What Is Your Interpretation Of "Styles Make Fights"

[Bhopreign]

True. but as you can see in the Mosley/Cotto fight, Mosley landed the uppercut almost everytime he threw it. I was worried that Cotto will be tasting Margarito's uppercuts, and he did. it eventually led to the stoppage.

True, I forgot about that instance and the Zab fight, so I agree with the original poster who brought up the uppercut. But I kinda think those punches landed because he wasnt expecting them, just like any punch can land when youre not expecting it. People dont normally throw uppercuts so when I see fighters get caught with them its not that big a surprise.

[Pullcounter]

It's a phrase I see everywhere from youtube to Boxingscene to commentators! I think a lot of people use it because it makes them sound like they're knowledgeable on boxing but I think they don't fully understand what it means. So I want Boxingscene's finest to give a definition of the famous phrase: "Styles Make Fights".

it means certains styles are tailor made for certain other styles.

[Pretty Boy1]

it means certains styles are tailor made for certain other styles.

So it's when 2 fighters with opposing styles fight. LIke a guy above said e.g Ali vs Frazier.

[The_Demon]

u gota look at triangle theories really.taylor,pavlik and hopkins is a good one

[MANGLER]

It's basically sayin a fighter has his opponent's #. He might not necessarily be the all around 'better' fighter, but the way the styles clash gives him an edge the other guy just can't deal with.

[Motofan]

On a Tyson youtube clip somebody said Foreman would KO a prime Tyson! Why? Because apparently styles make fights! I don't think the phrase should be used for that! Maybe I'm wrong though.

Foreman would take a prime Tysons head off.

As far as the thread goes, it's a fact. Some fighters can be an overall better fighter with a better career then the man who beats him. Some guys will always just have another guys number just because of the style they use, the length of there arms, or whatever. But they can be a worse fighter with a worse career who would lose to alot of fighters that the other man already beat. Mosely getting rapped by Forrest is a perfect example. Mosely could never beat Forrest, but that doesnt mean Forrest is a better fighter who would beat everyone that Mosley beat. Forrest looked like a king against Shane. Then you get a club fighter like Mayorga who comes along and creams Forrest (yes he was injured, but still.) And nobody with a brain can claim that Mayorga is the better fighter, but his style is the wrong style for Forrest. The list goes on. The "better" man doesnt always win.

[boxingsmash69]

Pavlik = rock
Hopkins = paper
Taylor = scissors



Mosley = rock
Cotto = paper
Margarito = scissors



Forrest = rock
Mayorga = paper
Mosley = scissors


Vargas = rock
Mosley = paper
Winky = scissors

[savorduhflavor]

I think those situations go further than that, Cotto only lost once so to say that may be stretching it. There were other intangibles involved in each of those instances. If Marg doesnt have power(plaster) then Cotto doesnt fight going backwards.

Part of it was power, but part of it is Tony's style.

With or without power, Margarito's style is still the ability to throw a lot of punches and the ability to always come forward with his great chin. A fighter like that will always give Cotto some trouble.

[Motofan]

It's basically sayin a fighter has his opponent's #. He might not necessarily be the all around 'better' fighter, but the way the styles clash gives him an edge the other guy just can't deal with.

You basically said it before me, and better then me, and in fewer words. Ass!

[Motofan]

Pavlik = rock
Hopkins = paper
Taylor = scissors



Mosley = rock
Cotto = paper
Margarito = scissors



Forrest = rock
Mayorga = paper
Mosley = scissors


Vargas = rock
Mosley = paper
Winky = scissors

Exactly!!!