, revise it and post a correct one.

You are the furthest thing from smart. And, for someone like you, who invariably seeks circular stalemates in their thread debates (as you have done, quite ironically, with this your latest post on the thread), I find your response here more than a little rich.

The above doesn't tally with the definition of 'size' you have declared. You do not mention 'weight' as the determinant factor in your earlier definition. Rather, you appear to loosely offset the "marginally heavier" Canelo against the "marginally taller" Golovkin. (Not sure how that works...)

Additionally, as you have focused on weight, in your 'fight night' scenario above, it is a lack of understanding to think that weight alone is the measure of size, which is what you are describing. It is ignorant to suggest you are using "all information available", when you are only using the measure of weight on fight night.

I think it is going to look fairly obvious to most that Golovkin is bigger, come fight night.

LOL - You reference a post in which you both misquote and quote me out of context - again. Priceless!

I'm not going to spend my time specifying your mistakes for you. I'd be here all day and contrary to your MO, I do not have any desire or intention to go through pages more of your mindless and delusional ramblings. As it is, I think you have enough to be getting on with.

 

lol here we go again - few inches taller here and there, "same weight" and therefore same size

http://www2.cdn.sherdog.com/_images/pictures/20150311061621_5D3_2733.JPG

 

Weight is just one factor:

There is also reach and tallness and speed which can prove to be the deciding factors. The faster something travels the greater kinetic energy it has and the harder it is to both see and to block. That blinding speed is what caused Haggler to lose to Leonard.

If you have a reach advantage and are agile, you are able to stay out of harm's way while your opponent has to work past your jab to get on the inside like most of Pernell Whitiker's opponents dd.

If you have good lateral movement coupled with reach, then that is another advantage over a shorter-armed opponent. A tall opponent jabbing and leaning back, like Ali did while back pedaling and changing angles while jabbing has the advantage over a shorter slower opponent with less reach such as Joe Frazier. That's why Marciano had so much trouble with Joe Wallcott in their first fight.

Very often a slow fighter will get hit maybe four times at blinding speed just to land one glancing blow.

Sure, they weigh the same. But that's about all we can say is really fair about certain of those encounters.

 

Like what was once said about Rocky Graziano: "Canelo is the best MW in the WW Division".

 

If you feel the way I used the word "vague" makes all communication impossible, that's your call.

"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."

"weight=size" is not my rule."

"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"

"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."

My position cannot be anymore clear. When contrasting the size of boxers, I consider three measured statistics: height, reach, and weight. Weight is emphasized but not exclusively considered.

Once more, I will not waste my time arguing petty semantics. If you disagree with my application of a few words here and there, so be it.

I believe height and weight should be both considered as I've stated numerous times.

It should not be necessary every time we exchange ideas on weight for me to mention "I don't ONLY consider weight."

Everything in post #181 is your own words as you wrote them.

Because there aren't any. You are writing a novel on how mistaken and stupid I am, but you expect me to believe you don't have the time for references.

 

Omg this forum is floating with idiots who wants to demean GGG's possible future win...

Tyson was never close to being the bigger man...

GGG and nelo are very close to the same size... enough is enough...

 

Yeah...And?
http://i0.wp.com/breatheboxing.com/...FF-IN-FIRST-PRESS-CONFERENCE.jpg?fit=1280,720

Couple of inches in height...3 tops, and they were basically the same weight.

How is that "dwarfing"?