Triangle Theory versus "Styles make fights."

[Marchegiano]

To a degree we all do triangle theory.

Ranks are pretty much triangle theories but more convoluted because you don't even use particular match ups to justify position.

simply triangle, as I know it: A beats B, B beats C, A probably beats C.

Also the way ranking works, if B is the highest ranked guy until A beats him, A gets his rank moved up while C gets lowered for losing to B, but, A having not fought C could get KTFO in the first....so...kinda ****ty, but, also, what else ya gonna do to make sure the best are at least ducking the best?

Styles can be misleading too because styles don't indicate personality. For example, I always told people best way to beat Rocky or Wilder is to out punch them and not even try that boxing **** because they are definitely assuming you are gonna box them. All their answers are for boxers so just punch their undersized asses, but, even though Fury started saying that exactly I didn't believe him because I figured he hasn't got the right personality to be a puncher and once he gets walloped he'll go back to boxing. Showed my ass.

That was a shift that happened over fights though. Had Fury began the first fight the way he did but ended it the way he fought in the second, that would have been damn unpredictable. I just didn't listen to the dude, but if it was an in-fight shift there would have been nothing to listen to and the shift would have been very unpredictable.

So say fella outlines Fury-Wilder to a ****ing T. Like he had a crystal ball, just perfect. Nothing in Fury's style indicates he's willing to give up defense for offense but since he, as a man, is willing to do it he can pull that **** out at anytime.


Fighting's just unpredictable.


My favorites tend to be those with some heart, but even intrinsic **** like that is subject to change and mystery. A coward can become brave, the brave can become meek, anything can happen.

B is ranked highest

B beats C clean and clear as day, dominantly.

C moves down ranking

B loses to A in a close fight.

A moves up, B moves

C's style feeds right into A's gameplan

A's stubbed his toe and it made him sad, gets KO'd by C

or

C's father just passed and he's all fired up, C beats A.


I realize I'm preaching to the choir but I figured maybe y'all could do with a reminder not to care so much about any prediction method.

Most the time the man who was meant to win will win. All that **** can change though. No good way to predict.

[billeau2]

To a degree we all do triangle theory.

Ranks are pretty much triangle theories but more convoluted because you don't even use particular match ups to justify position.

simply triangle, as I know it: A beats B, B beats C, A probably beats C.

Also the way ranking works, if B is the highest ranked guy until A beats him, A gets his rank moved up while C gets lowered for losing to B, but, A having not fought C could get KTFO in the first....so...kinda ****ty, but, also, what else ya gonna do to make sure the best are at least ducking the best?

Styles can be misleading too because styles don't indicate personality. For example, I always told people best way to beat Rocky or Wilder is to out punch them and not even try that boxing **** because they are definitely assuming you are gonna box them. All their answers are for boxers so just punch their undersized asses, but, even though Fury started saying that exactly I didn't believe him because I figured he hasn't got the right personality to be a puncher and once he gets walloped he'll go back to boxing. Showed my ass.

That was a shift that happened over fights though. Had Fury began the first fight the way he did but ended it the way he fought in the second, that would have been damn unpredictable. I just didn't listen to the dude, but if it was an in-fight shift there would have been nothing to listen to and the shift would have been very unpredictable.

So say fella outlines Fury-Wilder to a ****ing T. Like he had a crystal ball, just perfect. Nothing in Fury's style indicates he's willing to give up defense for offense but since he, as a man, is willing to do it he can pull that **** out at anytime.


Fighting's just unpredictable.


My favorites tend to be those with some heart, but even intrinsic **** like that is subject to change and mystery. A coward can become brave, the brave can become meek, anything can happen.

B is ranked highest

B beats C clean and clear as day, dominantly.

C moves down ranking

B loses to A in a close fight.

A moves up, B moves

C's style feeds right into A's gameplan

A's stubbed his toe and it made him sad, gets KO'd by C

or

C's father just passed and he's all fired up, C beats A.


I realize I'm preaching to the choir but I figured maybe y'all could do with a reminder not to care so much about any prediction method.

Most the time the man who was meant to win will win. All that **** can change though. No good way to predict.

Great points! Probably the reason why triangle theory gets a nod now and then... It is indeed ingrained in the rankings, so to speak.

yes the intangibles are always with us as well... All part of the game so to speak.

[The Old LefHook]

If A is congruent to B and B is congruent to C, then A is congruent to C. dosey doe, allamande left, by buggery.

[Rockin']

Somebody wrote under my name "SRR by triangle theory' back when you could change somebodies what ever you call it. The guy said that I beat some guy, who beat some guy ...... who beat Ray. By triangle theory maybe, but Robinson would have kicked my a$$. I would have fought him though, if the money was right.

Long Live Donald ***** and the USA!!! .....Rockin'

[billeau2]

If A is congruent to B and B is congruent to C, then A is congruent to C. dosey doe, allamande left, by buggery.

Another great point. brings up the age old question: Because we can prove it mathmatically, geometrically, does it prove true empirically?

[billeau2]

Somebody wrote under my name "SRR by triangle theory' back when you could change somebodies what ever you call it. The guy said that I beat some guy, who beat some guy ...... who beat Ray. By triangle theory maybe, but Robinson would have kicked my a$$. I would have fought him though, if the money was right.

Long Live Donald ***** and the USA!!! .....Rockin'

I have read many times when people would use such a set up to show that triangle theory is a poor way to evaluate results.

[billeau2]

Something Marchegiano alluded to:

I do think the idea of triangle theory becomes interesting when we have a tournament with a set amount of individuals, who will fight each other perhaps more than once... With less variables the theory might have more validity in certain respects.

[DeeMoney]

In general, the better fighter will consistently win against a lesser fighter regardless of style. This isn't to argue that style doesn't play a role in who wins; just not near the level that skill, athleticism, and ability do.

Sometimes, style is cited as an explanation for what is actually just random variation. In boxing, as in all forms of competition, sometimes the fighter who is consistently better loses to a lesser fighter- had a bad night, things just didnt work out, opponent performed at a higher level than they consistently do, etc. Especially in boxing, which has such a small sample size, such events can skew opinions.

Once again, this isnt to argue that styles don't play a role in deciding the winner; just that it isnt as important as some try to make it out to be.

[The plunger man]

It’s always been about styles and that will make fights.
A classic example is the fabulous 4 ...hagler had a tough time with Duran and was taken to a close decision , Hagler destroyed hearns and yet hearns lost in 3 to hagler by KO , Duran beat Leonard because he went toe to toe and lost easy to Leonard when Leonard boxed and used speed , Leonard beat hagler ...so in my opinion it’s about styles make fights 100%

[billeau2]

In general, the better fighter will consistently win against a lesser fighter regardless of style. This isn't to argue that style doesn't play a role in who wins; just not near the level that skill, athleticism, and ability do.

Sometimes, style is cited as an explanation for what is actually just random variation. In boxing, as in all forms of competition, sometimes the fighter who is consistently better loses to a lesser fighter- had a bad night, things just didnt work out, opponent performed at a higher level than they consistently do, etc. Especially in boxing, which has such a small sample size, such events can skew opinions.

Once again, this isnt to argue that styles don't play a role in deciding the winner; just that it isnt as important as some try to make it out to be.

It’s always been about styles and that will make fights.
A classic example is the fabulous 4 ...hagler had a tough time with Duran and was taken to a close decision , Hagler destroyed hearns and yet hearns lost in 3 to hagler by KO , Duran beat Leonard because he went toe to toe and lost easy to Leonard when Leonard boxed and used speed , Leonard beat hagler ...so in my opinion it’s about styles make fights 100%

Here are two contrasting points of view. I don't think they contradict so much... I do think they both point to important considerations regarding analyzing this axiom.

DeeMoney, yes... there is not so much a best style, nor is there a style that will beat all other styles. There is some evidence that over the long hall under similar conditions where fighters are otherwise equal, the boxer has an advantage over the puncher.

This advantage, IMO is magnified because championship fights are no longer 15 rounds and the puncher really needs the most opportunities to land he can get, to be succesful.

One can also prove that there is an inverse relationship to random variation and ability... In other words while random variation is always a constant, the more skilled the fighters, the less of a factor random variation will be a factor. Does sample size play a role in this relationship? Because it is diminished with skill attributes, one would assume it would affect the sample group less, in a small group, or so it would seem to me.

To address Plunger's point: By the time you get to the elite fighters, where all other factors are somewhat diminished by equal skill, experience, etc... Style does become very important regarding outcome. The ability to apply the proper strategy, and perhaps even more important, to effectively neutralize a style, is a key to victory.

Lets look at examples of this process: for example, not hooking with a hooker, finding a way to have the lead foot properly placed against a southpaw, or not chasing a puncher, rather cutting the ring down.... these are all characteristics of employing tactics against a specific style, to minimize effectiveness. I say this because we are still talking about gross skills reflective of a particular style, that have to be executed effectively.

When we look at all the things a fighter like bernard hopkins can do, not all are gross technical aspects, characteristic of a style, but, doing these things well lead to more subtle technical skills executed against an opponent. For example, for Floyd to check hook Hatton succesfully, he had to have Hatton chase him. From the general statement: "don't chase a puncher," we have a variation where Hatton went straight at a boxer, which allowed Floyd to variate the axiom, apply it specifically to his approach, and use a solid punch off line that put Hatton down.