In AD&D (2e at least), rangers could fight well with two weapons for some reason. Drizzt? Can't be certain.
Along comes 3rd Edition, and the ranger gets some virtual feats for two-weapon fighting. And the first choir cried out, "But wait, what if I don't want to fight with two weapons? Isn't archery a better fit for rangers?"
We get to v.3.5, where rangers have the option between two-weapon fighting and archery. And the second choir cried out, "But wait, what if I don't want to fight with two weapons OR shoot arrows with bows?"
4th Edition did not heed this call, and perhaps solidified the two fighting styles even more. But on the other side of the fence, the makers of Pathfinder went "Okay, here's all the fighting styles for all time, and if we missed some, we'll add them later." Which is cool and all, but only fixes a problem created by the very existence of the concept of "ranger fighting style."
So, to avoid both restricting rangers to one or two styles AND the clutter, why not just abandon the concept altogether? Is fighting style really an integral part of what makes a ranger a ranger?
I was there at the dawn of the Third-and-a-Halfth Age of Dungeons & Dragons. I saw action during the Crisis of Infinite Foundations, stood on the ramparts of the Citadel of Mirth, delved deep into the debauchery of the Forum of the Adult, and fought alongside the Infernal Bovine on the fields of the Eberron War. I weathered the Ponystorm. I witnessed as the orcs came for the wizos, and I wept mightily. I saw the realm crack as the Fourth Age came upon us, and I witnessed the eldritch tendrils of the dread Gleemax. Now I watch as the Meta Wars ravage the land as the Fifth Age is dawning. I have walked these Boarderlands for many a long year, and bear many scars in my soul. Yet I remain the White Sorcerer, ever in your service. TWS out.