Here are some statements from Eddie Hearn about the upcoming Jake Paul vs Anthony Joshua fight:
1. “I have no real defence of Anthony Joshua versus Jake Paul. It's crazy that it's happening and I think the critics are spot on.”
2. “No boxer in their right mind would have said no. Anyone who says they would are completely lying through their teeth.”
3. “We took a fight that we believe will be very straightforward, will give AJ a huge profile in America and one of his career-high paydays.”
4. “So there's a method to this madness and taking this fight does not affect AJ's legacy. But losing to Jake or it even going the distance would. It would be an absolute disaster and awfully embarrassing.”
5. “Just like he did against Francis Ngannou, he will go in there, measure him up and then go in with the heavy artillery.”
6. “Once AJ lands, it's over. If he hits him clean, he will knock him spark out.”
7. “I expect my fighter to win inside two rounds with a devastating knockout.”
🤔 Your turn: Where’s the fallacy? Which thinking traps can you spot in these statements?
Highlighted sentences link to their corresponding truth blocks. Click any highlighted sentence to jump to its detailed analysis.
Highlight Colors Indicate Content Type & Quality:
Strong Reasoning - Clear logic & evidence
Moderate - Some structure, could improve
Weak Reasoning - Fallacies or poor logic
ℹ️ Not Evaluable - Questions, personal statements (not poor quality)
Note: Gray highlights with dashed borders (ℹ️) indicate content like questions or personal experiences that aren't meant to present logical arguments. Low scores on these don't mean poor quality!
Source