The trouble with discussing a lot of these match ups, is that everyone worth their salt agrees that styles make fights. Yet when it refers more specifically to martial arts styles people jump to its the practitioner, not the martial art.
Now it's true that Samart Payakaroon has more in common stylistically with Lyoto Machida, than he does his fellow nak muay Dieselnoi - but I also think it's true that martial arts like karate, which tend to have a more rigid structure to learning - do tend to develop more similar approaches to fighting.
When you go to a Shotokan class, there is a very clear idea of what shotokan is, and even between styles, Gunnar Nelson (goju) has much in common with Lyoto. I think that is because you go to a karate class, you learn your basic reverse punch and front kick, you learn your katas and there is a syllabus. Whereas in Muay Thai, what you learn depends heavily on who you train under - obviously there is variation from coach to coach in karate but I don't think its AS varied as muay thai.
The thing is it's not very easy at all to make style vs style comparisons as far as perceived strengths and weaknesses are concerned because fights aren't just style vs style comparisons but also skill vs skill comparisons. The line between the two is almost always blurred - sure you can come up with general stylistic difference but it's much harder to go beyond that and pinpoint stylistic weaknesses/strengths confidently.
Then there is the added layer of taking into account physical differences and how a fight actually plays out. @aguy mentioned Rockhold, Jones, Romero, Rua as examples of pressure styles but you can't ignore the fact that there are skill/physical differences. The fact that Jones holds a considerable reach advantage, Romero is very explosive & able to cover range extremely quickly - are factors that definitely come into consideration (significantly so for an in/out point fighter). In regards to Rockhold - Machida clearly had the advantage in the striking department (he made Rockhold look clumsy in the first round as he pressured) - then he gets grappled fucked and is clearly out of fuel when the next round begins as Rockhold begins to pressure him well (easy to do if the other guy is out of fuel) & eventually drags him to the floor and chokes him out.
It's not as simple as saying a pressure fighter gives these in/out fighters problems. As
@Hotora86 mentioned Mousasi is a pressure/counter fighter but he had clear issues dealing with Machida and he's not the only one - a lot of people have attempted to pressure - it doesn't always work if the other variables don't come together. Sure I agree with aguy that pressure is the way to go when dealing with in/out fighters strategy wise but even that doesn't necessarily guarantee success if the guy you're fighting has you beat on the other variables.
In regards to the consistency among karate styles - I agree to an extent but there are clear differences with most karate styles. But I think that consistency really depends on the karate style & the actual sports/sparring rules of that style. You make the case of Gunnar & Machida being very similar which is true but Japanese Goju is very similar to shotokan - since they both developed on the mainland (and were influenced by Funakoshi's ideas of karate). Okinawan Goju, uechi ryu, shorin-ryu, Kyokushin, Enshin, Kempo, Kudo - are all very different from one another.
Take for example Wonderboy - the only real similarity he has with Machida & Nelson is the in/out movement - other than that his shot selection, front leg techniques (side kicks), very side on stance is very different from the Karate of Machida or Nelson. How often have you seen Machida that sideways on and throwing lead leg side kicks or even hook kicks?
I disagree I think Muay Thai instruction isn't as varied as Karate - they're pretty much the same. There is definite consistency within styles of karate but among styles of karate not so much.
So when there is such a stereotypical style to point based karate, I think it IS fair to say that styles do indeed make fights, and even if you're a very good karateka, if you fight in a very rigid karate style like Machida or Nelson, you will stylistically come across issues with low kicks, and hooked punches. Purely because those styles don't tend to teach defence for hooked punches and low kicks, and actively teach you a way of punching that involves you dropping the guard.
If I hypothetically put a guy who ONLY trained karate hand techniques against a boxer, even if they'd trained the same amount of time, he's still liable to get knocked about because of the fundamental flaws in those techniques.
I realise that might sound like I'm invalidating karate, but I think karate is far from useless, hell I'm sure there are some wing chun guys who would wipe the floor with me - but I do think that people like to turn a blind eye to the old phrase, styles make fights, when it becomes more about karate vs muay thai vs boxing - and less about infighter vs outfighter.
That's just my thoughts.
As I've said above I don't agree with the style makes fights - sure it definitely has some impact but there are many variables at play outside the realm of style vs style issues.
The range of point fighting styles are very different to muay thai, kickboxing & boxing. This is why you rarely see hook punches or low kicks in point fighting competition because you have to be within a certain range to apply it (you see leg kicks more often than hooks). The ideal in point fighting is to hit someone cleanly and then avoid getting hit in return (in/out). This is why you rarely see those techniques. You are taught how to defend against low kicks and hook punches the issue is that no-one really uses it in point fighting because of the ranges and then of course if you fight that way it becomes a habit.
The lower guard makes sense when you're fighting at that point fighting range - it makes less sense when you fight in muay thai, kickboxing or boxing range.
Personally I agree with you - I'd rather keep my hands where they can protect my head and I'm a hook throwing man.
True - if you put a boxer vs a guy who only trained karate hand techniques my money would generally be on the boxer. But not because of inherent flaws in Karate but because boxing yields faster results than karate training (generally). Thankfully karate is more than just hand techniques. But that comparison is not a realistic one - fights outside of sports are rarely unarmed and if they are there's no guarantee it's 1 on 1.
Then again it's great that boxers have better hands than karateka (I like boxing) but the issue no-one ever addresses is the timeframe in which people train which I feel is way more important than style vs style comparisons or whether one art is more or less effective than another. Muay Thai, Kickboxing & Boxing tend to be sports that people train in within a specific time frame of their life - sure a few keep up the practise most don't (who wants to get punched in the head in their 50's or 60's). I'm sure many here on sherdog will eventually move on to something different. Karate on the other hand does a significantly better job of keeping people training well into their 70's or 80's. I think that is more important because the discussion of a boxer vs a karate guy no longer applies if one of them has stopped training.
