Triangle Theory versus "Styles make fights."

[The plunger man]

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.

yes that’s spot on mate...styles only come into affect when you are at the highest level.
A common example would really be Duran who seemed to struggle with boxers that had feet footwork and speed and lost to Leonard and Benitez and even lost to Kirkland Laing who although not on Duran’s level in terms of sheer ability Laing was an extremely quick footed and slick boxer and Duran was outboxed.
Certain fighters will always struggle with a certain type of boxer.
Even Ali had a certain style that he struggled with and that was with ken norton.
I would also say the pacquiao and marguez trilogy are a good example of a certain style.
Pacquiao could never fully get to grips with him because the style Marquez used negated his aggression most of the time

[DeeMoney]

yes that’s spot on mate...styles only come into affect when you are at the highest level.
A common example would really be Duran who seemed to struggle with boxers that had feet footwork and speed and lost to Leonard and Benitez and even lost to Kirkland Laing who although not on Duran’s level in terms of sheer ability Laing was an extremely quick footed and slick boxer and Duran was outboxed.
Certain fighters will always struggle with a certain type of boxer.
Even Ali had a certain style that he struggled with and that was with ken norton.
I would also say the pacquiao and marguez trilogy are a good example of a certain style.
Pacquiao could never fully get to grips with him because the style Marquez used negated his aggression most of the time

I agree with that.

Though I think sometimes we try to attach a greater point about certain styles to individual fighters who lose a given fight in order to justify a loss. When the truth is sometimes guys just arent on their game.

[billeau2]

yes that’s spot on mate...styles only come into affect when you are at the highest level.
A common example would really be Duran who seemed to struggle with boxers that had feet footwork and speed and lost to Leonard and Benitez and even lost to Kirkland Laing who although not on Duran’s level in terms of sheer ability Laing was an extremely quick footed and slick boxer and Duran was outboxed.
Certain fighters will always struggle with a certain type of boxer.
Even Ali had a certain style that he struggled with and that was with ken norton.
I would also say the pacquiao and marguez trilogy are a good example of a certain style.
Pacquiao could never fully get to grips with him because the style Marquez used negated his aggression most of the time

Great example, spot on... Green K. I think the Marquez trilogy is a great example because Marquez had an answer for the linear speed that makes Pacquiao so dangerous.

[billeau2]

I agree with that.

Though I think sometimes we try to attach a greater point about certain styles to individual fighters who lose a given fight in order to justify a loss. When the truth is sometimes guys just arent on their game.

So check out this post from Rockin regarding the Hagler Hearns fight:

"Did you hear about the dressing room of Hearns being ultra crowded and Emmanual left for a few for some reason. He comes back and finds a hanger on rubbing down Hearns legs. That's about the last thing that he expected, or wanted, to see. Steward kicked everybody out of the dressing room immediately, he was pissed. This is just a few minutes before leaving for the ring.........."Rockin'

IMO this post is a perfect example of your point. I think the notion that boxers are human, seldom in the best condition possible, with NO caveats!! is a terrifying reality to the bookies, the trainers, the prognosticators, etc...

Its one reason I feel that preclassical boxing prior to Dempsey was a different game. In a kind of Paradox because guys fought all the time, I think the "human element", being injury free, at one's best, was trampled over equally because of how much those guys fought. It probably was a given that fighers had injuries, maybe fatigue from last fight, aches/pains, etc. It created a veritable equal playing field.

Unfortunely the system won't let me give you green K yet. I don't know why the system does that...
__________________

[DeeMoney]

So check out this post from Rockin regarding the Hagler Hearns fight:

"Did you hear about the dressing room of Hearns being ultra crowded and Emmanual left for a few for some reason. He comes back and finds a hanger on rubbing down Hearns legs. That's about the last thing that he expected, or wanted, to see. Steward kicked everybody out of the dressing room immediately, he was pissed. This is just a few minutes before leaving for the ring.........."Rockin'

IMO this post is a perfect example of your point. I think the notion that boxers are human, seldom in the best condition possible, with NO caveats!! is a terrifying reality to the bookies, the trainers, the prognosticators, etc...

Its one reason I feel that preclassical boxing prior to Dempsey was a different game. In a kind of Paradox because guys fought all the time, I think the "human element", being injury free, at one's best, was trampled over equally because of how much those guys fought. It probably was a given that fighers had injuries, maybe fatigue from last fight, aches/pains, etc. It created a veritable equal playing field.

Unfortunely the system won't let me give you green K yet. I don't know why the system does that...
__________________

Yeah, I remember reading that story in that in the Four Kings book a few years back, at least I think it was the four kings book.

But I think you nailed it with how it was Pre-Dempsey being a paradox. Guys fought all the time, so we got a better look at them and a greater sample size to evaluate. But they also fought all the time so were dog tired, hurt, and dealing with so much more variables.

[Anthony342]

Great example, spot on... Green K. I think the Marquez trilogy is a great example because Marquez had an answer for the linear speed that makes Pacquiao so dangerous.

Yeah Pacquiao started to have a tough time with Marquez after the early knockdowns in the first fight, yet Mayweather had an easy time with Marquez in his 1 fight with him.

[The plunger man]

Yeah, I remember reading that story in that in the Four Kings book a few years back, at least I think it was the four kings book.

But I think you nailed it with how it was Pre-Dempsey being a paradox. Guys fought all the time, so we got a better look at them and a greater sample size to evaluate. But they also fought all the time so were dog tired, hurt, and dealing with so much more variables.

yeah I read that in the four kings and steward actually said I knew hearns was done even before the fight.
Hearns As it is never had the strongest legs in the 1st place

[Rick Taylor]

People who know boxing are an incredible resource when one is learning how to look at fighters. I started publishing articles on boxing, all the while trying to learn what to look at, from posters who knew a lot more than I did.

In so doing, I discovered something that makes a lot of sense, and is often revealing, regarding the knowledge of a particular poster. While I mean no disrespect, when one looks carefully at two axioms: "Triangle Theory" versus "Styles make fights" only one is correct. Many posters still use triangle theory, vis a vis the performance of a fighter against a common opponent, as a means to argue the greatness of a fighter... I will show why this is flat out Wrong.

When we use triangle theory, what exactly is it about the common opponent that makes the fighter in question "better" or "worse?" For example, When we say Louis losing to Schmelling, who was beat by max Baer, means Baer potentially could have been more competative with Louis... Why would this be so? What actual reason would suggest such a conclusion? The theory tells us little to nothing about an actual reason.

Now, we could look for specific reasons why Baer might be more competative because of the common opponent (Max Schmelling) but these reasons are unconnected to the theory. If for example, Schmelling found a technical loop hole, and exploited it, how would this make Baer a stronger opponent?

Triangle theory amounts to suppositions drawn from generalizations and assumptions, and little else. The fact that Schmelling found a technical tool to best Louis has nothing to do with his fight and ability against max Baer. There is literally no connection.

On the other hand, when we look at styles as determining a reason for a victory and possible outcome, things make more sense. Lets take the same example above with Baer. Schmelling had a technical style that allowed him to exploit foibles against an opponent, that was a characteristic of Schmelling's approach to boxing. This style initially flumoxed Louis, but did not cause the same problems for Baer. One could draw the conclusion that Schmelling's style was more of a threat to Louis than Baer.

We can isolate what Schmelling actually did to verify this conclusion: Louis dropping his right coming back caused a flaw that Baer did not have. Schmelling's style was more effective against Louis (at least initially) than Baer. The reason specifically was the mechanics of the right... Baer threw his from the shoulders, while Louis threw his from the waist. This positioning allowe Schmelling to time the right coming back and loop his own shot over, before Louis could follow up.

In conclusion, lets discuss both theories. To me? one is specific and verifiable, the other is nebulous, and incapable of empirical validation (tape). I find that people who think they know a lot, and use triangle theory logic, are blind to what the theory implies.

The triangle theory is just an observation of a fighter being better than the other by virtue of being too advanced, i.e. the saying "there are levels to this". However, its an oversimplification of what really gives fighters advantages over others. The term "styles make fights" is an acknowledgement that the dynamics that favor different fighters are more complicated and vary depending on the individual fighter's styles, tendencies, strengths and weaknesses.

You can't fix ******. Like the old saying goes, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".

Wow! All I did was ask "What about the triangular argument: Schmeling-Louis-Baer?" Just asked, that's all I did and I get called ******?

Ok, I get it! . . . For all the complaining you guys do about trolls, you sure your not out there creating them?

Most people actually don't give a f%ck about any of this.

Most "fans" will always be disingenuous to favour and make excuses for "their fighter" and they will always tear down or criticise the other guy.

double standards in boxing are hilarious.

[billeau2]

Most people actually don't give a f%ck about any of this.

Most "fans" will always be disingenuous to favour and make excuses for "their fighter" and they will always tear down or criticise the other guy.

double standards in boxing are hilarious.

Well Most people have a certain amount of interest and knowledge of any particular subject. Its important not to let that stop others from looking at topics in a more circumspect knowledge.

being a fan of the sport is fine, no harm in being partisan for your fighter. the problem comes when individuals mix up these sentiments with legit trying to look at something objectively. Posters like QueenB who are emotionally invested in many implausible ideas and has to belittle those who do not see things irrationally like he does...

And Rusty! Talk about a triangle theory queen! Always talking about how this guy lost to that guy and therefore is... I mean people make incredible errors when they assume this theory has validity. I would sooner ask someone to clean out a sewer...but if you ever had an inclination to read some of the more argumentative threads here, and how various points are argued, you would see the triangle theory applied to support the most ridiculous assertions. Rusty being king in that particular department lol.

[Rick Taylor]

Well Most people have a certain amount of interest and knowledge of any particular subject. Its important not to let that stop others from looking at topics in a more circumspect knowledge.

being a fan of the sport is fine, no harm in being partisan for your fighter. the problem comes when individuals mix up these sentiments with legit trying to look at something objectively. Posters like QueenB who are emotionally invested in many implausible ideas and has to belittle those who do not see things irrationally like he does...

And Rusty! Talk about a triangle theory queen! Always talking about how this guy lost to that guy and therefore is... I mean people make incredible errors when they assume this theory has validity. I would sooner ask someone to clean out a sewer...but if you ever had an inclination to read some of the more argumentative threads here, and how various points are argued, you would see the triangle theory applied to support the most ridiculous assertions. Rusty being king in that particular department lol.

good post.

"Fans" WILL always use triangle theories. Even if they know better

most aren't fans of the sport they are fans of fighters.
or have an agenda whether it be based on race or nationalism.