I thought it was a shame...

Maybe they have a burning desire to (attempt) etch their name more richly in the history books too. Not everyone's thinking i'll just fight till i'm rich then retire, or lose one then call it stumps with my big money bags. You take a surprising stance for one who refuses to rate fighters on the pinnacle level who haven't come back and proven themselves after a loss. Imagine SRL retiring after Duran, Holyfield after Bowe etc.

 

My point is, to misquote the Black Cloud, that it is a lot harder to get out of bed when it is a four poster bed in a Million Pound Mansion than when you were in your little studio.

Also what is the point of being in the history books if you cannot read them in later life because of ill health brought on by boxing for too long?

IMO it is best to retire five fights too early than one too late.

But like you suggested earlier it is not our decision to make, and neither Joe or Ricky are stupid, I think whatever they do, it will be the right decision, and I will continue to support them. From what I have picked up both are class acts.

 

Hearns, Leonard, Hagler, Holmes, Ali and hundreds of others all got up in the morning quite well, even after amassing fame and fortune. This is what great ones do. Floyd Mayweather would be another pertinent example.

But where does one draw the line? How many fights is too many? Some go thru very long careers with heavy losses and aren't affected, others who have been in the game shorter and taken far less might be more affected.

That's talking worst case sceario, and as i imply - how on earth could one know? Hatton might be retiring 15 fights too soon.

Totally agree mate. What nags me is when a fighter OBVIOUSLY needs to retire, like an Ali or Meldrick Taylor. It's rather sad. Like an addiction in some cases.