HW TOP 10 h2h and achievement

That's what I thought.

And, as I've already argued, the decision

"...to continue to box whilst suffering great pain and distress..." i

is not always one that is governed solely by heart.

Prudence plays a role too. And in the case that prompted this discussion, I believe prudence took pre-eminence over heart as the quality or attribute most utilized in this decision.

 

Well, if you quit spontanously because of fear or because you want to end the pain then its down to heart (or rather lack there of). But if you take a calculated decision to quit based on perceived pro and cons (suffering a loss compared to risk of serious injury) then it's not down heart but prudence.

 

To some degree. It is most commonly used as a synonym for COURAGE or BRAVERY and as such, usually means strength or perseverance in the face of pain or adversity.

And courage (Heart) is usually seen as a virtue.


But the virtue of courage does not derive as an absolute from the forgoing definition. There is a sliding scale continuum of 'perseverance in the face of pain/danger/adversity.'

At one end of that scale lies cowardice. Little or no pain/danger/adversity is required to dissuade.

This , clearly, is not a virtue.


Moving further along the scale, we have less cowardice and more bravery/heart. As we leave the cowardice zone we enter the bravery zone. There is no exact end point for one or entry point for the other.

At some point, we come to the pinnacle of heart/bravery/ courage.

Definitely a virtue.


However, if we continue to persevere or press onwards, WITHOUT ANY REGARD to the degree of danger/pain/adversity, we leave the zone of courage/heart and enter the zone of foolhardiness and recklessness.

This is NOT a virtue.


So, if we take heart to mean bravery and courage, then prudence most definitely plays a role in determining whether a given behaviour is a demonstration of heart or recklessness.




It comes down then to definitions.

If heart is synonymous with bravery, then prudence plays a role. That role is to determine when a behaviour ceases to be BRAVE and moves in to the realm of RECKLESS.


If you mean something else by the word, then it could conceivably encompass RECKLESSNESS as well.

 

Well, we seem to have somewhat differing definitions then. Anyhow, if someone quits because of a calculated decision I won't necissarily fault him. But if he quits based on pure emotion it's another thing entirely.

 

To take an extreme example as an illustration.

Suppose you put Pavlik in with an opponent in an enclosed 20 ft x 20 ft room where he would spend three minutes in unarmed single combat with his opponent.

He starts out with (1) Valero


The next day its (2) Pacman

Next day, (3) Abraham.

Next day, (4) Adamek

Next day, Wlad.(5)

Next day a big starving wolf. (6)


Next day, a starved-for-a-week full grown male lion. (7)



1 and 2, no big deal.

If he advances to 3, he shows some heart.

4. Definitely more heart.

At 5, is it still heart, or are we into the realm of recklessness ?


By 7, I don't think we need to ask the question.

 

If I get run over and killed by a careful driver whose brakes failed due to a manufacturing defect, the courts will view that in a certain light.

If the ******* was coming home from the pub after 20 lagavulins and could barely see the road, the courts will take a different view.

Functionally, it doesn't matter a damn to me. I got run over and killed either way.



So I understand what your saying as far as the functionality of the result being the same in either case. There's no getting away from that.


But when you use a word like heart, which I went to some length to define earlier, as the descriptor of what went on in Vitali's consideration ( or what might have gone on had it been Gatti), then I believe you

a) are in error, as that is not what is commonly meant by heart.

or

b) You hold to a different definition of the word from what the dictionaries do, and that's fair enough.


Just so long as we all understand that your use of the word in some other sense takes it out of the realm of virtue.



BTW: I believe Gatti quit against Mayweather. At a minimum it was a corner decision, similar to Vitali/Byrd.

 

My point here was to distinguish what constitutes HEART and what constitutes RECKLESSNESS.


Would my hypothetical Pavlik be showing more heart if he went to step 5 than 4 ?

How about if he went to step 7 ?

Is that showing more heart ?


If he didn't go to 7 (as he almost certainly wouldn't) and I found a substitute who would, (as I almost certainly could), would that substitute have more heart ?

 

The example of being run over was used to show that I understand YOUR point, about the whys and wherefores of the 'quit' being less significant than the fact that there was a 'quit.'

Nor is there any attempt to dissuade you from taking all relevant factors into account when making head-to-head judgments, including the liklihood of someone quitting.

Even there, I would have no position on that issue. It can be considered as little or as much as one arbitrarily chooses.

Again, if the business you are in is determining the probability of a fighter quitting, for whatever reason, as part of a larger business of measuring fighters on a head-to-head scale, then the issue of prudence or 'quitting sensibly' doesn't enter into things.


IF however, you describe a fighters propensity to quit as being a function of his heart, then I have to disagree with you, as I've already, I believe, amply demonstrated that sometimes heart has nothing to do with it.

That is, unless you take heart to mean RECKLESSNESS as well as BRAVERY.