Originally Posted by WatchfortheHook
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.
A>B>C holds far the majority of the time. This is often forgotten. But it should also be remembered that it is not a rule without exceptions, so we cannot be certain it holds in any specific fight.
And while it is generally very effective at predicting who beats who on average, it (like you argue) becomes far less effective at predicting 'how well' they will beat someone else. That is true, and although it was what the tread started with it was not what I replied to in that post.. it was whether A>B>C can be used or not.