Styles DON'T make fights

[limecush]

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!

[Ironside]

............. 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 **** 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 ****loads 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.

[kayjay]

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.

[SnoopySmurf]

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.

[kayjay]

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.

[SnoopySmurf]

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.

Yeah, a few n00bs could take the expression like it's a fact.

Sometimes, a fighter's physical attributes can determine their "style" that can cause havoc for even the best fighters.

Hearns, for example, was a fearsome opponent for everyone who was shorter than he was because Hearns used his physical advantage over them....until a smaller fighter named Ray Leonard adjusted his style and knocked him out.

That fight right there, pretty much busts the myth of "styles make fights". However, that expression does carry some merit.

[limecush]

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.

[The Troll]

what style would you put tyson in

swarmer/ puncher

[damian5000]

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?

[kayjay]

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.