If "quitting" is OK, then why do we value guys like Gatti, Frazier, Corrales....??

[QUISQUEYA]

In one breath, you can't laud guys like Frazier, Gatti, Corrales, etc for being tremendous warriors with great heart. And in the next breath, you say it's OK for Ortiz to "stop fighting to protect himself and his career".

Either "guts and glory" is a great thing... or it's not.

If we elevate the guys who "gut it out" in tough fights, then it makes perfect sense to vilify the guys who quit when the going gets tough.



"I'm too young to get beat up like this"

[Eric Holder]

logical fallacies ftw

[Hagler★]

Which Frazier fight you talking about Futch pulled him out he never quit

[QUISQUEYA]

logical fallacies ftw

I see somebody failed PHI 101.

A very basic tenet is that if A is good, then the opposite of A is bad.

[FeFist]

I see not quitting as bonus points, in other words someone who does decide to stop fighting in a match will not be villified by me.

People are too freaking ******. If someone runs into a burning building to save an old lady people would give him props for it, you wouldn't look at someone with scorn for not going in the building.

[QUISQUEYA]

Which Frazier fight you talking about Futch pulled him out he never quit

That is exactly the point. Frazier never quit. That is why he's in the "blood and guts" category.

Reading is fundamental.

[QUISQUEYA]

I see not quitting as bonus points, in other words someone who does decide to stop fighting in a match will not be villified by me.

People are too freaking ******. If someone runs into a burning building to save an old lady people would give him props for it, you wouldn't look at someone with scorn for not going in the building.

Depends. Is that guy a fireman?

If Citizen Joe doesn't run into a burning building, no issue. If Fireman Jim doesn't run into a burning building, then he is scorn-worthy.

Ortiz is not a tennis player. He is a fighter. This is the livelihood he chose.

[Clegg]

Because those guys went above and beyond what is expected from a normal person.

Being a good boxer is OK, but we still value those who reach the level of greatness.

Living a normal life is OK, but we value those who do a lot of charity work/other selfless acts.

[MACAQUEINBLACK]

In one breath, you can't laud guys like Frazier, Gatti, Corrales, etc for being tremendous warriors with great heart. And in the next breath, you say it's OK for Ortiz to "stop fighting to protect himself and his career".

Either "guts and glory" is a great thing... or it's not.

If we elevate the guys who "gut it out" in tough fights, then it makes perfect sense to vilify the guys who quit when the going gets tough.



"I'm too young to get beat up like this"

Yeah, but you think Gatti is a dumbass, really, don't you?


I know what you're saying.




Me, I stand back in awe at those great shows of blood and guts, but I do it with my own heart in my mouth for concern of those guys' wellbeing getting permanently fucked up. Then when I see a guy like Cotto take a knee and give the signal that he wants out after a heavy beating, I accept it with a sense of relief.


I believe it's possible to respect the level of never-say-die heart you're referring to without necessarily demanding it.

Maybe that's it. It should be respected, but not celebrated as the standard every last guy who takes the ring should be held to. Whereas a fighter's decision to pull his ass out of there after a beating, for the sake of whatever, should just be respected.

[VoodooChild]

I see somebody failed PHI 101.

A very basic tenet is that if A is good, then the opposite of A is bad.

Hmmm, I'm not sure I buy that; can you create a simple syllogism and demonstrate this please