'Styles Makes Fights' is a False Adage

[famicommander]

Norton and Frazier gave Ali fits.
Foreman walked through Norton and Frazier like a cheap screen door.
Ali made Foreman look like a clown.

[dirty fingers]

I said I wouldn't post your secret crush on Cleneloterol, but you had to get toxic for no reason whatsoever so here it is. Just let the world know and you'll be less angry!

Wtf?!! Man boxscene has some weirdos on here.

[Tails]

Styles do make fights in that one person will have an inherent advantage based on the way the two match up. Does not mean the one with the disadvantage cannot win but the style they are up against does not play into their strengths but rather their weaknesses.

Also styles are more complex than people assume. You have traits and factors that are exclusive from the traditional "style" in which you attack/defend. This includes things like punching power, physical strength, speed, cardio and chin.

You can have all the skill in the world but if you have limited punching power and so so cardio if you have to fight an aggressive high pressure fighter with a chin than you are always going to have a tough time down the stretch. Whereas someone with less skill but better cardio and respectable punching power will probably fare better.

To relate it to something completely off topic think of it as playing video games. People can be overall really good/decent at each game they play but their are certain "types" of games that they excel in for whatever reason.

[Roadblock]

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

Its exactly what it means, certain styles will produce a better fight simply because they blend to complement the action.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Styles do make fights. But let's not end the thread. Everyone keep saying it. It needs to be heard more apparently.

[Cypocryphy]

They all mesh together to provide an entertaining fight. Brawler vs Boxer = great fight. Boxer vs Counter-Puncher = great fight. Brawler vs Brawler = great fight. Boxer vs Boxer = great fight. Counter Puncher vs Brawler = great fight.

There is no Floyd Mayweather Style, there is no Mike Tyson Style, this isn't China in the year 1545. Floyd Mayweather uses the counter-punching style. Mike Tyson was a brawler. It's extremely simple.

My original trainer was very old when we started and he taught all styles. You start on the boxing style, then move to tthe brawler style, etc. People disagreeing with me DKSAB. I did it and later on became a scholar. I am by definition a Scholar Warrior. Some old fart came up with this saying back in 1938, this saying didn't come from anybody in boxing, nobody. It's not true!

That is one of the BIGGEST misconceptions about Mike Tyson. Tyson was a counter-puncher primarily. Everything was about countering and timing, using pressure, head movement and footwork.

[MONGOOSE66]

I said I wouldn't post your secret crush on Cleneloterol, but you had to get toxic for no reason whatsoever so here it is. Just let the world know and you'll be less angry!

Im not the one who post pics of him and can’t stop talking about him.

[War Room]

Styles do make fights. But let's not end the thread. Everyone keep saying it. It needs to be heard more apparently.

They can say styles make fights all they want, the seed has already been planted and nothing is going to change that now =---> the wheels are in motion. With the proper action moving forward, my seeds will sprout into seedlings and over time, posters will bend to my will and speak my words anew. Done it plenty here before and I see my little seedlings speaking the word just like they were destined to.

Some old crusty writer from 1938 isn't going to change reality on my watch.

Fighters Make Fights.

That is one of the BIGGEST misconceptions about Mike Tyson. Tyson was a counter-puncher primarily. Everything was about countering and timing, using pressure, head movement and footwork.

He may have thrown counters, but his overall style was puncher (brawler). Famous modern day counter-puncher style fighters are RJJ, Chris Byrd, Mayweather, JMM.

Im not the one who post pics of him and can’t stop talking about him.

You're the one who wants him to dump his mangoo in your mouth though.

[billeau2]

They all mesh together to provide an entertaining fight. Brawler vs Boxer = great fight. Boxer vs Counter-Puncher = great fight. Brawler vs Brawler = great fight. Boxer vs Boxer = great fight. Counter Puncher vs Brawler = great fight.

There is no Floyd Mayweather Style, there is no Mike Tyson Style, this isn't China in the year 1545. Floyd Mayweather uses the counter-punching style. Mike Tyson was a brawler. It's extremely simple.

My original trainer was very old when we started and he taught all styles. You start on the boxing style, then move to tthe brawler style, etc. People disagreeing with me DKSAB. I did it and later on became a scholar. I am by definition a Scholar Warrior. Some old fart came up with this saying back in 1938, this saying didn't come from anybody in boxing, nobody. It's not true!

What?
The reference was never to a person's style... it is used to preface the general approach a fighter takes in the ring... You create your own red herring and then fish it out and want a prize... Ridiculous.

Yes, your old trainer was correct, but you are mixing things up terribly. What your trainer taught was skills, not styles. Styles become a preferance for a certain approach to the art of boxing using the foundational elements vis a vis skills. Does this have to be explained to you?

You have shown no proof of showing where this axiom first was stated...None. The axiom certainly did come from people in boxing.

Stop spreading horse manure you turd bungler.

[billeau2]

Styles do make fights in that one person will have an inherent advantage based on the way the two match up. Does not mean the one with the disadvantage cannot win but the style they are up against does not play into their strengths but rather their weaknesses.

Also styles are more complex than people assume. You have traits and factors that are exclusive from the traditional "style" in which you attack/defend. This includes things like punching power, physical strength, speed, cardio and chin.

You can have all the skill in the world but if you have limited punching power and so so cardio if you have to fight an aggressive high pressure fighter with a chin than you are always going to have a tough time down the stretch. Whereas someone with less skill but better cardio and respectable punching power will probably fare better.

To relate it to something completely off topic think of it as playing video games. People can be overall really good/decent at each game they play but their are certain "types" of games that they excel in for whatever reason.

You explain this very well... Think Rock, Scissors, paper. The complexity also involves elements of the fighter using the style. For example, Some boxing traditionalists think Hank Armstrong was the greatest ever, despite having a very different style than Robinson who represented the best aspects of the boxer puncher. Thing is, if Armstrong fought.. ohhhh lets say Robinson... certain elements of the pressure fighting style Armstrong represented would come into play as advantages/disadvantages, other aspects would not...

lets take Reach, at attribute that often could make a huge difference in a fight. Yet reach generally did not matter when someone fought Armstrong. The fight would not take place at a range where his opponent could establish a range where superior reach would allow them to get to Armstrong first. On the other hand, fighting inside, the ability to move off the fighting line quickly, something a great boxer could do, could greatly influence how the fight developed.