Taking a look at Monzon's six best wins

This enter passage!lol Nobody bought your assassination of Monzon and next time they will be ready for it and even less impressed.Epic Fail!!!!!

 

Yeah he was stunned hum a few times!!lol

 

Tyson having a better chin than Frazier doesn't shame me ,why on earth would it? Frazier makes my top 15 all time at heavyweight.

Quoting me out of context does nothing for your already damaged beyond repair credibility.
You created this thread to continue to compulsively disparage Monzon, instead of which you got your anus ripped out!LOL
Not one single poster agreed with your silly propaganda and you are left as usual, looking absolutely stupid!

Hoist with your own petard! S'wonderful ,S'marvellous!!!!!!!LOL

 

You're not a poster, you're a virus!
You've been made to look the **** you are .Ground Hog Day yet again!

 

I am aware @mcvey has clashed with yourself, but I don't see that point having any bearing on this thread and what you have conveyed within it.

I went there in this post:

[url]https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/taking-a-look-at-monzons-six-best-wins.612682/page-5#post-19346682[/url]

I shan't be going there again.

Neither have you.

Clearly not; since, what I wrote has obviously gone over your head...

...and, have you got any idea how disordered you appear, with displays of self-aggrandizement like this?^^

I have acknowledged the facts; just not your interpretation of them.

Wow! How does it feel to be breaking ground that seemingly no one has adequately explored before, let alone ever seen the results of before now?

Yeah - I have learned something; that you could probably benefit greatly from a vacation (somewhere remote, with no internet service).

 

Ouch nailed once again!lol

 

I agree with some of the points you are making when it comes to a logic and fairness. That being said, as you well know often times in debates you don't make your opponents argument for them. Your argument is for your side of the equation and it's up to your foe to dispute those points and retort with points of his own for you to retort. There is no obligation to make your argument fair, nor make an argument for your foe right?

 

Yes and no. And, by that I mean, in normal circumstances, what you are suggesting would be reasonable. However, I think I should also point out that, by making a fair case, I mean putting forward an argument that makes sense; the merits of which are answerable.


A few things about the proposer and the opposer...

If someone presents a poor argument, based either on false premise(s) or sheer invalidness, then the counter-argument is just that - and, it is a sensible response, if the false premises or invalidness can be demonstrated. In this case, I think I have adequately shown the failure of the argument itself. So, this addresses your point about arguing my side of the equation.

In addition, it's quite interesting that you have raised the aspect of the proposer not making the opposer's argument for them when, in this particular instance, the proposer has done just that - petitio principii.

And, if a would-be opposer is left 'begging the question', in the face of the proposition, then this usually means that, in order for any real discussions to begin, they will have to effectively breakdown and rebuild (or a least play a part in rebuilding) the case for the proposer. I think most people here have the savvy to predict where that would end up on this thread.

I do not think that I or anyone else is obligated to unpick a badly composed argument, simply to facilitate the commencement of a rational debate. My suggestion instead would be that the proposer go back to the drawing board and rework the argument; perhaps, in a way which finds the supposition(s) or premise(s) a little closer to the conclusion(s).

Just a thought or three.

 

Monzón is a legend and his record as well as opposition is exceedingly strong.
Not to pile on Mendoza I do like his thinking outside the box and challenging conventional wisdom from time to time.

 

I've heard it all now .. From Monzon fighting Argentinian cab drivers to he came around at the right time, like he didn't pay his dues, to he had weak defense. Monzon had around 100 Amateur fights He was underdeveloped when turning pro. A lot of these fights he wasn't even expected to win because he was in with more experienced fighters. He surprised a lot of people... He beat Jorge early in his career in '66, a fighter who had previously went at it with Emile Griffith 3 times. And Monzon beat him again to prove it was no fluke. It's like people have never heard of Amilcar Brusa before.. He has trained 14 world champions. If my memory serves me, What is that 2nd most of all trainers whoever have walked this planet? And you want me to believe that there wasn't tough boxing going on in Sante Fe and at Luna Park around Brusa? Give me a break … In addition to being a golden gloves champ, Brusa also had a wrestling background which he incorporated into Monzon's game with defensive twists, grappling, and smothering .. Anyway, that's what I have to say

 

I don't disagree with anything you said from a logical point of view and a logical progression point of view. So you'll see no arguments from me about his "premise" being unsound or fallacious at it's core. My only contention was with the word fair in the facts he's presenting. You likely meant, stating facts but then qualifying them with the appropriate context when needed. In other words, in a debate, you qualifying your remarks with context (fairness) isn't necessarily required in a debate. That is all I was saying.

 

Agreed. However, whilst context/fairness might not necessarily be required, it does in the main help a discussion along, when present.