It occurs to me there's a solid history of Britain's top fighters retiring in a timely fashion: Lewis Hatton Calzaghe Hamed Presumably, these are all guys who could've made millions more had they fought on. Compare that with many of the best American fighters, who continue or continued to fight long past their primes: Holyfield RJJ Holmes SRL Can this be attributed to Nationality? Did guys like Hatton make significantly more cash fighting in giant soccer arenas? Have fighters like RJJ simply mismanaged their cash and need the money? Is this simply antecdotal? Or is there something to this? And how do you explain it?
Why? Because he lost a fight? Sorry. Two fights. Had Hatton retired any sooner than he did, it would've been just plain weird. Can you check your comic-book undefeated-record-loving attitude at the door? Just once? And see the forest for the trees?
word. He got fucked up twice at the end of his career...second time rendered unconscious. I don't see how he retired at the right time. Lewis at least retired after having beaten everyone he ever faced and went out with a victory over Vitali. Also..last I checked both Hagler and Marciano are Americans. Tunney also.
BTW..my Hagler, Marciano and Tunney examples destroy this thread. It's done, finished. I have shown that there is no pattern associated with nationality. You have been tried on the scales of logic and found lacking.
This is Sly's way of saying Hatton should have retired before he fought Pac because he was already shot by then hence making Pac's win less impressive than Floyd's . Fucking idiot.
This isn't about whether or not fighters maximized their legacy by going out on a high note. It's about whether or not they retired at a reasonable age, and still at the top of their game. So let's not go down the mental-masturbatory road of considering how Hatton might have otherwise created the illusion he was a better fighter than he was. It's not a subtle question. There's fighters who fought on long past their best and became opponents. And then there's ones who didn't. At first blush, it seems there were a disproportionate number of top British fighters, especially recently, who retired before their skills eroded to the point they were mere shadows of their old selves. On the other hand, there's fewer examples, especially recently, of top American fighters who did that. ODH qualifies. But when you consider the proportion of top British fighters, and then the proportion of them who retired at a reasonable stage, it begins to hint at something. Your counter-examples of Hagler and Marciano are relevant. Maybe it is just a matter of chance.
I suspected that too. And if it's true, and that's really where his mind is, it's even worse than I thought.
This has nothing to do with Pacquiao vs Floyd. When a guy gets fucked up during his career and retires soon after..I don't see that as "retiring on time". I see that as BEING RETIRED by the said fighter.
Maybe UK fighters aren't quite as irresponsible with their money. They don't tend to spend it quite as ostentatiously anyway.
Dunno who Haglar is, but I did hear that "Marvelous" Marvin Hagler is an Italian national. Dude has lived in Italy so long now that he actually has an Italian accent.
First off, the thread openly asks the question regarding nationality. It doesn't declare it to be a factor. Secondly, three counter-examples don't "destroy" anything. For one, none of your examples are less than 30 years old. And as importantly, there's been many more top American fighters than British ones, and so four recent examples of top British fighters retiring in timely fashion looks suspiciously like a pattern. I tend to agree with Hut-Hut that British athletes tend to be less ostentatious. But I don't think it has to do with socialism or capitalism, but more with value systems and family up-bringings. It all depends on how you look at things. I'd say at this point in time the U.S. government is about as close as it's ever been to being the wasteful, condescending and presumptuous force that has characterized European governments.
A fighter shouldn't retire with a belt. Lose the title in the ring and then come back and fight an easy opponent if you want to retire with a win. The exception would be to clear out a division and lay out who you are fighting before you retire so everyone knows who they need to beat to cut in line. Although I can't think of anyone who has ever done this, the Klitschko's could do something like it now and Lennox could have done it.
Haye retired today before Vitali found out where he lived and beat the shit out of him with a hair-straightener.
The reason I think it could happen is because it would show a fighter's desire for greatness, but at the same time it would give the fighter a justifiable reason for getting out and avoid the 'he was slipping', 'he was ducking a challenger' or whatever else. It would sort of be like setting up the brackets for your final tournament so everyone is on notice. The other main reason I think it could happen is because it would create interest and that creates $.
