Not directed at anyone in particular, but this once legitimate idea (though cliche') has been run into the ground and watered down to the point of being flawed logic. There is no question "styles" are A factor, but absolutely not the only factor in determining the outcome of a fight. Manny struggling with JMM, goes beyond and involves more than "styles". Conditioning of either fighter is just as important, skill level and talent obviously are important, mental make up, etc etc. Bottom line to use "styles" make fights to close the case on Manny's struggles are a cop out. There are style clashes that could be shown to be problematic, but great fighters impose their will and ultimately "style" on their opponent. Look at JCC in the first PBF fight, not only did JCC make the fight close, but he also imposed his will and style on PBF, which should be one of the things "robbery" proponents point to (but don't typically). Floyd imposes his style on opponents, he slows the fight down, makes it tactical, forces his pace etc. It's what great fighters do regardless of the style they are facing. Manny should be able to impose his style on anyone, his inability to do so is concerning. Lastly, if it's as simple as "styles" make fights then why would you believe it possible for PBF to lose when he's seen essentially every style possible? Manny has never had an issue luring good fighters into fire fights, he's typically not as timid, and from the start it appeared JMM had imposed his style on Manny. Bottom line please stop with this logic, Manny's issues were larger than JMM's style...[html][/html]
I get your point that it's not black and white; styles-not labels-make fights, and if a fighter has enough of a skill-set to beat another fighter with a sufficient style, he should get credit and it can't always be brushed under the rug as merely a styles issue.
jmm eats fighters that comes forward to him. it's not surprising that fighters that don't come to him gives him some trouble. John, floyd and barrera to some extent when he elected to box. same is true with pac against marquez. if pac is not an elite, jmm would have beaten him easily due to the styles advandtage.
Lets put things in perspective shall we. Its actually Pac's style that won him a lot of those close rounds....and ultimately the fight. If u can back somebody up without throwing a punch that says alot. When JMM threw he did well in spurts....but the guy threw lik 30 punches a round. Pac dont have to make u fight him to impose his style...his imposing his style just by being the aggressor. Seriously, all things being equal...judges will always give close rounds to the one doing more work.
Its an old adage that has been proven time and time again ..The proof is in the fights ..If boxers weren't classified by fighting stance then maybe this would have never come up ..
I'm not dismissing the validity altogether, in some instances and on some levels it can be true, but rarely is it ever that simple. There are more factors at play in JMM vs PAC or JLC vs PBF than simply styles, imposing the style you want to fight is more relevant. To simply dismiss a poor performance from any fighter based strictly on "style" is an analytical mistake, IMO.
You're posts would suggest they know nothing. Luckily David you aren't the only white poster here. I kid Osama, the mix of body odor, two day old hot dogs, and slurpy's gave you away.