Was Usyk robbed of a KO (Video)

Luf, you really do need to stop not making sense.

One of my favorites is that the referee didn't intervene due to Fury being at risk of serious or permanent injury, but...because Fury didn't suffer serious or permanent injury, the referee was proven to have made the right call when he did intervene.

Now that's thinking outside the box! Edward de Bono would be proud.

 

Defend against what, exactly? You’ve added nothing but the same empty rhetoric since the beginning. Looking back, I never really needed to 'defend' my position because you never once addressed the actual argument.

In your last few posts, you’ve only reinforced what we already knew about your approach to debate. So, what’s left to defend? You’re just a wheel of nonsense spinning in free space.

Well done, you’ve successfully knocked out arguments that only ever existed in your own imagination. A real masterclass in shadowboxing.

 

Oh bless you I realise your mistake now, it's a comprehension issue.

Go back and read the posts quick before you go further into this hole.

I've broken it down as slow as I can for you, in the name of civility, so give it a re read, understand your issue and then slowly back away like Homer.

 

Lots of refs stop a normal match by 1:19 of the video, let alone 1:34 - can't say Nelson was remiss in not stopping it, but he did give Fury benefit of the doubt beyond what many fighters would get.

 

See your message above.

 

Your lack of self awareness is simply astonishing.

Multiple posters have already proven you wrong. Your inability to come to terms with that, along with your lack of humility, isn't my problem.

But hey, it's not you who's wrong, it's everyone else right?

 

Well, yet again, that was a lot of hot air laced with your usual, acutely false narratives. Well divorced from the facts. Very desperate and still very much lost in the forest. Maybe you need to hug a tree.

 

Okay Luf, prove you wrong and your show of humility is blinding. You’ve haven’t broken anything down - but, by all means, keep repeating that you did, mantra like - if that helps you.

 

I’ve already answered and refuted the multiple poster claim - but just keep repeating yourself without meat - it’s what you do. Trolling in. You’re the last person to be talking about humility - as I’ve already highlighted in due detail.

 

Here's a clue, well a clue for you, for anyone else it would be a clear proof but I'm hoping you can get there.

When you said "Calls to stop a fight are made in the moment - when a fighter cannot viably continue and when he is also at risk of permanent damage in THAT moment"

And I replied "Risk of serious injury in that moment. The ref has to make a judgement call and since Fury didn't suffer serious injury in that moment the decision to not end the fight was correct."

You've completely misunderstood what I was saying. Now that's understandable since I've recently realised English isn't your first language and therefore you might not understand it's nuances.

What I did was use your statement as a starting point and then I explained why the ref was correct.

I'll go over the explanation again for you as slow as I can though.

Risk of serious injury in that moment - this was your point, and I was using it to make clear this was going to be the starting point of my response.

The ref has to make a judgement call - here I am implying the risk is entirely at the refs discretion, failing that the corner will throw a towel in if they think the ref is allowing it to go on too far.

And since Fury didn't suffer serious injury - this is where we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, in the moment we do not have this, but since the fight has finished we do have this now.

The decision to not end the fight was correct - we know Fury wasn't seriously injured. We know Fury was able to finish the fight and continue. With these two in mind there's no logical conclusion that fight should have ended, when we know it didn't and Fury was able to continue.

As always, thanks for continuing this exchange squire.

 

Given the scale of the essays full of nonsense you post (which on a 'size-to-usefulness' ratio are astoundingly pointless), the above is quite choice coming from you. Probably a projection on your part, though. Empty rhetoric is your specialty, remember?

More to the point is that you haven’t actually refuted any of my arguments so, no --- in words you would typically use, ‘I’m on point.’

You can’t even pin a single logical fallacy to my case. You can only insinuate such, Mr. ‘I know how to apply [Logical Fallacies] practically and correctly.’

Your effort on this thread has been disastrous, though I doubt you have the self-awareness to realize it. But to be fair, it has been amusing (and, at times, hilarious) spectating while you punch yourself in the face over and over again.

 

Sure MM. Dream the dream.

Man, the machine is breaking down quickly.

Still desperately trying to ply false narratives, one after another, still trying to defend when he said he was beyond that.

Speaking with a forked tongue, yet again.

Addressing just one point of contention, among the many you didn’t actually defend.

Remind me why it was okay and acceptable for the ref to assist Fury back to his corner.

If he’d made him a cup of tea between rounds I guess that would’ve been okay also??? Good Lawd.

You immediately went quiet on that after my sound and perfectly logical refutation.

Basically, you’re talking out of your proverbial.

You mentioned essays. Well isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black? Such a killer debating style.

 

No, you need to re-read yourself, and very, very slowly at that….and mind the actual context you wrote it in - you didn’t just make the statement to me - you made it to others, including when you thought it was standing 8 count - such a confused lad you are. All over the place.

 

So, go ahead---cite a single fallacy from my argument that you can clearly identify and provide evidence for. You might think you have already, but you haven’t---not one.

If you can’t do that, it’s time to pack up and go home. And no more vague insinuations or rhetorical smoke---provide specifics, or admit that you’ve got nothing concrete to back your claims.

 

You've realised now haven't you, I can tell. No hard feelings mate these things happen, especially when English isn't your first language.

We've already dealt with the 8 count situation, I've no qualms whatsoever holding my hands up, this is exactly what I'm hoping you'll take from this. A bit of humility.

Atleast now I know why you felt I'd switched horses though, you hadn't really been clear on where your error was until you said I was thinking outside the box, that was when I realised what you'd done wrong, but hopefully now I've pointed it out to you, you also realise too.

Thanks for the convo squire.