BoxRec

Nothing wrong with quitting imo.

It’s just the slave in all of u that wants to force people to try til death.

If a fighter wants to quit, whatever.
Come back better next time.

Guelwaar wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 09:38 a couple of points....yes, you're being PAID to perform...but if you're not being paid ENOUGH to endanger your life for the entertainment of fans, you should give it a decent try (enough to justify your salary) and quit when things start getting really brutal. I actually have more respect for victor ortiz when he quit in the maidana fight saying "i'm a young fighter, i don't need to be taking that kinda damage" or something to that effect, than i do for antoine douglas who took a whole buncha unnecessary shots getting KO'd by spike o'sullivan....what was the point of douglas getting brutalized like that when he coulda just taken a knee?

second point: yes, by quitting, you have in fact lost, as it reflects on your record....but you haven't been physically overpowered or out-performed...you gave up. technically it's a loss...but in reality, we all know there's a dozen other factors that can affect the outcome of a fight....you simply CHOSE not to exhaust those potential alternative outcomes, either because you were not emotionally committed to the fight itself or you were discouraged by events in the ring. that's something very different from the other guy demonstrating superiority in the ring.

1. No amount of money is enough to endanger your life for most people, and yet people do it every single day. I'm not waxing on about honor or anything like that, but if you sign a contract accepting a salary then you cannot bitch that it wasn't enough. The time to decide your worth is before you sign the contract, not once you're standing in the ring. There is nothing "wrong" with quitting in a sport, it's just a sport. But you're acting like it's some sort of victory when it is, in fact, the opposite. And I would be very supportive of withholding purses from someone that takes a fight just to quit. That fighters has defrauded every ticket buyer watching.

2. It's a loss, and the better combatant won that night. Victory in boxing (or any sport) is just a series of small battles that are measured i.e. punch vs. punch resistance, output vs defense etc. If you quite, you remove every single metric from consideration but one: who wants to continue finding to the end of the contract. You lose, and your opponent was superior to you on that night. End of story.

I certainly can't fault a guy for quitting in a one sided fight where he knows in his heart he can't do any better, and he's just going to take a beating. Rigo knew.

It's not a sporting contest anymore once a man is beaten, it's just punishment for the sake of punishment. I'd never fault a guy for knowing when he's had enough, and calling it a night.

I can understand how it is reflected by the Boxing public in general, and I used to be a lot more critical of guys that would quit, but as I grow older I definitely understand. Sometimes this sh*t just ain't worth it.

punchoutsb wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 15:07

Guelwaar wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 09:38 a couple of points....yes, you're being PAID to perform...but if you're not being paid ENOUGH to endanger your life for the entertainment of fans, you should give it a decent try (enough to justify your salary) and quit when things start getting really brutal. I actually have more respect for victor ortiz when he quit in the maidana fight saying "i'm a young fighter, i don't need to be taking that kinda damage" or something to that effect, than i do for antoine douglas who took a whole buncha unnecessary shots getting KO'd by spike o'sullivan....what was the point of douglas getting brutalized like that when he coulda just taken a knee?

second point: yes, by quitting, you have in fact lost, as it reflects on your record....but you haven't been physically overpowered or out-performed...you gave up. technically it's a loss...but in reality, we all know there's a dozen other factors that can affect the outcome of a fight....you simply CHOSE not to exhaust those potential alternative outcomes, either because you were not emotionally committed to the fight itself or you were discouraged by events in the ring. that's something very different from the other guy demonstrating superiority in the ring.

1. No amount of money is enough to endanger your life for most people, and yet people do it every single day. I'm not waxing on about honor or anything like that, but if you sign a contract accepting a salary then you cannot bitch that it wasn't enough. The time to decide your worth is before you sign the contract, not once you're standing in the ring. There is nothing "wrong" with quitting in a sport, it's just a sport. But you're acting like it's some sort of victory when it is, in fact, the opposite. And I would be very supportive of withholding purses from someone that takes a fight just to quit. That fighters has defrauded every ticket buyer watching.

2. It's a loss, and the better combatant won that night. Victory in boxing (or any sport) is just a series of small battles that are measured i.e. punch vs. punch resistance, output vs defense etc. If you quite, you remove every single metric from consideration but one: who wants to continue finding to the end of the contract. You lose, and your opponent was superior to you on that night. End of story.

If Rigo quit after 1 or 2 rounds, or halfway through the 1st you might have a point on withholding his salary, but considering he had been taking an ass kicking which was getting increasingly worse for 5 rounds, I don't know what more you felt you needed to see really.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 15:10

punchoutsb wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 15:07

Guelwaar wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 09:38 a couple of points....yes, you're being PAID to perform...but if you're not being paid ENOUGH to endanger your life for the entertainment of fans, you should give it a decent try (enough to justify your salary) and quit when things start getting really brutal. I actually have more respect for victor ortiz when he quit in the maidana fight saying "i'm a young fighter, i don't need to be taking that kinda damage" or something to that effect, than i do for antoine douglas who took a whole buncha unnecessary shots getting KO'd by spike o'sullivan....what was the point of douglas getting brutalized like that when he coulda just taken a knee?

second point: yes, by quitting, you have in fact lost, as it reflects on your record....but you haven't been physically overpowered or out-performed...you gave up. technically it's a loss...but in reality, we all know there's a dozen other factors that can affect the outcome of a fight....you simply CHOSE not to exhaust those potential alternative outcomes, either because you were not emotionally committed to the fight itself or you were discouraged by events in the ring. that's something very different from the other guy demonstrating superiority in the ring.

1. No amount of money is enough to endanger your life for most people, and yet people do it every single day. I'm not waxing on about honor or anything like that, but if you sign a contract accepting a salary then you cannot bitch that it wasn't enough. The time to decide your worth is before you sign the contract, not once you're standing in the ring. There is nothing "wrong" with quitting in a sport, it's just a sport. But you're acting like it's some sort of victory when it is, in fact, the opposite. And I would be very supportive of withholding purses from someone that takes a fight just to quit. That fighters has defrauded every ticket buyer watching.

2. It's a loss, and the better combatant won that night. Victory in boxing (or any sport) is just a series of small battles that are measured i.e. punch vs. punch resistance, output vs defense etc. If you quite, you remove every single metric from consideration but one: who wants to continue finding to the end of the contract. You lose, and your opponent was superior to you on that night. End of story.

If Rigo quit after 1 or 2 rounds, or halfway through the 1st you might have a point on withholding his salary, but considering he had been taking an ass kicking which was getting increasingly worse for 5 rounds, I don't know what more you felt you needed to see really.

My post wasn't in regards to Rigo. I have no problem with a fighter calling it a day to save him or herself from further punishment.

I have a problem with this guys suggestion that deciding you're not getting paid enough on the way to the ring is justification to quit and then say you're the better fighter because you weren't physically beaten in the ring. He's trying to justify something and this is his roundabout way of doing it.

punchoutsb wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 15:14 I have a problem with this guys suggestion that deciding you're not getting paid enough on the way to the ring is justification to quit and then say you're the better fighter because you weren't physically beaten in the ring. He's trying to justify something and this is his roundabout way of doing it.

I have a problem when a boxer does what his boss does.
When the boxer does it, I think he should be punished with no further work or means to provide.

When the promoter does it, it's his right because his parents gave him money.

How can't you see that this thinking is biased towards one sector of society?

Wait ... you can't ... because you're too stupid to realize you've been taught one-way criticism.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 15:45

punchoutsb wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 15:14 I have a problem with this guys suggestion that deciding you're not getting paid enough on the way to the ring is justification to quit and then say you're the better fighter because you weren't physically beaten in the ring. He's trying to justify something and this is his roundabout way of doing it.

I have a problem when a boxer does what his boss does.
When the boxer does it, I think he should be punished with no further work or means to provide.

When the promoter does it, it's his right because his parents gave him money.

How can't you see that this thinking is biased towards one sector of society?

Wait ... you can't ... because you're too stupid to realize you've been taught one-way criticism.

Can you list me some times when a promoter shut the lights off in the middle a fight because they decided they hadn't earned enough?

punchoutsb wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 15:48

BAD INTENTIONS wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 15:45

punchoutsb wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 15:14 I have a problem with this guys suggestion that deciding you're not getting paid enough on the way to the ring is justification to quit and then say you're the better fighter because you weren't physically beaten in the ring. He's trying to justify something and this is his roundabout way of doing it.

I have a problem when a boxer does what his boss does.
When the boxer does it, I think he should be punished with no further work or means to provide.

When the promoter does it, it's his right because his parents gave him money.

How can't you see that this thinking is biased towards one sector of society?

Wait ... you can't ... because you're too stupid to realize you've been taught one-way criticism.

Can you list me some times when a promoter shut the lights off in the middle a fight because they decided they hadn't earned enough?

Is that all you can see?

What about the promoter shelving fighters for months/years?
What about the promoter not putting on cards because he won't "make enough money"?

You are only focusing on the action in the ring.
Boxing doesn't have the consistency of football, futbol, basketball or baseball,
but you guys keep trying to apply that same logic.

BOTTOM LINE
I'm not judging the fighters WHO ARE 98% STRUGGLING THROUGH THIS MESS,
until the system make just a little sense.
Not even fully logical.
Just a little ...

Is that too much to ask for slave?

BAD INTENTIONS wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 15:53

punchoutsb wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 15:48

BAD INTENTIONS wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 15:45

I have a problem when a boxer does what his boss does.
When the boxer does it, I think he should be punished with no further work or means to provide.

When the promoter does it, it's his right because his parents gave him money.

How can't you see that this thinking is biased towards one sector of society?

Wait ... you can't ... because you're too stupid to realize you've been taught one-way criticism.

Can you list me some times when a promoter shut the lights off in the middle a fight because they decided they hadn't earned enough?

Is that all you can see?

What about the promoter shelving fighters for months/years?
What about the promoter not putting on cards because he won't "make enough money"?

You are only focusing on the action in the ring.
Boxing doesn't have the consistency of football, futbol, basketball or baseball,
but you guys keep trying to apply that same logic.

BOTTOM LINE
I'm not judging the fighters WHO ARE 98% STRUGGLING THROUGH THIS MESS,
until the system make just a little sense.
Not even fully logical.
Just a little ...

Is that too much to ask for slave?

I'm focusing on the point of this thread. You should try it sometime

Guelwaar wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 09:38 second point: yes, by quitting, you have in fact lost, as it reflects on your record....but you haven't been physically overpowered or out-performed...you gave up. technically it's a loss...but in reality, we all know there's a dozen other factors that can affect the outcome of a fight....you simply CHOSE not to exhaust those potential alternative outcomes, either because you were not emotionally committed to the fight itself or you were discouraged by events in the ring. that's something very different from the other guy demonstrating superiority in the ring

He demonstrated his superiority by making you quit...

If you weren't the inferior fighter, on the night, you wouldn't have quit.... Max Baer (who had never been stopped before) stayed on one knee and allowed himself to be counted out in the 4th against Joe Louis after taking a tremendous beating for 3-plus rounds... A reporter asked Baer why he quit with 88,000 fans packing Yankee Stadium .... Max replied, "A few dollars allows these people to see a fight... They saw one... They'll have to pay a Hell of a lot more than that to see a murder."

A justified statement... In other words "If you don't like it, why don't you get in there and fight?"

Kalan wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 16:49

Guelwaar wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 09:38 second point: yes, by quitting, you have in fact lost, as it reflects on your record....but you haven't been physically overpowered or out-performed...you gave up. technically it's a loss...but in reality, we all know there's a dozen other factors that can affect the outcome of a fight....you simply CHOSE not to exhaust those potential alternative outcomes, either because you were not emotionally committed to the fight itself or you were discouraged by events in the ring. that's something very different from the other guy demonstrating superiority in the ring

He demonstrated his superiority by making you quit...

If you weren't the inferior fighter, on the night, you wouldn't have quit.... Max Baer (who had never been stopped before) stayed on one knee and allowed himself to be counted out in the 4th against Joe Louis after taking a tremendous beating for 3-plus rounds... A reporter asked Baer why he quit with 88,000 fans packing Yankee Stadium .... Max replied, "A few dollars allows these people to see a fight... They saw one... They'll have to pay a Hell of a lot more than that to see a murder."

A justified statement... In other words "If you don't like it, why don't you get in there and fight?"

ok, so, I have a buddy named shawn who's a great tennis player...so, one day he's playing a local standout and it's clear shawn is by FAR the better player. but as good as he is, he's not as committed to the sport as some guys....so they play a couple of games and shawn decides he's had enough and calls it off....basically concedes the game because he'd rather be chasing tail or something else...so, in your opinion, the other guy demonstrated his superiority by making shawn quit?

sorry, i reject that notion...it depends on WHY you quit. simply the act of quitting is not by itself an an indication that the fighter who didn't quit is superior.

secondly, professional boxing is PRIZE fighting...that means they fight for MONEY to feed their family and their self and pay their mortgage, etc.

the amount of money a fighter gets will determine how much they're willing to put on the line..

a guy might agree to a fight for $1m....and he might be willing to go so far for that kind of money... but pay him 10M and he'll probably be willing to put a lot more on the line and go to the absolute limits of his physical capabilities...

now, for a thousand or 10 thousand dollars, he'll probably give it a go for a round or two then choose to stay down first time the other guys hurts him. in boxing, as in life, you get what you pay for...

theoretically, if ALL fighters made the same amount of money or at least there was a graduated scale such as in the military where champs made a certain amount and contenders regardless of their fanbase or popularity were paid a predetermined amount, less than the champ but more than lower ranked contenders all according to their rank, but it was a pretty stratified system where fighters could see they were being treated fairly, THEN you would have more cases of fighters putting their best foot forward....but so long as fighters feel they're not being treated fairly and have less incentive to give their all, you'll have cases of fighters who are actually BETTER than the other guy and still end up quitting.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 15:53

punchoutsb wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 15:48

BAD INTENTIONS wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 15:45

I have a problem when a boxer does what his boss does.
When the boxer does it, I think he should be punished with no further work or means to provide.

When the promoter does it, it's his right because his parents gave him money.

How can't you see that this thinking is biased towards one sector of society?

Wait ... you can't ... because you're too stupid to realize you've been taught one-way criticism.

Can you list me some times when a promoter shut the lights off in the middle a fight because they decided they hadn't earned enough?

Is that all you can see?

What about the promoter shelving fighters for months/years?
What about the promoter not putting on cards because he won't "make enough money"?

You are only focusing on the action in the ring.
Boxing doesn't have the consistency of football, futbol, basketball or baseball,
but you guys keep trying to apply that same logic.

BOTTOM LINE
I'm not judging the fighters WHO ARE 98% STRUGGLING THROUGH THIS MESS,
until the system make just a little sense.
Not even fully logical.
Just a little ...

Is that too much to ask for slave?

he can't see because he doesn't WANT to see...but really it's because it's not his problem...and some people have no ability to put themselves in the other guys shoes or to even question their own preconceived notions about things. and it's kinda silly becuase its not that hard to imagine yourself in the other guy's shoes...if you try. he'd probably be the first one to quit in disgust if he was in bob's situation...i seen it all the time...guys talk one thing when it's theoretical, then do a 180 when its their butt in a predicament....his lack of empathy for fighters in that situation is really just a lack of self awareness

Guelwaar wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 22:50

Kalan wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 16:49

Guelwaar wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 09:38 second point: yes, by quitting, you have in fact lost, as it reflects on your record....but you haven't been physically overpowered or out-performed...you gave up. technically it's a loss...but in reality, we all know there's a dozen other factors that can affect the outcome of a fight....you simply CHOSE not to exhaust those potential alternative outcomes, either because you were not emotionally committed to the fight itself or you were discouraged by events in the ring. that's something very different from the other guy demonstrating superiority in the ring

He demonstrated his superiority by making you quit...

If you weren't the inferior fighter, on the night, you wouldn't have quit.... Max Baer (who had never been stopped before) stayed on one knee and allowed himself to be counted out in the 4th against Joe Louis after taking a tremendous beating for 3-plus rounds... A reporter asked Baer why he quit with 88,000 fans packing Yankee Stadium .... Max replied, "A few dollars allows these people to see a fight... They saw one... They'll have to pay a Hell of a lot more than that to see a murder."

A justified statement... In other words "If you don't like it, why don't you get in there and fight?"

ok, so, I have a buddy named shawn who's a great tennis player...so, one day he's playing a local standout and it's clear shawn is by FAR the better player. but as good as he is, he's not as committed to the sport as some guys....so they play a couple of games and shawn decides he's had enough and calls it off....basically concedes the game because he'd rather be chasing tail or something else...so, in your opinion, the other guy demonstrated his superiority by making shawn quit?

sorry, i reject that notion...it depends on WHY you quit. simply the act of quitting is not by itself an an indication that the fighter who didn't quit is superior.

secondly, professional boxing is PRIZE fighting...that means they fight for MONEY to feed their family and their self and pay their mortgage, etc.

the amount of money a fighter gets will determine how much they're willing to put on the line..

a guy might agree to a fight for $1m....and he might be willing to go so far for that kind of money... but pay him 10M and he'll probably be willing to put a lot more on the line and go to the absolute limits of his physical capabilities...

now, for a thousand or 10 thousand dollars, he'll probably give it a go for a round or two then choose to stay down first time the other guys hurts him. in boxing, as in life, you get what you pay for...

theoretically, if ALL fighters made the same amount of money or at least there was a graduated scale such as in the military where champs made a certain amount and contenders regardless of their fanbase or popularity were paid a predetermined amount, less than the champ but more than lower ranked contenders all according to their rank, but it was a pretty stratified system where fighters could see they were being treated fairly, THEN you would have more cases of fighters putting their best foot forward....but so long as fighters feel they're not being treated fairly and have less incentive to give their all, you'll have cases of fighters who are actually BETTER than the other guy and still end up quitting.

Does this happen very often in your eyes? I don't think so...

As to the rest of your post, you have such a simplistic view it hurts. Your buddy Shawn goofing off with friends is not comparable to what you are suggesting for athletes. You decide what you are worth before you agree to participate. If you agree you are worth $500,000 and then decide at the end of round two your are worth one million, it's too late. That fighter is free to quit but that fighter also proved his opponent was superior that night because he removed all other metrics from consideration. This is a sport, it's not life and death. I don't think anyone is suggesting fighters be forced to continue when they want to stop. You seem to glorify the idea of quitting as some sort of moral victory when it is, in fact, not. It is an admission of defeat and could (in cases like you are suggesting) be considered fraudulent.

Guelwaar wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 22:56
he can't see because he doesn't WANT to see...but really it's because it's not his problem...and some people have no ability to put themselves in the other guys shoes or to even question their own preconceived notions about things. and it's kinda silly becuase its not that hard to imagine yourself in the other guy's shoes...if you try. he'd probably be the first one to quit in disgust if he was in bob's situation...i seen it all the time...guys talk one thing when it's theoretical, then do a 180 when its their butt in a predicament....his lack of empathy for fighters in that situation is really just a lack of self awareness

As with everything else you've posted, you're completely wrong.

When I agree to do something, I do it to the best of my abilities. It's the way I was raised. If I agree to do something for a certain amount of money, I do it to the best of my abilities; I don't change my mind because I found out someone else was getting more money than me. Put anyone with a shred of self respect in your fictional mans shoes and he will either A) not accept a fight that doesn't pay what he feels he deserves or B) accept the pay and give it his best go.

I am extremely empathetic towards human beings, not just fighters. It doesn't take empathy to feel the way you do; it takes a misguided view.

Guelwaar wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 22:50

Kalan wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 16:49

Guelwaar wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 09:38 second point: yes, by quitting, you have in fact lost, as it reflects on your record....but you haven't been physically overpowered or out-performed...you gave up. technically it's a loss...but in reality, we all know there's a dozen other factors that can affect the outcome of a fight....you simply CHOSE not to exhaust those potential alternative outcomes, either because you were not emotionally committed to the fight itself or you were discouraged by events in the ring. that's something very different from the other guy demonstrating superiority in the ring

He demonstrated his superiority by making you quit...

If you weren't the inferior fighter, on the night, you wouldn't have quit.... Max Baer (who had never been stopped before) stayed on one knee and allowed himself to be counted out in the 4th against Joe Louis after taking a tremendous beating for 3-plus rounds... A reporter asked Baer why he quit with 88,000 fans packing Yankee Stadium .... Max replied, "A few dollars allows these people to see a fight... They saw one... They'll have to pay a Hell of a lot more than that to see a murder."

A justified statement... In other words "If you don't like it, why don't you get in there and fight?"

ok, so, I have a buddy named shawn who's a great tennis player...so, one day he's playing a local standout and it's clear shawn is by FAR the better player. but as good as he is, he's not as committed to the sport as some guys....so they play a couple of games and shawn decides he's had enough and calls it off....basically concedes the game because he'd rather be chasing tail or something else...so, in your opinion, the other guy demonstrated his superiority by making shawn quit?

sorry, i reject that notion...it depends on WHY you quit. simply the act of quitting is not by itself an an indication that the fighter who didn't quit is superior.

secondly, professional boxing is PRIZE fighting...that means they fight for MONEY to feed their family and their self and pay their mortgage, etc.

the amount of money a fighter gets will determine how much they're willing to put on the line..

a guy might agree to a fight for $1m....and he might be willing to go so far for that kind of money... but pay him 10M and he'll probably be willing to put a lot more on the line and go to the absolute limits of his physical capabilities...

now, for a thousand or 10 thousand dollars, he'll probably give it a go for a round or two then choose to stay down first time the other guys hurts him. in boxing, as in life, you get what you pay for...

theoretically, if ALL fighters made the same amount of money or at least there was a graduated scale such as in the military where champs made a certain amount and contenders regardless of their fanbase or popularity were paid a predetermined amount, less than the champ but more than lower ranked contenders all according to their rank, but it was a pretty stratified system where fighters could see they were being treated fairly, THEN you would have more cases of fighters putting their best foot forward....but so long as fighters feel they're not being treated fairly and have less incentive to give their all, you'll have cases of fighters who are actually BETTER than the other guy and still end up quitting

You're issuing miserably poor arguments.. In the amateurs you get paid NOTHING.. You still fight your ass off like your life depended on it because you want to win every time.... If you're playing tennis and don't give a damn whether you win or lose It's a little like a sparring session... Say you agree to spar 8 rounds, but after 7 rounds you feel a twinge in your knee or whatever.. You say, "I may have pulled a muscle slightly or something, so that's it for me... I'll be back in on Friday if you want to go 8 or 10 or whatever." .... And if he says "Okay, but try to bring a little bit more because I think I won today" .... Some idiots will actually say stuff like that so you agree "Yeah you did well.." ..Shine him on... It was practice so who GAF who won? All you're trying to do is work on skills.. Nobody is keeping score.

And as for fairness... You might meet some kid who's parents sent him to Harvard, and maybe you had to work your way through school and never had much because your dad died when you were 3... Do you give a damn? .... Are you jealous or resent somebody because they have more than you? Some people are worse off than you right? ... Are you going to look down your nose at them? It's a waste of time and energy to worry about somebody else. You could die tomorrow.

I've seen sparring sessions turn into fights... That's for idiots too... Coaches yell at them "WHHOOA... FUK!! STOP PUNCHING!!! Slow down you guys... You're not getting paid for this." .... Some people have no sense... But I don't care if you're getting 10,000 or 300,000 for a fight... Why would you give a damn if the other guy is making more or less than you??? ... You're concerned about what YOU'RE making and concerned about winning... If you don't win the 10,000 dollar fight you'll never get the 300,000 dollar fight, so you train and fight just as well as you can for either amount of money.

Have you heard the expression "Don't work hard....work smart." .... Why not do both?

Guelwaar wrote: ↑18 Dec 2017, 22:59 By that, i mean, of course the guy who quits automatically "loses"...but its just not the same as cases where a guy gives his all and loses to an opponent simply because the opponent is superior to him in whatever way....a bigger puncher, physically tougher, speedier, more skilled, more smarts, etc.

For example, a fighter, lets call him Bob, agrees to contest...Bob later finds out he's being paid only 1/3 of what his opponent is making....even though Bob is the champ and the other guy is a challenger with a relatively undistinguished record. in that case, Bob might be demoralized by the unfairness of the situation and just disgusted with the sport, go out and half-ass it and quit out of spite and bitterness and never set foot in the ring again....the fight goes down on his record as an "L"....but did Bob really LOSE? ....TECHNICALLY he did, but if the point of holding the contest is to find out who the better fighter is, what does his quitting prove?

My view is: It proves NOTHING...a guy could be BETTER than his opponent and still quit, for reasons having little to do with his opponents prowess, resulting in a loss...still doesn't make the other guy better. Unless and until there is a fight with both guys giving their all....and it doesn't have to be wlad-AJ or molina-redkach or even trout-hurd...it could be as one-sided as jacobs arias... at least the loser is trying.

so, i don't believe in always giving credit to fighter who wins a fight due to his opponent quitting....we should look at the circumstances before coming to conclusions about what such a win means...in some cases it might be indicative of dominance....in other cases it will be that the quitter simply checked out of the fight mentally and emotionally for reasons unknown to the public.

i think there are circumstances where the
fans are too harsh when it comes to quitting.
like an injury as with vitali-byrd. of course a
situation like abraham-miranda is admirable,
but it should not be something fans should
request. in the end we are watching men
fight, which is already a morally problematic
situation, since we smart ass from the couch
about people giving and risking their all.

if we do not allow them to quit when they are
injured, we become a savage crowd. a man
has the right to decide for himself when it is
enough, an injury keeping him from fighting
properly justifies him quitting every day of the
week.

yet there is indeed a sort of quitting which seems
indefensible to me. that is a man just seeing
he can't win while he is not hurt or injured.
duran comes to mind. you can't do that, since
you are paid not to win, but paid to fight. and
i do not buy the difficult-circumstance argument
outside of the ring. yes, all sorts of BS happen
in boxing, but once you set foot in the ring on
a specific night, all this is out of the equation,
since you literally signed up for this. not being
paid enough or promoter BS is all well considered
before and outside, once you are in it is on you
and you alone.

regarding quits in situations where a fighter
gave it all and is mentally koed, i might find
it a pity, but sitting from my couch demanding
him to fight till the shield would seem really
inappropriate to me. since in the end i am still
comfortably lying on my couch.

man wrote: ↑24 Dec 2017, 03:56 i think there are circumstances where the
fans are too harsh when it comes to quitting.
like an injury as with vitali-byrd. of course a
situation like abraham-miranda is admirable,
but it should not be something fans should
request. in the end we are watching men
fight, which is already a morally problematic
situation, since we smart ass from the couch
about people giving and risking their all.

if we do not allow them to quit when they are
injured, we become a savage crowd. a man
has the right to decide for himself when it is
enough, an injury keeping him from fighting
properly justifies him quitting every day of the
week.

yet there is indeed a sort of quitting which seems
indefensible to me. that is a man just seeing
he can't win while he is not hurt or injured.
duran comes to mind. you can't do that, since
you are paid not to win, but paid to fight. and
i do not buy the difficult-circumstance argument
outside of the ring. yes, all sorts of BS happen
in boxing, but once you set foot in the ring on
a specific night, all this is out of the equation,
since you literally signed up for this. not being
paid enough or promoter BS is all well considered
before and outside, once you are in it is on you
and you alone.

regarding quits in situations where a fighter
gave it all and is mentally koed, i might find
it a pity, but sitting from my couch demanding
him to fight till the shield would seem really
inappropriate to me. since in the end i am still
comfortably lying on my couch.

good post, man--totally agree

quit = lose

Liston quit twice against Ali

no doubt who was the best though

punchoutsb wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 23:03

Guelwaar wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 22:50

Kalan wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 16:49

He demonstrated his superiority by making you quit...

If you weren't the inferior fighter, on the night, you wouldn't have quit.... Max Baer (who had never been stopped before) stayed on one knee and allowed himself to be counted out in the 4th against Joe Louis after taking a tremendous beating for 3-plus rounds... A reporter asked Baer why he quit with 88,000 fans packing Yankee Stadium .... Max replied, "A few dollars allows these people to see a fight... They saw one... They'll have to pay a Hell of a lot more than that to see a murder."

A justified statement... In other words "If you don't like it, why don't you get in there and fight?"

ok, so, I have a buddy named shawn who's a great tennis player...so, one day he's playing a local standout and it's clear shawn is by FAR the better player. but as good as he is, he's not as committed to the sport as some guys....so they play a couple of games and shawn decides he's had enough and calls it off....basically concedes the game because he'd rather be chasing tail or something else...so, in your opinion, the other guy demonstrated his superiority by making shawn quit?

sorry, i reject that notion...it depends on WHY you quit. simply the act of quitting is not by itself an an indication that the fighter who didn't quit is superior.

secondly, professional boxing is PRIZE fighting...that means they fight for MONEY to feed their family and their self and pay their mortgage, etc.

the amount of money a fighter gets will determine how much they're willing to put on the line..

a guy might agree to a fight for $1m....and he might be willing to go so far for that kind of money... but pay him 10M and he'll probably be willing to put a lot more on the line and go to the absolute limits of his physical capabilities...

now, for a thousand or 10 thousand dollars, he'll probably give it a go for a round or two then choose to stay down first time the other guys hurts him. in boxing, as in life, you get what you pay for...

theoretically, if ALL fighters made the same amount of money or at least there was a graduated scale such as in the military where champs made a certain amount and contenders regardless of their fanbase or popularity were paid a predetermined amount, less than the champ but more than lower ranked contenders all according to their rank, but it was a pretty stratified system where fighters could see they were being treated fairly, THEN you would have more cases of fighters putting their best foot forward....but so long as fighters feel they're not being treated fairly and have less incentive to give their all, you'll have cases of fighters who are actually BETTER than the other guy and still end up quitting.

Does this happen very often in your eyes? I don't think so...

As to the rest of your post, you have such a simplistic view it hurts. Your buddy Shawn goofing off with friends is not comparable to what you are suggesting for athletes. You decide what you are worth before you agree to participate. If you agree you are worth $500,000 and then decide at the end of round two your are worth one million, it's too late. That fighter is free to quit but that fighter also proved his opponent was superior that night because he removed all other metrics from consideration. This is a sport, it's not life and death. I don't think anyone is suggesting fighters be forced to continue when they want to stop. You seem to glorify the idea of quitting as some sort of moral victory when it is, in fact, not. It is an admission of defeat and could (in cases like you are suggesting) be considered fraudulent.

you missed my point. the shawn story is to illustrate that it does matter WHY a fighter quits....fighters quit for many different reasons. sometimes it's because they don't take the sport that seriously and just looking for a quick paycheck. sometimes it's because they were soundly outclassed...or a multitude of other reasons you and i could never conceive. the first scenario proves nothing about who is actually the better fighter. therefore, it's a loss on paper only...in reality, it's inconclusive who the better fighter is. sorry you think it's simplistic, but that's life sometimes.

secondly, fighters agree to a purse for many different reasons. sometimes they need the money and that's the best deal they could get... sometimes it's because they think that's what they're worth...or there could be a multitude of reasons you and i could never understand. the point is that when a fighter accepts a purse he's not necessarily agreeing to anything more than getting into the ring...so, don't expect a fighter who makes crap money to give you a gatti-ward type effort.

and yes, there are times when people have to decide what our priorities are...quitting like victor ortiz did against maidana, and leaving the ring with your faculties intact so you can take care of your family, is far more responsible an act that going beyond your physical limitations like gerald mclellan and ending up with nothing...in the end, nobody cares about mclellan except for a few hardcore fans and nobody cares about ortiz either, but at least ortiz still has his health.

Kalan wrote: ↑24 Dec 2017, 03:44

Guelwaar wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 22:50

Kalan wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 16:49

He demonstrated his superiority by making you quit...

If you weren't the inferior fighter, on the night, you wouldn't have quit.... Max Baer (who had never been stopped before) stayed on one knee and allowed himself to be counted out in the 4th against Joe Louis after taking a tremendous beating for 3-plus rounds... A reporter asked Baer why he quit with 88,000 fans packing Yankee Stadium .... Max replied, "A few dollars allows these people to see a fight... They saw one... They'll have to pay a Hell of a lot more than that to see a murder."

A justified statement... In other words "If you don't like it, why don't you get in there and fight?"

ok, so, I have a buddy named shawn who's a great tennis player...so, one day he's playing a local standout and it's clear shawn is by FAR the better player. but as good as he is, he's not as committed to the sport as some guys....so they play a couple of games and shawn decides he's had enough and calls it off....basically concedes the game because he'd rather be chasing tail or something else...so, in your opinion, the other guy demonstrated his superiority by making shawn quit?

sorry, i reject that notion...it depends on WHY you quit. simply the act of quitting is not by itself an an indication that the fighter who didn't quit is superior.

secondly, professional boxing is PRIZE fighting...that means they fight for MONEY to feed their family and their self and pay their mortgage, etc.

the amount of money a fighter gets will determine how much they're willing to put on the line..

a guy might agree to a fight for $1m....and he might be willing to go so far for that kind of money... but pay him 10M and he'll probably be willing to put a lot more on the line and go to the absolute limits of his physical capabilities...

now, for a thousand or 10 thousand dollars, he'll probably give it a go for a round or two then choose to stay down first time the other guys hurts him. in boxing, as in life, you get what you pay for...

theoretically, if ALL fighters made the same amount of money or at least there was a graduated scale such as in the military where champs made a certain amount and contenders regardless of their fanbase or popularity were paid a predetermined amount, less than the champ but more than lower ranked contenders all according to their rank, but it was a pretty stratified system where fighters could see they were being treated fairly, THEN you would have more cases of fighters putting their best foot forward....but so long as fighters feel they're not being treated fairly and have less incentive to give their all, you'll have cases of fighters who are actually BETTER than the other guy and still end up quitting

You're issuing miserably poor arguments.. In the amateurs you get paid NOTHING.. You still fight your ass off like your life depended on it because you want to win every time.... If you're playing tennis and don't give a damn whether you win or lose It's a little like a sparring session... Say you agree to spar 8 rounds, but after 7 rounds you feel a twinge in your knee or whatever.. You say, "I may have pulled a muscle slightly or something, so that's it for me... I'll be back in on Friday if you want to go 8 or 10 or whatever." .... And if he says "Okay, but try to bring a little bit more because I think I won today" .... Some idiots will actually say stuff like that so you agree "Yeah you did well.." ..Shine him on... It was practice so who GAF who won? All you're trying to do is work on skills.. Nobody is keeping score.

And as for fairness... You might meet some kid who's parents sent him to Harvard, and maybe you had to work your way through school and never had much because your dad died when you were 3... Do you give a damn? .... Are you jealous or resent somebody because they have more than you? Some people are worse off than you right? ... Are you going to look down your nose at them? It's a waste of time and energy to worry about somebody else. You could die tomorrow.

I've seen sparring sessions turn into fights... That's for idiots too... Coaches yell at them "WHHOOA... FUK!! STOP PUNCHING!!! Slow down you guys... You're not getting paid for this." .... Some people have no sense... But I don't care if you're getting 10,000 or 300,000 for a fight... Why would you give a damn if the other guy is making more or less than you??? ... You're concerned about what YOU'RE making and concerned about winning... If you don't win the 10,000 dollar fight you'll never get the 300,000 dollar fight, so you train and fight just as well as you can for either amount of money.

Have you heard the expression "Don't work hard....work smart." .... Why not do both?

first of all, amateurs DO fight their heads off....for three rounds...wearing headgear...using a point system that de-emphasizes power-punches. not a whole lot of risk to their long-term health there. so, the incentive to quit in order to avoid physical damage is a lot less. its easy to fight like hell for no money when you have a lot of protection and the chances of you getting hurt are significantly diminished...then it's FUN....but if there is a real and constant risk of you getting hit with punches over an extended period that could alter your life, i think you're gonna care about how much they're paying you.

second, everything you said about how much fighters make contradicts the entire history of boxing...and shows you have no understanding of human psychology...unless you're a fighter who makes millions per fight regardless of your opponent, of course it matters what the other guy is making....ESPECIALLY if you're the one with the more proven record and they're paying you 1/3 of what they're paying him.

i mean, there's a lot of people who make ends meet on minimum wage, but theyr'e still dissatisfied...why do you think that is?

and of course, the PROMISE is, if you win the $10K fight, then next time you'll get an offer for $30K..but i'm talking specifically about a guy who's been through all that....he fought his way up the ranks, beat ALL the top comp out there...other champs and top contenders... and STILL gets paid 1/3 of his more popular, less accomplished challenger. I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand. this is not somebody who quit the first time things got rough...he's been in with the champ, got near KO'd himself and came back to KO the champ a few rounds later...and the other tigers of the division...now he's facing the downhill portion of his career and STILL in a position where he's being asked to prove himself...i don't want to name names, but this is stuff that happens.

I'm just saying, at a certain point, you just have to get the message that the powers that be are NOT in your favor... take the money, give it a decent effort, but don't endanger your life...if you go all out to win, you might win, but then you'd take a lotta damage which may not be not worth it... and if you win, next time out, you'd STILL be asked to do the same thing and still in a position where you're making a lot less than a less-proven, popular challenger.

man wrote: ↑24 Dec 2017, 03:56

Guelwaar wrote: ↑18 Dec 2017, 22:59 By that, i mean, of course the guy who quits automatically "loses"...but its just not the same as cases where a guy gives his all and loses to an opponent simply because the opponent is superior to him in whatever way....a bigger puncher, physically tougher, speedier, more skilled, more smarts, etc.

For example, a fighter, lets call him Bob, agrees to contest...Bob later finds out he's being paid only 1/3 of what his opponent is making....even though Bob is the champ and the other guy is a challenger with a relatively undistinguished record. in that case, Bob might be demoralized by the unfairness of the situation and just disgusted with the sport, go out and half-ass it and quit out of spite and bitterness and never set foot in the ring again....the fight goes down on his record as an "L"....but did Bob really LOSE? ....TECHNICALLY he did, but if the point of holding the contest is to find out who the better fighter is, what does his quitting prove?

My view is: It proves NOTHING...a guy could be BETTER than his opponent and still quit, for reasons having little to do with his opponents prowess, resulting in a loss...still doesn't make the other guy better. Unless and until there is a fight with both guys giving their all....and it doesn't have to be wlad-AJ or molina-redkach or even trout-hurd...it could be as one-sided as jacobs arias... at least the loser is trying.

so, i don't believe in always giving credit to fighter who wins a fight due to his opponent quitting....we should look at the circumstances before coming to conclusions about what such a win means...in some cases it might be indicative of dominance....in other cases it will be that the quitter simply checked out of the fight mentally and emotionally for reasons unknown to the public.

i think there are circumstances where the
fans are too harsh when it comes to quitting.
like an injury as with vitali-byrd. of course a
situation like abraham-miranda is admirable,
but it should not be something fans should
request. in the end we are watching men
fight, which is already a morally problematic
situation, since we smart ass from the couch
about people giving and risking their all.

if we do not allow them to quit when they are
injured, we become a savage crowd. a man
has the right to decide for himself when it is
enough, an injury keeping him from fighting
properly justifies him quitting every day of the
week.

yet there is indeed a sort of quitting which seems
indefensible to me. that is a man just seeing
he can't win while he is not hurt or injured.
duran comes to mind. you can't do that, since
you are paid not to win, but paid to fight. and
i do not buy the difficult-circumstance argument
outside of the ring. yes, all sorts of BS happen
in boxing, but once you set foot in the ring on
a specific night, all this is out of the equation,
since you literally signed up for this. not being
paid enough or promoter BS is all well considered
before and outside, once you are in it is on you
and you alone.

regarding quits in situations where a fighter
gave it all and is mentally koed, i might find
it a pity, but sitting from my couch demanding
him to fight till the shield would seem really
inappropriate to me. since in the end i am still
comfortably lying on my couch.

if a fighter quits because he's too hurt or too demoralized, i would consider that a "loss"...but if a fighter quits because he's just out to take the money and run due to being disgusted with the politics of the sport or for some other personal agenda that has nothing to do with being physically or mentally defeated, then i don't consider that a true "loss" except in theory....and it's usually pretty obvious which is which.

Your argument makes no sense at all.... You box because you love to box.... Fighters like Sugar Ray Robinson fight for millions at their peak and fight for chicken feed many years later.... still making a strong effort to win.... Most people recognize there's politics in everything and life isn't fair -- and it's never going to be fair.

Of course you're going to have the Buster Douglas's of the world.... Buster got himself in great shape for Mike Tyson, was making a TON LESS money than Tyson.... but trained and fought much better than Tyson and knocked him out.

Then Douglas was offered 25 million dollars for Holyfield.... He DIDN'T train.... He DIDN'T try.... He weighed-in very fat assed as usual.... and he laid down in the 3rd round.... It seemed like he came in with the mind set to stay in there a couple rounds -- and if he got hit with a hard punch in the 3rd round or later, to take the count.... He was guaranteed the money so he was set for life whether he won or lost.... I think there are many fighters who don't care if they cheat the public... Anybody who has an attitude about what he gets paid versus somebody else, might decide to fuk the fans... He's simply another jerk.

Kalan wrote: ↑27 Dec 2017, 05:06 Your argument makes no sense at all.... You box because you love to box.... Fighters like Sugar Ray Robinson fight for millions at their peak and fight for chicken feed many years later.... still making a strong effort to win.... Most people recognize there's politics in everything and life isn't fair -- and it's never going to be fair.

Of course you're going to have the Buster Douglas's of the world.... Buster got himself in great shape for Mike Tyson, was making a TON LESS money than Tyson.... but trained and fought much better than Tyson and knocked him out.

Then Douglas was offered 25 million dollars for Holyfield.... He DIDN'T train.... He DIDN'T try.... He weighed-in very fat assed as usual.... and he laid down in the 3rd round.... It seemed like he came in with the mind set to stay in there a couple rounds -- and if he got hit with a hard punch in the 3rd round or later, to take the count.... He was guaranteed the money so he was set for life whether he won or lost.... I think there are many fighters who don't care if they cheat the public... Anybody who has an attitude about what he gets paid versus somebody else, might decide to fuk the fans... He's simply another jerk.

First of all douglas didn't beat tyson...douglas was technically KO'd. so technically, he lost the fight. however, because boxing is a shoddily-run sport, douglas was allowed to continue despite being ko'd and came back in the next round to stop a poorly conditioned tyson. So, it wasn't that douglas was in incredible shape...it was that tyson was in terrible shape and the fight was poorly officiated that allowed douglas to win...

Secondly, yes, douglas cheated the public in the holyfield fight....but as you yourself noted, life isn't fair and its never going to be fair, so as a fan, you should learn to accept getting cheated by guys like douglas....so, stop complaining and get over it.

anyway, none of that was the point i was trying to make....my only point is that there are times when a fighter will quit for reasons other than he was getting outclassed...even though his actions amount to a loss, it doesn't mean or prove that his opponent is better...therefore, cases such as this should be looked at as inconclusive rather than as legit win by the fighter who didn't and should not be assessed as a valid indication of his ability...in fact, it should be looked at as a the equivalent of a no-contest.

Everybody gets the point you are trying to make.
The problem is you simply do not have a valid point.
Boxers only quit when they have an injury or when they are being outclassed.

If your example stepped in the ring and was outclassing his opponent "Bob" absolutely does not quit that fight.
"Bob" takes that easy win and moves on from there.
Don't try to pretend boxers who didn't properly prepare don't still show up and outclass some of the competition.

Guelwaar wrote: ↑29 Dec 2017, 03:37First of all douglas didn't beat tyson...douglas was technically KO'd. so technically, he lost the fight. however, because boxing is a shoddily-run sport, douglas was allowed to continue despite being ko'd and came back in the next round to stop a poorly conditioned tyson.

in my opinion that is a bit of an urban
legend. watch here side by side. the
time is roughly the same, but buster
is able to compete, while mike cannot
even put a mouthpiece in.


round eight buster is dominant, the
commentators cannot believe their
eyes, then mike - from the ropes -
lands an upper cut, buster goes down,
and almost immediately hits the canvas
with his fist, obviously angry about himself,

waits for the nine, gets up and the round
is over. with mike staggering back to his
corner.

next round tyson comes in fast, but douglas
stands his ground and dominates the round,
with mike taking bombs, leaving the round
hurt with one eye totally closed.

one round later tyson is almost static, clearly
hurt, then he's knocked down and even needs
to grab the arm of the ref to get balance while
getting up. in the live comments nobody even
raises even a hint that anything was unfair, neither
that buster got up, nor that mike was counted
out. the biggest upset ever and no one said
"premature stoppage", "long count" or anything
like it.

get over it, mike beating buster is an urban myth,
nothing more.