Kell Brook v Errol Spence Jr

Let me ask you this. If this were true - if weigh-ins precluded the possibility of any size advantage come fight night, why would any fighter bother going through the hell of cutting weight? If weigh-ins assured a fighter no size disadvantage, why wouldn't he just move up a division, where he could more easily make weight?

 

Show me some examples where a fighter at the same weight ´looked´ bigger...and moreso, used this biggerness to advantage.

(btw, Spence will smash Brook)

 

Yes...but the point you're missing is that a guy with the bigger frame is the bigger fighter. Typically the combination of height and reach denotes frame size. Whether or not the other guy came down in weight is largely irrelevant. James Toney fought at heavyweight, Hopkins never did...but Hopkins is the bigger man. Toney is just the fatter man. Now if Hopkins weighed in at 160 and Toney weighed in at 190...Toney would have the functional size advantage...but if they weighed in both at 175lbs...Toney has no size advantage, That's the point I think you're missing.

 

If toney made weight by cutting 30 pounds and hopkins made weight by cutting 15, toney will have no size advantage?

 

Correct.

Let me ask you this:

Did Hatton have a size advantage over Mayweather?
Did Duran have a size advantage over Leonard?

 

If they out-weighed their opponents on fight-night, then yes.

 

Canelo will likely outweight GGG on fight night. Therefore canelo is bigger than GGG?

 

If he does, he'll have a size advantage. He will weigh more. Simple physics. On a case by case basis, you can argue about whether it is an advantage or not. But it is undoubtedly a size advantage.

 

He weighs more on the night, obviously.

But is it a functional size advantage? Is it indicative of him being a naturally bigger man....ergo having a natural size advantage? I say no. GGG is a bigger man than Canelo...in my opinion.

That's what we're getting at here.

 

Who said anything about whether it is natural or not? Bottom line is, by managing to cut more weight than his opponent before weigh-in, a fighter can and often does weigh more than his opponent on fight night. This is indisputably true and I'm sort of baffled about why you're spending so much time trying to qualify it.

 

You're changing the argument. This tells me that you've lost. So give up.

If Bernard Hopkins had fought Canelo at 160lbs...Canelo would likely have to lose more weight than Bernard to make weight (Because Bernard was always in shape). On fight night Canelo may well have been heavier. Would anyone in their right mind be saying that Bernard is at a "size disadvantage"?

Only people saying that would be you, your dependents and your descendants.

 

::

I'm not even sure what you are debating. You've offered an example where the heavier guy is not perceived to be bigger. What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

Again. All I am saying is, by cutting more weight than his opponent, a fighter can enjoy a weight advantage over his opponent on fight night. Period.

And you are the one changing the argument. And I suspect your refusalbto admit you are wrong is the explanation to my question of why in the hell you would drag this out and try to refute something that is so obviously true.

 

Yup. I concede the possibility that I may well be arguing something that you're not arguing.

I guess had enough respect for you to assume that you were talking about something more than just a fight night weight difference...which is a rudimentary point that isn't worthy of any discussion at all. If someone is heavier on fight night...well...they are heavier on fight night. . My 7 year old niece would know that to be true. As such I thought you were implying the more sophisticated talking point of a natural/functional size advantage between two fighters.

See...a guy can be heavier on fight night because he ate a large club sandwich for dinner and hasn't had a shit since.

I don't see how that large club sandwich, that is still digesting in his gut....gives him any sort of functional weight advantage over his opponent.

 

You can argue that it is not an advantage, but again, I would note the great efforts that fighters go to to cut weight. I do not think they would take the risks of doing so if it didn't afford them an advantage. I do not think it is some trivial matter as you claim.

 

Gatti-Gamache, Broner-Rees, Donaire vs loads of fighters. There are plenty of examples. I don't think there's a huge difference between Spence and Brook though.

 

[video=youtube;tAZbdZh5aT8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAZbdZh5aT8[/video]





REED:hammert:

 

[video=youtube;EALR7dn40q4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EALR7dn40q4[/video]






REED:hammert:

 

I like Kell Brook but seriously, that guy has the least intimidating voice ever ::

 

how much weight you lose before is irrelevant perse, how much you gain afterwards is the question.

But aye, if you have more mass in the ring then you're bigger. That's the definition of bigger. You might not have a body shape which translates that in a way which applies very usefully to boxing or even into a strength advantage but that's besides the point.

People manage to complicate really simple shit around here ::

 

Spence doesn't have the deepest/most intimidating voice either.

If you heard both these guys talk, you'd never figure either to be a boxer.

 

So apart from height, these guys look identical in physical build.
So unless Brook increases his build/mass by over 14lb between weigh-in and fight-time...they'll be no 'size advantage'.

 

Spence is a big welterweight.

 

Yeah. Not really clear on the reason for the push-back.

Not to beat a dead horse, but the amount of weight that is cut prior to weigh-in is going to largely determine how much is gained after. It is not like there is enough time between the weigh-in and fight night for a fighter to add "actual" weight. He's just rehydrating. So in terms of securing a weight advantage on fight night, it "is" all about how much weight a fighter can manage to cut (and thus have been bigger than his opponent who cut less weight) before the weigh-in. No?

 

This could be the fight where Spence separates himself from the pack and goes on to potentially be the next big star in the sport.

 

Do we know what Brook and Spence´s ´walk-around´ weights are?

 

I do not. And I have no idea if one is bigger than the other. I just know brook is one of the larger welterweights spence will have faced. And that is significant i think because in all the fights i have seen, spence has looked significantly stronger than his opponents.

 

I wish Brook hadn't gone up and fought GGG. If he hadn't this fight would be more interesting than it currently is

 

That is a revealing statement from you about the kind of fan you are. The worst kind.

 

Nonsense.

If Brooke had dealt with business at 147 first: unified having fought Spence, Thurman etc....then he'd have had my blessing to go up and face GGG for a challenge. But the cunt didn't. He ran up there for a payday before settling business downstairs.

 

Dunno - Brook might think cos he went 5 rounds with GGG and landed some telling shots, that he can now run through anyone at 147.

His mindset will be 100% confident.