I couldn't disagree more. There's a reason why I'm able to predict upsets more than most on this site. It's because I'm observant as hell, and because of that, I'm fairly well schooled on most fighter's personal styles, and I'm equally adept at visualizing how most of these matches will play out. So when I see a potential style clash in my mind, even when it's seemingly implausible, because Fighter A is brilliant and Fighter B is the definition of average and a few levels below him, I still usually roll with the upset, because the idiom styles make fights exists for a reason. It's because no matter how superior AJ is to him, Chisora's style will always be problematic for Usyk. Just like how Wilder's unorthodox style, while unsightly and down right awful at times, he's still always going to pose Fury more problems than AJ. The only time the upsets I predict usually don't work out and get me into trouble, is when the low level guy has far less power than the elite fighter. Because they have that as a usually ever reliant fall back to bail themselves out with.
Yeah as we know: Fighter A can be the stronger puncher, be more dynamic & defeat Fighter B's contemporaries in a more destructive & devastating fashion with only needing a few rounds compared to Fighter B in the same matchup's, Now when matched up together Fighter B will be able to score a decision Over Fighter A in today's times due to the judges who for the most part of the last Two decades now preferer Defence over Offense & love when a Fighter can just put enough jabs in his Opponent's face regardless of the damage he might Not actually be inducing & then clinch, go back on the backfoot circle around the Ring some more & repeat, this is all without Fighter B using any combination punches, Hard hooks, uppercuts, etc & end up winning the decision over Fighter A without even hurting him once in the entire match or marking his face rather & by only doing the bare minimal, Now if Fighter A doesn't follow through & try to create action by going forward then there will to be No Action, instead Fighter A does & by doing so does end up doing some damage to Fighter B, but that will often be ignored & instead everyone will point out how Fighter A isn't able to Cut of the Ring even though Fighter B himself has done nothing Impressive himself the entire fight while being on the defensive & that's what they end up calling " A Boxing Lesson", While Fighter A will then be labelled "Schooled" by Fighter B by most commentator's, media & of course the fan's, isn't that how it goes these days?
I had had plenty of amateur fights and Styles most deffinately makes fights. How can anyone disagree with that??
It's overused but it still applies and holds true. Doesn't matter how close they are skill level wise. A fighter could always have another fighters number based on styles. Example: Vernon Forrest beats Mosley twice, Ricardo Mayorga beats Forrest twice, Mosley KOs Mayorga twice. Forrest is a much more skilled fighter than a crude brawler like Mayorga yet he got whipped twice.
Of course styles make fights look at Salvador Sanchez as an example, he's a master counter puncher and against aggressive come forward fighters like Danny Lopez, Wilfredo Gomez, he excelled. Now take his fight vs Patrick Ford as an example, Ford was a tall gangly fighter and Sanchez who liked to counter punch, had to lead and chase vs Ford and wasn't as effective. Despite Lopez and Gomez being much more highly rated. And we've seen it countless other times MAB vs Junior Jones Sandy Saddler vs Willie Pep Henry Armstrong vs Fritzie Zivic Ken Norton vs Muhammad Ali Ivan Calderon vs Giovani Segura Orlando Salido vs Juan Manuel Lopez Vernon Forrest vs Shane Mosley etc.
Those who say 'Styles make fights' the most on this board seem to never provide an example. As if just stating that means anything....
My friend certain styles give opponents problems but it’s the adaptability that is key. A good example is Floyd Mayweather vs Zab Judah. Floyd was facing a southpaw who was a bit faster , a bit more athletic than him hence he adapted then started breaking him down.
Good example. Yeah, i'm pretty decent (No expert by any means) on different styles. I like most. But i must admit, I don't care too much for the low output guys. Often times too much feinting and set ups for shots that go un-thrown.
Well said. It really only applies at top level. If a fighter is way better than another like in a tune up situation it doesn't really apply
I think that ability to adapt to what is before you is so important. We all like different styles but for me what is most important is the effectiveness of what a fighter is doing.
for every move, there is a number of counter moves. styles are a series of moves and counter moves prefered by that fighter. that makes up his style. sometimes a fighters preferred moves, or style, are most vulnerable against a particular fighters series of moves, or style. so he will struggle more with that guy, even if he is not better overall than all the guys he already beat. his spectacular right hand might just come across a fighters favorite counter hook, which he has always been able to deliver, even if he sucks at all the other moves. it is a trainers job to understand how the opponents moves translate in the ring, so he can teach the proper counter moves against the opponents best punches. thats why you dont hook with a hooker. because youre fighting his style, and hes better at it.
