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

No. Maybe we should stick to established rules of measurement. And make "best suitable weight division" a separate argument.

Otherwise you are arguing...he's one 160 pounds on the scales..BUT NOT REALLY. Don't make a lick of damn sense, honestly. Unless Brook stuffed weights in his shoes.

 

We're arguing different points. I see your point and I do not disagree.

Correct me if I'm wrong: your point is that their height and reach is negligible, and that Brook weighed more on the night, therefore was bigger. If that is your point: I AGREE.

My argument is that Brook put on size to match Golovkin, but is not built to carry that weight as effectively as Golovkin and should move DOWN. Not because of difference in skill or talent, but because of their frame.

I'm not arguing that Brook was smaller on the night because you can't argue against numbers. I'm arguing that Brook does not belong at that size because it is too big for him.

 

You're taking the "small" part too literal. That's the disconnect between us.

 

What's a bumlovkin? Is this forum happy with this calibre of thread on it's board! Jeeshh..

 

Okay, well that's an opinion and I'm not in a position to disagree with it given I want to wait to see what Brock does at MW if he goes down that route.

Someone brought up Stevens, maybe you, and I think that's a winnable fight. Lemieux even could be a winnable fight for him.

 

It does. I tell it like it is. Jermaine Taylor fought name after name and he was never rated as high p4p as GGG. I never liked JT btw. Thought he lost to Bhop fight 1 and Winky Wright. But it's the truth. G hasn't done much to nothing. It's just the truth.

 

Exactly. The way a man acts outside the ring doesn't mean anything if your resume is poor and you're a 35 year old on top of the p4p list. Move along chump.

 

You clearly don't get it. Taylor's position a decade ago means nothing to anyone's position today. There simply isn't any correlation, for the simple reasoning that both lists are full of different fighters. You see, that's the truth. I don't care who you like or not, your post makes no sense. You're "truth" is simply your opinion. If you cannot differentiate the two, might as well just troll...

 

Like I said, your position on size, which is basically size=weight, is coherent.

I merely point out that it's far from a consensus thing in the boxing world. As you can see from this thread, there are other ideas on "the size of a fighter" and I think we are just arguing about terms now.

I don't believe there is a single correct argument either because the term "size" literally means "magnitude, or dimension," and it's not clear what dimension should be taken.

In casual use it generally means external dimensions, perhaps the height or volume of the fighter instead of the weight, e.g.:
large mountain -> either height, or height/area = volume
large lake -> probably the surface area
large river -> either width or width/depth
large house -> probably area or volume
large car -> same as above
large object -> must be about some external dimension

Taken in the boxing context, however, many have a different idea of "size" as something that does not vary with time so drastically. A lot of the references I found in the media are to the frame of the fighter and the ability to carry weight well, which is closer to Alex's idea of size.

Good discussion though, thanks for your reply and I just wish it had a thread of its own instead of this horrible "Bumlovkin" thread.

 

Don't get butt hurt. G is a farce who wouldn't even beat Jacobs in a rematch. Boxing' standards have gone down and that's the only reason why a 35 year old who KO'ed bums is even considered a star.

 

Jermain Taylor lost to lesser fighters than GGG you useless cannon fodder. And the reason he wasn't rated p4p because he wasn't that good. Taylor was flat footed with very little head movement, kept his hands chest high, was easy to hit and retreated in straight lines when he was hurt. "I tell it like it is." - no, you only tell BS.

 

Butt hurt? How about you try and post like a grown up? 3G already beat Jacobs...you have no reason other than you hating 3G to think that. Why are you so bitter about 3G's success? Is he the wrong nationality for you? or just the wrong skin tone?

 

Not bitter at all. If I call a dead man dead, there's nothing wrong with that. In this case we got 35 year old man who really hasn't done ****. Second best fighter he's fought is a WW. A hypejob is a hypejob that not even casuals spend their money on.

The funny thing about all of this is even ggg knows that he's not even the truth. He wants money like everyone else and I'm not mad at him for that.

Only in this Kim Kardashion era could he have ever been.

 

Taylor lost to Spinks, also a former WW and not a good one, it was a gimme defense and he got embarressed.

And once Taylor lost to Pavlik and Froch, guys like you and Nay Sayer..literally Nay Sayer at the scene **** all over him. Until Pavlik lost to Hopkins and Froch lost to Ward, now he is a great from a lost era..get outta here. You dont even believe what you are shoveling.