So, you want to ban boxing?

[dondada]

A really fantastic piece by our own Terry D:

http://www.britishboxing.net/news_3189- ... oxing.html

[m1kee50]

A really fantastic piece by our own Terry D:

http://www.britishboxing.net/news_3189- ... oxing.html

spot on

especially the bit about foxes and the one about neutered husbands

[chesh]

An excellent piece of writing and compelling argument. I particularly enjoyed the paragraph containg the jazz analogy. As a boxing fan and jazz afficionado, I could see this paragraph being expanded into an essay. The differences between the American, British and European styles are as pronounced in boxing as they are in jazz. The improvisational - yet erratic - genius of James Toney could be compared to that of Charlie Parker. Anyway, I'm rambling and going off at a tangent! Well done, Terry.

[Matt W]

Loved this article Terry - great stuff mate, and I think I will be needing it when I start my new job next week

[Wales]

just sent it to the other half who debates in school whether boxing should eb banned or not - great rescource. terrence dooley will be famous in a small welsh high school.

[Deserter]

Really interesting piece Terry and well argued. Purely taking the 'devil's advocate' stance though, I'd take issue with:
"Blows may physically harm a boxer but he may also receive a life-changing amount of money or glory in return for this harm. This money may mean that he can live better in the future, so he consents to harm in order to receive benefits."
The problem with this statement is that it's only a tiny, tiny percentage of professional boxers who can get a "life-changing" sum or "glory" for their endeavours, which skews the equation somewhat.
Out of interest, if we accept the logical argument regarding consent to harm in order to receive benefits, would you be willing to apply this universally? For example, if, hypothetically, someone decided to resurrect the gladiator concept where a loss equals death, would you still consider the fact that the adult consented to participate as justification for participation?

[jamesmcdonnell]

Drawing on that fact Ian, it's worth noting, that in fact fights to the death between gladiators were a relative rarity.

Gladiators were actually very highly regarded members of society, and very expensive commodities, much like modern boxers are today. Their owners would have to be heavily compensated by the emporers if they were killed off, and so more often than not lives would be spared, despite the portrayals we see today. Gladiators also got more than their fair share of sex and glory, as the society ladies of the day would visit their quarters for a bit of rough on a regular basis, compared to the life of the average roman slave, they had it pretty damned good in many respects.

One aspect of boxing I do find generally disturbing, is that in general boxing draws from the less well to do members of society, whereas many of those in the best seats in the house, are from much higher eschelons of society. There is a distateful aspect to this, in that in many cases, those with fewer opportunities might turn to a risky profession like boxing, whereas those of a more priviledges background, might become a lawyer, doctor, entrepeneur etc.

Of course, those involved in combat may not be thinking about this aspect of it, but that's not the point, the point is that boxing reflects the hierarchical nature of our society, in that that the lives of those at the bottom, and always cheaper than those at the top. As you rightly point out Ian, very very few fighters make a great living, many hold down a day job as well, and many of those fighters who end up forgotten, walking on their heels and slurring their speech, taste neither the glory or the money.

Boxing is a very high risk sport, and the rewards rarely justify those rewards. This is why I find it hard to criticise the Bonson's of this world, who make a living without getting hurt, hopefully in the long term. They earn a decent living by fighting regularly and not taking punishment, so fair play to them.

I accept that life is nasty, brutish and short, and inequity is nothing new, but I still find it hard to justify boxing, even to myself.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Really interesting piece Terry and well argued. Purely taking the 'devil's advocate' stance though, I'd take issue with:
"Blows may physically harm a boxer but he may also receive a life-changing amount of money or glory in return for this harm. This money may mean that he can live better in the future, so he consents to harm in order to receive benefits."
The problem with this statement is that it's only a tiny, tiny percentage of professional boxers who can get a "life-changing" sum or "glory" for their endeavours, which skews the equation somewhat.
Out of interest, if we accept the logical argument regarding consent to harm in order to receive benefits, would you be willing to apply this universally? For example, if, hypothetically, someone decided to resurrect the gladiator concept where a loss equals death, would you still consider the fact that the adult consented to participate as justification for participation?

Cheers guys. I'll freely admit that people who want to ban boxing get right on my tits. Then again in my ideal world personal disputes would probably be solved by a duel at dawn.

Deserter, fair point and I thought that myself but (jokes aside about length) I'm trying to make them shorter these days and that was an abstract of something I did that was 15,000 words (for my work) a while back. True few get the money but the other aspect I could not go into is the fact that many are in boxing for the idea of the glory. This idea would take a bit more fleshing out and I'd have ran out of space.

A lot of fighters I talk to say they want to be world title holders. Some may have lost more than they've won or be nowhere near a title shot but you hold out for that glory. Or that one fight that you have that people always remember. I think the idea of the glory plays a big part but is very hard to understand unless you are a boxer. A boxer would put it far better than me. If it was just the money it could be counter-accused of being little better than legal mugging but the glory aspect of the sport gives it that extra dimension and people can sit in comfortable offices saying few boxers get financially rewarded but in my mind the boxers themselves are putting it all on the line to go for higher things than we hope for. They really do go for their dreams and that is rare in the world.

All the glory generated by Moore-Macklin seems to have been worth the punishment of the fight itself. Both fighters talk about it fondly, if a little tongue in cheek.

I think there is a lot to be admired in that. Sure some boxers get injured and the image of Ali shuffling along is always a painful one. I know people who see Ali and say "that poor man, someone should have got him to stop boxing" but what would he have been without boxing? How much life did he live before he was 30 in comparison to those who sit and judge? He's lived 100's of lifetimes compared to us so I bet he feels sorry for us and not the other way around.

Many of us have dreams but end-up in lower types of lives, as do many boxers but should we cancel the dreams and accept our lot? Boxers go for it and I respect that.

As for universal harm. On a sexual level one person could consent to being harmed for kicks but that does not mean we make this universal and allow them to do it to anyone. A boxer consents and in doing so steps outside the norms.

In a world where most people want to settle into middle-class semi-detached banality boxing provides something that stretches all the way back to times when men wanted more than a life in the suburbs. I'm glad about that and happy to watch the sport. For me there is no moral problem in boxing simply because it is a real ethical pursuit. I've never felt uncomfortable with the sport even though it is the done thing to agonise over it a little. For me there is nothing to fret over. I love boxing and my girlfriend does also, for her there is no argument over its legality or moral standing. It is the real thing.

Yes Terrence, for every Ali, there are thousands of other boxers who didn't 'live 100 lives' before the age of 30, who also have physical and/or mental problems as a result of boxing, that's just a reality.

When I was doing Charlie Magri's book, he told me that most of his mates who were ex-boxers had some form of physical/mental problems from their boxing careers. I won't name names as I don't want to appear to be portraying these men in a bad light, but some of them are pretty well known, and not widely perceived to suffer ill effects.

It's a harsh reality that our entertainment causes them physical damage. Even Charlie Magri, by his own admission has a pretty poor memory these days, and he considers himself one of the lucky ones.

However, with reference to the glory, I agree Terrence, noble pursuits and aspirations to edify and uplift the human spirit, but at what price.

I shall leave you with what is probably my favourite ever quote relating to sport and it would seem more particularly, boxing, by Theodore Roosevelt. Again, however, written from an outside perspective.

It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly...who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who have never known neither victory nor defeat."

Teddy Roosevelt

[DavidPayne]

Of course, Charlie may have had a poor memory by now anyway.

Because of the nature of individuality, it is hard to generalise on what is, and is not, the result of boxing.

I've also read heading a football dropping from a goalkick is equivalent force to being punched by a middleweight.

Does anyone have any theories to support that anecdote.

[jamesmcdonnell]

I've hear on numerous occasions that heading the ball is bad for you, however, it was apparently more referring to the old leather balls that were used, which used to get wet and very heavy during use.

Also, bear in mind that you aren't going to head the ball as many times in your career, as a ten year 40 fight pro will get punched, when you take into account all of the sparring as well as the fighting.

[jamesmcdonnell]

It's an interesting argument, but I've found my position has changed over time. I used to be very unapologetic about boxing but find my positiion a little more ambivalent these days.

[whicker]

To take some of the points in that article:

" We dismiss the other person by pointing out that boxing is not a violent sport, a violation cannot occur without permission "

But violent means WITH force, which is not the same thing as TO force.


Violence can be traced to the Latin " violentus " which means "with force."





The word violent does not imply a lack of permission. For example I could close a door violently or a RAINSTORM could be described as violent.

Also I could point to the obvious fact that they are actually two different words, which typically means that they don't mean the same thing.

[Matt W]

Most sports comtain risks and can cause lasting damage. Through running I had arthritis in my foot at the age of 21 (not that I'm trying to compare that to the effects of repeated blows to the head).

[Asterix]

To take some of the points in that article:

" We dismiss the other person by pointing out that boxing is not a violent sport, a violation cannot occur without permission "

But violent means WITH force, which is not the same thing as TO force.

Violence can be traced to the Latin " violentus " which means "with force."

The word violent does not imply a lack of permission. For example I could close a door violently or a RAINSTORM could be described as violent.

Also I could point to the obvious fact that they are actually two different words, which typically means that they don't mean the same thing.

Boxing is violent.

Terry, you're obviously very passionate about this subject, but my advice is not to get so defensive about boxing. By getting defensive, you show that you're unwilling to look at the other person's point of view and consider whether they might actually have a point.

[whicker]

Most sports comtain risks and can cause lasting damage. Through running I had arthritis in my foot at the age of 21 (not that I'm trying to compare that to the effects of repeated blows to the head).

The difference, as is often pointed out by opponents of boxing, is that in nearly all other sports the injuries are accidental, a result of bad technique, outright cheating, slips and trips etc. In boxing you are actually TRYING to cause short term injury to the opponent with blows to the head and body.

The pro-boxing responce, of course, is that it is done by choice, and every effort is made to prevent long term damage.

[Asterix]

I disagree. Striking your child is violent, but necessary. Boxing is not violent. I don't get agree with http://www.answers.com and think the words themselves were distorted over time.

As for passionate, you could not be further from the truth. I'm very dispassionate in the way I watch boxing and think about it. I also feel you can accept another persons point of view without giving over your own or feeling it with less certainty. I am resolute and don't buy into the idea of debat ethat you have to be conquered by the other person.

I always say that it's the definitions that can separate people's views. You define violent one way, answers.com defines it another. Either way, you've made your point and I respect it. I agree with you to a certain extent, but I feel that boxing is a violent sport. You won't change my opinion and I won't change yours, so we can end it here.

[Matt W]

Most sports comtain risks and can cause lasting damage. Through running I had arthritis in my foot at the age of 21 (not that I'm trying to compare that to the effects of repeated blows to the head).

The difference, as is often pointed out by opponents of boxing, is that in nearly all other sports the injuries are accidental, a result of bad technique, outright cheating, slips and trips etc. In boxing you are actually TRYING to cause short term injury to the opponent with blows to the head and body.

The pro-boxing responce, of course, is that it is done by choice, and every effort is made to prevent long term damage.

What you say is true to a degree but we all know that there are many intentional injuries caused in other sports, ice hockey for instance.

I guess you could argue that serious injuries in boxing are accidental as the intention is to cause a mild concussion and not a brain bleed (although I am clearly on spurious ground here...).

[Deserter]

Irrespective of the differing opinions I think we're all in Terry's debt saving us from the endless Hatton/Witter diatribes and instead sparking the type of intelligent debate that best defines this forum

[whicker]

I guess you could argue that serious injuries in boxing are accidental as the intention is to cause a mild concussion and not a brain bleed (although I am clearly on spurious ground here...).

What McGuigan argued on that TV show (with Roy Hattersley) was that boxer are very well trained, their neck muscles etc are developed so that they can tolerate hard and heavy punches. Wether this is true or not is, of course, open to debate.

IE puches that a boxer throws are less dangerous against a trained opponent.

[lowersmiths]

i remember a girlfriend ticking me off one day when we went for a walk in the countryside. there were two horses behind a fence in a field and we had some carrots with us to feed them. i showed the carrots to one of the horses then moved the bag away to show them to the other horse. then i motioned with the bag to get them to fight over the carrots. my GF started shouting at me and the day out was ended. i realised then that i just had a fascination with watching fighting. no need to make excuses for boxing. it is what it is.

[Asterix]

i remember a girlfriend ticking me off one day when we went for a walk in the countryside. there were two horses behind a fence in a field and we had some carrots with us to feed them. i showed the carrots to one of the horses then moved the bag away to show them to the other horse. then i motioned with the bag to get them to fight over the carrots. my GF started shouting at me and the day out was ended. i realised then that i just had a fascination with watching fighting. no need to make excuses for boxing. it is what it is.

Somehow I could imagine that being a TV ad for boxing. lol.

[lowersmiths]

if i remember correctly the light brown one on the right got a few decent kicks in before the GF called a halt to the action.

[lowersmiths]

if i remember correctly the light brown one on the right got a few decent kicks in before the GF called a halt to the action.

So she won then? They always do. Women hide in the long grass for months then attack.

you're right there

mind you a few months after the horse incident she said things werent working and asked if i could book us a weekend away to see if we could sort it out.

i took her to see hatton v freddie pendleton :)

[lowersmiths]

surely a man with a location of 'i flail fannies' never has relationship probs..... :P