How Do You Determine When a Fighter Quits?

It is usually quite obvious when a Boxer quits, but for me the real importance is more about why he has quit. Having your orbital broken and nerve damage like Dubois or Brook is a perfectly good reason to quit as far as I'm concerned. Some other fighters would soldier on with their facial bones all wankered and risk permanently damaging themselves and its all very brave and heroic but I dont blame ppl who quit before they sustain life injuries. For what it's worth, I agree with you, 100%. My issue comes when people say he didn't quit; he knelt down and chose not to get back up in time. I think he was justified in quitting, but he still quit.

Boxers tend to be held to a rather lofty standard in general when it comes to bravery in the face of adversity. You have guys Like Muhammad Ali, Arturo Gatti, James Toney etc. who showed tremendous courage in the face of adversity. Then you have guys like Daniel Dubois, Victor Ortiz, Miguel Cotto, Bernard Hopkins who are the complete opposite. If you are going to sell boxers to the public as being tough guys. It's not a good look when those guys give up in fights because they are scared of getting beaten up to badly. I agree. I don’t blame a fighter for quitting, fighting for a living takes courage so if you feel like your career or even life might be in danger then I won’t argue. But if you do quit, you’ll be held accountable for those actions regardless. Because there’s some fighters that will never quit under any circumstance.

I think you are missing the point son. Good input. Thanks.

It is usually quite obvious when a Boxer quits, but for me the real importance is more about why he has quit. Having your orbital broken and nerve damage like Dubois or Brook is a perfectly good reason to quit as far as I'm concerned. Some other fighters would soldier on with their facial bones all wankered and risk permanently damaging themselves and its all very brave and heroic but I dont blame ppl who quit before they sustain life injuries.

Vitali was stopped and angry about it, Dubois knelt down and gave up. If you can't see the difference there, I really don't know what to tell you. You've only got to read the post to understand the point I'm making. I'll simplify... Dubois fought 7 rounds with a broken orbital. Klitschko fought 4 rounds with a cut. Klitschko became a warrior and Dubois became a coward. Or maybe neither thing happened, and it's just the opinions of a bunch of internet kids who never took a punch in their life.

Vitali fought 4 rounds with a cut and that was enough to make him a warrior in Johnny Public's eyes. By his trainer's account of when it happened, Dubois fought as many as 7 rounds with an orbital fracture. Not a warrior? Vitali was stopped and angry about it, Dubois knelt down and gave up. If you can't see the difference there, I really don't know what to tell you.

The fighter shouldn't have to make the decision. It will follow him around. He will doubt himself, and people will doubt him. After Vitali quit against Byrd the reputation followed him around heavily for three years and likely would have for his entire career if he hadn't earned back that warrior status against Lewis. After that fight nobody ever questioned him. I was thinking about that fight today. As much as it was a horrendous cut, most fighters would fight on with a cut. I'm guessing Vitali would tell you that the shoulder injury against Byrd was worse than the cut against Lennox. He'd probably tell you that Dubois' eye injury was worse too. Vitali fought 4 rounds with a cut and that was enough to make him a warrior in Johnny Public's eyes. By his trainer's account of when it happened, Dubois fought as many as 7 rounds with an orbital fracture. Not a warrior? The irony is that it will take Dubois to get a cut he'll barely feel to change his reputation.

Only one to really know is the fighter himself, you can only quit if you have given 100% of yourself, if you have given any less you never fully committed in the first place.

I agree with that. Really Dubois shouldn't have been put in that position. All someone had to ask him was "what are you feeling in your eye"? And then take him out of the fight. But, really, the outcome is the same - it's just the presentation that's different. And I don't judge the fighter any differently for it. It's arguably braver to do it yourself when no-one else will. The fighter shouldn't have to make the decision. It will follow him around. He will doubt himself, and people will doubt him. After Vitali quit against Byrd the reputation followed him around heavily for three years and likely would have for his entire career if he hadn't earned back that warrior status against Lewis. After that fight nobody ever questioned him.

I didn’t create the word nor the definition lol. I don’t think a corner stopping it is quitting. If the ref asks you if you can continue and you say no, you quit. That being said, it could be smart to quit. GGG/Wade comes to mind. Wade got up at 11 and Reiss being a dumb ass made him tell him that he was finished. Should have just let the guy out. The ref and corner should be there to make that choice so the fighter doesn’t have to. I agree with that. Really Dubois shouldn't have been put in that position. All someone had to ask him was "what are you feeling in your eye"? And then take him out of the fight. But, really, the outcome is the same - it's just the presentation that's different. And I don't judge the fighter any differently for it. It's arguably braver to do it yourself when no-one else will.

Yeah McClellan was a blatant quit. I always look at it this way. Quitting as a fighter doesn’t make you any less of a man it just makes you less of a fighter. 99% of human beings would quit if they were in Dubois’ position. I certainly would, I’m guessing you would too because we’re not professional fighters and that’s why we’re not professional fighters. 99% of fighters however wouldn’t quit under those circumstances though, because they’re fighters and they’ll fight until the end. It’s the brutal nature of the sport. I'm not sure if I agree with 99% of fighters wouldn't have quit but it is hard to say. I think 99% of 23 year olds probably fight until the end despite the injury. Paulie said when a fighter is young and hungry, they will do whatever they need to do to win or make it the full 12 rounds. But when they start aging, the mindset changes. Look at Erik Morales for example. This man was the prototypical bad a$$ Mexican warrior and he had no problem in going to wars. But then against Pacquiao and later against DSG, he was more willing to give in. Enough was enough for him and he knew when he had no shot of winning that it wasn't worth taking any more punishment. But Dubois is certainly going to have this stigma for the rest of his career or at least until he faces adversity again and comes through.

I think we have discussed this before, but then by that definition you would consider GMan quitting against Benn, right? I think my overall viewpoint on this has changed as I've gotten older. Heck, even after fights the first thought is to always say a fighter quit but now I feel like in a lot of cases the fight is just beaten out of the fighter. Like Duran really quit against SRL as mentioned because it wasn't like he was taking a lot of punishment and couldn't continue, he was just frustrated. But this is definitely an interesting topic. I feel like a lot of pundits and former fighters choose to use the word quit for certain fights/fighters. What made the Dubois situation a bit different was that he was a young fighter saying enough is enough. Usually when this happens, you will see an older fighter in their 30s or during the latter part of their primes making these types of decisions. Life changes at that point and you end up starting a family or whatever the case may be and what was worth it when you were 22 is not worth it when you are say 32. Yeah McClellan was a blatant quit. I always look at it this way. Quitting as a fighter doesn’t make you any less of a man it just makes you less of a fighter. 99% of human beings would quit if they were in Dubois’ position. I certainly would, I’m guessing you would too because we’re not professional fighters and that’s why we’re not professional fighters. 99% of fighters however wouldn’t quit under those circumstances though, because they’re fighters and they’ll fight until the end. It’s the brutal nature of the sport.

If a fighter refuses to carry on fighting then by definition they’ve quit. Some are more justifiable than others. That’s down to your individuals views. Some would say a smashed eye socket is a legitimate reason to quit, someone would certainly disagree with that. I agree with this post.

When THEY choose not to continue. I think we have discussed this before, but then by that definition you would consider GMan quitting against Benn, right? I think my overall viewpoint on this has changed as I've gotten older. Heck, even after fights the first thought is to always say a fighter quit but now I feel like in a lot of cases the fight is just beaten out of the fighter. Like Duran really quit against SRL as mentioned because it wasn't like he was taking a lot of punishment and couldn't continue, he was just frustrated. But this is definitely an interesting topic. I feel like a lot of pundits and former fighters choose to use the word quit for certain fights/fighters. What made the Dubois situation a bit different was that he was a young fighter saying enough is enough. Usually when this happens, you will see an older fighter in their 30s or during the latter part of their primes making these types of decisions. Life changes at that point and you end up starting a family or whatever the case may be and what was worth it when you were 22 is not worth it when you are say 32.

They are different reasons for quitting. If the injury is legit and they quit for me it is KO. The other fighter inflicted damage that just can't continue because of the injury. Others get inured during the fight and can't continue like a leg injury or shoulder injury, I am on the fence with those. Now others quit because their heart is not into it at that point in time. They can continue but choose not to.

When THEY choose not to continue.

Did Franco quit against Moloney? The referee asked him if he was able to continue and he said "no". If the referee or Doctor had asked Dubois would that make it ok? I see a very fine line. If you're beaten to the point of an injury you can't continue with - what difference does it make who made the call? I didn’t create the word nor the definition lol. I don’t think a corner stopping it is quitting. If the ref asks you if you can continue and you say no, you quit. That being said, it could be smart to quit. GGG/Wade comes to mind. Wade got up at 11 and Reiss being a dumb ass made him tell him that he was finished. Should have just let the guy out. The ref and corner should be there to make that choice so the fighter doesn’t have to.

Interesting viewpoint. So do you see corner stoppages a little different when the corner asks the fighter if they are good and they may say they are good but don't make it clear enough that they want to continue? For example, how do you view Lamont against Errol? That's the only grey area. I would personally argue that if you cannot convince someone you want to continue, deep down you want them to stop it. Look at some fighters angry reactions to corner stoppages. I think quitting is saying "NO MAS" Duran, Walter style where theirs still fight to be had but you dont want to fight no more. I think getting subdued into calling it a day like Cotto did or how Dirrel did vs Benavidez is different, sure they folded up and didn't want no more and was looking for someone to stop it for them like the ref or the corner but thats not really quitting they gave it their all and they have no more left to give that imo is not quitting it just being bested in the worse way. Why you choose to quit doesn't change the definition of the word, or the fact you had the chance to carry on but chose not to. Everyone you listed is a quitter. Roberto Duran = quitter Victor Ortiz (jaw broke) = not a quitter Again, having a valid reason doesn't mean you didn't choose to quit. Ortiz refused to leave his stool, he quit. You might think a broken jaw is a valid reason to quit, but that doesn't mean he didn't quit. Did Franco quit against Moloney? The referee asked him if he was able to continue and he said "no". If the referee or Doctor had asked Dubois would that make it ok? I see a very fine line. If you're beaten to the point of an injury you can't continue with - what difference does it make who made the call? Yes, if what you say is true, Franco quit against Maloney. Asking someone else to stop it for you is the sign of a fighter who knows he's quitting, but knows he has no valid reason to and is looking for a way to save face. A quit is a quit is a quit. Mitigating factors might mean that some are more justified than others, but the actual meaning of the word is abundantly clear.

He isn't a quitter. He knew something wrong and could get hurt if can't see punches. Duran quit v srl as he could continue but just being outboxed

When they quit.