Page 2 of 2
Re: Should Enzo Maccarinelli Retire?
Posted: 28 Mar 2012, 13:06
by Old bones Ian
I agree with some of that, but should Warren just walk away from Enzo, if the boxer is determined to continue?
Re: Should Enzo Maccarinelli Retire?
Posted: 28 Mar 2012, 13:34
by NazNaci1
He should do, but he won't. Not because of some blind loyalty, though it will be dressed up as such, but due to the fact that there is potential money to be made. And that, whether we agree or not, is the crux of the matter and the overiding principle, ahead of all else.
Re: Should Enzo Maccarinelli Retire?
Posted: 28 Mar 2012, 13:46
by captainmerton
I have followed his career and although i have felt he should probably have retired before now i incorrectly believed his wild technique when always seeming to want a tear up had caused him to take some really big shots and that perhaps with some control in his boxing he might have a career if he was willing to box his way to victory. However, after the other night I agree with all of the posts above. He should be forced to retire. That wasnt a big shot and his legs were completely gone. I think if the last 47 secs had been allowed to run i think it would have been Frenkel2. Someone is going to permanantly damage his health.
On another note some of his match ups of late are beyond belief. Frenkel was a huge puncher nearly all wins by KO and never beaten. Why would you put in a chinny has been against that. And the other night again why was he fighting at cruiser again its crazy.
On another note Mac has a really really bad habit of finding excuses. He always seems to lose due to "one silly loss in concentration".
He should retire immediately. At leasy he won the fight and did his dad proud brave to come back and he can go out on a win and british title. He's actually a really good summarisier on the boxing commentary so should retire and get involved in that immediately.
Re: Should Enzo Maccarinelli Retire?
Posted: 28 Mar 2012, 16:10
by Final round
Trojans44 wrote:His licence should be revoked. People need to understand the medical evidence which underlies the glib statement 'his punch resistance has gone.' Each concussion you suffer make it more likely you will suffer another. Getting knocked out is an extremely serious concussion. Even a small number of concussions massively increase the chances of dementia, depression, brain damage and all manner of other horrific health problems. When a fighter is getting knocked down every time he is caught cleanly, what that actually mean is that he has done so much cognitive damage to his brain, that he is now getting concussed far more easily than before. Its extremely dangerous. Boxers should not be allowed to fight anymore after 3 knockout losses and all fighters should regard their careers as short term.
Very good post, some fighters should remember the very sad plight of Howard Clarke
http://www.boxing-monthly.co.uk/content/1004/three.htm
I wonder how he is now, far worse I imagine..
Re: Should Enzo Maccarinelli Retire?
Posted: 28 Mar 2012, 16:29
by Trojans44
In fairness to Warren I've heard him publicly encourage fighters, even money makers, to retire.
Re: Should Enzo Maccarinelli Retire?
Posted: 28 Mar 2012, 18:50
by desperados
Trojans44 wrote:His licence should be revoked. People need to understand the medical evidence which underlies the glib statement 'his punch resistance has gone.' Each concussion you suffer make it more likely you will suffer another. Getting knocked out is an extremely serious concussion. Even a small number of concussions massively increase the chances of dementia, depression, brain damage and all manner of other horrific health problems. When a fighter is getting knocked down every time he is caught cleanly, what that actually mean is that he has done so much cognitive damage to his brain, that he is now getting concussed far more easily than before. Its extremely dangerous. Boxers should not be allowed to fight anymore after 3 knockout losses and all fighters should regard their careers as short term.
i agree with you trojans, you make alot of sense in relation to a fighters long term health in regards to suffering bad KO's.
i disagree however with the bit about not being allowed to carry on after 3 ko's. How can you put a number on such a thing. And what is the criteria for the KO's? Would it be clean, KO's in the vein of Hatton vs PAcquiao. Or would it also include KO's caused more from the fighter being ground down and extremely tired, perhaps in the vein of Tony Thomson vs Vlad Klitchko? In which case, a boxer could be strike 1 of 3 in terms of his career ending, even though he hasn't actually suffered significant damage.
I agree with your post in principla, just not equating a number of KO's, but rather more intense medical advice & reports after a KO.