Comments Thread For: Eddie Hearn hopes to sign Bam-Martinez within two weeks

[IronDanHamza]

i moved no goalposts sir. you made what is called a straw man argument. if you look what i wrote i said he won a belt then fought rungvisai who was #1. obviously the thing that proves it wasnt a cherry pick is the time it took him to fight rungvisai which was instantly. time was the major factor in that argument. I also wrote floyd waited 5 years to fight cotto. i see you didnt address that? i wonder why? because it defeats your entire argument! time was the major factor used in both those arguments, not the rankings but you are trying to conflate the two to your advantage but you got caught and exposed.

if you look at the timeline floyd ducked cotto and cherry picked him later, if you look at the timeline bam did not duck rungvisai and fought him instantly. so yes floyd cherry picked and bam didnt. yes they were both ranked #1 which i never disputed? thats when i started talking about the rankings at 154, their recent wins and losses etc...which show cotto was much more on the slide than rungvisai and rungvisai had a far superior resume etc.... cotto even lost to austin trout right after floyd so at 154 he was 1-2 against top 10 opponents. not good? rungvisai was 3-2. much better.

im sure you would agree bam wasnt waiting years and years to fight rungvisai right? im sure you would agree floyd and cotto were supposed to fight in 2007 right? im sure you would agree floyd and cotto didnt fight until 2012 right? im sure you would agree cotto was ko'd twice between 2007 and 2012 right? now that you have all that evidence can you really say it wasnt a cherry pick by floyd?

i just think that win over #6 yuri foreman is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your argument. rungvisai had 3 #1 wins and yes i realize they were years before fighting bam which i take into account, but im not going to say well hes completely done because in his last fight against a top guy he lost 7-5 to estrada, no shame in that and shows he still was a top guy. in cottos last fight against a top guy he lost 10 rounds before being ko'd, oh but he beat yuri foreman 2 years before fighting floyd...ok that shows he still has something left but the gulf between yuri foreman and estrada is huge wouldnt you agree?

That is not even remotely close to a strawman fallacy. This is I think maybe the 6th or 7th time you have incorrectly accused someone of using a fallacy. I’d advise you to go back to where you found that fallacy book and do more than read the first page to save further embarrassment.

How have you NOT moved the goalposts there? It’s the literal epitome of what you’ve done. Your argument was “it doesn’t make sense” for Rungvisai to be a cherry pick because he was ranked #1….When confronted on the fact on the same day you’ve called another #1 ranked fighter a cherry pick you have then literally moved the goalpost and made a list of different arguments that had nothing to do with that you said to try and justify what is blatant hypocrisy. That is the literal epitome of moving the goalposts.

It’s very simple. If using a #1 ranking as a reason of legitimacy form win. You can’t then turn around and call another #1 ranked fighter a cherry pick. You literally can’t do that.

Forget the fact Rungvisai had not and has still not beaten a ranked fighter in over half a decade around that fight.

You can’t use rankings to support your argument when it autos you and then ignore them when it doesn’t. It’s one or the other. You cant “use context” when it doesn’t suit your argument and then totally ignore context when it does.

[kiaba360]

Why not? Nakatani is very confident he would fold Bam. I tend to agree.

When it's all said and done, Inoue could be the most meaningful fight in Nakatani's career; it would be extremely dumb to jeopardize it.

[daggum]

That is not even remotely close to a strawman fallacy. This is I think maybe the 6th or 7th time you have incorrectly accused someone of using a fallacy. I’d advise you to go back to where you found that fallacy book and do more than read the first page to save further embarrassment.

How have you NOT moved the goalposts there? It’s the literal epitome of what you’ve done. Your argument was “it doesn’t make sense” for Rungvisai to be a cherry pick because he was ranked #1….When confronted on the fact on the same day you’ve called another #1 ranked fighter a cherry pick you have then literally moved the goalpost and made a list of different arguments that had nothing to do with that you said to try and justify what is blatant hypocrisy. That is the literal epitome of moving the goalposts.

It’s very simple. If using a #1 ranking as a reason of legitimacy form win. You can’t then turn around and call another #1 ranked fighter a cherry pick. You literally can’t do that.

Forget the fact Rungvisai had not and has still not beaten a ranked fighter in over half a decade around that fight.

You can’t use rankings to support your argument when it autos you and then ignore them when it doesn’t. It’s one or the other. You cant “use context” when it doesn’t suit your argument and then totally ignore context when it does.

you literally made up an argument that i didnt make, then you argued against that fake argument. that definitionally is a straw man. you literally just did the same thing again in your 2nd paragraph. that wasnt my argument at all. what you did was take a piece of my argument which was mentioning rungvisai was #1, you isolated it, left the most important part of my argument out which was the timeframe not the ranking, and then argued against it. problem is i didnt say that. i never ever said if you are #1 it is or is not a cherry pick. its dependent on the context(which we will get to) you are the one who said I said that. that is the definition of a straw man and you obviously dont know what that is because you keep doing it, or you know what it is but because you dont have any heft or substance to your argument you keep doing it.

you are the one ignoring the context which makes my entire argument... and here is the context for you...floyd waited 5 years before he fought cotto. floyd waited until cotto was ko'd twice before fighting him. that is the context that is important. your argument was entirely devoid of context because you know it exposes floyd and how he ducked cotto. did bam wait 5 years before fighting rungvisai? no. did he wait till rungvisai was ko'd twice? no. so we have established floyd cherry picked and bam didnt based on the context. what seems to be the problem?

you seem mad that someone dared to point out floyd cherry picked cotto when cotto wasnt at his best and you are using cotto's #1 ranking(which he shouldnt have been) as a way to create false equivalencies. if you want to say rungvisai wasnt at his best when bam fought him thats fine, i actually just said the same thing but the difference is bam didnt wait for rungvisai to not be at his best, and floyd did for cotto. on top of that i simply think rungvisai was a much better fighter when they fought and ill mention why once again...

rungvisai had 3 wins over the #1 guy at 115, cotto had 1 top 10 win at 154 over the #6 guy. resume advantage to rungvisai.

rungvisai's last fight against a top guy was a close loss, cottos last 2 fights against top guys were ko losses. freshness and career trend advantage to rungvisai.

rungvisai being 35 isnt ideal but many fighters are very good in their mid to late 30s while some have fallen off by 32. the context matters. i didnt see rungvisai fall off personally, maybe he did behind the scenes but i judge what happens in the ring. i saw cotto fall off hard in the ring.

rungvisai not fighting anyone ranked for 3 years is not ideal but once again its been done before, just look at fury vs wilder. difference is bam is 10 times the fighter wilder is so rungvisai ended up losing. last time we saw rungvisai on the top level he showed he could complete, last time we saw cotto on the top level...he couldnt and i dont believe a win over mid level foreman or a crippled martinez redeems him much but thats just my opinion.

[BlackRobb]

When it's all said and done, Inoue could be the most meaningful fight in Nakatani's career; it would be extremely dumb to jeopardize it.

I personally think Nakatani folds Bam at 118 and doesn't fear that fight at all. His chances against Bam are much better than his chances against Monster at 122.

[famicommander]

I personally think Nakatani folds Bam at 118 and doesn't fear that fight at all. His chances against Bam are much better than his chances against Monster at 122.

Bam is 25 and Nakatani is 27, there's plenty of time for that fight and even if Inoue knocks him out it's still a fight Nakatani can pursue later.

On the other hand, if Bam were to beat Nakatani, Inoue has zero use for Nakatani at that point. Inoue is already planning on moving up to 126 in December and then BACK down to 122 for one fight to face Nakatani. He's about to turn 32 years old, he's not going to wait around for Nakatani to establish himself at 122 after a loss at 118. He'll just stay at 126.

It's not that Nakatani fears Bam, it's that it's just too big of a fight to take before the Inoue fight. There is a very limited window for the Inoue fight to take place.

Win, lose, or draw with Inoue, Nakatani vs Bam can still happen. But a loss against Bam means Inoue simply moves on without Nakatani.

[kiaba360]

Bam is 25 and Nakatani is 27, there's plenty of time for that fight and even if Inoue knocks him out it's still a fight Nakatani can pursue later.

On the other hand, if Bam were to beat Nakatani, Inoue has zero use for Nakatani at that point. Inoue is already planning on moving up to 126 in December and then BACK down to 122 for one fight to face Nakatani. He's about to turn 32 years old, he's not going to wait around for Nakatani to establish himself at 122 after a loss at 118. He'll just stay at 126.

It's not that Nakatani fears Bam, it's that it's just too big of a fight to take before the Inoue fight. There is a very limited window for the Inoue fight to take place.

Win, lose, or draw with Inoue, Nakatani vs Bam can still happen. But a loss against Bam means Inoue simply moves on without Nakatani.

I do think Inoue/Naka could still be a big match-up even if Naka loses to Bam, but it depends on the quality of the performance. I think my greater issue with Naka's career is the lack of unifications. I have no insight about Japan's boxing politics, but it appears like Naka now has a great opportunity to become 118lb Undisputed because his fellow titlists are also Japanese.

The criticisms that are being levied towards Bam can also apply to Naka. However, it's understandable why they aren't each other's #1 priority. Bam would be foolish to turn down a Choco/Ioka fight if presented to him due to the historical importance of having all "4 Kings" on his resume....and Naka would be foolish to prioritize Bam over Inoue because of what that event could do for Japanese boxing. Typically, one of the ways to become a star is for the young to defeat the old. A good example of this method is ODLH who defeated aging stars like JCC/Camacho/Sweet Pea during his ascent. Ideally, the young wants to defeat the older star just as he's about to leave their prime, so that the quality of the victory is considered valuable in real time. Obviously Choco/Ioka are on their descent, but have still shown the capability and desire to compete at world-level. If Bam does fight them, he'd be unwise to treat those fights as foregone conclusions.

[IronDanHamza]

you literally made up an argument that i didnt make, then you argued against that fake argument. that definitionally is a straw man. you literally just did the same thing again in your 2nd paragraph. that wasnt my argument at all. what you did was take a piece of my argument which was mentioning rungvisai was #1, you isolated it, left the most important part of my argument out which was the timeframe not the ranking, and then argued against it. problem is i didnt say that. i never ever said if you are #1 it is or is not a cherry pick. its dependent on the context(which we will get to) you are the one who said I said that. that is the definition of a straw man and you obviously dont know what that is because you keep doing it, or you know what it is but because you dont have any heft or substance to your argument you keep doing it.

No, I didn't do that in any way what so ever.

I quite literally used your exact argument, which was, Rungvisai was ranked #1 therefore it's not a cherry pick. That was your argument. I then used the exact same argument. So no, I didn't change anything so not a strawman.

You, then, went ahead and moved the goalposts and changed your argument because you were called out on it.

What are you talking about timeframe? You didn't mention a single thing about timeframe in regards to Rungvisai. You know we can see the post, don't you? You said he was Ring #1, that's it.

you are the one ignoring the context which makes my entire argument... and here is the context for you...floyd waited 5 years before he fought cotto. floyd waited until cotto was ko'd twice before fighting him. that is the context that is important. your argument was entirely devoid of context because you know it exposes floyd and how he ducked cotto. did bam wait 5 years before fighting rungvisai? no. did he wait till rungvisai was ko'd twice? no. so we have established floyd cherry picked and bam didnt based on the context. what seems to be the problem?

you seem mad that someone dared to point out floyd cherry picked cotto when cotto wasnt at his best and you are using cotto's #1 ranking(which he shouldnt have been) as a way to create false equivalencies. if you want to say rungvisai wasnt at his best when bam fought him thats fine, i actually just said the same thing but the difference is bam didnt wait for rungvisai to not be at his best, and floyd did for cotto. on top of that i simply think rungvisai was a much better fighter when they fought and ill mention why once again...

rungvisai had 3 wins over the #1 guy at 115, cotto had 1 top 10 win at 154 over the #6 guy. resume advantage to rungvisai.

rungvisai's last fight against a top guy was a close loss, cottos last 2 fights against top guys were ko losses. freshness and career trend advantage to rungvisai.

rungvisai being 35 isnt ideal but many fighters are very good in their mid to late 30s while some have fallen off by 32. the context matters. i didnt see rungvisai fall off personally, maybe he did behind the scenes but i judge what happens in the ring. i saw cotto fall off hard in the ring.

rungvisai not fighting anyone ranked for 3 years is not ideal but once again its been done before, just look at fury vs wilder. difference is bam is 10 times the fighter wilder is so rungvisai ended up losing. last time we saw rungvisai on the top level he showed he could complete, last time we saw cotto on the top level...he couldnt and i dont believe a win over mid level foreman or a crippled martinez redeems him much but thats just my opinion.

Mate I don't know how to make this easier for you but your argument was it's not a cherry pick because he was ranked #1. That is what you said. The rest of the goalpost moving has now been added in after, which is fine. You've been forced to retract that argument at this point.

But your new one doesn't wash either because Rungvisai was just as much on the slide, that's just a fact. So you can't have both arguments.

Oh yeah, "not ideal" I'm sure you'd feel the same way if the shoe was on the other foot and eloquently deem it "not ideal" instead of what it actually is.

4 years with no ranked wins, not 3 and no ranked wins since. If it anyone else but one of your lovers you would deem that, AT BEST, no legit but yet you do here on the basis he was "ranked #1".

Your arguments are CLEAR AS DAY double standards and don't hold up even remotely.

I would probably take a breather and try again. In fact, if I were you I'd drop this picking and choosing when rankings matter thing altogether. It's only going to lead to this same embarrassment for you every time.

[BlackRobb]

I do think Inoue/Naka could still be a big match-up even if Naka loses to Bam, but it depends on the quality of the performance. I think my greater issue with Naka's career is the lack of unifications. I have no insight about Japan's boxing politics, but it appears like Naka now has a great opportunity to become 118lb Undisputed because his fellow titlists are also Japanese.

The criticisms that are being levied towards Bam can also apply to Naka. However, it's understandable why they aren't each other's #1 priority. Bam would be foolish to turn down a Choco/Ioka fight if presented to him due to the historical importance of having all "4 Kings" on his resume....and Naka would be foolish to prioritize Bam over Inoue because of what that event could do for Japanese boxing. Typically, one of the ways to become a star is for the young to defeat the old. A good example of this method is ODLH who defeated aging stars like JCC/Camacho/Sweet Pea during his ascent. Ideally, the young wants to defeat the older star just as he's about to leave their prime, so that the quality of the victory is considered valuable in real time. Obviously Choco/Ioka are on their descent, but have still shown the capability and desire to compete at world-level. If B125tham does fight them, he'd be unwise to treat those fights as foregone conclusions.

Just one correction: DLH got a little bit of a gift vs. Sweet Pea. I scored the fight a draw only because Pea played around in the 12th.

Also, I don't think astute boxing fans would consider a Bam victory over Chocolatito or Ioka to be transformative. It would simply be name-padding at this point. Bam has done enough of that already.