The "styles make fights" cliche'...

Styles make fights is a true adage. The phrase might get overused though, especially when people bring it up when fighters are simply of a different class/caliber.

There's also little things that make a fighter more of a problematic style matchup than others. It's a fairly broad generalization to say "Pacquiao has trouble with counter-punchers". Cotto was a very good counter-puncher. Barrera was an excellent counter-puncher. I don't think too many people would argue against the statement that Barrera and Marquez are of a similar caliber. Neither guy is far better than the other. But Pacquiao beat the **** out of Barrera, and had trouble with Marquez 3 times.

 

Styles make fights, it's irrefutable :deal.

 

^ that.

 

If anything, Kirkland-Angulo was trumpeted as an awful style match-up for Kirkland before the fight though. "Apparently weak-chinned guy with porous defense against iron-chinned aggressor." This kind of gets to the threadstarter's point though: "styles make fights" can become so overused that it turns into an empty truism. Any result can subsequently be justified in this logic, and merely repeating it again and again does often seem to take credit away from the actual skills of the victor.

 

Are you White or Black Jonathon? I smell BS.. is the pic on your profile really you?

 

slugger is that white boy in your avatar the taker of your AZZhole's virginity?

 

From a matchmaking stand point that fight made sense ..Two guys who march forward and fight ..Did it disapoint ? Not at all ! If your a promoter looking for a particular style to match up with another this is where the adage made sense ..

You have to look at the bigger picture ..Think about Hopkins Dawson another example of styles make fights ..Two bad styles would have made for a bad fight .. Its just really a boxing recipe if anything but should not take away from a fighters skill or lack there of ..

 

Okay I think we're kind of talking at cross-purposes here. I interpreted Reppin's point to be about styles determining who wins and loses fights, suggesting that it was overused in those cases. As you note though, the phrase "styles make fights" can also obviously be applied to matchmaking/evaluating how exciting fights are likely to be. I completely agree that styles should be evaluated from a matchmaking perspective, but I also agree with Reppin that invoking that phrase to explain a particular outcome after a fight can be somewhat overdone.

 

I have put my pic up before bro!

 

Barrera was intimidated by Pacquiao's speed, size and power. neglecting to use his excellent counter-punching skills, and simply just covering up when Pacquiao would throw his basic ass combinations.

had they been the same size, it would have been a much closer fight. not about styles that fight

 

There wasn't much of a size difference. Pacquiao was mostly competing at 122 when he moved up to fight Barrera, who had been competing at 126 for the last couple of years. Pacquiao was more of a weight cutter, but outweighed Barrera by just 3 pounds unofficially, which is rather miniscule in this day and age of day-before weigh-ins and massive weight cutting.

In the rematch, Barrera was more looking to survive, plus he had declined a lot. He was outweighed by 6 lbs. unofficially that night, which is a decent amount, but again, not a whole lot in this era. He was outweighed by almost a dozen pounds when he beat Morales in the rubber match.

 

It's not jut a cliche. It's certified fact. If you knew anything about the sport you'd know that, ****ing no-nothing ****stick casual fan.

 

Styles make fights. As you gain more knowledge, you will realize this ultimate fact.