'Styles Makes Fights' is a False Adage

[War Room]

It's important to know the origins of pen to paper and in this case we're going to look at boxings most famous and misused false reference to style.

But styles make fights and Schmeling’s style is far different from Mann’s.

-Daily **********, “The Sportlight” by Grantland Rice, pg. 10, col. 6: March 7, 1938

There are a lot of sayings that simply aren't true. If you can't beat 'em, join them, better late than never, etc

Boxing can be reduced to 4 styles. The old timers had a different lexicon as follows =--->

1. Swarmer
2. Out-Boxer
3. Slugger
4. Boxer-Puncher

They had Counter-Puncer as a sub-style, but that's 99% more likely due to lack of skilled fighters during the old times. A more current list below =--->

1. Boxer
2. Puncher (Slugger)
3. Boxer-Puncher
4. Counter-Puncher

That's it, it's basic. When pundits or whoever make the reference that Styles Make Fights, it's fasle. The adage should read =---> Fighters Make Fights.

When someone like JMM that has the ability to switch gears in the middle of a fight, that's not a style, it's a mental skill a fighter has. It's like having an iron beard, that's not a style, it's a physiological component which can be based on a lot of factors.

EDIT: Added the date to the quote, I had it originally, but somehow deleted it when changing my format around.

[Madison Boxing]

styles makes fights is one of the most overused sayings in boxing. i hear that rubbish all the time when theres a big underdog and pretty much every time the better fighter wins. when youve got people who are a similar level then you can start talking about that sort of thing, but you had people saying joe smith was the wrong style for beterbiev lol, obviously there are exceptions and upsets but 9 times out of 10 the better more accomplished fighter wins

[MONGOOSE66]

It's important to know the origins of pen to paper and in this case we're going to look at boxings most famous and misused false reference to style.


-Daily **********, “The Sportlight” by Grantland Rice, pg. 10, col. 6:

There are a lot of sayings that simply aren't true. If you can't beat 'em, join them, better late than never, etc

Boxing can be reduced to 4 styles. The old timers had a different lexicon as follows =--->

1. Swarmer
2. Out-Boxer
3. Slugger
4. Boxer-Puncher

They had Counter-Puncer as a sub-style, but that's 99% more likely due to lack of skilled fighters during the old times. A more current list below =--->

1. Boxer
2. Puncher (Slugger)
3. Boxer-Puncher
4. Counter-Puncher

That's it, it's basic. When pundits or whoever make the reference that Styles Make Fights, it's fasle. The adage should read =---> Fighters Make Fights.

When someone like JMM that has the ability to switch gears in the middle of a fight, that's not a style, it's a mental skill a fighter has. It's like having an iron beard, that's not a style, it's a physiological component which can be based on a lot of factors.

Why is it that dumb people think their smart? You know they actually have a name for people like you?
It’s called “Dunning-Kruger effect and your in luck. Their doing a study on it. I gave them your handle on here.

[Dakuwaqa]

Nah

Styles do indeed make fights

[Mammoth]

Styles clearly make fights

[Golden Boi 360]

"styles makes fights" = certain styles mesh better to provide an entertaining fight

[REDEEMER]

Well the better fights are usually the better style clashes. Of course urgency and importance of how a fighter tries is the main factor but styles usually dictate how a fight is fought . Sometimes a fighter has to abandon their own usual way of fighting to get a win though and then some fans complain about running when it’s called boxing .

[billeau2]

Why is it that dumb people think their smart? You know they actually have a name for people like you?
It’s called “Dunning-Kruger effect and your in luck. Their doing a study on it. I gave them your handle on here.

That reference is priceless. yes, excellent characterization.

[billeau2]

Well the better fights are usually the better style clashes. Of course urgency and importance of how a fighter tries is the main factor but styles usually dictate how a fight is fought . Sometimes a fighter has to abandon their own usual way of fighting to get a win though and then some fans complain about running when it’s called boxing .

Excellent points.

[billeau2]

Warroom is so smart... he wants to reinvent the wheel so it has no spokes... damn those four corners, push harder! Many of these adages do become clique, but cliques often enough have an element of truth to them.

First of all, the adage "Styles Make Fights" I would love to see Warroom's proof in determining he can trace it to a source. Im skeptical to say the least. As Redeemer said: "A clash of styles make good fights" and I am thinking that boxing people probably have realized this for some time. Speaking of which could that retrd Warroom provide a date? Because there are many truisms in boxing that would suprise people given how long they have been around: For example: Take this trainer's point... "English/Irish fighters are stodgy, do not improvise, and do use basic footwork hiding the power hand, seldom using it, unlike their American counterparts." Would it suprise anyone that this quote was made in 1859 by a British boxing coach? 1859 folks... Not 1959, not 2000, 1859 lol.

Now lets take Warroom's other contention of genius here: that old timers did not use certain nomenclature because the techniques were rarely employed... No... For most of boxing history fighters were taught all the different technical approaches, look at tape! Look at what fighters were doing.... Fighters were not characterized by certain skills? Warroom look at tape and look at literature before you sprout nonsense.