Does anyone else get annoyed with the most overused cliche: STYLES MAKE FIGHTS

[Orale Vato]

It's like stating the obvious. I mean c'mon, what the **** does that really mean? To me, that's just for the casual boxing fan to try to disect or analyze a fight in which they know very little about. It's kind of like a catch all when trying to break down a fight.

What do you putos think about this? Do you get annoyed as well?

[jri9d0]

No because it’s a true statement.

For example, you have two one dimensional fighters who are all out ****ers i.e. Tyson/Tua the matchup in styles can often determine the potential of an exciting fight.

Hence, styles make fights..

[puga]

yup...**** is so annoying.....it is a overrated statement also!

[bojangles1987]

It's a cliche because it's true. Cliches tend to be things proven true.

[Boxin']

Not really..

It's a good comeback for people who use triangle theories. And styles do make fights.

[ИATAS]

people still don't understand this basic concept so it's worth repeating.

[TOBYLEE1]

It is a real statement, put in the ring two counterpunchers and see how much of a boring fight you are going to get

[Bastian Loc]

Its a bullshit statement and a short cut to critical thought.

Styles don't make fights, the better fighter imposes his style on the other guy.

Period.

If styles made fights, the same style would always win, and it doesn't.

[Swag Hustla]

No, because a lot of idiots still don't understand the triangle theory concept doesn't apply to boxing or most sports in general.

I am more tired of the cliche, "a good big man always beats a good little man."

We know it's more likely, but not always the case. I loved Jim Lampley's comment on the Pac-Cotto fight when he referred to that statement, but countered with, "we are witnessing a good big man get dominated by a great little man."

[wazaa.]

I didn't believe it untill I saw Hopkins-Pavlik.