If Cotto 'quit' v Margo, why did Hatton not quit v PBF??

Exactly. It isn't fair Cotto is getting called a quitter.

 

You are right, I shouldn't have bothered.

I know I've came in for some flak with this thread, but I just watched the video I posted again for the thousandth time, and I am utterly, utterly convinced in the validity of this argument. I don't mind if no-one agrees with me or I get called for everything.

Two facts to remember about this thread:

- I have never attempted to say the two situations are similar
- I have clearly stated I do NOT think either Miguel Cotto or Ricky Hatton "quit"

I look at the video and I see Hatton looking alert and active and untroubled up until the 1st knockdown. He takes a brilliant shot from Mayweather and is floored by it, there's no way he could've stayed up. He gets up. Clinch. Takes another few shots. Comes off the ropes, feels Mayweather approaching again and goes down. Yes his legs were probably weak from a punch, but he isn't punched straight down like he was the 1st time. As he is on the way down, the ref has grabbed Mayweather. IMO, Hatton fell because he knew if he took another shot, he'd be out cold, he fell partly out of a loss of equilibrium on account of the punches, partly because he was in survival mode and had to avoid another attack to survive. He did not quit, but his knockdown was not 100% involuntary. If you disagree and think it was a delayed reaction to a punch fair enough, but I disagree, I think there is a recognition from Hatton that a final, killer blow is coming. Do I think this is quitting or cowardice? Absolutely NOT. It is called survival mode and occurs whenever boxers feel they are on the precipice of being KO'd. But to be honest, I cannot know this because I cannot know what Hatton was feeling or what his physical state was at the time, so I can only speculate but that is why I would never go on an internet forum calling him a quitter, I would never judge or condemn a guy for the way a fight ended unless he had deliberately turned his back on the action knowing he would therefore force the referee to stop it.

The Cotto case is totally different yes, but I'm not comparing them, I am taking them as two isolated incidents and saying, why is it that this guy is a quitter and this guy isn't? I say they both aren't quitters, though both went down in survival mode and not 100% involuntarily.

In contrast to the Hatton ending, I look at the Cotto fight, and see a guy that has taken far more punishment over a far longer period, has absorbed many more punches to the head, and has sustained far worse facial (and probably bodily) injuries. He goes down voluntarily to try and recover, and then his corner takes the decision out of his hands by forcing the referee to stop the fight. There is the same recognition with Hatton, that they sense the final killer blow coming and do what they have to do to avoid that- survival mode. The difference is that Hatton falls to the floor and the ref steps in, whereas Cotto takes a knee and the ref doesn't stop it, his corner intervene and force the referee to.

IMO. If you disagree, fair enough. No mas. I'm even boring myself now.

 

Ron I swear to God you are wrong. I am from the UK, I really like Ricky Hatton, I have no agenda whatsoever. I believe neither man is a quitter, I am holding up these two examples merely to ask why is one guy labelled a quitter and one isn't.

 

But Cotto didn't stop, cease or discontinue the fight. He was trying to get time to recover so he could survive the round, he did get back up, he was trying to continue. His uncle took the decision.