*** The Mafaufau Sita aka David "Tuaman" Tua champ-by-40 Express!!! ***

How is "maybe" a contradiction of "can"???????????????????????? Are you really that stupid? atsch

"I can beat a grizzly bear in a fight" means that this is a potential outcome. It doesn't mean it's the be-all end-all absolute and only possible outcome. It simply means that it's a maybe as opposed to an "absolutely not". "Can", "could", "possibly", "maybe", "probably", "implausibly" - while they differ in exact meaning these all coexist in the grey area between the predictive absolutes "will" and "will not". Some lean more in one direction and are more affirmative language, and some lean in the other and are more negative language. When I say Chagaev can "maybe" beat Tua, "but probably not" - that language is negative in Chagaev's favor and positive in Tua's. It is consistent with saying that Tua beating Chagaev is a potential outcome - and the one I view as likelier (consistent with the claim I made in the first place). Not absolute.

Clear as mud? :good

 

He can beat those fighters at 70% = he maybe beats those fighters at 70%. These statements are congruous - do you not see that?

And it wasn't an argument in the first place until you made it into one with your smartass contention. It was a simple affirmation that Tua has a good chance head to head against anyone but the Klitschkos. It was a rejection of the notion that he "absolutely can not" beat anyone except the Klitschkos. If anything other than saying "He absolutely positively demolishes anyone but the Klitschkos" or "He absolutely positively loses to all top ranked heavyweights" is a meaningless affirmation, well so be it. I'm not retracting the statement because you find it meaningless. I stand by it and at no point have contradicted it. :good

 

Is English not your first language? In this case I feel bad for picking on you. Let me then on that assumption condescend a litte:

Nope. It means I doubt he WILL ABSOLUTELY do this. Putting maybes fully supports (and in no way contradicts) saying that he CAN do this.

Starting to get the picture? Language can be a very subtle and nuanced thing; simply rushing toward making the point you want to make or pushing the agenda you want to push without paying attention to details and ensuring that you fully comprehend what you're commenting on is a slippery slope.

 

In what way does saying "maybe he'd win, and maybe they'd win - but he probably wins" indicate he doesn't have the ability, or that there are doubts he has the ability? If there's doubt expressed it's of the certainty of any outcome. Not of the potential of given outcome. All I ever said to begin with is that he has the potential. I never claimed the certainty of particular outcome. I said "he can". That statement indicates potential, not certainty. Checkmate, pal.

 

Whatever. Do you even understand what I'm saying? Is this a matter of comprehension or are you just screwing around because you have nothing better to do?

 

I never said I didn't have doubts about the outcome of any particular match-up. I've maintained that I have no doubts about Tua's potential.

Saying you can't pick up a house is an absolute negation.

Saying Chagaev can maybe beat Tua, but probably not - is not an absolute negation. It's a shade of grey, indicating that the odds are not in his favor. Likewise saying Tua can beat Chagaev is a shade of grey, with my opinion being the odds are in his favor. At no point did I say "maybe" Tua has the ability. I said when the bell rings in real-life applications of hypothetical matchups, he "maybe" loses three of them. That doesn't mean he lacks the ability to win - or that his ability is itself a maybe. The outcome is the maybe. Of course he has the ability to win, just as the opponent does. Maybe one will win and maybe the other. But within that maybe exists room for degrees. I favor Tua in those match-ups. In other words, he can win them at 70% of his peak form. That doesn't mean he absolutely will. It means he can. It means it's not the case IMO that he absolutely can not.

I only ever stated that he can; and never doubted that he can. The whole "he can unless he can't" meaningless argument thing is moot - by saying "he can" I am dismissing the notion that "he can't" - without ever saying that "he will". :good

This whole argument is semantic in nature, and rooted in your refusal or inability to grasp basic nuances of the language. If all you're aiming to prove is that I have doubts (as in lack of certainty) in the outcome of Tua vs. Chambers, Tua vs. Chagaev, and Tua vs. Povetkin - then okay, you win. I guess. Even though I never said the outcome was certain and definite. Only that it isn't the case that Tua absolutely can not win those fights.

 

We'll see next Saturday!

Those of us who spring for it, anyway.