Does Lomachenko hide a despicable glass chin?

By the way with all whispers about loma coming to the UK to Fight The Mighty Turbo, you can be sure that chin gets checked.

 

Lep, All of 'em going down, going down.

 

As you may have gleaned from my earlier post on this matter, I stated the axiom in mathematical terms.

As such, it's veracity is rigorous beyond debate or dispute.



{ Respected posters } ∩ { Chincheckers } = Ø

 

That's where you erred.

It is.

One can be a respectable poster, or one can be a chin checker.

But not both.


In other news, and with the same degree of rigour, there are no undefeated losers, no honest liars, no white blackbirds, etc.

If you don't like maths, then maybe the Queen's will help you. Think of definitions, lad.

By definition, a chinchecker cannot be respected on this forum.



Hope I've given you a clue.

 

LOL, HAHAHA, are you serious? Check his amateur record and pro record. You don't fight with his style with a suspect chin!

 

Is this what this forum has degraded down to? Urgh.

 

This...

 

I have been watching Loma since the WC's in Chicago where he lost his first and only amateur fight. Clearly he has no issues with his chin but I suspect it is far from iron. Martinez got his attention, perhaps even buzzed him slightly with a right hand.

 

Set theory.

( BTW, how far did you get in school ?)

We have sets which contain elements.

E.g.

Let R be the set of red objects inside my house. The elements of this set might be my red rug, the cherry I'm eating, the red notebook on the table, the wife's red knickers, etc.

Let C be the set of clothing items in my house. The elements of C might include my socks, my coat, the wife's blue scarf, the wife's red knickers, etc.

And let G be the set of items in my garage: The elements of G might include the rake, the lawn mower, my car, etc.



You're with me so far ?

Good.


Now the intersection of of two sets consists of elements that are in both sets, and has the symbol: ∩

In the example above, R ∩ C = Wife's red knickers.

This is because the wife's red knickers belongs to both R and C, since they are both red, and are an item of clothing.

Still with me ?

Good.


Now, if a set has NO elements at all, we call it the empty set and it has the symbol Ø

In the example above, C ∩ G =Ø

This is because there are no items of clothing that are inside my house and also in my garage.

This is because if such an item were inside my house, it could not also be in my garage. Fairly straightforward.


Similarly, there are no respected posters who are also chincheckers.

This is because if a poster were a chinchecker, he could not be a respected poster.



And this is as much time as I'm prepared to devote to your education. By now, the point should be crystal clear.
As clear as an azure sky on a summer's day, as clear as distilled water, etc

 

Well, Mr_Farage, you did ask most politely:

And since you seemed a reasonably polite sort, I took it that, having asked for the education, you would avail yourself of it when provided.

So yes.