Was Usyk robbed of a KO (Video)

Luf - I agreed with the post I agreed with. Not your post above. Just straightening you up in your saddle.

 

After inappropriately referencing a ban, let it be known that, with no actual points in tow, you are STILL trying to troll and bait by chiming in on a response addressed to me. Wow.

I know what humility is. It would've/could've been you admitting that you were wrong, not I, as to a material fact (not opinion) re the first AJ - Usyk fight - but that was something you couldn't bring yourself to. As to admitting errors, I have, as and when applicable, they simply haven't been applicable in any of my exchanges with you.

 

I wasn't addressing you buddy.

And as usual you prove my point with your lack of humility. You've already been thoroughly debunked by numerous posters here.

 

But you didn't though, I have broken it down as much as I can by literally posting the exchange.

If by glossing over you mean directly addressing, then yeah sure.

You've been thoroughly bested here. At this point it just feels cruel.

 

I agreed with the post you agreed with, which is not the the post above.

Try to read it again.

 

Opinions are like arseholes everyone has them.

Anyone thinking there opinion has " beaten" somebody else's opinion is an attempt to get out of a debate they can't handle.

Try being a man and going to an actual boxing gym and beating somebody in real life, tough guys.

 

What do you mean by issues with equipment?

 

Gloves

 

There are no hard feelings either way but you have become 'The Poster Boy for Fallacious Reasoning' and your effort here has been the furthest thing from "Logic 101".

I had no intention of responding again but some of what you have posted in response to me listing your fallacy-fest is quite funny and just about worth addressing.


Regarding:

You have exemplified each and every one of the fallacies cited in my previous response to you. They are on record and verifiable as such - I have even provided quotations as reference points to the examples of your multiple Straw Man arguments.

I understand why you have felt the need to dismiss them wholesale - because wholesale in volume they are.


Regarding:

With you being known to me as one of the more level-headed posters I have chatted with before, it's hard to know what to make of what you've posted above.

Given the extent to which this particular point has been discussed already, it's puzzling why you've chosen to latch onto a single word and inflate its significance far beyond what is warranted. You've taken my use of 'reinterpretation' and spun it into an entire narrative, treating it as though it were a critical admission rather than what it actually was - a minor clarification in service of an alternative, context-sensitive perspective.

This tactic of isolating and exaggerating specific terms rather than engaging with the broader substance of the argument is precisely the sort of rhetorical maneuver that detracts from genuine debate.

From the outset, I've maintained a single, consistent counterpoint. I didn't shift or alter my position; rather, I presented an alternative perspective that highlighted the standard role of referee discretion as an essential part of officiating. The ongoing need to clarify this arose only because you repeatedly chose to misrepresent it, framing my argument as if it were an endorsement of your accusation of bias, which it clearly wasn't.

Your claim that I constructed a 'false argument' is entirely unfounded. Even a cursory review of our earlier exchange shows that I directly addressed your implied bias by emphasizing the principle of referee discretion - a fundamental aspect of officiating. My response was not a distortion but a legitimate, context-sensitive rebuttal.

For example, when you used the phrase 'as and when it suits him,' I pointed out that this wording aligns with the very definition of discretion. The referee's job is to adapt decisions based on the context of the fight, not to adhere rigidly to an imagined set of criteria detached from the real-time dynamics in the ring.

Here's what I originally wrote:

Given this, your accusation of a 'false argument' simply doesn't hold. It appears you've misconstrued a valid counterargument as a misrepresentation because it challenged your speculative narrative - likely to avoid addressing it in full (yet another Straw Man with a dash of Red Herring thrown in for good measure ). The only thing 'false' here is your attempt to dismiss my response without engaging with its actual implications.

Moreover, it's quite telling that you were likely aware of what my argument represented from the start, yet chose to repeatedly obfuscate and now construct a rant based on a selective misinterpretation. At this stage, it's clear that your response is the one that's truly disingenuous, wouldn't you agree?'


Regarding:

Your accusation that I deliberately truncated your words for effect is hardly worth addressing, especially given my clear explanation just above.

Even putting that aside, adding the word 'him' doesn't change the meaning in the way you suggest; it was obvious that your implication was about the referee acting according to his own preferences rather than based on context or established rules. This minor addition does not alter the essence of your accusation of bias.

My response engaged directly with the core implication of your statement. Focusing on such a perceived technicality is just another attempt to deflect from the actual substance of the debate. By fixating on this minor distinction rather than engaging with my point about the standard discretionary role of the referee, you only underscore the weakness of your own position.


As for:

Along with your 'so much more to easily knock down...' remark, it should be evident that you haven't successfully refuted a single point. In fact, you haven't knocked anything down at all. Instead, you've only added to your list of logical inconsistencies and have repeatedly avoided engaging with the fundamental core of the counter-argument.

I have no doubt you could 'easily' continue with your parade of Straw Man arguments, Confirmation Bias, False Equivalences, and so on. However, it's precisely this tedious approach that signals the end of any meaningful debate. I've already dismantled your initial assertion---well before you began shifting the goalposts in an attempt to salvage your argument.

Therefore, I stand by my position:

Usyk wasn't robbed of a KO.
There's absolutely no rational case to suggest otherwise.
The Referee clearly has the discretionary right to make that call.


PS: Material evidence does not constitute Proofs, something you were so ardently insisting you had provided. I trust that you now recognize the distinction. Assertions based on selective interpretations are not the same as definitive proof, no matter how forcefully they're presented.

 

As an Usyk fan,I don't subscribe to the narrative that he was robbed of a KO

For all his faults,Fury has EXCEPTIONAL powers of recovery & it was the bell that saved him & with the minutes rest he recovered

If there would of been another 20 or 30 seconds left in the round then Usyk would've finished him

 

He didn't have any issues with gloves.

 

Oh okay so I just dreamed about a heap of folks crying about Hatton, the Hammer fight, Wilder, and some training partner.

Don't be such a fanboy you miss the point bro. Doesn't matter if you agree with them or not, they did cry about it.

 

I think the issue being pointed out is if the ref allowed him to land that last punch, his hand was raised already to punch, and the ref would not have been wrong to allow him to punch, then we don’t know if those powers of recovery would have had any effect. Obviously being at the end of the round was definitely advantageous to fury.

 

At that point Fury had fallen over, so it would be akin to allowing a shot on a fallen opponent which is not legal. Ref made the right call.

 

Folk can cry all they want, it doesn't substantiate their claims.

Gloves are inspected by the opposing team and officials. They're also sealed in front of them too.