1B: Boxingscene's Mythbusters

[Steak]

People do that with Jones all the time. A fighter may fight a certain way because of his physical traits but in the end they're still two different things. Not every fighter is locked into fighting a certain way like someone, say, with short arms and a stocky build is locked into being a swarming pressure fighter as his physical limitations dictates that's the only way he CAN fight and be successful.

If you're (and I don't mean "you" as in you in particular, but rather "you" in the generic sense) are trying to jumble all the things that make up a fighter into one amorphous package and call it "style" then it's not only inaccurate but lacks any kind of precision as well.

Poet

a 'style matchup' is basically one fighters certain qualities against anothers. And that includes physical qualities. physical attributes directly effect a fighters style, theyre inseparable. two fighters with the same exact skillset still dont fight alike, because physically theyre different and that effects how they perform in the ring. a fighters physical makeup definitely does not determin how they fight, but it sure as hell effects it. and its pointless to try to seperate the two when theyre directly correlated.

[BattlingNelson]

punch power goes when the speed in your punch goes roy jones is an example so is tyson to a degree he would of stopped danny williams if he had the speed behind it

Naming Tyson and Jones is ok I guess, but the old George Foreman points in the opposite direction as he was painfully slow in his second career but arguably (and according to himself) packed a bigger wallop then.

ur chin can be helped with neck exercise weight gain and stronger legs but it wont give you a an amazing chin your born with what you got

I agree that training of the neck can help you absorb headshots.

a good big fighter doesnt always win styles make fights

Answering with another myth eh?

a good chin doesnt beat a good punch lamotta v robingson

Yep. That's a valid example.

[BattlingNelson]

I'll add one:

"He didn't deserve the victory because he didn't win the 'championship' rounds.

That is like saying that in baseball a run in the 9th inning count more than a run in the 2nd inning. Whoever has the most points wins the fight.

Yeah. That's a classic myth right there. I'll edit the OP to include that one.

[BattlingNelson]

I agree with this one. People act like winning the later rounds means more than winning any other round.

I also disagree that the first thing you lose is punch resistance. I never got that, for some fighters it might be true but more often when a fighter starts getting knocked out it's because they lost speed and reflexes long before.

Fair enough, but for whatever reason old fighters seems to be KO'ed more frequently than younger.

[BattlingNelson]

Myth #1: "Styles make fights": It's a myth because the better fighter usually wins regardless of styles.

Poet

Hmmm... Not necessarily. There's plenty examples that fighters who has poorer resum�es and generally is regarded as lesser fighters, just seem to have the number of one particular fighter ie. his style is just wrong.

It's a myth though and added to the OP.

[BattlingNelson]

"you have to convincingly" beat the champ to take his belt"

actually you don't, you just have to score one more point than him...

I agree, but try telling that to the judges who give every close round to the Champion automatically.

Poet

depends on who the challenger is a lot of times and where the fight is...

This is assuming, of course, that this isn't a home town fight and the challenger isn't the cable network's favorite son

Poet

Yeah that's a myth you hear quite often. "You have to beat the champ convincingly to get the decision." Some of the rather ignorant danish fight commentators often also say that the champion is leading on points before the first bell.

It's a myth though and I'll add it.

Good points in debunking it as well.

[The Surgeon]

Im not so sure this is myth as it often seems to be the case, but it shouldnt be - U have to Really take the title away from the champ.

By that i mean If u win by a ball hair or a mile its still a win and also it dosnt matter if u do it with the sneaky stealing of rounds, fighting off the backfoot or whatever, winning is winning!


EDIT: Just realized its already been brought up.

[studentofthegam]

How about "abilities"? Why the reluctance to say fighter A has better abilities than fighter B?

I think we try to generalize "styles make fights". To me its not a myth. But it is more personalized. In other words "how one deals with certain styles make fights". We cant always say " The great counter puncher beats the great come forward brawler". Because all counter punchers cant deal with pressure. So the styles make fights saying is true but the intangibles like toughness and will have to be taking into consideration first.