“Styles make fights” and other generic garbage statements

The whole purpose of that phrase is to summarize what (should be) common sense instead of rehashing the same exhausted explanation. People act like rankings and MMAmath make certain outcomes a guarantee but in reality, not every fighter has the same skills and weaknesses so some will match up better or worse against a particular type of opponent. It's like Pokemon; certain elemental types are more effective against others.

The classic example of this is Chuck Liddell, Wanderlei Silva, and Rampage. Chuck is an excellent counter puncher so he excels at fighting people who are aggressive like Wanderlei. However, when faced with a patient, iron chinned, standout wrestler like Rampage, he struggles. You'd think based on rankings that Rampage > Wanderlei because Rampage > Chuck and Chuck > Wanderlei but this isn't the case because Rampage is historically weak to aggressive strikers like Shogun and Wand so it's impossible to produce an accurate ranking because of how their styles match up.

This is the flaw in rankings; it bases a fighter's ability on accomplishments rather than overall skill so it is not a reliable system to predict fights. Sometimes, one unremarkable fighter can excel in an area where a remarkable fighter is weakest and it can be enough to produce an upset that on paper makes no sense based on shared opponents. Rankings = black and white, style matchups = the grey
 
Why do people write this like it’s a walk off home run? Pisses me off. It’s like the universal answer for “my gut feeling thinks so and so will win, but I have no fucking clue why since they are greatly outclassed”

If you are an ass bandito that writes this statement, could you start at least explaining yourself and why you said something to stupid?

What other crap statements do we see in this forum??
lol ok? styles make fights dude it is why fighter A beats fighter B who beats fighter C who cant beat fighter B but can beat fighter A. Its just the way it is. o_O
 
Styles make fights

Is a boxing terminology dates back years ago in the sport

And can also be applied to MMA
 
Styles do indeed make fights.
It's not a difficult concept really.

Fighter's styles match up differently so if one fighter beat another that doesn't mean that first one will beat the ones his opponent beat.
 
Ya know, styles make fights, it is what it is ya know what I mean. This is the fight game anything can happen and there is always a punchers chance.
 
The same reason why Chuck Liddell could destroy wrestlers, but get his ass beat by strikers who themselves would be destroyed by wrestlers.

So, yeah. Styles make fights.
 
The whole purpose of that phrase is to summarize what (should be) common sense instead of rehashing the same exhausted explanation. People act like rankings and MMAmath make certain outcomes a guarantee but in reality, not every fighter has the same skills and weaknesses so some will match up better or worse against a particular type of opponent. It's like Pokemon; certain elemental types are more effective against others.

The classic example of this is Chuck Liddell, Wanderlei Silva, and Rampage. Chuck is an excellent counter puncher so he excels at fighting people who are aggressive like Wanderlei. However, when faced with a patient, iron chinned, standout wrestler like Rampage, he struggles. You'd think based on rankings that Rampage > Wanderlei because Rampage > Chuck and Chuck > Wanderlei but this isn't the case because Rampage is historically weak to aggressive strikers like Shogun and Wand so it's impossible to produce an accurate ranking because of how their styles match up.

This is the flaw in rankings; it bases a fighter's ability on accomplishments rather than overall skill so it is not a reliable system to predict fights. Sometimes, one unremarkable fighter can excel in an area where a remarkable fighter is weakest and it can be enough to produce an upset that on paper makes no sense based on shared opponents. Rankings = black and white, style matchups = the grey

Yeah, refer to this comment, glad I searched the thread before trying to explain it. Here is another good source: http://www.boxingnews24.com/2014/12/styles-make-fights-a-brief-history-lesson/

I know it sounds lazy but it's exactly like this guy defined it, it's a saying that summarizes what he is explaining.
 
Rory dominated Woodley

Woodley nearly murdered Wonderboy

Wonderboy dominated Rory


There is a reason Wonderboy casually styles on everybody, he's one of the best strikers in the sport, big for the division and extremely competent at counter wrestling now.

Woodley matches up with him though and all that's out the window. You can pull up the gifs of him dropping him like a sack of potatoes multiple times, with complete impunity.

"Styles makes fights" explains this phenomenon which is part and parcel to MMA.
 
Why do people write this like it’s a walk off home run? Pisses me off. It’s like the universal answer for “my gut feeling thinks so and so will win, but I have no fucking clue why since they are greatly outclassed”

If you are an ass bandito that writes this statement, could you start at least explaining yourself and why you said something to stupid?

What other crap statements do we see in this forum??

“He’s simply the better fighter” written about anyone who beat someone else.

“He proved he’s the better fighter by dominating” said about someone who got KO’d by an opponent but also won a 50-45 (or similar) in a rematch.
How stupid can you be? If the 2 fighters trade KO and 50-45 wins down the middle, it proves that it’s a pick’em fight.
 
Ya know, styles make fights, it is what it is ya know what I mean. This is the fight game anything can happen and there is always a punchers chance.

gif4.gif
 
Fighter X would beat Fighter Y 9 out of 10 times (usually after an upset)
 
These are much better phrases to be annoyed with because they are truisms. It is what it is is a tautology. Saying it is essentially admitting that you have nothing to say.
Axiom, truism, now tautology!
grammartime4wq.gif

Well done.
 
The whole purpose of that phrase is to summarize what (should be) common sense instead of rehashing the same exhausted explanation. People act like rankings and MMAmath make certain outcomes a guarantee but in reality, not every fighter has the same skills and weaknesses so some will match up better or worse against a particular type of opponent. It's like Pokemon; certain elemental types are more effective against others.

The classic example of this is Chuck Liddell, Wanderlei Silva, and Rampage. Chuck is an excellent counter puncher so he excels at fighting people who are aggressive like Wanderlei. However, when faced with a patient, iron chinned, standout wrestler like Rampage, he struggles. You'd think based on rankings that Rampage > Wanderlei because Rampage > Chuck and Chuck > Wanderlei but this isn't the case because Rampage is historically weak to aggressive strikers like Shogun and Wand so it's impossible to produce an accurate ranking because of how their styles match up.

This is the flaw in rankings; it bases a fighter's ability on accomplishments rather than overall skill so it is not a reliable system to predict fights. Sometimes, one unremarkable fighter can excel in an area where a remarkable fighter is weakest and it can be enough to produce an upset that on paper makes no sense based on shared opponents. Rankings = black and white, style matchups = the grey


soon as i read a pokemon metaphor i knew you were a nerd. wtf do nerds know about fighting. panty waist.
 
styles make fights is hilarious.

another excuse for the fan boys testicle flavour of the month loss against fighter a la can.
 
Back
Top