Willard Called A Quitter At Toledo

Thanks. Totally understand. I’ve read the Jeffries and Johnson books and I try to keep a lid on any stuff that I didn’t know already. Though it is difficult when you know Adam’s books contain some defining information but basically you have to say - buy the book - and at least you know you’re flogging a quality product.

Was/were the Dempsey book(s) your Xmas present?

 

About a week later willard said im glad I did quit cause I could have been killed by that guy. In pollocks book

 

Well said. That Big Jess could muster himself just to get up and shake Dempsey’s hand at the end was amazing and likely all he could manage at best.

There are so many ways a fighter can “quit” during the course of a fight, and that includes shelling up and going into safety mode just to survive.

Another irony that seems to be lost is, at the same time, given the explosive effect of Jack’s punches and the damage rendered, many suspected loaded gloves and probably a number of those same people probably also moaned over Jess excusing himself from a near death experience.

It was wonderful that ref Ollie Pecord was so brave on Willard’s behalf.

 

Tyson was DQd when his temper got the best of him- but I don’t remember him quitting, I remember him eating flush shots from Buster all night and being drunk on his feet and looking for his mouth piece, I remember Lennox Lewis landing everything but the kitchen sink on the three round fighter he became and him still just marching forward?

 

Talks to yourself backwards you do without much sense for Merriment & Mirth + as a Parody Sly of members inarticulate & unwell who remain nameless Shall.

 

The damage Willard sustained was greatly exaggerated. Although yes he was thoroughly beaten.
It is ambiguous whether shelling up to avoid a KO is quitting.

If not doing so would keep you from almost certainly immediately losing, which is part of your job-& you are not clinching so much you should be disqualified, is that a quit job?

 

Apparently the reported damage was exaggerated but certainly sufficient enough for what people saw with their own eyes to entertain the loaded gloves theory. Plus the fact that Jack couldn’t drop Willard in the following 2 rds - as if to suggest he had dispensed with the “loading” in his gloves while ignoring the more likely “punched out” effect.

There is the famous photo of Jack staring at Willard slumped in the corner and a small cylindrical shape can be seen on the canvas - some suggested a small iron bar - but it was later deduced to be an innocent cigar, which I doubt Dempsey was packing in his glove otherwise, that was some cigar!

As to fighters shelling up, I was making a relative comparison to Willard’s quitting. Focusing on it as an absolute, sure, a fighter intent on surviving and not actually winning could be viewed as a form of surrender in varying degrees.

Mike Tyson could talk to you about such instances as we saw in several of his fights back in the day.

Some fighters do clinch excessively (which can entail warnings and possible deductions - Ernie Terrell was horrible for same) so I would say in those instances the legitimacy of their efforts to properly engage could be open to question - though it’s not quitting per se but not necessarily courageous either since courage is the crux of the attempted criticisms of Willard.

Again, these comparisons primarily serve to put Willard’s own so called “surrender” into its proper perspective.

 

I agree completely, with the small caveat that if a fighter really could not realistically avoid a KO if they did not shell up, I do not believe that the view that it is a form of surrendeur is correct.
If they had the ability to have any reasonable chance to turn it around, including scoring a KO, then I agree.

 

By the sheer definitions as I see them and I. believe already laid out, I’ll have to agree to disagree on that.

The objective is to win or at least properly attempt to do so. If a fighter doesn’t attempt to win simply because he doesn’t think he can and, further, acutely avoids engagement to avert losing even more emphatically than he is already resigned to, I kinda think that speaks for itself in terms of “surrender”.

 

He quit by getting himself DQ’d.

He absolutely knew what he was doing when he bit Holyfield the first time and was explicitly warned that he’d be DQ’d if he did it again … and immediately stepped up and did it.

He’d rather be DQ’d and labeled an animal than to take another ass-whupping like the first one he got from Holyfield.

 

I disagree because the first rule is ‘keep hope alive.’ You don’t know that the other fellow might not punch himself out or sustain a bad cut or something else might happen to turn the tide.

Weathering the storm is just being smart. You lay back and cover up and avoid engagement and see if your turn comes. Maybe it doesn’t. Maybe the guy is just so good that you’re not going to win rounds and he hits too hard for you to mount an offensive, but you don’t know until the final bell that the right opening might not come.

Mike Weaver was very passive against John Tate. He didn’t say in the 10th round ‘I’m losing, I have to open myself up to get KO’d here, it’s my only alternative.’ His opening came in the waning moments.

Maxim was losing handily to Ray Robinson in the sweltering heat of New York but he didn’t say ‘well I must go all out here or I’ve lost,’ he bided his time and Ray faded and eventually fainted.

That’s not quitting.

 

Fair. At the very least you can say he had heart saying any less is a lie.

 

Two things can be true.

He showed heart at times. But he clearly with purpose got himself DQ’d versus Holyfield in the rematch.

Now maybe it was a case of blowing his stack or maybe it was a case of blowing his stack, being warned and then not giving a, um, fig and doing it anyway, but it’s not like he threw an accidental low blow. He chose to bite a second time immediately after being told the consequences.

 

Agree with all the above, and would add this : this fight and hundreds like it were before the 1/ Neutral corner ruling 2/ The standing 8 count, and poor Jess must have suffered more, maybe if he had time to prepare himself for Dempsey's onslaught he would not have received such an inhuman beating, the few times I have watched the fight , the pitiful sight of Willard, trying to escape/avoid the brutal punches about to come his way, has ( not for the 1st time ) left an uneasy feeling in my stomach...... keep well.

 

EDIT: after I posted this I saw Saintpat's post, which was very well done with concrete examples, & largely overlapped with my own. Although I covered a fear based non-surrender too, the intuitive or rationally calculated strategies of biding your time likely apply more often!

Back to regularly scheduled programming: Two objections I have to that logic. One is that surrender means actively trying to give up-or not try.
If it is not a conscious strategy, but based upon fear not involving refelction or intent, OR they believe that they might eventually win this way, it does not qualify.

For the former condition, we might say it amounts to surrendering, but absent any intent to give up.

For the latter...Let us say a fighter is well ahead & there are few rounds left. He may believe that just or mostly being defensive can keep him on his feet, not knocked down-or even if he is put down he can survive a 10-8 round-& he will win on the scorecards.

And he may well be correct. He may know how hurt he was, that he has little left in the tank to mount an effective offense, see & know the capacity & history of an opponent who has a substantial amount of power & endurance....

Could be the bravest man in the world but be able to emerge triumphant when other warriors would go out on their shields, because his ego & pride will not be more important that the cold rational calculation that this is the only realistic way to win!

Much turns on intent, that is always not completely knowable.
Also the total context & strategy-how long & why does the turtle act continue?
So often just shelling up would amount to surrender.

But sometimes it can make sense.
For the example abouve, although he might coast for the remainder of the fight, calculating to do enough that the specific referee will not stop the bout...

He might also hope that the opponent will gas from all the activity. Then he might pull a Zaire turn around.
But whether there is a good chance of that happening for him, it may well be that this is the only way he will win.