Styles DON'T make fights

Bumped for Wieny. To whatever extent you appeal to those categories, you've not begun to learn yet. Right, because a natural counterpuncher does not have a natural advantage against a wildman who leaves himself off balance. They are not the be-all and end-all of boxing analysis, but you have to be kidding me if you don't think they play a role at all.

A FIGHTER'S STYLE is what makes the fight. Every FIGHTER has a certain STYLE of fighting. The problem people make are defining a certain fighters style as this or that when most if not all fighters have a style than i basically all their own. Exactly. When you say "styles make fights" to mean that every fight/matchup is different because every fighter is unique, then you're using it correctly. But when you lump fighters into the four or five familiar categories in order to reason by analogy, then you're going wrong. This last method is very common here.

A FIGHTER'S STYLE is what makes the fight. Every FIGHTER has a certain STYLE of fighting. The problem people make are defining a certain fighters style as this or that when most if not all fighters have a style that is basically all their own.

Anyways, I agree 100% that styles do generally give one fighter the advantage over the other, but there is always an exception to the rule. Bumped for Wieny. To whatever extent you appeal to those categories, you've not begun to learn yet.

People are picking hatton-Floyd on the basis of "Floyd's a boxer, Hatton's a slugger (he's not really though), boxers beat sluggers therefore Floyd beats Hatton." I DO NOT want to make this a discussion of theose two fighters, so please leave off that example. But the argument I put in quotes is hogwash. If Floyd beats Hatton it'll be because he doesn't let Hatton get his feet set before he punches, but that depends on the skill, timing, and speed OF THE INDIVIDUALS in question. Just for clarification...Is Hatton considered a slugger or a Swarmer?

what style would you put tyson in swarmer/ puncher

Its not a myth, its true depending on the talent level.Talented fighters can always adjust and fight a diff style or just change it JUST ENOUGH to come out on top.

Sometimes styles DO make fights. Depending on the skill level of the fighters, of course. When Manny Steward reminisced about the time he was training Holyfield, he confessed that Lewis was the wrong kind of fighter for his prize fighter and was hoping he'd never fight him. Now, I'm not sure when exactly Manny left Holyfield and started training Lewis. That much is true, but it's an example of TWO guys matching up against each other, not a generalization that all fighters similar to Lewis will beat all fighters similar to Holy. I've no problem with ther expression 'styles make fights' when used in the case you give. But some posters were making more of it, so I wanted to clarify.

Thanks for some good replies. I agree with a lot of what Orange Sneakers said. I only wanted to say that you can't reason FROM generalizations like the ones he gives in detail, down TO a certain prediction. People are picking hatton-Floyd on the basis of "Floyd's a boxer, Hatton's a slugger (he's not really though), boxers beat sluggers therefore Floyd beats Hatton." I DO NOT want to make this a discussion of theose two fighters, so please leave off that example. But the argument I put in quotes is hogwash. If Floyd beats Hatton it'll be because he doesn't let Hatton get his feet set before he punches, but that depends on the skill, timing, and speed OF THE INDIVIDUALS in question. I look at fights in terms of punches. What punches does a guy throw, when and how? From that you can take a pretty good guess, when you consider the opponent, of when and if he'll land what punches on the opponent and that will decide if he wins. The style category may sometimes accurately sum up this picture, but it can't be used to make easy predictions and dismiss all other possibilities. That's all I meant. When folks say 'styles make fights' to discredit "A beat B, B beat C, therefore A beats C," then they are using it correctly. Otherwise the expression is pretty useless.

............. FIGHTERS do. It's unbelievable how many new posters think they can pigeonhole every fighter who's ever lived and easily determine who can beat whom on the basis of a few judgments about style categories. I just read that "defensive fighters always beat brawlers." Oh really? Is that so?? Well then who the fuck counts as a brawler? 1. It's not helpful to put fighters into three or four categories. 2. If you make the mistake mentioned in 1, you can't determine which style beats which, because there will be shitloads of examples of CHAMPIOBNSHIP fights that prove you wrong. Punchers have been knocking out slick fighters forever. Slick fighters have been UD'ing swarmers forever. You can't go just on this, kids. There are always variables, and it's those variables you should be discussing.Styles don't make fights, nothing alone makes a fight. It's a combination of different factors that bring out the POSSIBLE outcome of a fight. Even if everything points to a certain fighter winning. He is human, he still has the chance of getting knocked out or losing in a UD. Styles, fighters, weight, location, training methods, many things determine fights, not just Styles and certainly not just "fighters", that is too broad of a statement.

styles do make fights it depends on what style u have and what style your accustom to fighting also depends if u have more than 1 style those r usually the winners look at pretty boy.....he has it all,besides serious power STYLES SURE DO MAKE FIGHTS!!They sure do!

styles do make fights it depends on what style u have and what style your accustom to fighting also depends if u have more than 1 style those r usually the winners look at pretty boy.....he has it all,besides serious power

usually the kind of stuff you hear is stuff like "The Mike Tyson that showed up in the Spinks fight would have crushed any form of Imbragimov" or the like. I think that is legitimate enough, because youre compairing how fighters are on a specific night. I dont like catagorizing fighters either though. one Brawler can fight completely different from another brawler, and so on and so forth. NO two styles are the same, although sometimes they resemble each other or are alike in ways. Also fighters change a LOT inbetween fights, depending on training, physical condition, mood, anything. but who cares...nobody actually completely knows whos going to win or lose. its speculation. I think its kind of fun to debate about who beats who based on their performances though, so I dont see why people cant do that... ________ Marijuana card

He changed from Swarmer to boxer-puncher (for Hamed and beyond) And he occasionally changes back right? Because he sure as fuck didn't box-punch against Morales or Pacquiao.

Some fighters are just versatile enough to fight in different styles. EXACTLY, so you can't write fighters off because of a certain style. He is the best at switching styles, but almost all boxers can change a bit.

No takers on defining Barrera's style? I guess that proves your point kayjay. He changed from Swarmer to boxer-puncher (for Hamed and beyond)

No takers on defining Barrera's style? I guess that proves your point kayjay.

Thinking about it, Nigel Benn was a Swarmer in his slugging days (if you're still with me)

what style would you put tyson in Puncher-swarmer rather like Smokin Joe.

what style would you put tyson in Swarmer, just a more powerful one at a slower pace