I accept it's not a like-for-like comparison, but I was using Clarke as an example of the right of self-determination, which had been the main thrust of the argument against any kind of third party preventing an adult from doing what they want to do.whicker wrote:Massive differences , though.Deserter wrote:Politely disagree with you both. You only have to look at Howard Clarke in recent weeks to see evidence of someone who should have been prevented from carrying on. The history of boxing is littered with such sad cases.Coco wrote: x2
Clarke took MANY fights, taking many purses and losing.
Yes, Pickering perhaps isn't as good as he once was- but still, he's a capable fighter. I don't see how he's in any more danger now, than before.
Taking fights that he probably won't win is VERY different from taking fights when he shouldn't be boxing any more at all. It's best not to confuse the two.
The difficulty with fighters on the decline or 'shot', is that it's often only with hindsight that you know when they should have stopped, so rest assured I'm not confusing the two. Rather, I'd just prefer to see a fighter such as Pickering who I've rated and enjoyed watching, leave the game with a guarantee of all faculties intact at a point where the reward/risk ratio has become unbalanced for the first time - any fight he has from hereon in will have little prospect of significant financial rewards and increasing risk due to his decline so there's little rational argument for continuing.
I'd hate to see a proud warrior get beaten by guys who weren't fit to lace his gloves in his prime, and let continue to delude himself that it was all just down to 'personal problems' and that he can turn the clock back. If you want a more apt recent example I'd cite Brodie.