So is it health first or not?

That’s an interesting thought. I wonder if boxing is healthier, especially at the amateur level, than American football. If you're new to the sport, watch the Magomed fight. It's not overdramatic to say every time you step into the ring as a professional prizefighter, it may be your last.

Blame me, but I think bareknuckle 18th century battles were not only more honourable (which is obvious) but also healthier. That’s an interesting thought. I wonder if boxing is healthier, especially at the amateur level, than American football.

Health first is the motto of any sportsman, IMO. Pro or amateur. But the problem is that not you decide of your own health but a stranger, can be a bribed stranger. Blame me, but I think bareknuckle 18th century battles were not only more honourable (which is obvious) but also healthier.

That is madness. Wilder has loads of children and dependents. Over half his natural life is in front of him. It is terrible to saddle his family with caring for him, night and day, for the next several decades. Even worse to see him die. Wilder’s corner made the compassionate and humane decision. It is the fighter's job to fight. The ref, doctor, and corner are responsible for keeping the fighters safe. Wilder wanted to keep fighting. Breland wanted to stop the fight. I think both of them had the correct intentions, because Wilder is supposed to have the warrior mentality, and Breland is supposed to have the safety mentality. I support both Wilder and Breland and I'm glad that they're working together again. Looking forward to Wilder vs. Fury III.

Totally depends. If it is a brutal fight where you are giving as good as you get then fine. If you are however not defending yourself, being beat up bad, injured already and not fighting back it is not being a warrior to continue. It is being a piece of ****. People use the 'gladiator' line. It isn't that. If you want to do that go do some unsanctioned fights. It is a sport, it isn't life or death. If you have kids, family, responsibilities and you would happily burden yourself on them in a wheelchair not being able to wipe your own ass for the rest of your life then you are an idiot. Right. We want guys to fight. But no one is tuning in to watch a motherfuker die.

Totally depends. If it is a brutal fight where you are giving as good as you get then fine. If you are however not defending yourself, being beat up bad, injured already and not fighting back it is not being a warrior to continue. It is being a piece of ****. People use the 'gladiator' line. It isn't that. If you want to do that go do some unsanctioned fights. It is a sport, it isn't life or death. If you have kids, family, responsibilities and you would happily burden yourself on them in a wheelchair not being able to wipe your own ass for the rest of your life then you are an idiot.

They just dont like the fighters no matter what, simple as that Context is everything. Floyd boys have always loved the black and white arguments though.

I have a different background so I favor the mentality of going out on your shield. A mans sport. A gladiator sport. Just like I've argued football players know the risks and assume them, so do fighters...I'll still get chills, and fired up when I hear a guy will die in the ring though. Takes me back to active duty days. I can relate to that mentality. That is madness. Wilder has loads of children and dependents. Over half his natural life is in front of him. It is terrible to saddle his family with caring for him, night and day, for the next several decades. Even worse to see him die. Wilder’s corner made the compassionate and humane decision.

But with Floyd health first means not fighting the toughest challengers if possible, or getting as much advantage first. I’m having trouble coming up with top fighters he avoided during his career, especially the final few years.

They just dont like the fighters no matter what, simple as that

Boxing is far more complex that that. Not all rabbit punches are equal from an ethical standpoint. It's one thing to rabbit punch a guy breaking a clinch, after the bell, etc, it's another to hit him there inadvertently or to do so without full steam to fight dirty intentionally but to send a message, not to hurt with the illegal shot - just to say I'll get away with it and I'll force the fight I want. It's psychological. I agree that the intention behind the shot is important, and there are a lot of factors to consider. Last weekend's fight is making me reconsider the protocol that referees should follow. And I'm looking at past fights differently too. For example, why was Bernard Hopkins awarded up to 5 minutes of recovery time for a cheap shot behind the head from Roy Jones Jr.? If a fighter is visibly stunned from a blow to the back of the head, whether intentional or not, is it not fair for the referee to give them up to 5 minutes recovery? Similar to a low blow? In retrospect, I think the same can be applied to Wilder vs. Fury I. Fury was hit by a rabbit punch in round 9, and should've received recovery time if he'd asked for it. Maybe it's Deontay's fault for not asking for recovery time in the rematch? Maybe it's the referee's fault for not ruling it as a foul? Or maybe it's just an unfortunate turn of events, and as boxing fans we all have to accept it and move on.

Context is everything. Beating the fuk out of a woman is frowned upon, but again, context is everything. Floyd boys have always loved this reasoning though.

Surely, there is a happy medium to be found somewhere between overly-sanitised "health-first" approaches and fights to the death

Also, when your favorite boxer throws rabbit punches, it's "veteran tactics." But nobody defended Terrel Williams when he rabbit punched Prichard Colón. Boxing is far more complex that that. Not all rabbit punches are equal from an ethical standpoint. It's one thing to rabbit punch a guy breaking a clinch, after the bell, etc, it's another to hit him there inadvertently or to do so without full steam to fight dirty intentionally but to send a message, not to hurt with the illegal shot - just to say I'll get away with it and I'll force the fight I want. It's psychological.

Lol I said the same thing. They don’t even know anymore. They’re just hating on these dudes just to hate.

Also, when your favorite boxer throws rabbit punches, it's "veteran tactics." But nobody defended Terrel Williams when he rabbit punched Prichard Colón. Basically. Views and standards Change from boxer to boxer

When floyd says "health first". People call him a coward. Wilder says, he wants to go out on his shield and the forum calls him an idiot. Advise him to put health first. So which is it, is putting health first cowardly or smart? I have a different background so I favor the mentality of going out on your shield. A mans sport. A gladiator sport. Just like I've argued football players know the risks and assume them, so do fighters. Floyd was selling his fights but at the same point has the right to fight for what he wants to prioritize. If that's tomorrow, so be it. Will always be a huge Floyd fan. I'll still get chills, and fired up when I hear a guy will die in the ring though. Takes me back to active duty days. I can relate to that mentality.

Also, when your favorite boxer throws rabbit punches, it's "veteran tactics." But nobody defended Terrel Williams when he rabbit punched Prichard Colón.

I think it's foolish to expect your corner to let you go out on your shield no matter what. At a certain point it needs to be out of the fighters hands since they can't think clearly in the moment. Also forcing someone to live with the fact you let them turn into a crippled drooling sack of goo because of your pride is pretty damn selfish in my opinion too.

But with Floyd health first means not fighting the toughest challengers if possible, or getting as much advantage first.