Good stoppage? So, why shouldn't Malignaggi have quit after round 3? Equally good!

...as soon as he relises he's unlikely to win the fight, EVEN if he isn't hurt or in serious pain, and even if it's unlikely he will be hurt during the rest of the fight, according not just to an outsider, but according to the fighter himself?

After all, you could say: "It's his health not mine; it's his career he has to consider; who knows, maybe he will still get hurt a bit and since the chance of him turning the fight around is small, of course he should quit; it just wasn't his day, etc..."

...why do boxing fans feel they are entitled to feel angry/short-changed to any extent in any circumstances? After all, it's not like that fighter is likely to make as much money or attract a huge following after quitting like that anyway...he might think he's doing something that prolongs and enhances his future career, when in fact he could be burrying it right there.

This thread is linked to the discussion about Malignaggi/McGirt. I notice some of the people who call others bloody-minded keyboard warriors for considering the stoppage bad are dismissive of fighters who quit just because they cannot be bothered anymore, for example:

"There are cases that do turn my stomach, most notably those like Seldon's performance against Tyson or Akinwande's against Lewis. Honestly, if you're not going to fight at all, forfeit before the match or whatever, don't wait until the bell rings."

"Lennox was right, and Paulie's corner was right. Part of a trainer and a corner's job is to try to protect their fighter when he has no chance of victory. Deal with it."

The comments above were made by the same poster. I wonder, would that poster think it acceptable if Malignaggi had quit after the second or third round, when he realised that he couldn't win the fight? If not, why not? Why would he feel he had the right to feel offended if Malignaggi had quit after round 2 or 3?

There seems to be an inconsistency here. Either it is acceptable for a fighter to quit at any time, for any reason, or it's not, in some cases. But if it's not, in what cases is it not, that have nothing to do with the fighter being hurt/damaged/taking too much punishment, etc. like the case was for Malignaggi against Hatton?

Would posters who say the stoppage was a good one think Malignaggi would have been right to quit after the second or third round if in the post fight interview he'd have said: "You know what, guys...I realised I probably couldn't win the fight, so what was the point of me going 12 rounds with this guy? Better just to quit and concentrate on other fights that I can win, in future! After all, I have my career to think of and it's me taking the punches in there, not the armchair keyboar-warrior fans!"

And if they'd have been perfectly fine with that, surely they'd have not felt any the less about Malignaggi as a fighter in future, right? Still, the questions is then...why would such fans watch boxing in the first place, just to see how fast, precise, skilled a boxer was? Is that what boxing is about? Is it just a variant of dancing or rhythymic gymnastics?

As soon as both fighters cannot float around the ring like a butterfly and sting like a bee anymore, there's no longer any point to the whole spectacle and it should be immediately stopped? Is that what boxing is?

:huh