So...styles make fights.

[Peter Som]

On a surface level, I get it. Having style means having distinction. If you have a distinct fighting style, it makes it hard to understand and adapt to (or am I completely wrong? Please tell me if I am).

But what does that really mean? Is it more subjective and only interpretative between fighters? Or is it a general term?

Since we're on the subject, I'm gonna make this a two part question. Cause I'm a huge fan of two part questions.

What is your favorite style from a fighter? Personally, I don't think I'm learned enough (yet) to answer that question with respectable clarity. So I seek the answers of the good folks at Saddo here to hopefully provide insight.

Thank you for your time and answers.

[Beanflicker]

I think the most common use can be seen when people try to use "boxing math" (i.e. Fighter A beat Fighter B, Fighter B beat Fighter C, so Fighter A would beat Fighter C).

Look at 70's HW boxing. Ken Norton gave hell to some of the slickest boxers of all time (Ali and Holmes), but he got easily crushed by the big bangers he fought (Shavers, Foreman). Same with Frazier (gave Ali fits 3 times, got totally destroyed by Foreman twice). Norton had a style that made him poison for guys like Ali, but he didn't have the style to deal with the power of Foreman. Different fighters, different challenges.

Styles make fights. A PBF vs Canelo fight would look different than a PBF vs Trout fight.

My favorite style is that of the slick defensive counter puncher (like PBF or James Toney). The hit-and-not-get-hit guys have the best style.

[p4pking]

You can label most fighters as having one of three or four styles. Out fighters, or "pure boxers" are guys who like to keep distance, work behind the jab and utilize better footwork and timing etc, think Ali or Wlad, Sergio Martinez etc. The problem with these guys is often they cant do anything besides clinch in close. Sluggers or punchers, would be someone like George Foreman or Julian Jackson, who lack fast feet or reflexes but are very heavy handed and look for the big shot. Pressure fighters are guys who look to get inside and stay there, smothering their opponent and winning via a high punch output and great conditioning as opposed to having great speed or power.

Out of these three styles there is sort of rock papers scissors scenario thats used often; A boxer beats a slugger, slugger beats a pressure fighter, and a pressure fighter will beat the boxer. Obviously this is only assuming that the men are closely matched physically and don't generally have another dimension to their game.

I'd say counter punchers(my favourite) belong in their own group, James Toney or Marquez for instance are perfect examples. I think Toney is the best natural counter puncher I've ever seen. They don't rely on the jab to win fights, don't generally come forward or set the pace and don't look to get into a full on brawl loading up on big shots etc. Guys like Mayweather or Whittaker, were brilliant counter punchers but could also lead and dictate fights with their own output unlike the previous two guys I listed.

[Peter Som]

You can label most fighters as having one of three or four styles. Out fighters, or "pure boxers" are guys who like to keep distance, work behind the jab and utilize better footwork and timing etc, think Ali or Wlad, Sergio Martinez etc. The problem with these guys is often they cant do anything besides clinch in close. Sluggers or punchers, would be someone like George Foreman or Julian Jackson, who lack fast feet or reflexes but are very heavy handed and look for the big shot. Pressure fighters are guys who look to get inside and stay there, smothering their opponent and winning via a high punch output and great conditioning as opposed to having great speed or power.

Out of these three styles there is sort of rock papers scissors scenario thats used often; A boxer beats a slugger, slugger beats a pressure fighter, and a pressure fighter will beat the boxer. Obviously this is only assuming that the men are closely matched physically and don't generally have another dimension to their game.

I'd say counter punchers(my favourite) belong in their own group, James Toney or Marquez for instance are perfect examples. I think Toney is the best natural counter puncher I've ever seen. They don't rely on the jab to win fights, don't generally come forward or set the pace and don't look to get into a full on brawl loading up on big shots etc. Guys like Mayweather or Whittaker, were brilliant counter punchers but could also lead and dictate fights with their own output unlike the previous two guys I listed.

Toney is definitely one of my favorite fighters. Roll punch to overhand right all day!

Also, thank you both for the response!

[TheBranMan]

It can be interpreted as a reference to the complexity of the sweet science. Fighters don't only exist in a simplistic hierarchical structure (as we're lead to believe by rankings). For example: Duran beat Leonard, Leonard beat Hagler, Hagler beat Duran. There is no "best" fighter of the three, their different styles of boxing achieve varying degrees of success, dependent on the style they're matched against. This is why, pre-fight, boxers spar against styles that are similar to their upcoming professional opponent. Not much use in sparring an infighting, southpaw brawler in preparation for a bout with an rangey, orthodox pure boxer.

[Bobthepen]

You can label most fighters as having one of three or four styles. Out fighters, or "pure boxers" are guys who like to keep distance, work behind the jab and utilize better footwork and timing etc, think Ali or Wlad, Sergio Martinez etc. The problem with these guys is often they cant do anything besides clinch in close. Sluggers or punchers, would be someone like George Foreman or Julian Jackson, who lack fast feet or reflexes but are very heavy handed and look for the big shot. Pressure fighters are guys who look to get inside and stay there, smothering their opponent and winning via a high punch output and great conditioning as opposed to having great speed or power.

Out of these three styles there is sort of rock papers scissors scenario thats used often; A boxer beats a slugger, slugger beats a pressure fighter, and a pressure fighter will beat the boxer. Obviously this is only assuming that the men are closely matched physically and don't generally have another dimension to their game.

I'd say counter punchers(my favourite) belong in their own group, James Toney or Marquez for instance are perfect examples. I think Toney is the best natural counter puncher I've ever seen. They don't rely on the jab to win fights, don't generally come forward or set the pace and don't look to get into a full on brawl loading up on big shots etc. Guys like Mayweather or Whittaker, were brilliant counter punchers but could also lead and dictate fights with their own output unlike the previous two guys I listed.

Toney is definitely one of my favorite fighters. Roll punch to overhand right all day!

Toney is my favourite fighter, and I have a large collection of his fights.

I'll often pop one on as foreplay prior to servicing the wife.

[ElTerribleMorales]

You can label most fighters as having one of three or four styles. Out fighters, or "pure boxers" are guys who like to keep distance, work behind the jab and utilize better footwork and timing etc, think Ali or Wlad, Sergio Martinez etc. The problem with these guys is often they cant do anything besides clinch in close. Sluggers or punchers, would be someone like George Foreman or Julian Jackson, who lack fast feet or reflexes but are very heavy handed and look for the big shot. Pressure fighters are guys who look to get inside and stay there, smothering their opponent and winning via a high punch output and great conditioning as opposed to having great speed or power.

Out of these three styles there is sort of rock papers scissors scenario thats used often; A boxer beats a slugger, slugger beats a pressure fighter, and a pressure fighter will beat the boxer. Obviously this is only assuming that the men are closely matched physically and don't generally have another dimension to their game.

I'd say counter punchers(my favourite) belong in their own group, James Toney or Marquez for instance are perfect examples. I think Toney is the best natural counter puncher I've ever seen. They don't rely on the jab to win fights, don't generally come forward or set the pace and don't look to get into a full on brawl loading up on big shots etc. Guys like Mayweather or Whittaker, were brilliant counter punchers but could also lead and dictate fights with their own output unlike the previous two guys I listed.

then you have your boxer punchers which are basically a blend of a counter puncher and slugger, they have good movement good timing and all around balanced, IMO Sergio falls more into this category than as a pure boxer, as would Cotto, Marquez, Barrera, etc.

[greynotsoold]

The saying "styles make fights" is very self-serving. You use it if a fight you promote stinks and you are trying to explain why, or it comes out if a fight that was supposed to suck heats up.
All, every single one, good fighters are counter-punchers. You cannot be good unless you counterpunch well. Some guys wait and counter, other guys push to draw leads they can counter off. Counterpunching is the trick when it comes to boxing.
My favorite styles...Olivares against Lionel Rose...Most any fight with Buddy McGirt, Julio Cesar Chavez, Mike McCallum, Ricardo Lopez, or James toney. I like guys that counter well, punch good, and make a fight.

[Vendettos]

It's basic theory but not practice. Outside fighter vs inside fighter? Depends on if the out side fighter stops inside getting close and the inside fighter has to get close.

Counter puncher needs to counter of course but then again a hard hitter needs to hit and not be countered.

But it's all theory not cast iron tactics. Anything can happen.

My fav fighter style is either inside pressure like Sebastian Lujan or Ricky Hatton.
I also like (not a style but) heavyweights that have chins and walk forward, Shannon Briggs for example.

[Rantcatrat]

The saying "styles make fights" is very self-serving. You use it if a fight you promote stinks and you are trying to explain why, or it comes out if a fight that was supposed to suck heats up.
All, every single one, good fighters are counter-punchers. You cannot be good unless you counterpunch well. Some guys wait and counter, other guys push to draw leads they can counter off. Counterpunching is the trick when it comes to boxing.
My favorite styles...Olivares against Lionel Rose...Most any fight with Buddy McGirt, Julio Cesar Chavez, Mike McCallum, Ricardo Lopez, or James toney. I like guys that counter well, punch good, and make a fight.

Aren't you sort of saying that boxing in its essence is brain over brawn? Counter punchers look/think about openings, and jump in when they see an opportunity. Roberto Duran wasn't a counter-puncher, but he was a thinker, and he was one of the best ever.

[IamInuit]

The saying "styles make fights" is very self-serving. You use it if a fight you promote stinks and you are trying to explain why, or it comes out if a fight that was supposed to suck heats up.
All, every single one, good fighters are counter-punchers. You cannot be good unless you counterpunch well. Some guys wait and counter, other guys push to draw leads they can counter off. Counterpunching is the trick when it comes to boxing.
My favorite styles...Olivares against Lionel Rose...Most any fight with Buddy McGirt, Julio Cesar Chavez, Mike McCallum, Ricardo Lopez, or James toney. I like guys that counter well, punch good, and make a fight.

Superb post. Mike was a master with the feint also which is a skill that has eroded over the years. I have been thinking about this question since the author posted it and its tougher then it appears. I could watch defensive wizards like Locche, Pep and Whitaker all day along with the pure counter punchers but if I had a gun to my head or was forced to take one style to watch on a deserted island it would be boxer punchers like Mikey Garcia, Robinson, Broner, Hearns, Louis, Lewis, Arguello, Zale etc etc.

[TheBranMan]

The saying "styles make fights" is very self-serving. You use it if a fight you promote stinks and you are trying to explain why, or it comes out if a fight that was supposed to suck heats up.
All, every single one, good fighters are counter-punchers. You cannot be good unless you counterpunch well. Some guys wait and counter, other guys push to draw leads they can counter off. Counterpunching is the trick when it comes to boxing.
My favorite styles...Olivares against Lionel Rose...Most any fight with Buddy McGirt, Julio Cesar Chavez, Mike McCallum, Ricardo Lopez, or James toney. I like guys that counter well, punch good, and make a fight.

I couldn't disagree more. The saying references the differences between fighters, and although there are certain tools that transcend style (be it a stiff jab, a counter-punch or head movement) different fighters use these tools in different ways.

Yes, counter-punching is a universal strategy that is always utilized in some way, but to say that all good boxers employ the counter-punch in the same way is to lump together a number of very different styles. Both James Toney and Bernard Hopkins were exciting fighters in their prime, but I would say that Toney's style was based on the counter-punch, whereas it was a specialty within Hopkins' wide arsenal (not to say he didn't use it or it was unimportant).

The aforementioned comparative example (counter-punching), could just as easily be Cotto's left hook or Ray Leonard's ring movement. The fact is that boxers, while all similar in some respects (due to a form of athletics honed for thousands of years), are also very different. These differences often dictate how a fight will play out. I believe that to be the essence of the statement.

[Peter Som]

I'd like to pose another question, since it's relatable and relevant.

I'm 5'3". What are my options as far as styles and technique? I would like to think that I can apply almost any style well with a lot of hard work and dedication.

I'm 175 lb, I think at least 140 of those pounds is athletic weight. Given my stature, if I'd really want to compete, I may want to make my way down to 140 or less eh?

What are my advantages and disadvantage against a taller fighter of equal skill?

[IamInuit]

I'd like to pose another question, since it's relatable and relevant.

I'm 5'3". What are my options as far as styles and technique? I would like to think that I can apply almost any style well with a lot of hard work and dedication.

I'm 175 lb, I think at least 140 of those pounds is athletic weight. Given my stature, if I'd really want to compete, I may want to make my way down to 140 or less eh?

What are my advantages and disadvantage against a taller fighter of equal skill?

I'm going to be honest with you. No way can you fight at 140 at 5' 3". That's fly or bantam type height.

[Peter Som]

I'd like to pose another question, since it's relatable and relevant.

I'm 5'3". What are my options as far as styles and technique? I would like to think that I can apply almost any style well with a lot of hard work and dedication.


I'm 175 lb, I think at least 140 of those pounds is athletic weight. Given my stature, if I'd really want to compete, I may want to make my way down to 140 or less eh?

What are my advantages and disadvantage against a taller fighter of equal skill?

I'm going to be honest with you. No way can you fight at 140 at 5' 3". That's fly or bantam type height.

Okay. I have an idea why, but what are the reasons?