Quitting. How does it affect a legacy?

Anyone who thinks Duran quit in the Leonard fight is an idiot

 

To a point, I almost don't think of it as quitting. Showing courage and bravery in the face of danger is a huge testament and credit to that fighter's will. But when all else has failed, and one has gotten beat up pretty badly. "Retiring" themselves to me is the more fitting word, especially when they're an aging fighter. I can't see it how Jess Williard "quit" against Dempsey. I mean, I imagine most fighters wouldn't endure any more. He was getting torn to pieces... and for what? To die on his shield? Ridiculous... I hope as fans and human beings we've moved past the Roman Gladiator age of fighting till the death. We can be more civilized then that... and we can still revere the fighting heart. But we shouldn't lambaste the opposite.

Okay, maybe Tyson quit against McBride, but this doesn't absolutely nothing to scorn his legacy.

The quitting with the likes of Liston against Ali (Twice, but the first fight is perhaps more justifiable), Duran against Leonard, Ali against Holmes (Not that he quit, but his corner stopped it) and more recently Ortiz against Maidana is far more reprehensible. At the end of the day these guys are professionals, and it shouldn't be life and death. The circumstance really makes all the matter.

 

Let's don't split hairs about the word "quit"...I clearly drew a distinction between those fights where to "not continue" (how's that?) was warranted and those where it wasn't...in other words, a guy who's been practically crucified and risks his health as well as his life is justified in "not carrying on"
like for instance, Willie Pastrano not coming out for the 9th round vs Jose Torres and Liston doing the same vs Ali...big difference, huh?..no matter what term you give the act of not answering the bell.

 

It's a joke. A pathetic, ignorant joke.

You might as well leave your parent to die in a convalescing home. Same thing as abandoning and actively degrading fighters that "quit", most of which will end up punch drunk and ******ed from the abuse they took, and STOPPED taking when it was too much. All for your entertainment and sometimes fistfuls of cash.

 

Right, it's just the matter of the context. Quit is just such a strong word. And to me, only feels merited in the more obvious and extreme cases.

 

He was DONE as far as having a chance to win. He was completely exhausted in that fight. Your power is gone. He plopped down on the canvas and struggled to even get back up. Go watch that fight again.

And that was years away from was once a Young, Motivated, trained Tyson of the 80's. Add his life-style, years of wear and tear, 3+ years in prison, more wear and tear and damage when he got out, drug addiction, new family life, new way of thinking...HE WAS DONE.

People change. He said something like how it wasn't in his heart anymore. He had no fight left in him.

He was Shot both Mentally and Physically as a fighter.

Now he could have been pushed back out and taken his shots until he was flat on his back again, like he was against Lewis. But given the Lewis fight, that was the last time he had anything of note left. Whatever was left going into the Lewis match was gone as far as ever taken that type of damage again. And he was shot against Lewis as well. That's how far gone he was after.

 

So you are excusing one over the other or just saying they are both excusable and/or understandable?

 

This content is protected

No, I am saying each circumstance is different, and there are various degrees of quitting.

For example an injury to a critical working part such as a knee or shoulder should not be judged as harshly as say a person with no injuries who suddenly retires, or a person who opts not to get up, but could.

Ever notice how fighters tend to get up at 11, then act upset. IMO, they quit.