'Styles Makes Fights' is a False Adage

[billeau2]

No. He was a counter-puncher. He appeared to swarm only because he invariably fought bigger, taller boxers. He had to get inside because he couldn't fight on the outside. He definitely was not a brawler. That's ridiculous. I can see why you might call him a swarmer but he wasn't that either. He was a boxer-puncher, focusing on counterpunching.

Its interesting using categories. Sometimes there are not absolutes. Heres one thing to consider: When/if a fighter changes as he ages, what elements does he retain? rely upon? If these elements were always part of the fighter, they probably best define what style he favored. I look at Tyson differently than you, or the others, to me Tyson was a pure puncher... His skills were initially fast feet, allowing him to pressure, counter punching, and head movement. Tyson, at his best imitates Dempsey, for example, you can see both guys using a pivot movement while swarming the opponent. You can see similar type of bobbing/weaving (different from Frazier bob/weave) etc.

So using my statement what does Tyson retain? Watch him against Razor Ruddock. By this time he is loading up and hoping for a big shot, most of the many things he did that made him so formidable have gone by the wayside. To me this cements him as a pure puncher who used all other techniques purely to land a big shot.

[War Room]

Lmaoooo.....

Proof is in the OP with publication and date, but that won't stop old crazy. Once he's got that, he'll jump to the next crazy bit =---> and sure alts giving me likes. Crazy being crazy. And yes, you're on ignore, people quoting you shows, learn how the site works.

You know what's even funnier than that? His own family thinks he's nuts. If your own family thinks your nuts, what other proof does anyone need?

We all know styles make fights and these Floyd boys try to debunk anything that exploits Floyd as a cherrypicker who at welterweight stayed away from anybody 5' 10 or taller with a longer reach that could actually box unless it was a shopworn fighter or a complete bum like Conor McGregor.

Being taller with longer reach is a style? Answer the question as it's asked please.

Fighter A can have certain skillset to exploit Fighter B's weaknesses and that can be the deciding factor in why he beats Fighter B and for same reason fighter C can beat fighter B but fighter A could beat fighter A for same reason

That has nothing to do with syle, that has to do with physiology. Triangle theories are logic based reasoning and can't be used in a discussion related to styles. It's an inferior method. If you don't have a degree, you're not smart enough to understand what I'm talking about. Feel free to learn about Logic and Reasoning and we can continue. I've taken University level classes on Logic, I am an authority.

So skill levels cant be purely measured on a linear basis and fighters are constantly changing
E.g. i think gervonta davis is past his peak and not as hungry anymore and for his optimal style of that aggressive higher output thats gonna be a bigger factor

What do you mean linear basis? That makes no sense. Skills only change due to physiology. Get older, lose reaction time. Get older, get slower. Ever heard, power is that last to go? That is called PHYSIOLOGY and PHYSIOLOGY has NOTHING to do with STYLE. It's common sense.

So styles do make fights and the saying does bear true but the categories listed are too broad and the OP is conflating the category issue and the famous adage.

Everyone arguing with me says the categories aren't broad enough, but to you, 4 categories are too broad lmao? Do you even know what conflating means? If you did you wouldn't have used it where you did.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

LOL. Well, hey, don't really care, you're a nobody that DKSAB.

You have 18,857 posts with 755 likes. 4% of people like your content.

I have 3,821posts with 836 likes. 22% of people l ike my content.

TL;DR

You can't hold my jockstrap.

[PRINCEKOOL]

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: 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.

Not all fighters have the same level of speed, movement, reaction times, punching power, endurance.

Not all fighters have the same level of anticipation, and creativity.

I think those attributes, effect a fighters style.

So I disagree with what you are saying, styles do make fights. It is very obvious that, styles effect fighters individually.

Anthony Joshua is having a extremely difficult time with Usyk. For me Usyk would be a straight forward tactical fight for Wladimir Kiltschko, Lennox Lewis & Tyson Fury.

I am not saying that fighting Usyk, will be easy but? Tactically Lewis,Kiltschko & Fury would know what kind of tactics to use I.E They would all use the classical Super heavyweight big man styled fight.

Solid Jab, Tying a fighter up on the inside, and then pushing him back, uppercuts as Usyk is trying to close the distance, straight punch combinations, and rough house tactics. That is a description of the classical big man styled fight, which all great Super Heavyweights fundamentally master 'All accept Joshua'.

Joshua for a super heavyweight, struggles to actually fight like one.

[boxingenius002]

You are overthinking something that boils down to common sense

[WamBamSam23]

Ydksab ♂️♂️♂️

[GelfSara]

No. He was a counter-puncher. He appeared to swarm only because he invariably fought bigger, taller boxers. He had to get inside because he couldn't fight on the outside. He definitely was not a brawler. That's ridiculous. I can see why you might call him a swarmer but he wasn't that either. He was a boxer-puncher, focusing on counterpunching.

Take a look at the OP's four categories. "Counter-puncher" is not an option.

[War Room]

Not all fighters have the same level of speed, movement, reaction times, punching power, endurance.

Not all fighters have the same level of anticipation, and creativity.

Those are skills, training results, and physiology which have nothing to do with style. YDKSAB.

You are overthinking something that boils down to common sense

6 posts since December = alt.

Ydksab ♂️♂️♂️

Signedu p less than 2 months ago, ok you're probably not an alt.

Take a look at the OP's four categories. "Counter-puncher" is not an option.

Counter-Puncher is in my categories. 429 posts in 5+ years, haven't posted in a month, then all over my posts, you're not an alt. Look at all the alt's coming out in desperation lol, this is pretty interesting to watch.

[billeau2]

Proof is in the OP with publication and date, but that won't stop old crazy. Once he's got that, he'll jump to the next crazy bit =---> and sure alts giving me likes. Crazy being crazy. And yes, you're on ignore, people quoting you shows, learn how the site works.

You know what's even funnier than that? His own family thinks he's nuts. If your own family thinks your nuts, what other proof does anyone need?



Being taller with longer reach is a style? Answer the question as it's asked please.



That has nothing to do with syle, that has to do with physiology. Triangle theories are logic based reasoning and can't be used in a discussion related to styles. It's an inferior method. If you don't have a degree, you're not smart enough to understand what I'm talking about. Feel free to learn about Logic and Reasoning and we can continue. I've taken University level classes on Logic, I am an authority.



What do you mean linear basis? That makes no sense. Skills only change due to physiology. Get older, lose reaction time. Get older, get slower. Ever heard, power is that last to go? That is called PHYSIOLOGY and PHYSIOLOGY has NOTHING to do with STYLE. It's common sense.



Everyone arguing with me says the categories aren't broad enough, but to you, 4 categories are too broad lmao? Do you even know what conflating means? If you did you wouldn't have used it where you did.

Its crazy to ask for a source... and you claim to have studied logic? What kind of a source is that? Crazy indeed. Cleaning up your messes, disinformation is a chore baby girl... Stop the BS... YDKSAB, but maybe you can learn if you try?