Hopkins Vs Calzaghe was the pinnacle of bruality.

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 29 Apr 2008, 07:16

some people will never get it, terry.

Lenny · Post by **Lenny** » 29 Apr 2008, 08:09

here is the article Terry
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1773

A response from Jeff Powell (although written 8 years ago!!!)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... hor_id=260

Still can't believe so many people still buy papers like this, if any paper was to slag off boxing i'm glad it's the mail, knowing they don't like it makes me like it even more

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 29 Apr 2008, 09:15

Can't bring myself to read it, as most of these jokers know nothing about the sport at all.
Take this twat, Simon Barnes, the"multi-award-winning chief sportswriter at The Times" - this old hack recently bashed out a 5 minute article against boxing, just before the Joe/Hop fight,in one of those pros and cons type features.
His considered line was that if a boxer ended up brain damaged, his opponent would actualy consider that a success. He seemed to think this was the whole point of boxing.

Why do these f***wits, who know ZERO about the sport, get to write ignorant articles about it in a national newspaper??

It's not like a specialist boxing writer would be asked to write about cricket is it?

observer1 · Post by **observer1** » 29 Apr 2008, 10:06

I still people would stop reading Shite like Dail Mail.

I mean can you not get it though your Fvking Skulls the Paper should not even be used to as Toilet Paper?

I cannot believe Tabloids still exist in this day and age.

Bard of Boxrec · Post by **Bard of Boxrec** » 29 Apr 2008, 13:17

MightyWarrior wrote:Can't bring myself to read it, as most of these jokers know nothing about the sport at all.
Take this twat, Simon Barnes, the"multi-award-winning chief sportswriter at The Times" - this old hack recently bashed out a 5 minute article against boxing, just before the Joe/Hop fight,in one of those pros and cons type features.
His considered line was that if a boxer ended up brain damaged, his opponent would actualy consider that a success. He seemed to think this was the whole point of boxing.

Why do these f***wits, who know ZERO about the sport, get to write ignorant articles about it in a national newspaper??

It's not like a specialist boxing writer would be asked to write about cricket is it?

I know, I read that simon barnes article. I couldn't actually believe he wrote that crap. I was so angry. In fairness I don't think he said that the fighter would consider injury a success. he said that the point of the sport is to cause permanant brain injury, without bothering to discuss basic things such as padded gloves, scorecards, regulation etc.

Very lazy journalism.

The worst part though, was that the counter argument was put forward by some awful woman columnist who said that boxing 'empowers' her, probably referring to Boxercise or something, and making no effort to balance the argument in any way, automatically causing readers to view her side as a humour piece rather than part of a sensible balanced argument about sport, and subsequently and predictably agree with Barnes.

if he ever has to report on a fight, how on earth is he going to have any credibility after that?

i bet the twat would still probably jump right on the sports writer bandwagon as championing Ali as one of the great sporting heroes of all time

banjo · Post by **banjo** » 29 Apr 2008, 14:40

Pinnacle of brutality?

I bet this guy would collapse with shock if he saw a fight like Moore v Macklin.

WildWaylon · Post by **WildWaylon** » 01 May 2008, 12:49

banjo wrote:Pinnacle of brutality?

I bet this guy would collapse with shock if he saw a fight like Moore v Macklin.

Why dont they have a go at Ultimate Fighting? Thats surely more dangerous!!!

steve689 · Post by **steve689** » 01 May 2008, 16:00

I was thinking the same. If he thinks Calzaghe-Hopkins was the pinnacle of brutality then he has a lot to learn.

A DVD boxset of the Marquez-Vazquez trilogy on it's way to Mr. Connelly methinks

Asterix · Post by **Asterix** » 01 May 2008, 16:31

I was more worried for a man's safety in the Grand National than I have been in all the Boxing fights I've seen.

Bard of Boxrec · Post by **Bard of Boxrec** » 01 May 2008, 17:50

this guy obviously planned to write his article about whatever the f*ck big fight was coming up. thankfully makes him look pretty stupid that it turned out to be such a cagey affair.

E · Post by E » 01 May 2008, 18:05

The writer's point was more about boxing in general than Cal-Hop.... but unfortunately he chose quite a passive fight to illustrate it.

Actually in many ways I agree with it, though I live for boxing.

Boxing is about two men trying to bash themselves senseless and damage themselves - they may not wish permanent damage but they do produce it by their actions.

I find it hypocritical that pro-boxing people deny the violence and vicious nature of boxing (and I am pro-boxing but not because of this argument.)

Witness Terry D (I think) and his embarassing semantic argument for why boxing isn't violent, because it involves consensual hitting and comparing it to difference between S & M sex and rape...

Yes, there is skill, yes you can win without Ko-ing someon, and yes there are endless noble qualities - but boxing is a huge moral dilemma.

I morally justify it because it is consensual and because the world is contradictory and imperfect - but I do recognize that that writer has a point - there is something sick about well off celebrities paying and baying to see someone get battered.

And, most pertinently there are loads of posters attacking Chris Eubank JNR for indulding in that pre-prepared fight in the car park (me included) - yet there is generally far more violence, not to mention permanent damage inflicted in a pro boxing fight.

This whole thread is an example of human hypocrisy and the ability we have of denying truth and justifying our own stance; and thus living with our moral contradictions.[/b]

Bard of Boxrec · Post by **Bard of Boxrec** » 01 May 2008, 18:09

Lol. where in this thread has anyone denied there are risks in boxing? I think you want to create an agenda of your own.

Asterix · Post by **Asterix** » 01 May 2008, 18:23

E wrote:The writer's point was more about boxing in general than Cal-Hop.... but unfortunately he chose quite a passive fight to illustrate it.

Actually in many ways I agree with it, though I live for boxing.

Boxing is about two men trying to bash themselves senseless and damage themselves - they may not wish permanent damage but they do produce it by their actions.

I find it hypocritical that pro-boxing people deny the violence and vicious nature of boxing (and I am pro-boxing but not because of this argument.)

Witness Terry D (I think) and his embarassing semantic argument for why boxing isn't violent, because it involves consensual hitting and comparing it to difference between S & M sex and rape...

Yes, there is skill, yes you can win without Ko-ing someon, and yes there are endless noble qualities - but boxing is a huge moral dilemma.

I morally justify it because it is consensual and because the world is contradictory and imperfect - but I do recognize that that writer has a point - there is something sick about well off celebrities paying and baying to see someone get battered.

And, most pertinently there are loads of posters attacking Chris Eubank JNR for indulding in that pre-prepared fight in the car park (me included) - yet there is generally far more violence, not to mention permanent damage inflicted in a pro boxing fight.

This whole thread is an example of human hypocrisy and the ability we have of denying truth and justifying our own stance; and thus living with our moral contradictions.[/b]

I agree with you to an extent. Yes, boxing is dangerous. But boxing is not about trying to bash someone senseless; it's about winning a bout. That's either by scoring a knockout victory or by winning on points. Once you've achieved either of those, the fight stops. It doesn't continue because both boxers are still conscious.

Following on from that, there are rules. In a street fight there are no rules, nor any regard to safety. In boxing there is a referee and a ringside Doctor in order to help keep the boxers safe.

steve689 · Post by **steve689** » 02 May 2008, 03:31

I often wonder if the current shift in emphasis from the technical boxing skill of yesteryear to a more knockout hungry crowd wanting aggression and blood/guts will bring the anti-boxing crowd out again in force.

Claude Abrams is often brining it up in his editorial and Vegas crowds start booing after a couple of minutes if nobody has been stretchered out of the building.

The Prizefighter tournament too, again emphasis on all out brawling, knockouts etc Competing with the UFC/MMA. Just a thought.

Asterix · Post by **Asterix** » 02 May 2008, 06:06

The Prizefighter tournament was great because it had knockdowns as well as skilled boxing (David Dolan really helped here). It wasn't just power punching. The reason why it was so enjoyable is because the boxers only had 3 rounds to get themselves a win, so they had to fight because there was no time to rest.

Audley Harrison's last fight was booed by some of the crowd, and the reason why is because it seemed a very lacklustre performance. People want to see the boxers trying to the best of their ability.

overhand_right · Post by **overhand_right** » 02 May 2008, 06:07

Its a sport, you have free will to do it, if you can make money then do it. Who is some posh middle class f#ckin news paper writer to tell people he has no knowledge of how to earn a living? No ones trying to kill or maim anyone. Once you're in there you're just trying to win the round.

Abolish boxing? What the frick would the thousands of boxers turn to, to make a living? Probably in Ray Connolys house with him tied up & robbing him of all his possessions!

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 02 May 2008, 06:31

Riddick Blowe wrote: I know, I read that simon barnes article. I couldn't actually believe he wrote that crap. I was so angry. In fairness I don't think he said that the fighter would consider injury a success. he said that the point of the sport is to cause permanant brain injury, without bothering to discuss basic things such as padded gloves, scorecards, regulation etc.

Very lazy journalism.

The worst part though, was that the counter argument was put forward by some awful woman columnist who said that boxing 'empowers' her, probably referring to Boxercise or something, and making no effort to balance the argument in any way, automatically causing readers to view her side as a humour piece rather than part of a sensible balanced argument about sport, and subsequently and predictably agree with Barnes.

if he ever has to report on a fight, how on earth is he going to have any credibility after that?

i bet the twat would still probably jump right on the sports writer bandwagon as championing Ali as one of the great sporting heroes of all time

Yes was going to mention that female writer as well, but didn't as she was sort of on the side of boxing, even though she didn't have a clue what she was on about!
It was really a piss poor effort by all concerned, amateur stuff.

scottyboy_1978 · Post by **scottyboy_1978** » 02 May 2008, 12:24

This article pissed me off too.

The Daily Mail takes another high and mighty view piont as one of its two page spreads.

Then in the sports pages goes on to praise Calzaghes performance.

To Quote someones else on here "They just dont get it"

banjo · Post by **banjo** » 02 May 2008, 12:48

Modern journalists are out of touch with reality these days, especially the ones who work for The Daily Mail, The Sun(spits) and the rest of the rags.

A friend of mine who is on the police force told me that there is already a major problem with illegal boxing tournaments in Britain, so if the do-gooders get their way and professional boxing is banned then a huge amount of boxers will turn to the underground tournaments instead.

observer1 · Post by **observer1** » 02 May 2008, 17:48

Like i said before, if you're wasting you're time Reading Tabloids in the First Place, you dont deserve any better

m1kee50 · Post by **m1kee50** » 03 May 2008, 01:37

steve689 wrote:I often wonder if the current shift in emphasis from the technical boxing skill of yesteryear to a more knockout hungry crowd wanting aggression and blood/guts will bring the anti-boxing crowd out again in force.

Claude Abrams is often brining it up in his editorial and Vegas crowds start booing after a couple of minutes if nobody has been stretchered out of the building.

The Prizefighter tournament too, again emphasis on all out brawling, knockouts etc Competing with the UFC/MMA. Just a thought.

I dont think the average fan has gotten more bloodthirsty - in terms of the people who have been watching it through its leaner years, but as they try to re-ignite interest, the more casual fans will want to know why they are watching.... get them hooked on blood, then they will watch Williams-Harrison like the rest of us without narcolepsy developing.

E · Post by E » 03 May 2008, 06:35

Terry D wrote: .

Arguably the Internet itself is the modern hive or all kind of immoral behaviour but you don't sink into a moral morass over logging onto the Internet and grandstanding your moral sensitivity.

Wring your hands for 30-minutes then stick a fight on.

This is extremely weak.....the internet is a medium; and like all media it is subject to moral abuse...this doesn't mean the medium is at fault.

Anyway you also seem to miss my point - I am effectively saying morality is very complex; and often down to individual interpretation. It is never black and white, rather shades of grey.

Terry D - you seem to get rather confused about a lot of issues; and often resort to a tangential semantic argument regarding the definition of a word.

Witness for example your concentration on my use of the word embarassing, rather than looking at the key issues.

Do you seriously imagine there would be any other public reaction to your ridiculously weak comparison of boxing and consensual sex as to violence and rape????

With this kind of argument, you would be giving real ammunition to those trying to ban boxing as thsi stance is so weak.

If you don't believe me, try and get this published in any form.

I am not hand-wringing then hypocritically watching boxing. I am stating it is a difficult moral argument.

Horse · Post by **Horse** » 03 May 2008, 07:58

E wrote:I am not hand-wringing then hypocritically watching boxing. I am stating it is a difficult moral argument.

Not for me. Boxing stays.

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 15 May 2008, 07:19

i think i stick with terry's point but i wouldnt have made it in quite the same way. E's argument also has strengths (and his english is better).

ebeneezer · Post by **ebeneezer** » 16 May 2008, 08:08

WildWaylon wrote:
banjo wrote:Pinnacle of brutality?

I bet this guy would collapse with shock if he saw a fight like Moore v Macklin.
Why dont they have a go at Ultimate Fighting? Thats surely more dangerous!!!

They do have a go at it. I've read numerous similarly pig shit ignorant articles about mma in UK tabloids during the last couple of years.