Originally Posted by JoeAverage
Come on... it should not be hard to understand that this is mostly the case.
But just to humour you let's take a few other ones...
if Froch (A) fought the opponents that Magee (B) beat, he would also beat them (C) most of the time.
if Abraham (A) fought the opponents that Stieglitz (B) beat, he would also beat them (C) most of the time.
Is that better, or you need a billion other examples spelled out to understand this?
While I agree that the "triangle theory" can be helpful in that sense I think it becomes less effective in the sense that you might be applying it.
What I mean is, your thread topic doesn't lay out like A beats B and therefore they beat C most of the time as laid out above. It lays out more like Kessler, AA, and GGG all beat opponent C, who beats him worse shines light on where each fighter is...I don't think that model is all that effective.EDIT: though it might be in this case because I would expect Kessler to beat both.