By the boxing community. Fighting a fighter that is universally regarded as the best. But is tailor made for you. Or defeating a fighter in the top 5. But is a stylistic nightmare for you. PPl say styles make fights, but I rarely see someone get credit for defeating a stylistic nightmare of an opponent.
Would Pacquiao-Marquez be a good example here. Manny universally accepted as maybe not the best by some but top two and Marquez a top 5 fighter being stylistically suited against him as an intelligent counter puncher?
beating the best of course. there is no more concrete proof of your superiority than beating the best. all the rest is just fuel for arguments that cant be proven one way or the other.
In my opinion. That's why people always give **** to different boxers because they think that just that style would be effective against the boxer questioned. It happens all the time. Look at Mayweather and Pacquiaos woulds/shoulds. If a fight never happend we can't really now. That's all.
Can you name some examples of a fighter defeating a stylistic nightmare? Stylistic nightmares are nightmares for a reason.
The whole "stylistic nightmare" bit is opinion. Most said and thought Provodnikov was a stylistic dream for Bradley. Now perhaps it is seen as Bradley's "stylistic nightmare." Should he get more credit for struggling to a victory now that he struggled than he should have if he had cruised to a 120-108 decision? Beating the best, always. Although your example of the guy being a top 5'er is also a sign that he is among the best; can't always fight the best every time out, unfortunately.
Sometimes I think that in boxing reputation is greater and more important than facts are. Therefore beating someone who's the best of the best who happens to have a style made for you has more of a historical impact than beating a outstanding boxer who's not the right style for you. Even though the second opition is more diffcult to pull off.
It's all about beating the best.. I give and will always give, boxers the most credit by beating top level boxers. I give Ward far more credit for dominating Kessler and Froch, than I do for him beating Bika; a guy who had some assets that made Ward work hard for the W.
Recent examples... Rigo Vs. Donaire was a perfect "boxing community" fight. (as was Alvarez Vs. Trout.)
:deal This. You beat the best out there and nobody even comments on the styles. Douglas beat Tyson. That's the end of that discussion. It's much harder to beat a guy whose style doesn't line up with yours, but only true fans will understand that. And then it will get debated to death. There's no debating a clear win.
Khan v Maidana. Despite what the bookies said, I think a sensible bet would always be on Maidana in that match up, but Khan fought really well to pull that one out, even with a few scares. I wouldn't say that this necessarily classes as a purely stylistic nightmare though, it has a lot to do with the physical attributes of the two fighters as well. edit: I agree with ripcity & Jeff - the higher ranked opponent will usually get more credit than a more difficult fight against a stylistic nightmare. Foreman seemed to have the perfect style to nullify Frazier, but people should always rate that win highly since the your style is part of who you are as a boxer, and if your style has weaknesses then it will probably be reflected in your overall resume (though some fighters manage to avoid their kryptonite - in which case they should be rightly called out on it), and if it's not reflected in your resume (and you have fought all styles) then there is no reason not to give maximum credit.
Willing to take on his peers that physically and ability wise are at the top of their game. Very few fighters do that, but that gets my respect!
