User blog comment:Ultimate Law of Kaitlyn/Why I think Crocodile losing to Luffy was a fluke/@comment-3425840-20120610143405/@comment-4800978-20120610170904

Not everything in a narrative needs to be outright stated, an author realises his audience is capable of independent thought. He implies this with with the conversation between Daz Bones and Crocodile after the war, when they're talking about 'injuries',Daz Bones then suggests that those kinds of injuries (such as emotional, like the death of Ace) do not heal so easily.

Crocodile shares this with Luffy, as his own experience and loses made him give up his dream of becoming the Pirate King. However he himself sees this comment from Daz as implying something, only to then declare his injuries have finally healed, and as proof he plans to re-enter the New World which indicates his spirit has been reignited. It's just a common narrative technique, which relies on the reader being able to infer the true meaning from dialogue or actions such as this.

Can you really say after reading this conversation seriously, that you believe they're only talking about physical injuries and nothing more?