Okay, So What Was Aspinall Supposed To Do?

• “Critics are people who watch a battle from the heights, then come down and shoot the survivors.” – Ernest Hemingway

Critics claim MMA fighter Tom Aspinall should have continued after the eye gouge, despite seeing only light in one eye and having blurred vision in the other. Of course, this assumes that the referee and ringside physician would have allowed the fight to go on, a dubious assumption.

Okay, say the critics are correct. What should Aspinall have done?

1) Stood there and let his opponent pound his brain into CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy), just to prove…what, exactly? That he was really “macho,” or that he was really stupid?

2) Grabbed his opponent and inflicted a serious and potentially fatal injury? Punch him in the larynx? Twist his neck? After all, if someone comes up to you on the street and gouges both your eyes, you can assume he intends to cause serious bodily injury…because he just did. In most places, this justifies use of deadly force to defend against it, including a firearm or knife.

Critics should be aware of the consequences of their criticism. That’s what ethical people do. But what ethical people do NOT do is yearn for other human beings to suffer pain and serious injury to satisfy some sadistic urge.

Years ago, I had the great honor of shaking hands with Joe Louis. There was a guy who could dish it out and take it as well. But although I have an excellent memory, I just can’t seem to recall him gouging an eye.