Is Algieri better than Broner? He beat Taylor more easily

[The Hammer]

Actually no they don't base odds on the Triangle theory, odds makers are a little more savvy than that.

The odds depend on many factors specif the the individual fight, for example if Pac and JMM fought for the 5th time would JMM be favored because he knocked out Pac in the last fight?

Of course not, Pac would be the favored

But Pac won most of the rounds of that last fight, and overall looked to be the better fighter than JMM.

Algieri easily defeated Taylor, a more cautious defensive boxer, and defeated Provodnikov, an aggressive fighter.

Broner struggled against Taylor, and lost to Maidana, who is an aggressive fighter like Provodnikov.

[Slick Veteran]

Algieri didn't fight a motivated experienced Taylor, he didn't win three titles in three weight classes. Broner is better based off what he accomplished alone and Ruslan Prodvodnokov is overrated, he isn't smart and know how to take advantage of fighters when they are hurt. He becomes even more one demensional which allows fighters to adjust and time his rhythm. Simple put, Ruslan sucks.

[2fast2strong]

But Pac won most of the rounds of that last fight, and overall looked to be the better fighter than JMM.

Algieri easily defeated Taylor, a more cautious defensive boxer, and defeated Provodnikov, an aggressive fighter.

Broner struggled against Taylor, and lost to Maidana, who is an aggressive fighter like Provodnikov.

Ok so?

It is still based on the Triangle Theory, which is fine if you buy into it, but I myself do not

And neither do the odds makers

[HEND]

I think Algieri is a better fighter right now but using the Taylor fights as examples is a bad arguement because style makes fights.

[Gods We Faked]

Actually no they don't base odds on the Triangle theory, odds makers are a little more savvy than that.

The odds depend on many factors specif the the individual fight, for example if Pac and JMM fought for the 5th time would JMM be favored because he knocked out Pac in the last fight?

Of course not, Pac would be the favored

I didn't say they based odds off a triangle theory only that

it *suggests* that one is better than the other based on an outside factor without actually having to prove it by fighting each other.

[FrankieBruno]

No fan of Broner, but they are about the same level

Styles make fights, just because one boxer beat such and such more impressively means nothing in the great scheme of things

Broner is a C+ level fighter like Chris A

[IronDanHamza]

Who's better Foreman or Ali?

Ali struggled badly with Norton and Frazier.

Foreman destroyed both in a few rounds.

[hectari]

^^ this..

styles make fights, not to mention the fact that fighters perform differently on a nightly basis.

im not saying broner is better than algieri or would beat him. but someone who considers himself a true boxing fan like OP should know better than to make a triangle theory.

whatever fits the agenda i guess..

I guess Mayweather fans or anyone who says Floyd beats Manny because Floyd outclassed Marquez don't know **** about boxing.

I agree triangle theories do not work, but it seems that theory that the Floyd fans use to say why Floyd would have beat a prime Pacquiao is always okay for some reason.

Even though Floyd and JMM are two entirely different counter punchers, yet that triangle theory keeps getting brought up to justify why Pac loses to Floyd bad.

if that theory was right Bradley would have whooped Pacman easy since he outclassed and outworked Marquez.

[2fast2strong]

I didn't say they based odds off a triangle theory only that

Actually that is EXACTLY what you said:

*Betting odds do the same thing, very few people regard them as worthless.*

[icha]

hard to tell until they fight each other... too different to make a comparison...