Willard Called A Quitter At Toledo

I concede he quit against Holyfield I agree he did what he did, he couldn't handle the dirty stuff Evander was putting on him and just wanted a way out, he himself wasn't a sparkling clean fighter but it was what it was. But undoubtedly if it was in his nature to pack it in when times got tough he would have bailed after the first onslaught and not be left seeing stars after being fed a buffet of uppercuts from Lennox.

I suppose what I am saying is he is inconsistent and human like all of us.

 

In terms of not quitting I don’t necessarily disagree with the examples you’ve provided but they don’t at all fit the intentions and scenarios that I framed - simply and justifiably weathering a temporary storm is obviously a different kettle of fish..

I said a fighter resigned to losing and looking only to survive the full route. Period.

Was Bone Crusher trying to win against Tyson? No. Was he holding out hope that some other factor might cause Mike to falter. No. Have any boxers in history ever been confidently described by commentators as only looking to survive (read: not trying to win nor holding out any hope of winning) from opening to last bell? Definitely yes, numerous fighters have. Some fighters have clearly shut down thusly for all intents and purposes and less often seen exceptional luck in at the 11th hour doesn’t change that.

Without suggesting that Maxim did in fact improperly shut down, did Joey calculate that Ray would be ultimately be overcome by the heat? - I doubt very much he did nor did he entertain any other such lottery ticket intervention.

It’s interesting that you confidently suggest Mike Tyson quit in the rematch v Holyfield. I actually agree with that belief but then, in all possibility, it’s not a lock fact and Mike may very well have just lost his sh*t due to Holyfield’s own breaches of the rules (at least as Mike saw it) without necessarily having the intention of ultimately being DQ’d.

Just as a point of fact, Tyson didn’t have the tools to spoil, clam up and evade as some others fighters might in order to avoid punishment and simply see the fight out. If he did quit as you and I believe, it was to avoid an ass whupping that he could not prevent or avoid otherwise.

I’ll reiterate that I did say that such cases in which fighters drop tools purely for self preservation could be viewed as forms of surrender in varying degrees as compared to Willard’s official recession from competition after absorbing an hellacious beating with the promise of only more to come if he had continued.

Some less inclined fighters who have seen out certain fights can be still be reasonably said to have exhibited a lot less courage and attempts to win than Willard did in those 3 rds - which was really the crux of my point.

 

But I defined the intention and the consequential fighting conduct.

Tweaking same will obviously change interpretation and judgment on said fighter.

It would be like me presenting a hypothetical: Man holds perfectly functioning closed umbrella in hand. In an instant there is a torrential downpour but man does not open umbrella and shield himself. Please discuss.

Then first response is : “But what if man doesn’t have an umbrella OR what if the man’s umbrella is broken? Okey dokey, let’s try that one again.

Suffice to say, protecting a winning lead by way of coasting is clearly not a scenario that I was referring to - that involves an intent to win, with the objective realised and then protected. That’s pulling the “shelling up” I referenced out of its due context.

Of course we can NEVER know for sure a fighter’s intention but that’s never stopped anyone of us confidently suggesting we are privy to same (in all likelihood as we see it).

Now I’m not judging a fighter’s courage - never have, never will - stepping through the ropes requires more cajones than the majority of the population possesses

However, as a theoretical exercise, be it consciously or unconsciously impacting on fighter’s reactionary conduct/strategy, so called fear and it’s neg. effects is the yin in balance with so called courage, the yang. So called fear (performance effecting) is a relevant condition for consideration and it is a condition at odds with the concept of boxing and the expectations of its combatants

Back to Big Ol’ Jess. He quit. Surrendered. Receded from competition. Made official his own defeat before the actual fact though was it really undoubtedly imminent or was it not? Perhaps a crazy, gazillion to one lightning strike could’ve taken the Mauler down shortly thereafter - Big Jess dropped the ball on that possibility.

Anyway, why was it a problem that he surrendered despite being beaten for all intents and purposes?

Because he didn’t go out on his shield. Again, why is that a problem? Because going out on your shield implies unconditional courage and therefore it was deduced that Jess somehow lacked same.

Now technically, if a fighter feels fear that’s fine. However, technically again, if that fear impacts negatively on the expected propensity to functionally engage, by definition, some might reason that to be cowardice. The good old fight or flight syndrome.

Another twist in the tale on quitting. No mas. Roberto unequivocally quit. Was it out of conventional fear of punishment and pain as we might ordinarily deduce in the context of boxing? No, but it was borne out of fear of both losing and being further humiliated along the way. Though Duran had fought many lesser skilled men similarly staring down the barrel of defeat (many of them even more so than Roberto was v Leonard) they saw it through to the point of defeat - something that Roberto, at least in New Orleans, spared himself the indignity of.

Anyway, it’s impossible to make a one statement fits all proposition - so many possible permutations and nuances to be accounted for without a specific example called in for analysis. Good discussion though.

 

Hmmm! I have the 2 vols on Johnson and the single vol on Jeffries and I have read both. Excellent! I have the book on Fitz and that is up next for reading. Even though I thought I might stop there - you’re now whetting my appetite for the Dempsey book.
The seed of want has been planted…..

 

Sorry Pugguy I was not the only one who saw your statement of "shelling up" to mean that in all circumstances doing so was defined as quitting. You now clarify you meant only a certain context of intent in addition to the actions. OK.

I would not say the umbrella argument & its hypotehtical objection is relevant, because as an analogy that postulates that the boxer cannot shell up, or do so with any effectiveness. Which was not in question, just what was the motivation for deploying said umbrella.
Now if it is the following, that is something else entirely...[url]https://sites.dartmouth.edu/library/2014/08/01/surrealists-inspired-by-lautreamont-2/[/url]

I never was in the camp that said Jess should have gone out to virtually certain defeat despite absorbing all the samage he sis.
Even though overstated by some. And he believed until his dying day Dempsey cheated with a railway spike he would show reporters...But like Moore re: the count vs. Marciano, his ego just constructed a face-saving (no pun intended ;-)) reality.

Tyson likely did not mean to quit, but biting Holyfield & even part of his ear off was an immoral act of escalation-even if the head butts were intentional. He lost it; that level of attack was wrong.
Bonecrusher & to some extent green against Tyson, there seemed to be an aspect of surrendeur there. In the former case, i think likely born of fear. Certainly Seldonl & Spinks actually fought & did not shirk at all-but if he did not have that confessed big fear, he likely would have fought better.

Duran had not physical fear, but was wrong to not keep trying because he felt humilated.
He paid the price in reputation & should have.

 

Anything but a quitter. The man took one of the worst if not the worst beating I ever saw on film in that first round and somehow lasted a few more. I would say he had one of the biggest hearts I ever saw to be honest

 

Absolutely

 

Well, it was only yourself and one other poster who interpreted my statement to include all circumstances.

Again, read in due context I think what I meant was pretty clear - and besides that, given the curious initial misinterpretation, I’ve made myself exactly clear in several posts since, not just in my last post and not “just now”.

Let’s underscore again - not trying to win (which obviously precludes protecting an already winning lead), ONLY trying to survive, with shelling up (not randomly but as a substantive strategy) being the means to surviving.

LOL, the Umbrella (Academy) hypothetical.

That was meant to illustrate giving the conditions for a conclusion only to have someone alter the conditions, thereby perverting the conclusion sought or already reached.

Anyway, hopefully all is understood by now.

 

If you mean that only a couple folks who expressed opinions on your statement felt you were wrong sure.
If it is important to you, send the initial statement & I will read it again & considering the context.
Granted you did not clarify what you mean only once.

We can look at conditions expressed, if intent was clear or something else was said, even if unintentionally-but nobody intended to pervert any conclusion.

I & others do believe that intent of the FIGHTER can can be ambiguous.
Even to themselves. When under great pressure & there is *at certain moments* no plausible way to come out of a shell & be able to survive, how much of that might be in what parts conscious strategy, a surrender, an automatic protective response based upon fear, just fighting instinct, or any rational calculation such as looking for exhaustion &/or later openings....

All this is often unclear.
In other cases it seems obvious that boxers made their survival & lack of pain a priority over winning.
Due to fear or lack of fighting spirit.
When someone with a decent potential to open up but does not do so-the odds are against them but it is the only way they might well win-does not try much, tying up & avoiding combat-in intent that is like what you meant, & is sometimes betrayed by, "shelling up".

Like Tyson vs. Bonehugger, Seldon, & Green.

 

He was a helluva tough, courageous man to continue fighting after round 1. I also can't call a man a coward who climbs into the ring to fight in the first place.

$100,000 and a farm in Kansas is plenty of reason to live.

 

Willard had quit against Joe Cox years earlier, and even claimed the shattered cheekbone excuse he would use in Toledo. It was in his DNA.

 

Again, I think it was acceptably clear what I meant in the first instance which I clarified further several times since for anyone who misinterpreted.


It’s not important to me - I’m merely responding to the repetition of the misinterpretation - so it is obviously important at the other end.

Due respect but you’re over complicating the exchanges.

Most recent example.


You stated you weren’t the only one to read me as such. I didn’t reply “If you mean…”. I cut to the chase and identified that you were referring to just one other poster besides yourself. Done and dusted. Now you’re replying back to my response with “If you mean…” and “if it is important to me”. Very circular given it wasn’t my point in the first place but I did address it.


You’ve pointed to scenarios that “seem obvious”, clearly these are the type I was referring to - of course there are situations that are not so pronounced or don’t even fit the frame - possibly ambiguous as you suggest -


Also we can delve deep psychologically into all the possible whys and wherefores but manifestly we still may see a fighter who, primarily, is not trying to viably compete, not at all trying to win but only to trying survive.


Does that include prudent and selected moments of accented defence and/or staying out of harms way? Or moments when a fighter is momentarily hurt badly when survival is priority in that instant? Of course not. Not to be glib, but preclusion of such examples go without saying - I would think.


Otherwise, if I was including same, I would be inexplicably suggesting that someone like Ali had “surrendered” on several short term occasions to Frazier in Manila (to nominate just one of their fights).

Just a side note - There was one occasion during that fight, rd 10 I think, when Ali was covered up on the ropes and Frazier was teeing off. All the punches Joe three were significant, but one left hook got through on the button. You could see Ali’s body slump a bit - good chance he was momentarily out on his feet. Joe belted him a few more times - the commentator then glibly stated that “Ali will open up soon” - and on cue Ali began punching back. Anybody other fighter, they might’ve observed them to be in real trouble - which I think Ali was - but it was Ali - and despite it being a literally super human effort to come back at Frazier, it’s simply what Ali did, time and again and it was taken for granted that he would do same in that particular instance which of course he did.


Anyway, the main point is that you now know where I was coming from and ultimately we’re probably agreeing more than disagreeing and if you disagree with that then simply flip my previous statement. Emoji madness