BoxRec

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑01 Dec 2020, 14:24

Steveh583 wrote: ↑01 Dec 2020, 10:00

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑01 Dec 2020, 09:12

Fair enough mate. It’s not isolated to this subject. I just find it incredibly pathetic to be calling Dubois a quitter just doesn’t sit well. This is a guy who spends his time living in Chris Eubanks arsehole.

yeah its not a nice term for what they give is it. yeah hes obsessed lol. tell you what tho, no quit in Eubank was there?

Nope no quit. It’s also easy to see how the 2nd Watson fight effected his output and ‘killer for nstinct’ for the worse.

It’s a sport and I don’t want to watch anyone die or be seriously injured.

I’ve been contemplating the origins of this ‘out on your shield’ stuff and I wonder if it was instilled into the common fighting man by the toffs who used to bet so rabidly on the outcomes back in the early days of organised fighting. If someone didn’t give life or death effort I imagine they’d be ridiculed and cut out of the earnings, perhaps flung in gaol.

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑01 Dec 2020, 19:41

dookus wrote: ↑01 Dec 2020, 15:10

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑01 Dec 2020, 14:24

Nope no quit. It’s also easy to see how the 2nd Watson fight effected his output and ‘killer for nstinct’ for the worse.

It’s a sport and I don’t want to watch anyone die or be seriously injured.

I’ve been contemplating the origins of this ‘out on your shield’ stuff and I wonder if it was instilled into the common fighting man by the toffs who used to bet so rabidly on the outcomes back in the early days of organised fighting. If someone didn’t give life or death effort I imagine they’d be ridiculed and cut out of the earnings, perhaps flung in gaol.

Could be that. My guess is a) as you say, boxing used to be even more closely identified with gambling than it is now b) for a large chunk of its history (i.e. before the Queensbury Rules) the winner of a fight was decided by who gave up first, so c) it became part of the culture for those backing the loser to blame the fighter for their lack of heart / quitting etc, regardless of why they did so. So even though the rules are totally different now, the reflex remains

Aye true mate, fights to a finish.

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 10:44

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑01 Dec 2020, 19:41

dookus wrote: ↑01 Dec 2020, 15:10 Could be that. My guess is a) as you say, boxing used to be even more closely identified with gambling than it is now b) for a large chunk of its history (i.e. before the Queensbury Rules) the winner of a fight was decided by who gave up first, so c) it became part of the culture for those backing the loser to blame the fighter for their lack of heart / quitting etc, regardless of why they did so. So even though the rules are totally different now, the reflex remains

Aye true mate, fights to a finish.

interesting idea

Coco wrote: ↑01 Dec 2020, 21:15 Could DD have gone on? Yes

Did DD choose to end the fight? Yes

Was he spent? Probably

Would he have won if he had have continued? Unlikely

Did DD take the sensible option for his health? Yes

Would Eubank have continued? Yes
Would Benn pre McClleland have continued? Yes
Would Bellew have continued? Probably not

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 11:50

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 10:44

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑01 Dec 2020, 19:41

Aye true mate, fights to a finish.

interesting idea

I know the term out on your shield is much older but you know what am getting at mate.

Jimmy2020 wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 11:56

Coco wrote: ↑01 Dec 2020, 21:15 Could DD have gone on? Yes

Did DD choose to end the fight? Yes

Was he spent? Probably

Would he have won if he had have continued? Unlikely

Did DD take the sensible option for his health? Yes

Would Eubank have continued? Yes
Would Benn pre McClleland have continued? Yes
Would Bellew have continued? Probably not

You don't think Benn could have got up quicker than he did from the Watson jab?

jameswilson wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 12:40 What do people think about Jose Luis Castillo vs Hatton?

I see it as the same as Dubois. Cracked ribs. fornicate this live to fight another day,

Coco wrote: ↑01 Dec 2020, 21:15 Would Bellew have continued? Probably not

TheGman wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 13:02

jameswilson wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 12:40 What do people think about Jose Luis Castillo vs Hatton?

I see it as the same as Dubois. Cracked ribs. fornicate this live to fight another day,

De La Hoya vs Hopkins? Another quitter

Cyclops wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 13:37

TheGman wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 13:02

jameswilson wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 12:40 What do people think about Jose Luis Castillo vs Hatton?

I see it as the same as Dubois. Cracked ribs. fornicate this live to fight another day,

De La Hoya vs Hopkins? Another quitter

Hopkins v Dawson 1: QUIT.

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 13:39

Cyclops wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 13:37

TheGman wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 13:02

De La Hoya vs Hopkins? Another quitter

Hopkins v Dawson 1: QUIT.

a very fitting username for this discussion

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 13:39

Cyclops wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 13:37

TheGman wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 13:02

De La Hoya vs Hopkins? Another quitter

Hopkins v Dawson 1: QUIT.

a very fitting username for this discussion

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 12:09

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 11:50

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 10:44

interesting idea

I know the term out on your shield is much older but you know what am getting at mate.

I'd not really thought of it in those terms, but it may have something to it

the spectacle of 'fans' spitting venom, because (what Jimmy would call) entertainers aren't prepared to suffer quite enough for their amusement, is certainly an unedifying one. Ultimately i think the roots of the reason it makes me uncomfortable lie in exactly the image you evoke; braying toffs betting on their favorite pet commoners/blacks (in the case of the Deep South mandingos). It's a pretty depressing picture isn't it.

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 11:50

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 10:44

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑01 Dec 2020, 19:41

Aye true mate, fights to a finish.

interesting idea

Some guys live the rest of their lives in pain and ill health just to say ‘I ain’t no quitter’...who cares you only have one life why make it worse for other peoples benefit

Tuan_Jim wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 15:43

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 12:09

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 11:50

I know the term out on your shield is much older but you know what am getting at mate.

I'd not really thought of it in those terms, but it may have something to it

the spectacle of 'fans' spitting venom, because (what Jimmy would call) entertainers aren't prepared to suffer quite enough for their amusement, is certainly an unedifying one. Ultimately i think the roots of the reason it makes me uncomfortable lie in exactly the image you evoke; braying toffs betting on their favorite pet commoners/blacks (in the case of the Deep South mandingos). It's a pretty depressing picture isn't it.

Gentlemen, I think your obsession with class may be pathological.

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 20:26

Tuan_Jim wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 15:43

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 12:09

I'd not really thought of it in those terms, but it may have something to it

the spectacle of 'fans' spitting venom, because (what Jimmy would call) entertainers aren't prepared to suffer quite enough for their amusement, is certainly an unedifying one. Ultimately i think the roots of the reason it makes me uncomfortable lie in exactly the image you evoke; braying toffs betting on their favorite pet commoners/blacks (in the case of the Deep South mandingos). It's a pretty depressing picture isn't it.

Gentlemen, I think your obsession with class may be pathological.

Do you have a theory Jim?

Tuan_Jim wrote: ↑03 Dec 2020, 04:13

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 20:26

Tuan_Jim wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 15:43

Gentlemen, I think your obsession with class may be pathological.

Do you have a theory Jim?

In The Odyssey, an aggressive tramp runs his mouth at Odysseus and gets drawn into a boxing match with him. As Odysseus removes his robes and the tramp sees his physique ("His boxer's breadth of shoulder") his first instinct is to flee--but he knows he can't because he would lose face, and so takes his beating like a man in front of a crowd of amused onlookers. This scene would not have been strange to Homer's audience, the notion of manliness, honour and fighting to the finish not only being part of the warrior culture, but human nature itself. It predates your dreaded "toffs" by several thousand years, and makes you sound like a pair of marxist kooks.

Tuan_Jim wrote: ↑03 Dec 2020, 04:13

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 20:26

Tuan_Jim wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 15:43

Gentlemen, I think your obsession with class may be pathological.

Do you have a theory Jim?

In The Odyssey, an aggressive tramp runs his mouth at Odysseus and gets drawn into a boxing match with him. As Odysseus removes his robes and the tramp sees his physique ("His boxer's breadth of shoulder") his first instinct is to flee--but he knows he can't because he would lose face, and so takes his beating like a man in front of a crowd of amused onlookers. This scene would not have been strange to Homer's audience, the notion of manliness, honour and fighting to the finish not only being part of the warrior culture, but human nature itself. It predates your dreaded "toffs" by several thousand years, and makes you sound like a pair of marxist kooks.