'Styles Makes Fights' is a False Adage

[Cypocryphy]

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.

You mean to say cliche, that the adages become cliche. A clique is something entirely different, such as a small tight group of friends in school.

Anyway, I understand what Warroom is saying, that there's more nuance to fighters than a simplistic category. Given that a fighter is "one-dimensional," that is being a slugger, boxer-puncher, boxer, or counter-puncher, then you can often fall back on these categories. The problem is that most boxers have more tools in their box than just countering. Also, there's things that don't necessarily come to the fore when capriciously falling back on these categories. For example, a boxer-puncher because a boxer when he can't punch. That's basically what that's saying right there or that a guy not only can't punch but has no game in mid-range or inside. A slugger is a term for an awkward guy who just fights and is rough but lacks knowledge of the sweet science (though not always), so typically he can't box, thereby prohibiting him from being labeled a boxer-puncher or a boxer. There are also varying degrees of skill for each categories. So you could have a boxer-puncher vs a swarmer, whereby the boxer-puncher should win, but the swarmer happens to be too skilled and strong for the boxer-puncher.

Anyway, the point is that there's always a kernel of truth to these categories. The only phrase that I think is actually true 100 percent of the time is: "A good big man will always beat a good little man." You can take that to the bank each and every time.

[Silence]

Another ****** thread from NSBs village idiot.

[billeau2]

You mean to say cliche, that the adages become cliche. A clique is something entirely different, such as a small tight group of friends in school.

Anyway, I understand what Warroom is saying, that there's more nuance to fighters than a simplistic category. Given that a fighter is "one-dimensional," that is being a slugger, boxer-puncher, boxer, or counter-puncher, then you can often fall back on these categories. The problem is that most boxers have more tools in their box than just countering. Also, there's things that don't necessarily come to the fore when capriciously falling back on these categories. For example, a boxer-puncher because a boxer when he can't punch. That's basically what that's saying right there or that a guy not only can't punch but has no game in mid-range or inside. A slugger is a term for an awkward guy who just fights and is rough but lacks knowledge of the sweet science (though not always), so typically he can't box, thereby prohibiting him from being labeled a boxer-puncher or a boxer. There are also varying degrees of skill for each categories. So you could have a boxer-puncher vs a swarmer, whereby the boxer-puncher should win, but the swarmer happens to be too skilled and strong for the boxer-puncher.

Anyway, the point is that there's always a kernel of truth to these categories. The only phrase that I think is actually true 100 percent of the time is: "A good big man will always beat a good little man." You can take that to the bank each and every time.

Simplistic categories are sort of outlines people use, general templates. They are very useful for what they are intended to be used for. No trainer, when asked about a strategy he is cultivating, would say "a styles make fights plan!" The only individuals who fall back on these adages are people who use them as a clique... But that does not diminish their value as a general category for categorizing experience.

There is truth to these adages... But it is a type of truth and understanding. To say they lack value and to claim where they originate requires exceptional proof.

BTW, when I first started following boxing on the boards, coming from martial arts and all... I HATED the adage "Styles Make Fights" lol. It took me years to see the value and how these adages help us sometimes. And regarding the spelling? I apologize, I have dyslexia and often misspell words.

[billeau2]

Another ****** thread from NSBs village idiot.

Well to be fair, its a good discussion allowing people to maybe clarify the nature of these adages.

[War Room]

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.

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!

[Cypocryphy]

Simplistic categories are sort of outlines people use, general templates. They are very useful for what they are intended to be used for. No trainer, when asked about a strategy he is cultivating, would say "a styles make fights plan!" The only individuals who fall back on these adages are people who use them as a clique... But that does not diminish their value as a general category for categorizing experience.

There is truth to these adages... But it is a type of truth and understanding. To say they lack value and to claim where they originate requires exceptional proof.

BTW, when I first started following boxing on the boards, coming from martial arts and all... I HATED the adage "Styles Make Fights" lol. It took me years to see the value and how these adages help us sometimes. And regarding the spelling? I apologize, I have dyslexia and often misspell words.

lol No worries man. Autocorrect kicks my ass each and every time, which is why see most of my posts "edited" later. I also have a bit of dyslexia, too. "b" becomes "g" or "d" and things like that. So I'll think I'm typing out "bid" and end up typing "big." It doesn't just happen when typing either but when I handwrite too.

[War Room]

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

I completely agree. Although I do believe certain styles are superior =---> it's not usually the case of referencing the wrong style, the man with the better skills won. It's up to a fighter who's style is a boxer to out-box the opponent who's style is a brawler. This isn't like ancient Gongfu where Tiger Style beats Drunken Monkey Style.

If we look at the etymology so to speak of styles make fights, some sports writer said it in 1938, and it's turned into gospel. This phenomenon is referred to as Euhemerization. Euhemerization is the act of turning men into gods through myth & legend. Based on that and that alone, styles can never make fights.

[War Room]

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

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!

[War Room]

Another ****** thread from NSBs village idiot.

Coming from you ThuglifeNelo, I would take that as a compliment. How many accounts are you at now do you reckon? 3rd, 4th, 5th?

[Floyd is TBE]

Fights make styles