Do you view fighters who quit before conclusively beaten in a negative light?

[Eff Pandas]

I'm just curious how people view fighters who "tap out" more then get KO'd or just don't "go down swingin".

I'd rather not turn this into a discussion about the fight people are talking about in 6 other threads right now. I'd rather this be considered in a more general or abstract way although I'm not suggesting examples shouldn't be used, more so that one recent example isn't overused.

[soul_survivor]

Ok I will not use both of Kell Crook's quits as examples.

Let me use Victor Ortix v Maidana instead. The two had an up and down, back and forth war but the fight was only heating up and the truly world class would have come through that heat, yet Ortiz quit. Not only that, he gave one of the worst post fight interviews of all time and stated, "I don't deserve to be punched like that"...he is a boxer, it is literally his job description.

Now, as I've said before, if a quit like this occurs AWAY from the upper echelon of the sport, away from the bright lights of mainstream broadcasting and away from big paydays, then fine. Yet, when it happens, time and time again at the world level and certain fighters keep getting big paydays, time and time again, then there is a serious problems and fans correctly voice their disappointment at these fighters. Ortiz, Crook and many others have rightfully beeen labeled jokes.

[paulf]

No. I may make fun of a guy just to talk some shit, but you got guys dying in the ring, getting brain damage, losing their eye sight.

No one knows better than a fighter when something is wrong... when he's had enough. If a guy quits, he has a damn good reason be it because he is in danger, knows he'd done and will only further damage himself going out there, or because he's like "Oh Shit I'm not about this life this fighting thing isn't for me" (TOR HAMER).

Saying that, I have mad respect to the crazy motherfuckers in the above situations who get off their stool and go back out there anyway.

[The Big Dunn]

I voted yes but it depends. I can understand why brook quit-preserve the rest of his career.

[boliodogs]

I would have to see the quit. I can tell you I think less of Brook now and don't have confidence he won't give up early again if things get too rough for him. I voted yes.

[-Freddy-]

I do because I like to see fighters fight to the end but sometimes you have to be sensible and look at the bigger picture.

[Rip Chudd]

Depends on the fight and what manner they quit in. But when all is said and done I'm not the one in the fight at the time so I don't know exactly how they feel or what's going on internally with their body or mentally. If they quit and cheat themselves then that's something they'll have to live with

[NaijaD]

I voted no because I'm guessing you're referring to a situation like what we witnessed this past weekend.... that scenario is understandable but if it's something like Walters against Lomachenko then yes because that was very disappointing.

[boliodogs]

Sorry I used Brook as an example when you said not to. Sometimes I get in a hurry and don't read the start of thread completely and carefully.

[Szef]

Brook quitting is no different than Angulo quitting against Lara. I didn't criticize Alfredo for caring about his health back then and I won't critize Kell for doing the same now.

They have lives outside of the sport and people to care about. We, boxing fans, are not those people.