Can you name boxing fights in history where the triangle theory backfired?

[Owlzfan84]

Alvarado beat Herrera, Herrera beat Ruslan, Ruslan beat Alvarado.

[DoktorSleepless]

Pac, JMM, and Bradley.

[-Kev-]

Ali, Frazier, Foreman is the most used example

That's a good one, but a little tricky. Because Ali went 1-1 with Frazier before fighting Foreman. But I can see how fans felt Foreman KOing Fraizer in 2 rounds, and Ali struggling with Frazier once and decisioning him the second time, lead them to believe Foreman would have no problems with Ali.

[-Kev-]

Pac, JMM, and Bradley.

Hmm, another tricky one because of the disputed scorecards all around that triangle. I want to see some clear cut, dead-wrong triangle theories. But I remember fans feeling that because Marquez knocked Pacquiao out, and Pacquiao supposedly beat Bradley(not in my opinion), that Marquez would beat Bradley(not IMO, I predicted TB would win), and apparently Bradley beat JMM(Again, not in my opinion, scored it a Draw).

[bojangles1987]

Barrera beat Morales, Pac beat Barrera, Morales beat Pac

Forrest beat Mosley, Mayorga beat Forrest, Mosley beat Mayorga.

Floyd beat Corrales, Castillo arguably beat Floyd, Corrales beat Castillo.

Triangle theories backfire a lot.

[The Gambler1981]

That's a good one, but a little tricky. Because Ali went 1-1 with Frazier before fighting Foreman. But I can see how fans felt Foreman KOing Fraizer in 2 rounds, and Ali struggling with Frazier once and decisioning him the second time, lead them to believe Foreman would have no problems with Ali.

Frazier beat Ali then was a big favorite to beat Foreman, Foreman smashes Frazier then becomes a big favorite to beat Ali but Ali smashes him.

Ali then fights Frazier in the third fight and still goes life and death with him

[-Kev-]

If this is not a troll thread, it wouldn't exist. The triangle theory doesn't work in boxing and when it happens to be "correct" it's a coincidence.

It's a shame someone who I thought was a knowledgable poster actually puts weight on something so mythical and irrelevant as triangle theories in boxing.

What ever your opinion of me is, good, bad, ugly, knowledgeable, stupid, dumb, I respect it.

This thread was actually thought of by me when I read a fantasy fight on FB between Monzon and Leonard and some one said Monzon beats Leonard because he beat Napoles and the FB member feels that Napoles beats Leonard and that's why he'd have Monzon beating SRL.

I disagreed with him and said triangle theories don't work, and was curious to see how many times it has failed. I was actually gonna post this in the history section to avoid posts like yours or any other verbally violent disputes with my thread, or false accusations, but the history section does not get the traffic and amount of answers I would like to see.

Regardless, I do see you green k'd me earlier today for a "good post" in NSB, but if you feel I am bad poster now, or not knowledgeable, or whatever, the ignore button is there for a reason. Feel free to use it.

[LoadedWraps]

I disagreed with him and said triangle theories don't work, and was curious to see how many times it has failed. I was actually gonna post this in the history section to avoid posts like yours or any other verbally violent disputes with my thread, or false accusations, but the history section does not get the traffic and amount of answers I would like to see.

If you disagree with triangle theories make that clear in the OP, and posting it in the history section would have gotten the same response from me because I also read and post there for the exact same reason you stated, it's really the only place to seriously discuss boxing, NSB is infested with trolls and alts.


Either way, the notion of triangle theories is ridiculous and goes against the logic of style mismatches, adaptability in the ring, growth as a fighter, the physical/mental state of the fighter on the night of the fight, weight, training camps, training methodologies, schools of thought, heart, and the unpredictable nature of boxing in itself.

[Jack Napier]

outside NSB, you don't hear triangle theories being used
the scenario explained in the OP has happened plenty of times
when guys fight common opponents, it's bound to happen
but people flat out basing a prediction on a triangle theory?
that doesn't happen in the real world
sometimes fighters A and B fight in a similar style
it's ok to make a comparison then on how fighter C does vs A and B
but the "he lost to him so he'll lose to this guy" is just NSB garbage
people here just use that to discredit fighters they don't like

[-Kev-]

If you disagree with triangle theories make that clear in the OP, and posting it in the history section would have gotten the same response from me because I also read and post there for the exact same reason you stated, it's really the only place to seriously discuss boxing, NSB is infested with trolls and alts.


Either way, the notion of triangle theories is ridiculous and goes against the logic of style mismatches, adaptability in the ring, growth as a fighter, the physical/mental state of the fighter on the night of the fight, weight, training camps, training methodologies, schools of thought, heart, and the unpredictable nature of boxing in itself.

Every one else seems to be participating nicely, with no false accusations of me being a troll or my thread having an ulterior motive. So I don't think I had to make my OP more clear for you. It was clear enough when I said not flaming.

When I think of history section I think of IronDan and other posters, didn't know you posted there until now that you say it.