BoxRec

Posted: **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.

Posted: **19 Dec 2017, 08:51**

You are 100% wrong.

Life isn't fair so just quit?
That is exactly what you are saying.

In your hypothetical situation "Bob" is nothing more than a butthurt whiner looking for a reason to quit.
It is not uncommon for the "challenger" to make far more than the "champion".
In your example it's acceptable for champs making less than challengers to just quit.
A real fighter would get in that ring, give his best effort to win and stay in line for future opportunities.
This may sound strange to you but if "Bob" keeps winning it can lead to bigger and better paydays in future fights.

Sometimes.......................not EVERY time but sometimes boxers who quit take way too much flak for said quit job but there is NEVER a time when quitting is not the same as losing.
The quitter was in the ring which makes it indisputable that he had an opportunity to win but for whatever reason decided to quit.
Quitting because "life isn't fair" is indeed the same as losing.
"Bob" really did lose that fight.

Posted: **19 Dec 2017, 09:00**

Its worse

Posted: **19 Dec 2017, 09:03**

Simply put, obviously if you quit you lose, and yes, depending on the circumstances, you may or may not be labeled a loser or quitter.

Two recent examples:
Brook quit because his eye socket was smashed in. Acceptable reason. Prior to the injury he gave it his all.

Rigo quit because he knew he couldn't win. He never showed his best effort, and seemed afraid and to avoid the embarrassment of getting KO'd, he quit. Unacceptable, imo, and the coward's way out. What makes that even worse is the sad excuse of bruising his hand. There is an old saying; If you want to run with the hounds, don't piss like a pup.
Rigo must squat when he pisses.

Posted: **19 Dec 2017, 09:19**

If you quit because your body is saying so there's nothing wrong, quitting because things aren't going your way isn't as noble.

Posted: **19 Dec 2017, 10:06**

Fighters “quitting” isn’t something that I normally become overly passionate about, unless the bout was previously deemed by the majority of boxing aficionados as a complete mismatch beforehand. I simply hate bad matchmaking, because it not only cheats the fans, but it’s also bloody dangerous!

If a fighter decides to terminate the contest early, due to suffering some sort of physical impediment that renders their chances of victory as futile, even if the injury really isn’t that severe, then fair enough. It’s sometimes better to lose this time in order to live on to fight another day.

Similarly, when a fighter feels completely out-of-his-depth, to the point they’ve lost all ambition, then perhaps it’s better to end the contest prematurely in order avoid either getting beaten up or embarrassed, where it could possibly adversely affect their careers in the long-term.

We need to remember that boxing is only a sport and the vast majority of professionals only step foot inside the ring as their sole means to earn a living, to pay the bills and to also put food on the table for their family. And these fighters often have to be brave enough to endure a great deal of punishment for the sake of our entertainment.

It’s too easy for armchair “experts” to become keyboard warriors demanding unreasonable amounts of bravery, to the point they harshly criticise any fighter that isn’t willing to “die for the cause”, especially if they aren’t even brave enough to do it themselves.

Posted: **19 Dec 2017, 10:15**

If you are professional boxer who get title shot and you quit before thousands in attendance and millions before TV, it is definitely worse than losing.

Posted: **19 Dec 2017, 10:27**

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑19 Dec 2017, 10:06 Fighters “quitting” isn’t something that I normally become overly passionate about, unless the bout was previously deemed by the majority of boxing aficionados as a complete mismatch beforehand. I simply hate bad matchmaking, because it not only cheats the fans, but it’s also bloody dangerous!

If a fighter decides to terminate the contest early, due to suffering some sort of physical impediment that renders their chances of victory as futile, even if the injury really isn’t that severe, then fair enough. It’s sometimes better to lose this time in order to live on to fight another day.

Similarly, when a fighter feels completely out-of-his-depth, to the point they’ve lost all ambition, then perhaps it’s better to end the contest prematurely in order avoid either getting beaten up or embarrassed, where it could possibly adversely affect their careers in the long-term.

We need to remember that boxing is only a sport and the vast majority of professionals only step foot inside the ring as their sole means to earn a living, to pay the bills and to also put food on the table for their family. And these fighters often have to be brave enough to endure a great deal of punishment for the sake of our entertainment.

It’s too easy for armchair “experts” to become keyboard warriors demanding unreasonable amounts of bravery, to the point they harshly criticise any fighter that isn’t willing to “die for the cause”, especially if they aren’t even brave enough to do it themselves.

Nobody ever forgets those things EO but there is more to it than just that.
Many of the contestants in that ring are perfectly fine handing a severe beating to someone else. It is not uncommon for them to visibly enjoy dealing out that punishment which is perfectly fine as they are not in that ring to play tiddlywinks.
On the flip of that the boxer that enjoys dealing out a beating needs to be prepared to absorb such a beating if the tables ever get turned on them.
There are times when quitting is perfectly acceptable and there are situations where quitting simply exposes the fighter as nothing more than a bully that can't take what he dishes out.

Posted: **19 Dec 2017, 10:51**

Posted: **19 Dec 2017, 10:52**

Perseus wrote: ↑19 Dec 2017, 10:27
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑19 Dec 2017, 10:06 Fighters “quitting” isn’t something that I normally become overly passionate about, unless the bout was previously deemed by the majority of boxing aficionados as a complete mismatch beforehand. I simply hate bad matchmaking, because it not only cheats the fans, but it’s also bloody dangerous!

If a fighter decides to terminate the contest early, due to suffering some sort of physical impediment that renders their chances of victory as futile, even if the injury really isn’t that severe, then fair enough. It’s sometimes better to lose this time in order to live on to fight another day.

Similarly, when a fighter feels completely out-of-his-depth, to the point they’ve lost all ambition, then perhaps it’s better to end the contest prematurely in order avoid either getting beaten up or embarrassed, where it could possibly adversely affect their careers in the long-term.

We need to remember that boxing is only a sport and the vast majority of professionals only step foot inside the ring as their sole means to earn a living, to pay the bills and to also put food on the table for their family. And these fighters often have to be brave enough to endure a great deal of punishment for the sake of our entertainment.

It’s too easy for armchair “experts” to become keyboard warriors demanding unreasonable amounts of bravery, to the point they harshly criticise any fighter that isn’t willing to “die for the cause”, especially if they aren’t even brave enough to do it themselves.
Nobody ever forgets those things EO but there is more to it than just that.
Many of the contestants in that ring are perfectly fine handing a severe beating to someone else. It is not uncommon for them to visibly enjoy dealing out that punishment which is perfectly fine as they are not in that ring to play tiddlywinks.
On the flip of that the boxer that enjoys dealing out a beating needs to be prepared to absorb such a beating if the tables ever get turned on them.
There are times when quitting is perfectly acceptable and there are situations where quitting simply exposes the fighter as nothing more than a bully that can't take what he dishes out.

If a fighter can dish it out but can’t cope with return fire, then they are unlikely to have a successful career, unless they’re exceptionally gifted defensively.

Therefore, when a “bully” quits due to having a weak resolve, then this will likely have an adverse effect their careers in the long-term.

I believe most fighters appreciate the potential consequences of their actions, which is the reason why I feel too many boxers needlessly endure more punishment than what is necessary.

I’m not an advocate of fighters being compelled to absorb more punishment than they feel comfortable with, due to having to adhere to the unreasonably high expectations of armchair critics.

For sure, as the old adage goes… “If you’re going to step into the rain, you’re likely to get wet.” And I believe that all boxers expect to absorb a certain amount of punishment throughout the course of their careers, but they inevitably have to place their own interests above those of the fans.

Unfortunately it’s often a case of “one punch too soon” or “one punch too late” and I’d rather see the former occur than the latter, especially if it reduces the instances of boxers getting dementia several years after their careers have ended.

Put it this way, how many self-proclaimed armchair boxing “experts”, those that only respect fighters that are willing to “die for the cause”, contributed to the ongoing living costs of the brain damaged Joe Frazier shortly before he died penniless living above a gym?

Posted: **19 Dec 2017, 12:39**

First off..................nice picture provided by boxing rocks.
The one in the middle is a guy that deserves the quitter label, the very first time he wasn't in control he immediately looked for a way out.
The rest of them.............................they represent the reason we need a good third man in the ring and a corner that won't allow their fighter to become a punching bag.
100% of noncompetitive brutal beatings are the fault of the corner and ref not the fighter. After a few rounds the ref and/or corner should look at stopping the fight.

As for EO's comments..........spare us the noble bs.
Nobody is advocating they fight to the death or saying quitting is never the right thing to do and the best way to avoid the long term affects of boxing is to just not box at all.
If you REALLY cared about all that you would be objecting to boxing being allowed at all instead setting of aside time to watch as much boxing as your personal life allows.

Posted: **19 Dec 2017, 13:06**

"is "quitting" the same as "losing"?"

No.

Posted: **19 Dec 2017, 13:33**

The loss is definitely criticized more harshly by the public when you quit so in that sense no it's not the same, but it's an L on your record all the same.

Posted: **22 Dec 2017, 08:54**

Quitters suck. Yes it’s losing

Posted: **22 Dec 2017, 09:12**

I have more respect for Amir Khan getting sparked regularly than Victor Ortiz

Posted: **22 Dec 2017, 11:08**

The two are mutually exclusive

Posted: **22 Dec 2017, 12:55**

Thanks for all your responses...as I said in the initial post, yes, there is no doubt that quitting amounts to losing...a fighter who quits gets an "L" next to his name for that fight. so, no question about that. i'm asking if quitting is THE SAME as losing...does quitting prove that a fighter is not as good as his opponent? I think of situations such as ali-liston when after the 4th round, ali, seemingly in charge of the fight, was blinded by liniment from liston's glove. at that point ali was ready to quit...who's gonna get in there blind against a devastating puncher like liston? only an insane person....but angelo dundee wouldn't let ali quit...he told him "run!".... and ali survived the next round and eventually stopped liston at the end of round 7.

now, a different cornerman might have let ali quit...after all, putting your fighter's life in that kind of danger is just negligent....but if ali had quit and had taken the L, would it mean liston was the better fighter? of course not. we KNOW ali was better...so, that case proves that a case of quitting doesn't always prove who the better fighter is.

...i've seen cases of fighters who looked hopelessly outclassed and seemed to have no hope to win and out of nowhere they land a lucky shot and KO the other guy....a lucky shot doesn't prove you're better either, but its a win...if that outclassed fighter had quit, he'd have an "L" on his record...a couple of examples of that lamotta-dauthille and weaver-tate....there's many more.

my only point is that fighters have a LOT of good reasons for quitting...victor ortiz, IMO quit against floyd. he was gettin his ass handed to him...same as duran-leonard II. but sometimes you see a fighter quit and its NOT because he didn't have a chance...in those cases, we should recognize that the better man didn't necessarily win....and not give undue credit.

Posted: **22 Dec 2017, 13:10**

Perseus wrote: ↑19 Dec 2017, 08:51 You are 100% wrong.

Life isn't fair so just quit?
That is exactly what you are saying.

In your hypothetical situation "Bob" is nothing more than a butthurt whiner looking for a reason to quit.
It is not uncommon for the "challenger" to make far more than the "champion".
In your example it's acceptable for champs making less than challengers to just quit.
A real fighter would get in that ring, give his best effort to win and stay in line for future opportunities.
This may sound strange to you but if "Bob" keeps winning it can lead to bigger and better paydays in future fights.

Sometimes.......................not EVERY time but sometimes boxers who quit take way too much flak for said quit job but there is NEVER a time when quitting is not the same as losing.
The quitter was in the ring which makes it indisputable that he had an opportunity to win but for whatever reason decided to quit.
Quitting because "life isn't fair" is indeed the same as losing.
"Bob" really did lose that fight.

what if Bob had been in numerous wars against some of the biggest names in his division? what if he had been promised that by beating those guys he would be in a position to make big money?...then Bob went in there with these other top guys, took a beating and came back guns blazing and pulled out wins against them....and put in the years of struggle and sacrifice. now, in the biggest fight of his career he's being paid 1/3 of what the other guy who barely has 1/3 of the number of fights bob has? maybe bob has good reason to be frustrated....putting his life on the line for far less than the other guy after all bob has given to the sport....both guys lives are equal...so why should bob be valued so low considering he's by far the more established guy?

i agree bob doesn't have to take the fight...maybe he really needs the money...but maybe he's not gonna risk his life and limb for what they're paying him, so he takes the easy way out when things get rough.

Posted: **22 Dec 2017, 15:49**

Guelwaar wrote: ↑22 Dec 2017, 13:10
Perseus wrote: ↑19 Dec 2017, 08:51 You are 100% wrong.

Life isn't fair so just quit?
That is exactly what you are saying.

In your hypothetical situation "Bob" is nothing more than a butthurt whiner looking for a reason to quit.
It is not uncommon for the "challenger" to make far more than the "champion".
In your example it's acceptable for champs making less than challengers to just quit.
A real fighter would get in that ring, give his best effort to win and stay in line for future opportunities.
This may sound strange to you but if "Bob" keeps winning it can lead to bigger and better paydays in future fights.

Sometimes.......................not EVERY time but sometimes boxers who quit take way too much flak for said quit job but there is NEVER a time when quitting is not the same as losing.
The quitter was in the ring which makes it indisputable that he had an opportunity to win but for whatever reason decided to quit.
Quitting because "life isn't fair" is indeed the same as losing.
"Bob" really did lose that fight.
what if Bob had been in numerous wars against some of the biggest names in his division? what if he had been promised that by beating those guys he would be in a position to make big money?...then Bob went in there with these other top guys, took a beating and came back guns blazing and pulled out wins against them....and put in the years of struggle and sacrifice. now, in the biggest fight of his career he's being paid 1/3 of what the other guy who barely has 1/3 of the number of fights bob has? maybe bob has good reason to be frustrated....putting his life on the line for far less than the other guy after all bob has given to the sport....both guys lives are equal...so why should bob be valued so low considering he's by far the more established guy?

i agree bob doesn't have to take the fight...maybe he really needs the money...but maybe he's not gonna risk his life and limb for what they're paying him, so he takes the easy way out when things get rough.

That's what a loser does.
He quits.
You can sugar coat it all you want but you're excuse for quitting is still just "life isn't fair".
Woe is Bob life isn't fair, so he quits which is the same as losing.

Posted: **22 Dec 2017, 16:26**

Of course it's a loss, the OP acknowledged that several times. I think what happens is that a lot of fans (and a lot of fighters, I'd guess) want the fights to "prove" something, and they want to dismiss all the details of how the result came about (probably so they can keep all these rankings and lists in their heads about who's better than who). But to my view, the details *are* the story of the bout, and it's rare for a fight to definitively "prove" something. If a guy quits, he quits. It ends the fight and it hurts your rep, but the way I see it it doesn't particularly carve something in stone. I don't think Davey Moore could've told you that Roberto Duran was just a big sissy after having quit against Leonard.

Posted: **22 Dec 2017, 16:42**

For a boxer quitting is strategic... He has a career to think about...

The long-shot possibility of landing a KO punch can be out-weighed by the risk of permanent injury... Going down from the next hard punch and taking the count is dishonest. It's fakery. Man up and say you've had enough... Ron Stander came back from the 4th round with Joe Frazier and said very loudly "That's ENOUGH!!" He got some criticism for people who believe you go out on your shield, but not much... Everyone in the world knew he was badly over-matched... Who GAS about some idiot fan who wants to see you get knocked out cold? He's not going to pay your medical bills.

A boxer isn't a soldier on the battle field who needs to carry on a losing effort and die valiantly if his commander doesn't order a retreat... A soldier doesn't make decisions about when to cut and run... If a soldier didn't have discipline and the courage to die he would be a disgrace to his unit and his country - but Boxing is a sport not a duel to the death... In the end, losing a professional boxing match is no different than losing a game of tennis or a chess match..

Losing hurts bad, but it's part of life... Businesses go bankrupt... People go broke... Marriages fail... People get fired... Your house burns down... Your best bud gets killed in a car wreck... You get diagnosed with a terminal illness... There are many things in life that are worse than losing a boxing match... For one thing, you can prepare better and win the next one.

Posted: **23 Dec 2017, 00:14**

Perseus wrote: ↑22 Dec 2017, 15:49
Guelwaar wrote: ↑22 Dec 2017, 13:10
Perseus wrote: ↑19 Dec 2017, 08:51 You are 100% wrong.

Life isn't fair so just quit?
That is exactly what you are saying.

In your hypothetical situation "Bob" is nothing more than a butthurt whiner looking for a reason to quit.
It is not uncommon for the "challenger" to make far more than the "champion".
In your example it's acceptable for champs making less than challengers to just quit.
A real fighter would get in that ring, give his best effort to win and stay in line for future opportunities.
This may sound strange to you but if "Bob" keeps winning it can lead to bigger and better paydays in future fights.

Sometimes.......................not EVERY time but sometimes boxers who quit take way too much flak for said quit job but there is NEVER a time when quitting is not the same as losing.
The quitter was in the ring which makes it indisputable that he had an opportunity to win but for whatever reason decided to quit.
Quitting because "life isn't fair" is indeed the same as losing.
"Bob" really did lose that fight.
what if Bob had been in numerous wars against some of the biggest names in his division? what if he had been promised that by beating those guys he would be in a position to make big money?...then Bob went in there with these other top guys, took a beating and came back guns blazing and pulled out wins against them....and put in the years of struggle and sacrifice. now, in the biggest fight of his career he's being paid 1/3 of what the other guy who barely has 1/3 of the number of fights bob has? maybe bob has good reason to be frustrated....putting his life on the line for far less than the other guy after all bob has given to the sport....both guys lives are equal...so why should bob be valued so low considering he's by far the more established guy?

i agree bob doesn't have to take the fight...maybe he really needs the money...but maybe he's not gonna risk his life and limb for what they're paying him, so he takes the easy way out when things get rough.
That's what a loser does.
He quits.
You can sugar coat it all you want but you're excuse for quitting is still just "life isn't fair".
Woe is Bob life isn't fair, so he quits which is the same as losing.

OK, lemme ask you a question....if what you say is true and life is NOT fair, then why should ANY of us GAS unless there's an immediate threat to our well-being ? i mean, you give your heart and your soul, your blood and your sacrifice only to get treated like s**t by the people who run the sport every time. doesn't that make YOU stupid?

After a long and illustrious career in which you faced and beat the best and now you're facing the twilight years of your career, you're rewarded with a crap purse against a young, hungry destroyer who's getting paid three times your salary and he has practically 1/10 of your accomplishments. yeah, life isn't fair, but at that point a reasonable man might question why the hell he should care...why give your all for the fans when all they'll say when is "life aint fair" when you get the shaft? life aint fair fanboys, so learn to deal with the disappointment when fighters ruin your fun by quitting.... all that's gonna happen is, no matter how brilliant and dominant Bob looks, he's gonna get s**t on for the next fight.

IMO, it is actually a disservice to yourself and your family if you go out there and put life and limb on the line for little promise of a reward...and particularly if the other guy is making 3 times as much as you. you SHOULD quit...definitely NOT give it 100%...not at this stage when you've been been locked in a pattern of giving 100% all you career and getting underappreciated for it.

Yeah, if you put up another epic battle and you win, your name will go down in the annals and you'll probably be a HOF'er...while you're in a nursing home being treated for severe brain injuries and your family is forced to try and make it without healthy father or partner to provide for their needs.

or you can quit, collect your money and retain your faculties so you can be there for your family in your fullest capacity....that, IMO is having your priorities straight...that's what it means to be a responsible provider...not the other way around.

and my point is, a guy in that situation should NOT be judged as having "lost" to his opponent, because he didn't "lose"...he QUIT. that's an important distinction that we should acknowledge for the sake of posterity. so when the HOF meets they say "Bob quit....he wasn't beaten. quitting is shameful, but doesn't detract from Bob's many HOF worthy skills"....so the story has a happy ending in which Bob gets to keep the money, preserve his health AND get inducted in the HOF.

Posted: **23 Dec 2017, 00:22**

squiggy wrote: ↑22 Dec 2017, 16:26 Of course it's a loss, the OP acknowledged that several times. I think what happens is that a lot of fans (and a lot of fighters, I'd guess) want the fights to "prove" something, and they want to dismiss all the details of how the result came about (probably so they can keep all these rankings and lists in their heads about who's better than who). But to my view, the details *are* the story of the bout, and it's rare for a fight to definitively "prove" something. If a guy quits, he quits. It ends the fight and it hurts your rep, but the way I see it it doesn't particularly carve something in stone. I don't think Davey Moore could've told you that Roberto Duran was just a big sissy after having quit against Leonard.

great post...you said it better in one paragraph than i did with multiple posts. we use fight results as ways of gauging how good a guy is and as a basis for comparing fighters, even fighters of different eras...in reality, some fight results are very misleading and particularly in cases where one guy quits.

Posted: **23 Dec 2017, 00:32**

Guelwaar wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 00:14
Perseus wrote: ↑22 Dec 2017, 15:49
Guelwaar wrote: ↑22 Dec 2017, 13:10

what if Bob had been in numerous wars against some of the biggest names in his division? what if he had been promised that by beating those guys he would be in a position to make big money?...then Bob went in there with these other top guys, took a beating and came back guns blazing and pulled out wins against them....and put in the years of struggle and sacrifice. now, in the biggest fight of his career he's being paid 1/3 of what the other guy who barely has 1/3 of the number of fights bob has? maybe bob has good reason to be frustrated....putting his life on the line for far less than the other guy after all bob has given to the sport....both guys lives are equal...so why should bob be valued so low considering he's by far the more established guy?

i agree bob doesn't have to take the fight...maybe he really needs the money...but maybe he's not gonna risk his life and limb for what they're paying him, so he takes the easy way out when things get rough.
That's what a loser does.
He quits.
You can sugar coat it all you want but you're excuse for quitting is still just "life isn't fair".
Woe is Bob life isn't fair, so he quits which is the same as losing.
OK, lemme ask you a question....if what you say is true and life is NOT fair, then why should ANY of us GAS unless there's an immediate threat to our well-being ? i mean, you give your heart and your soul, your blood and your sacrifice only to get treated like s**t by the people who run the sport every time. doesn't that make YOU stupid?

After a long and illustrious career in which you faced and beat the best and now you're facing the twilight years of your career, you're rewarded with a crap purse against a young, hungry destroyer who's getting paid three times your salary and he has practically 1/10 of your accomplishments. yeah, life isn't fair, but at that point a reasonable man might question why the hell he should care...why give your all for the fans when all they'll say when is "life aint fair" when you get the shaft? life aint fair fanboys, so learn to deal with the disappointment when fighters ruin your fun by quitting.... all that's gonna happen is, no matter how brilliant and dominant Bob looks, he's gonna get s**t on for the next fight.

IMO, it is actually a disservice to yourself and your family if you go out there and put life and limb on the line for little promise of a reward...and particularly if the other guy is making 3 times as much as you. you SHOULD quit...definitely NOT give it 100%...not at this stage when you've been been locked in a pattern of giving 100% all you career and getting underappreciated for it.

Yeah, if you put up another epic battle and you win, your name will go down in the annals and you'll probably be a HOF'er...while you're in a nursing home being treated for severe brain injuries and your family is forced to try and make it without healthy father or partner to provide for their needs.

or you can quit, collect your money and retain your faculties so you can be there for your family in your fullest capacity....that, IMO is having your priorities straight...that's what it means to be a responsible provider...not the other way around.

and my point is, a guy in that situation should NOT be judged as having "lost" to his opponent, because he didn't "lose"...he QUIT. that's an important distinction that we should acknowledge for the sake of posterity. so when the HOF meets they say "Bob quit....he wasn't beaten. quitting is shameful, but doesn't detract from Bob's many HOF worthy skills"....so the story has a happy ending in which Bob gets to keep the money, preserve his health AND get inducted in the HOF.

This is not a good point at all. In fact it is very poor.

Boxing is a dangerous sport; a brutal sport. If you're not willing to end up in a nursing home with severe brain injuries you should never put the gloves on. Brain injuries are not just a possibility, they are a virtual guarantee in this sport. At any point you can decide you don't want to do it anymore; the least acceptable place to do this is in the ring where you're being paid to perform. Somewhat that has their priorities straight will not attempt to make a career out of boxing.

And someone who quits should be judged as having lost because they have, in fact, lost. You can have all the skill in the world, but if you are not willing to use it til the final bell than the other fighter is superior to you that night in the only remaining criteria that can be judged; the want to be there factor.

Posted: **23 Dec 2017, 09:38**

punchoutsb wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 00:32
Guelwaar wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 00:14
Perseus wrote: ↑22 Dec 2017, 15:49

That's what a loser does.
He quits.
You can sugar coat it all you want but you're excuse for quitting is still just "life isn't fair".
Woe is Bob life isn't fair, so he quits which is the same as losing.
OK, lemme ask you a question....if what you say is true and life is NOT fair, then why should ANY of us GAS unless there's an immediate threat to our well-being ? i mean, you give your heart and your soul, your blood and your sacrifice only to get treated like s**t by the people who run the sport every time. doesn't that make YOU stupid?

After a long and illustrious career in which you faced and beat the best and now you're facing the twilight years of your career, you're rewarded with a crap purse against a young, hungry destroyer who's getting paid three times your salary and he has practically 1/10 of your accomplishments. yeah, life isn't fair, but at that point a reasonable man might question why the hell he should care...why give your all for the fans when all they'll say when is "life aint fair" when you get the shaft? life aint fair fanboys, so learn to deal with the disappointment when fighters ruin your fun by quitting.... all that's gonna happen is, no matter how brilliant and dominant Bob looks, he's gonna get s**t on for the next fight.

IMO, it is actually a disservice to yourself and your family if you go out there and put life and limb on the line for little promise of a reward...and particularly if the other guy is making 3 times as much as you. you SHOULD quit...definitely NOT give it 100%...not at this stage when you've been been locked in a pattern of giving 100% all you career and getting underappreciated for it.

Yeah, if you put up another epic battle and you win, your name will go down in the annals and you'll probably be a HOF'er...while you're in a nursing home being treated for severe brain injuries and your family is forced to try and make it without healthy father or partner to provide for their needs.

or you can quit, collect your money and retain your faculties so you can be there for your family in your fullest capacity....that, IMO is having your priorities straight...that's what it means to be a responsible provider...not the other way around.

and my point is, a guy in that situation should NOT be judged as having "lost" to his opponent, because he didn't "lose"...he QUIT. that's an important distinction that we should acknowledge for the sake of posterity. so when the HOF meets they say "Bob quit....he wasn't beaten. quitting is shameful, but doesn't detract from Bob's many HOF worthy skills"....so the story has a happy ending in which Bob gets to keep the money, preserve his health AND get inducted in the HOF.
This is not a good point at all. In fact it is very poor.

Boxing is a dangerous sport; a brutal sport. If you're not willing to end up in a nursing home with severe brain injuries you should never put the gloves on. Brain injuries are not just a possibility, they are a virtual guarantee in this sport. At any point you can decide you don't want to do it anymore; the least acceptable place to do this is in the ring where you're being paid to perform. Somewhat that has their priorities straight will not attempt to make a career out of boxing.

And someone who quits should be judged as having lost because they have, in fact, lost. You can have all the skill in the world, but if you are not willing to use it til the final bell than the other fighter is superior to you that night in the only remaining criteria that can be judged; the want to be there factor.

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.

BoxRec

is "quitting" the same as "losing"?

is "quitting" the same as "losing"?

Re: is "quitting" the same as "losing"?

Re: is "quitting" the same as "losing"?

Re: is "quitting" the same as "losing"?

Re: is "quitting" the same as "losing"?

Re: is "quitting" the same as "losing"?

Re: is "quitting" the same as "losing"?

Re: is "quitting" the same as "losing"?

Re: is "quitting" the same as "losing"?

Re: is "quitting" the same as "losing"?

Re: is "quitting" the same as "losing"?

Re: is "quitting" the same as "losing"?

Re: is "quitting" the same as "losing"?

Re: is "quitting" the same as "losing"?

Re: is "quitting" the same as "losing"?

Re: is "quitting" the same as "losing"?

Re: is "quitting" the same as "losing"?

Re: is "quitting" the same as "losing"?

Re: is "quitting" the same as "losing"?

Re: is "quitting" the same as "losing"?

Re: is "quitting" the same as "losing"?

Re: is "quitting" the same as "losing"?

Re: is "quitting" the same as "losing"?

Re: is "quitting" the same as "losing"?

Re: is "quitting" the same as "losing"?