"Styles Make Fights" versus "Triangle Theory"

Yes. And when we see why that is, your explanation is IMO correct. The problem being, triangle theory is not specific and therefore unreliable. It never can suffice as a direct cause. A style element can be a very good reason why a fighter is successful. Or unsuccessful, depending on the opponent!

People often use the "styles make fights" adage to illustrate why triangle theories are so unreliable. Figher A beats fighter B. Fighter C loses to fighter B. Now fighters A and C are going against each other. Triangle theory says that, based on results against B, A will beat C. But A and C may have totally different styles of fighting. One could be a defensive counter punching boxer, the other could be an aggressive pressure fighter. And even if they have similar styles, they are not clones. They will have their own particular strengths and weaknesses. What worked for one of them against fighter B may not work for the other. Yes. And when we see why that is, your explanation is IMO correct. The problem being, triangle theory is not specific and therefore unreliable. It never can suffice as a direct cause. A style element can be a very good reason why a fighter is successful.

Here is a way of understanding different elements clearly: Your welcome Warroom lol General fundamental changes to the sport: preclassical style versus Classical James Figg originally used a fencing vocabulary to develop boxing technique. Footwork, weight distribution, form, and distancing were the focus of preclassical boxing. Generally jack Dempsey gets credit for Classical Boxing because of his tome on punching. Dempsey shifted the emphasis of boxing on to an assortment of punches, combination punching, and using the body to square up, weight forwards to hit with power. This changed the way power was generated in boxing: previously it was through the form and connection of the fist to the proper location. With Dempsey because the gloves were larger a connection was not enough, one had to swing the arms with more artificial force to cause a punch to alter the opponent. If one watches Dempsey versus Tunney one can see how the styles compare and compete with each other: Tunney was essentially in both domains and used many preclassical methods in that fight against Dempsey. General Styles of Boxing: Amateur Style: Characterized by methodical footwork small steps, leading with the less powerful hand, only using power hand when opponent is stunned, or to counter punch. The emphasis is on clean punches to the head. This is the primary style most foreign fighters use to develop. Cuban Style is an amateur style but characterized by more varied footwork and angles, punching from different positions emphasizing counter punching the opponent. Mexican style characterized by leading with hooks, changing speed of punches, body work and combination punching inside. American Style characterized by improvisational footwork, head and shoulder movements, angles, using the power hand at will, and an emphasis on the jab as a fundamental weapon. There are other general styles as well: Russian/Eastern European, etc... More specific styles of boxing: There are mant categories people use among them: (Brawler, Swarmer, Pressure fighter) (Boxer, Technician, Counter puncher, Boxer/puncher) (Puncher, Pure puncher) and some later additions (Ambush Fighter) Where it gets confusing: lets take Mike McCallum. Most people would call him a Body Puncher and this is true. But does the fact that he was a body puncher distinguish his style as a puncher? This is rhetorical question... Certainly we can take fighters like McCallum and Miguel Cotto and call their style "body punching" but I would be more circumspect and say calling them gifted punchers is also correct when we seek to distinguish their "style."

When we look at boxing epistemology it functions like any other knowledge... Confusion happens when people mix up different categories of knowledge with each other. Styles Make Fights is something that can be proven. One can establish different boxing styles any number of ways: For example, mexican style boxing is characterised by leading with hooks and a fighter can variate the speed of these hooks because it confuses the opponent. A lot of prize fighting depends on the jab as the lead punch, because straight will always get to the target sooner hypothetically, all things being equal. These are examples of "styles..." Styles can further be broken down into different elements, and these can vary... it does not make them wrong if people define the categories different. Call it what you want but Marciano, Frazier, Armstrong, are guys that fought by swarming, pressing an opponent. Louis, Shavers, Foreman, Tyson, Wilder were punchers... there ability was dependent on getting a certain amount of cracks with one big punch to the opponent. Etc etc... What makes this adage useful is how it allows a fighter to develop along the lines that benefit his personal attributes. Now, "Triangle Theory" on the other hand is a myth. This adage assumes that with no underlying cause, a fighter can be defined according to whom his opponent beat. As a matter of fact, if one understands that "Styles Make Fights" One immediately understands why triangle theory is seldom a smart way to predict a result. See the difference? People often use the "styles make fights" adage to illustrate why triangle theories are so unreliable. Figher A beats fighter B. Fighter C loses to fighter B. Now fighters A and C are going against each other. Triangle theory says that, based on results against B, A will beat C. But A and C may have totally different styles of fighting. One could be a defensive counter punching boxer, the other could be an aggressive pressure fighter. And even if they have similar styles, they are not clones. They will have their own particular strengths and weaknesses. What worked for one of them against fighter B may not work for the other.

Triangle theory = I am so idiot that I also believe flat earth theory. Styles make fights = There is no certain style in modern boxing. All styles are mixed. A boxer can turn into a brawler if his opponent is better boxer than him. Triangle Theory is silly... your second statement is worth discussing: I believe fighters do less in the ring these days, hence the styles are less pronounced and have less visual clues. Also, some styles are modern. Like the Ambush style used by fighters like Haye and Wilder. In the older days a fighter could not stay away and then launch... they would be confronted in the ring by their opponent. But again, Great fighters ALL make adjustments, it has nothing to do with style! A boxer should know how to use all technical approaches. This is a point of great confusion.

'Styles make fights' only applies on robots that don't make any adjustments. Bradley, for example, traded with Provodnikov, yet threw less punches with Marquez and focused on defense. What if Bradley did the same style in the Provo fight? This is just one example among many. Making adjustments is a skill. it is fundamental to being excellent. here is a way to tell the difference between an attribute and a style: An attribute makes one better at all times just like A foible will make one worse at all times. A "style" does neither... It is not better/worse to be a swarmer versus a puncher, it is simply a framework.

'Styles make fights' only applies on robots that don't make any adjustments. Bradley, for example, traded with Provodnikov, yet threw less punches with Marquez and focused on defense. What if Bradley did the same style in the Provo fight? This is just one example among many.

I think they play hand and hand. Triangle theories are mostly wrong because of styles. Look at Barrera and Morales. Morales beat guys that Barrera looked bad against but Barrera beat Morales 2 of 3xs. Morales was a True Tijuana tuff guy at 122 and came forward and Barrera was always an aggressive counter puncher. If you take both of their given styles, a counterpuncher will have the advantage. Aggressive counter punchers like Barrera have problems with guys that don't stick around to be countered. Stick and move fighters are typically their downfall. Lastly (just to add), Morales like other greats finished his career as a counterpuncher. I've noticed great fighters typically change to counterpunchers in the ladder stages of their careers. They do have an inverse relationship true... They both try to explain the same thing, while one is based on evidence, the other conjecture. Great observations. It makes sense because a great puncher can become more efficient waiting for the other guy to move first. From a martial arts perspective, efficiency of movement is a key component to proper technique... If I can let the guy cock his shoulder and know where to punch, this is better than trying to hit his guard down, chase him, etc... same principle.

I think they play hand and hand. Triangle theories are mostly wrong because of styles. Look at Barrera and Morales. Morales beat guys that Barrera looked bad against but Barrera beat Morales 2 of 3xs. Morales was a True Tijuana tuff guy at 122 and came forward and Barrera was always an aggressive counter puncher. If you take both of their given styles, a counterpuncher will have the advantage. Aggressive counter punchers like Barrera have problems with guys that don't stick around to be countered. Stick and move fighters are typically their downfall. Lastly (just to add), Morales like other greats finished his career as a counterpuncher. I've noticed great fighters typically change to counterpunchers in the ladder stages of their careers.