Is it me or does anyone see the noticeable size difference

That looks fishy. However I can imagine that Golovkin's forearms are thicker than his biceps. I don't think that is so unusual, it was the same with Bruce Lee.

 

3" are high heels in my book. Anymore than an inch in mens shoes and you should be using tampax once a month

 

It's fake news. Cobra has been owned and now's he's jsut posting crap where a mans foremars are bigger by 2in than his biceps. Oh and Mayweather and Canelo are 5'9"

 

http://www.modestdragon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/forearms-1024x505.jpg

http://www.boxingnewsonline.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Golovkin4.jpg

 

The signage where they are both wearing shoes proves nothing. I'll stick with the weigh in where they are barefoot and there is in fact no mad lean, Jacbos is simply taller and all evidence supports this.

Amusingly you are going to claim Golovkin is the first and only fighter in history who is actually taller than his measurements. Anything to fit your narrative.

 

A problem with tale of the tape measurements is they are never 100%, and pretty useless on their own in determining a fighter's size, that's why they did away with them and just focus on weight and height these days. However, Golovkin apparently does have massive forearms that appear to be broader than the upper arm.


http://img.bleacherreport.net/img/i...b4e5b17412_crop_north.?1391288039&w=630&h=420

 

A huge problem with this forum is grown men unable to admit they are wrong. You assumed nobody did muscle measurements anymore and the results would yield larger results for Golovkin. I showed you they in fact have been measured and Canelo was larger. Unless you are going to personally measure these men to your liking, you are going to have to deal with those official measurements and quit acting like a child, or not, you are free to make a fool of yourself.

My argument was "muscle measurements" have proven to be in invalid way to determine size, that weight is the only thing that matters. So I fail to see how I've been owned. Your reaction is in fact proving my point.

 

They are essentially fancy cowboy boots, 2" heels and a regular inch of layering. I wouldn't call Golovkin or any Cowboy a woman for wearing them.

 

Everyone argues they want full "tale of the tape" measurements until they see them.

We have two conclusions, they simply produce surprising results or are just not consistent and accurate.

We have weight divisions in this sport, not "tale of the tape", fact of the matter is Canelo's fight night weight is often equal or higher than Golovkin's.

That said Golovkin's forearms are unusually developed and do appear larger than the upper arm.

 

smh When have you ever admitted that you were wrong? The irony on this board is astounding.

 

Point out where I've been wrong.

 

Are cowboy boots really 3" ? insecurities wearing foot wear like that. Elton John territory !

 

Shoes usually add an inch, plus the heels on Cowboy style boots are usually two inches. And it has nothing to do with enhancing height.

"When mounting and, especially, dismounting, the slick, treadless leather sole of the boot allowed easy insertion and removal of the foot into the stirrup of the Western saddle. While in the saddle, the tall heel minimized the risk of the foot sliding forward through the stirrup, which could be life-threatening if it happened and the rider were to be unseated."

Now days people aren't riding horses but the style and tradition of the boot stuck. And dress shoes like Golovkin are wearing are modeled after that. I don't think the already listed 5'10.5" Golovkin is insecure over his height, he probably just likes the look. Who knows?

 

My point exactly. In your mind you have never been wrong, either as the mongoose or the cobra. You are easily the most arrogant poster on here and that's saying something.

 

You are going to have to be specific, what do you want me to admit to being wrong about?