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

[Rabbit ♠]

TS what would you say to someone that says: Mayweather will beat Pacquiao because Mayweather beat Marquez with ease and Marquez gave Pacquiao hell.

Or what would you say to someone that said: Pacquiao will beat Mayweather because Pacquiao dominated Oscar De La Hoya and Floyd only won a decision.

[Spray_resistant]

Its better to use a cliche like that than explain every time a fight plays out a certain way that it did because fighter A's style was a problem for fighter B's because whatever style fighter B had left him lacking in some area against fighter A's particular style so fighter A was able to exploit that flaw in some way leading to a win.

[infamous larryx]

wow you said what does it mean??? styles do make fights..some styles are more effective against other styles..some fighters just cant deal with certain styles yet have great success with other styles

[trainhard_187]

Styles makes fights and thats the bottom line..

Nov 13. will be a war. Two come forward, swinging, aggressive styles will make a fight come Nov.. TRUST ME..

[infamous larryx]

i belive manny will struggle against a pure boxer,as we've seen

and floyd struggles against pressue fighters..as weve seen

cotto is good against pure boxers,yet struggles against pressure fighters


see what i mean

[Clegg]

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?

Same here.

I particularly agree with the bold. 'Styles make fights' is true but it's also overly symplistic and shows zero understanding of the sport.

If you ask someone why Cotto beat Shane but Shane beat Margarito, even though Margarito beat Cotto, they'll say "styles make fights" as if they're being insightful, when really they're saying nothing worthwhile. The cliche has become so overused because people think that parroting a line like that makes them look smart.

The saying also overlooks the differences in strategy from fight to fight. Shane didn't fight the same way against Cotto that he did against Margarito. Ali didn't fight the same way against Frazier that he did against Foreman. Some guys fight with the same style every single time, and that happens to be a bad matchup for other styles. Other guys make small but significant changes, and others make big changes and change their style completely.

[Bastian Loc]

If the other guy is better and imposes his style, the style of the other guy doesn't even matter.

Styles might make fights in terms of aesthetics, but in determining who will win or lose, they don't matter.

The guy who imposes his style will win every time.

[Clegg]

TS what would you say to someone that says: Mayweather will beat Pacquiao because Mayweather beat Marquez with ease and Marquez gave Pacquiao hell.

Or what would you say to someone that said: Pacquiao will beat Mayweather because Pacquiao dominated Oscar De La Hoya and Floyd only won a decision.

I wouldn't bother discussing boxing with someone like that. But anyway, the 'styles make fights' line is not only used when attempting to disagree with silly triangle theory arguments.

[daggum]

mayweather, calzaghe, and ottke disproved the styles make fights theory because their are no styles that can beat them.

[Spray_resistant]

mayweather, calzaghe, and ottke disproved the styles make fights theory because their are no styles that can beat them.

What about all of those Joey C kos you showed us, didn't his style contribute to the totally destruction of Manfredo?