khan vs diaz + undercard

[SaadOffTheDeck]

That's spot on, his chin isn't as bad as people say (though it's bad for a world class fighter). If it was he would have just been knocked out again. Duane Bobick had a glass chin, Amir Khan does not.

[crusader]

Saying a fighter will get stopped by one of the best punchers in the division and then saying it's because he's chinny is laughable.

I haven't suggested it can't be a deciding factor

So can it or can't it? And if it can, why is it laughable to suggest that he would lose because he's chinny?

That isn't saying his chin isn't the deciding factor. I think Khan's chin will be the exact deciding factor, you've misinterpreted what I was saying. I'm saying that a puncher as big as Mattysse knocks out guys with good chins, using a theoretical KO by him as an example of a poor chin is a terrible example, a KO by Paulie Mallignaggi would be a good example of a poor chin.

Ok.

Your initial claim clearly reads to me like you think it's laughable to suggest that Khan's poor chin could be a decisive factor (i.e. that Khan would lose to a puncher because he's chinny), and 'DMA1987' seems to be defending that position. I get your point now though.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

And I'm surprised that none of the people who act like his chin explodes every time he gets touched ever mention his heart.

[DMA1987]

I'm not reaching at all.

Khan's poor chin may prevent him from surviving in situations which more durable fighters could survive, and that could lead to a Khan loss when he would've otherwise won.

The argument is getting pretty convoluted. Making a point about how Khan losing to Matthyse proves a bad chin, which is wrong, is a long way from where you are now taking this. I don't disagree with your point, but I don't think it is the point the initial poster was making tbh. And so my answer didn't consider it.

[Blodhemn]

Saying Khan isn't chinny is even more laughable.

Who said that?

You dun did. "I'm not saying he isn't but he isn't".

That's how you worded it, holmes.

[crusader]

I'm not reaching at all.

Khan's poor chin may prevent him from surviving in situations which more durable fighters could survive, and that could lead to a Khan loss when he would've otherwise won.

The argument is getting pretty convoluted. Making a point about how Khan losing to Matthyse proves a bad chin, which is wrong, is a long way from where you are now taking this. I don't disagree with your point, but I don't think it is the point the initial poster was making tbh. And so my answer didn't consider it.

From what you two said (e.g. 'cause Mattysee stops fighters with decent chins, saying he would beat Khan because he has a bad chin is absurd.') it seemed clear to me that you thought Khan's poor chin couldn't be a deciding factor in a bout between him and a big puncher. Despite seemingly explicit statements of support for that position, you apparently don't hold that position so I have no more issues.

[Blodhemn]

That's how you worded it, holmes.

I think Khan is chinny, he gets clipped and hurt by shots that wouldn't hurt most fighters at this level, I would never say he wasn't chinny. I just don't think his chin is as bad as people make it out to be, is that really so hard to get?

How do you know how bad people think his chin is? It's obviously weak, does it really need to be magnified to determine the degree of weakness up the decimal ladder?

[Blodhemn]

I'm being redundant like you were in discussing Khan's degree of chinniness.

[DMA1987]

I'm not reaching at all.

Khan's poor chin may prevent him from surviving in situations which more durable fighters could survive, and that could lead to a Khan loss when he would've otherwise won.

The argument is getting pretty convoluted. Making a point about how Khan losing to Matthyse proves a bad chin, which is wrong, is a long way from where you are now taking this. I don't disagree with your point, but I don't think it is the point the initial poster was making tbh. And so my answer didn't consider it.

From what you two said (e.g. 'cause Mattysee stops fighters with decent chins, saying he would beat Khan because he has a bad chin is absurd.') it seemed clear to me that you thought Khan's poor chin couldn't be a deciding factor in a bout between him and a big puncher. Despite seemingly explicit statements of support for that position, you apparently don't hold that position so I have no more issues.

Just because it could, doesn't mean it wasn't an absurd example. Me agreeing with your statement doesn't change that fact. Like I said, this is far from the point the original statement was making.

[polecateddy]

I think Amir is becoming a matchmakers nightmare. Finding credible opponents he won't lose to is now difficult to say the least!

[crusader]

Just because it could, doesn't mean it wasn't an absurd example. Me agreeing with your statement doesn't change that fact. Like I said, this is far from the point the original statement was making.

It's not remotely absurd or laughable to suggest that Khan's poor chin could be the deciding factor in a bout with a big puncher, just as it isn't absurd to think that it could be the deciding factor if he fought an average puncher or below average puncher. All you have to do is think of a scenario that Khan couldn't survive with a poor chin but could survive with a better chin, or one in which he loses decisive points (e.g. for being dropped or for holding when hurt) he wouldn't have lost if his chin were better.

If the original statement was that losing to a big puncher doesn't suggest that Khan has a poor chin, I agree. However, claims such as 'cause Mattysee stops fighters with decent chins, saying he would beat Khan because he has a bad chin is absurd' and 'saying a fighter will get stopped by one of the best punchers in the division and then saying it's because he's chinny is laughable' explicitly deny, at least in letter, that Khan's poor chin could reasonably be considered a decisive factor in a bout with a big puncher.

[crusader]

Because Mattysee stops fighters with decent chins, saying he would beat Khan because he has a bad chin is absurd

This states that it is absurd to claim that LM would beat Khan because Khan has a bad chin. How is that not an explicit denial that it's reasonable to suggest that Khan's poor chin would be the deciding factor in a bout with LM?

[DMA1987]

Just because it could, doesn't mean it wasn't an absurd example. Me agreeing with your statement doesn't change that fact. Like I said, this is far from the point the original statement was making.

It's not remotely absurd or laughable to suggest that Khan's poor chin could be the deciding factor in a bout with a big puncher, just as it isn't absurd to think that it could be the deciding factor if he fought an average puncher or below average puncher. All you have to do is think of a scenario that Khan couldn't survive with a poor chin but could survive with a better chin, or one in which he loses decisive points (e.g. for being dropped or for holding when hurt) he wouldn't have lost if his chin were better.

If the original statement was that losing to a big puncher doesn't suggest that Khan has a poor chin, I agree. However, claims such as 'cause Mattysee stops fighters with decent chins, saying he would beat Khan because he has a bad chin is absurd' and 'saying a fighter will get stopped by one of the best punchers in the division and then saying it's because he's chinny is laughable' explicitly deny, at least in letter, that Khan's poor chin could reasonably be considered a decisive factor in a bout with a big puncher.

That would make far more sense though wouldn't it? Would prove the chin issues much more would it not?

And how does it deny that his chin could be a factor? How does it deny that at all?

So whilst Khan may lose to Matthyse because of a poor chin, it is ridiculous to use being KO'd by a big puncher as an example of somebody being chinny. I can't believe you don't see that.

[crusader]

Because Mattysee stops fighters with decent chins, saying he would beat Khan because he has a bad chin is absurd

This states that it is absurd to claim that LM would beat Khan because Khan has a bad chin. How is that not an explicit denial that it's reasonable to suggest that Khan's poor chin would be the deciding factor in a bout with LM?

Because you're leaping from one thing to the other. I never made one comment regarding the deciding factor, you brought that up completely.

'Because Mattysee stops fighters with decent chins, saying he would beat Khan because he has a bad chin is absurd'

Beating someone because they have a bad chin means their chin was a deciding factor.

[crusader]

That would make far more sense though wouldn't it? Would prove the chin issues much more would it not?

It would and I've never suggested otherwise.

And how does it deny that his chin could be a factor? How does it deny that at all?

'Because Mattysee stops fighters with decent chins, saying he would beat Khan because he has a bad chin is absurd'

Beating someone because they have a bad chin means their chin was a deciding factor, so this claim suggests that it's absurd that a poor chin could reasonably be considered a deciding factor.

So whilst Khan may lose to Matthyse because of a poor chin, it is ridiculous to use being KO'd by a big puncher as an example of somebody being chinny. I can't believe you don't see that.

I can't believe you didn't read the first sentence of the second paragraph in my last response to you. I said "If the original statement was that losing to a big puncher doesn't suggest that Khan has a poor chin, I agree."

[crusader]

I know what you mean now as you clarified earlier in the thread. I was just explaining to the other poster that I interpreted the words to be an explicit denial that Khan's chin would be the deciding factor, and I again explained my reasons for disagreeing with that position.

[Bobbyptsd]

This is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen on here, and I've seen some good ones.

Talk about 2 people who basically agree anyway, arguing for argument's sake. I'm half expecting to see a post to the effect of what the meaning of what the word is, is.

[lefty]

This is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen on here, and I've seen some good ones.

Talk about 2 people who basically agree anyway, arguing for argument's sake. I'm half expecting to see a post to the effect of what the meaning of what the word is, is.

and is IS? ;;-)

[DMA1987]

That would make far more sense though wouldn't it? Would prove the chin issues much more would it not?

It would and I've never suggested otherwise.

And how does it deny that his chin could be a factor? How does it deny that at all?

'Because Mattysee stops fighters with decent chins, saying he would beat Khan because he has a bad chin is absurd'

Beating someone because they have a bad chin means their chin was a deciding factor, so this claim suggests that it's absurd that a poor chin could reasonably be considered a deciding factor.

So whilst Khan may lose to Matthyse because of a poor chin, it is ridiculous to use being KO'd by a big puncher as an example of somebody being chinny. I can't believe you don't see that.

I can't believe you didn't read the first sentence of the second paragraph in my last response to you. I said "If the original statement was that losing to a big puncher doesn't suggest that Khan has a poor chin, I agree."

And it has to be worded exactly like that does it? It can't be implied? If it can, and you have agreed with me, then why are you still going on?

And stop putting quotes up which aren't mine.

[Bobbyptsd]

This is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen on here, and I've seen some good ones.

Talk about 2 people who basically agree anyway, arguing for argument's sake. I'm half expecting to see a post to the effect of what the meaning of what the word is, is.

and is IS? ;;-)

The jury is still out on that.

[DMA1987]

This is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen on here, and I've seen some good ones.

Talk about 2 people who basically agree anyway, arguing for argument's sake. I'm half expecting to see a post to the effect of what the meaning of what the word is, is.

and is IS? ;;-)

The jury is still out on that.

Well call them back in Bobby, people need to know.

[crusader]

That would make far more sense though wouldn't it? Would prove the chin issues much more would it not?

It would and I've never suggested otherwise.

And how does it deny that his chin could be a factor? How does it deny that at all?

'Because Mattysee stops fighters with decent chins, saying he would beat Khan because he has a bad chin is absurd'

Beating someone because they have a bad chin means their chin was a deciding factor, so this claim suggests that it's absurd that a poor chin could reasonably be considered a deciding factor.

So whilst Khan may lose to Matthyse because of a poor chin, it is ridiculous to use being KO'd by a big puncher as an example of somebody being chinny. I can't believe you don't see that.

I can't believe you didn't read the first sentence of the second paragraph in my last response to you. I said "If the original statement was that losing to a big puncher doesn't suggest that Khan has a poor chin, I agree."

And it has to be worded exactly like that does it? It can't be implied? If it can, and you have agreed with me, then why are you still going on?

And stop putting quotes up which aren't mine.

You agreed with the position expressed in those quotes, and I've never claimed that you were their source, so I don't see what's wrong with posting them in responses to you.

The issue was that I initially misinterpreted what DD meant, leading to disagreement. He clarified what he meant, I agreed with him, and I stopped replying until you responded with 'Just because it could, doesn't mean it wasn't an absurd example. Me agreeing with your statement doesn't change that fact. Like I said, this is far from the point the original statement was making.'

I expressed agreement with the initial point intended by you and DD, addressed the other points, and then DD started denying that his comments explicitly suggested that Khan's chin's could be a deciding factor. The argument thereafter is about semantics--which we disagree about--not something we agree on.

[DMA1987]

You agreed with the position expressed in those quotes, and I've never claimed that you were their source, so I don't see what's wrong with posting them in responses to you.

The issue was that I initially misinterpreted what DD meant, leading to disagreement. He clarified what he meant, I agreed with him, and I stopped replying until you responded with 'Just because it could, doesn't mean it wasn't an absurd example. Me agreeing with your statement doesn't change that fact. Like I said, this is far from the point the original statement was making.'

I expressed agreement with the initial point intended by you and DD, addressed the other points, and then DD started denying that his comments explicitly suggested that Khan's chin's could be a deciding factor. The argument thereafter is about semantics--which we disagree about--not something we agree on.

No mate, you gave me a smartly worded answer which claimed I was backtracking. Which brought about my response.

But do you know what, I do not care anymore, seriously. I get your stance, I don't really appreciate it, your just being obtuse, but I can accept it. And vice versa.

[Bobbyptsd]

I'm not being obtuse, you're being obtuse, and here's a quote proving it.

[lefty]

God some seriously dodgy music going down in Argentina