Why does size matter?

yes, the middleweight you mention in the post i was responding to

 

But you've posted about it before.

Are you doing this on purpose?

 

I'm not asking you to discuss flyweight versus heavyweight. I'm asking you to consider a hypothetical which would help you to demonstrate your understanding of the subject of this thread. You told me that you "don't have time to **** with hypotheticals". My point is that Armstrong-Mayweather is a hypothetical. And no, it's not different.

But it doesn't matter. You're absolutely determined to throw down roadblocks in considering a topic you yourself chose to raise. It's odd.

 

No, i'm comparing the weight disparity between Lewis and Maricano (enormous) and comparing it the ten pounds you stipulated for your hypotheical middleweights who have ten pounds in difference (Relatively small).

All things wouldn't be equal in real life. Hence, hypothetical. Addressing that hypothetical (Which you have refused to do because it's not realistic) would answer the question in the thread title.

I'll pose another, which might also address the issue. Imagine two fighters of approximate quality and the same proven class with no real style advantage at hand. One weighs 25lbs more than the other one. This is all the information you have upon which to make a pick. Would you pick the lighter one or the heavier one?

 

Well, for example, it is possible for a flyweight to fight a heavyweight tomorrow; it is possible, it is something that could happen.

Without new understanding of space and time to the one we currently have, it is literally impossible for Henry Armstrong to meet Floyd Mayweather.

So, you're wrong.

 

Why? In one case a fighter is giving away over 30% of his own bodyweight, in the other, far less.

I addressed it in as much as i intend to.

 

yes, i am serious that it is less likely that Floyd Mayweather will travel back in time and fight Henry Armstrong than it is that a 112lb man will fight a 200lb man. In fact, i will offer you my personal guarantee that the latter has definitely occurred at some point in the past and the former will never, ever occur.

Of course we can. Nobody is saying otherwise. You seem a little confounded, generally.

1) I'm not asking you to debate a flyweight versus a heavyweight. I've told you this once already. I will not tell you again. It's luff's idea, not mine.

2) A waste of who's time? For some people, you talking about Henry Armstrong versus Floyd Mayweather is a ridiculous waste of time, i mean to people who like ponies and or scramblers or palaeontology who have absolutely no interest in boxing it would seem like the stuff of a madman's nightmares.

3) None of this matters even a little. What matters is your determination not to answer any hypothetical that might lead to an answer other than the one you want to the question in the thread title.

you seem so incredibly confused. I don't want to talk about flyweight versus heavyweight. Okay? It is not even one of the two hypotheticals i personally asked you to address.

Why would you be??

Hey, you're the one who started this thread, not me.

1) I'm not doing that 2) The Devil's Advocate is someone who provokes a debate in order to test an argument. The argument being tested is usually the one that is stronger. The stronger argument here is that size matters. Unless i'm missing something, you are taking the opposite side of this argument. In other words, I am arguing the widely held view and you are playing Devil's Advocate.

And yes, you are right, it is annoying.