Styles Make Fights

[Addison]

most people don't take the intangibles in mind in these matchups, that's why we're always wrong. the intangibles are everyhting

yeah, i know i really said nothing here, i just wanted to give u points for makiing this thread

I'll second that!

I just had someone bring up Hatton when I was talking about Cotto and Tszyu.

I chose to post a picture in response..

Adding names is the cheapest buyout on the forum. Well said, Knives.

[STEELHEAD]

both of yous is right but run is more right imo. but the "triangle" should be considered when handicapping especially when youre dealing with hardly known foreigners like lets say baldimir or jack in the box style massau.

[AJ53]

Uh.....Hearns knocked out Duran cold.

Duran outworked SRL. That means Hearns beats SRL....wait. No.

i 100% agree with what you are saying,
that kind of logic should only be used by bookies to give probable odds on a fight.
rather than being used as fact when predicting the winner of a fight.

there are always too many factors to be thought about when looking at a fight: ie styles, peak weights, form, heart, and the on any given day fighter a beats fighter b.

like you said hearns ko's duran, duran outpoints srl, so hearns beats srl.
but...
srl loses to duran on a ud then wins the re-match by tko (no - mas) then goes on to tko the hitman in 14 a year later.

so at welter we have srl>duran>hearns...right

but come 1984 hearns ko2 duran at l/middle and brutal ko at that!!

in 85 hearns loses ko3 to hagler at middle.

but then srl beats hagler on points at middle.

then in 89 hearns and srl fight out a draw at s/middle that even srl concedes to have lost!!!

fact is that each and every fight was a gamble which had others factors weighing on the outcome ie weight, form, activity!!
fair enough there was a favourite but the risk factor is what makes boxing what it is.
for example.....

who wins between hearns and leonard at l/middle????
that could have been tommy's peak weight!!

who wins between hearns and duran at welter???
nobody knows because it never happened!!!

the fact is that there is no clear rule for who will win a fight as there is so many factors to be considered,
but is that not why we are here?
is that not why the conversation will never die?
is that not what we love about the fight game?

for me it is.
but big props to runwithknives!!
this is a big question that needs to be addressed.
it certainly made me think!!

[Round 1]

Mosley decisioned DLH, Forrest beats Mosley, Mayorga spanked Forrest, DLH ko'd Mayorga and examples like this are in every division.
Point is, if you beat the man, it does not necessarily makes you the man.

[Run]

Mosley decisioned DLH, Forrest beats Mosley, Mayorga spanked Forrest, DLH ko'd Mayorga and examples like this are in every division.
Point is, if you beat the man, it does not necessarily makes you the man.

Yeah try explaining what you just typed to about 100 others.

They just don't understand how that works. They think that if you beat the guy who beat the man....you're automatically the man.

Nope. I don't give a **** what "belt" you have and I don't read "ring" magazine.

The most ******ed publication in sports today.



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

[eazy_mas]

but if you beat couple of quality oppenet then you are the man

[The Surgeon]

I think the next poster who posts something like:

"Fighter X sucks because he couldn't stop fighter Z. Fighter Y did it in 2 rounds. that's why Fighter Y beats fighter X any day of the week"

Should be banned for life from this site. That's a whole new level of ignorance.

Well put Run! It CAN be an INDICATION but absaloutly nothing more! Great post, styles make fights no question!