Boxing Styles and the ESBs Bias!!!

LOL:rofl

 

That's no doubt embarassing, but we could say the same for Pac and his losses, as that was only Mijares's 5th fight.

 

could be. but this guy who beat mijares is in just another level of futility and suckiness when compared to the 2 people who beat pac. this guy only has one win (vs. mijares) in his whole career and 20 loses (14 KO). :yep

 

True, I don't know what the hell happened there, but obviously Mijares is an a whole nother level now.

 

at least all of them are better than alejandro sosa

 

Iagree with you 100 percent.
They give the nod to boxers for some reason but really it's all on the quality of fighters that should be looked upon not just on their style. Their are good boxers but their are better boxers (example: mijares-good, pbf-better) there are good brawlers and better brawlers( ex: valero-good, pacquiao-better). See? Some posters actually underrate some brawlers because of their devil-may-care style, and one specific brawler who gets the most hateful posts here really is pac. Nobody really credits pac because he is instantly labeled as 1-dimensional, but come to think of it in his past few fights notice that he was actually trying to adopt a boxer's style.(eversince the loss to em) Why? Maybe to prepare himself to other great tacticians who knows his move,(specifically the very predictable 1-2) in the future, so he needs to put variations on his attack and change his style to fit every situation that presents itself. Also to be less predictable and maybe to shut down critics. JMM made him looked really bad with his counter punching and i give credit to him on that, yep maybe i insulted jmm every now and then, but that's really taunting and being sarcastic.. i posted once on a thread that for me jmm is the best counter-punching machine we have now on the sport. Is it because i am biased for the boxer's style? Nope. You all know that i love pac and maybe biased towards him but it's just because i'm a filipino.The real reason is that more than the style i know what kind of a fighter jmm is and i see more than his style shows, that is his intelligence and a never-say-die heart that all of the boxing fans would always love. In fact if i ever become a boxer, i would like to emulate jmm and pbf, not pac. Pac is one of a kind in his style. He maybe is a mindless brawler but there is more to it than that. It is what made him win against the likes of ledwahba, julio, mab, larios, em, and a close sd on jmm.
And guess what, i really think pac was trying to outbox jmm on the 2nd fight. I posted once on a thread that he can't win in trying to box jmm, and he had to brawl agaist jmm. In round 3 of that fight, i was proved right about my theory. Pac has to sacrifice his face to get through jmm in order to win: hope that he ko's jmm in the exchange. See? Pac was trying to outbox jmm in the next 5 rounds yet when he went back to his old style on rnds. 9, 10 , and 11 he was winning. Not only did it proved advantageous it also wins ppv buys. But again, the real point that i wanted to stress is it's not only on the styles but it's on the quality of the fighter in what ever syles that he possess. And pac proved to be of high quality considering now of his achievements and p4p ranking.
BTW, good post chimba.

 

Yeah marciano, frazier and greb are examples of sluggers/swarmers who were extremely successful and kings in their time, but thats a different day. Marciano wouldnt be undefeated if fights were 12 rounds in his day. Nowadays rings are larger then they were, glove size is larger, and fights are 12 rounds. I think all these factors help out a boxer and hurt the slugger who grinds down his opponent. In this age its the defensive boxer's time where fighters like Floyd maywheather Jr. are kings. Of course there are exceptions but boxing as a whole is getting more defensive because of ring casaulties.

And I dont think R. Marquez is a great example of a boxer/puncher. He's more of a puncher through and through to me, but then again I havent seen any of his fights at 118.

 

You are right in that they are born with a "gift" and that is fast twitch muscles and a light bone structure. That is why they can bob in and out and react so quickly. It is also why many of them have hand problems, have muscles built for speed and not endurance, generate their power through speed and not through concussive force (i.e. hurt guys with shots they weren't ready for or didn't see), and its also why they generally don't take punches that well. They fight the way they do because that's the best way to fight given there body type. Same as punchers and swarmers fight the way they do because that is the best way to fight given their respective body types. Boxing however is scored based on effectiveness. So the measure of a fighter is how affectively he is able to make use of the strengths his given body type affords him. The beauty of boxing is that each given his body type has its strengths that expose the weaknesses of one type of fighter but whose weaknesses can be exposed by another type of fighter. Thus the expression styles make fights. I know most people on here know the rock-paper-scisors of boxing is puncher beats the brawler, brawler beats the boxer, boxer beats the puncher but too often I feel people on here forget or don't get that if a guy like Floyd mayweather ever fought a brawler with equal skill, equal focus and will to win chances are he would lose, instead he is floyd the unstoppable, floyd who would dance circles around the slow footed chavez and all this other bs. I'd explain what aspects of the boxer's, puncher's and brawler's physique allow them to take advantage of or lose to each other but I got to hit the hay.

cardstars I'm sure you know all this anyways but I just thought i would restate this stuff for those who aren't in the know. Or for those that need to here it again.

 

Yeah i have to agree the reduction of champoinship fights really favours fighters that come out of the blocks fast and fade late, the way a lot of boxers do. A fighter that can fight for 3 minutes of every round and absorb the punishment to do so will still generally get the win. But you have to be that much more effective at doing this these days.

 

i couldn't agree more with this post.

 

While i do think styles affect fights, i do NOT think that just cause one guy is a slick boxer, he will win a fight. Ability has a greater effect on fights than styles. And sometimes being a slick boxer is not a style advantage at all.



However, against Pacquiao, i do believe JMM did had the perfect style.

I also think Hopkins has the right style to defeat Joe C but that Calzaghe will beat him anyways.

 

Defense first boxers usualy have the advantage over "fighters" cause they can jab and run, pitter pat and run, and if the fighter gets close they can just cheat and hold like Luevano did in his last fight. . . like Casamayor, Fruad, Raheem etc almost always do.

 

Spot on my friend :good . Don't get me wrong, I don't ALWAYS favor the boxers over the brawlers. The thing that also contributes to a lot of people picking a boxer over a brawler is that it is much easier to break down an analysis on WHY the boxer will win over the brawler....vs saying "I think (or hope) the brawler will land a power shot, knocking the other guy out". Lets face it that just sounds childish to be "hoping" for the knockout punch the whole fight instead of breaking down a great analysis in favor of the slick boxer.