BoxRec

The reason womens boxing never got legitimised is because the standard has always been woeful.
It is alll to do with ability, in other sports women are held in high regard because the standard is good
Do you really think womens MMA style tournaments in the 17th century and them fighting in wars for centuries have any relevance to the discussion on whether a sub standard sport is worthy of Olympic participation??
And you accuse me of talker utter shite!!
Or maybe do you believe the womens sport is of the standard?? Esp when it is at the expense of the mens competition.
And if you are behind them women being allowed to compete, where will you draw the line in whats sports will be allowed in?

Coco wrote:The reason womens boxing never got legitimised is because the standard has always been woeful.
It is alll to do with ability, in other sports women are held in high regard because the standard is good
Do you really think womens MMA style tournaments in the 17th century and them fighting in wars for centuries have any relevance to the discussion on whether a sub standard sport is worthy of Olympic participation??
And you accuse me of talker utter shite!!
Or maybe do you believe the womens sport is of the standard?? Esp when it is at the expense of the mens competition.
And if you are behind them women being allowed to compete, where will you draw the line in whats sports will be allowed in?

I'm siding with James on this one. Your talking utter shite.

Im old School, but I find it interesting. In schools the girls are getting better results than the Boys. It would be funny if not only they can outthink us lot, given Time they could outfight us DD

Was anyone actually impressed with the Olympic boxing last year anyway? The only fighter in the whole tournament who actually excited me was that Ukrainian featherweight(I can't for the life of me think what he's called now) but the rest of it was just pitty pat borefests.

jizzle wrote:

Coco wrote:The reason womens boxing never got legitimised is because the standard has always been woeful.
It is alll to do with ability, in other sports women are held in high regard because the standard is good
Do you really think womens MMA style tournaments in the 17th century and them fighting in wars for centuries have any relevance to the discussion on whether a sub standard sport is worthy of Olympic participation??
And you accuse me of talker utter shite!!
Or maybe do you believe the womens sport is of the standard?? Esp when it is at the expense of the mens competition.
And if you are behind them women being allowed to compete, where will you draw the line in whats sports will be allowed in?

I'm siding with James on this one. Your talking utter shite.

In what way?

OK and let's not go down the forum slag routine. Although admitedly my last comment was a bit out of order...

The reason womens boxing never got legitimised is because the standard has always been woeful.
It is alll to do with ability, in other sports women are held in high regard because the standard is good

How are they woeful? In comparison to what?

jizzle wrote:OK and let's not go down the forum slag routine. Although admitedly my last comment was a bit out of order...

The reason womens boxing never got legitimised is because the standard has always been woeful.
It is alll to do with ability, in other sports women are held in high regard because the standard is good

How are they woeful? In comparison to what?

Comparison to men. Go through boxrec female rankings. The champions of some division are 3-4, 13-7, 10-6. Watch some female boxing. They are techniquless, slow, and have no power. I have sparred with a world class female boxer with over 100 amateur fights and got the better of it by far, I have 11 amateur fights. Generally the talent level in womens boxing is horrendous. I wouldn't have a problem with it being introduced to the Olympics if they weren't reducing the number of male competitors, but I think its terrible that they are preventing highly talented male boxers from going and sending lower grade female boxers.

Coco wrote:
In what way?

I think it's the dreaming up of imaginary straw men, Coco, to legitimise your own biases & prejudices, that is making you look a bit silly. Remember posting about those "champagne socialists" you believe are actually enacting some vast conspiracy to... What? Force you to watch womens' boxing?

Coco wrote:doing this helps legitimise it as a sport, at least with beach volleyball the girls look good.
More meddling by champagne socialists who think it is another equality battle

I love it when someone's prejudices come boiling out -- & appealing to an imaginary clique of "champagne socialists" who are somehow oppressing your manhood because they're letting girls box is evidence that you're delusional. You're rattled somehow deep where your sexuality & your psyche interconnect & it's showing, so you're casting around for something to blame. Well done.

The girls themselves have campaigned because they want to do it. Shock horror! It's bloody obvious that the idea of women's boxing is repellent to you, & your desperate backing & filling about quality levels & the legitimacy of dropping a men's category to make way seems a bit pointless, when you've already given yourself away.

If you were really that worried about the skill levels on hand you'd have posted about that first, rather than starting off with the imaginary notion that women doing what they want is somehow oppressing you & the oh-so lovely crack about the volleyball players' looks.

crusader wrote:

jizzle wrote:OK and let's not go down the forum slag routine. Although admitedly my last comment was a bit out of order...

The reason womens boxing never got legitimised is because the standard has always been woeful.
It is alll to do with ability, in other sports women are held in high regard because the standard is good

How are they woeful? In comparison to what?

Comparison to men. Go through boxrec female rankings. The champions of some division are 3-4, 13-7, 10-6. Watch some female boxing. They are techniquless, slow, and have no power. I have sparred with a world class female boxer with over 100 amateur fights and got the better of it by far, I have 11 amateur fights. Generally the talent level in womens boxing is horrendous. I wouldn't have a problem with it being introduced to the Olympics if they weren't reducing the number of male competitors, but I think its terrible that they are preventing highly talented male boxers from going and sending lower grade female boxers.

OK then. That rules out all women sports. Well done.

IMO there skill level is very low, the vast majority of what have have seen they cannot even put decent combinations together, it's like watching 8 year old novices.
The obvious comparison is with mens boxing and the standard is of course far worse. You have to reach a very high standard in the mens to get into the Olympics, being British champion is not enough. This is why it annoys me that we will lose another weight class in the Olympics to allow this to happen.
I have no problem with women boxing, but to be in the Olympics at the expense of the men is another matter. If in the future standards are raised, yes they should be allowed, but not at this moment.
And the fact women have fought in wars before and competed in 17th century MMA has no relevance to this

Coco wrote:IMO there skill level is very low, the vast majority of what have have seen they cannot even put decent combinations together, it's like watching 8 year old novices.
The obvious comparison is with mens boxing and the standard is of course far worse. You have to reach a very high standard in the mens to get into the Olympics, being British champion is not enough. This is why it annoys me that we will lose another weight class in the Olympics to allow this to happen.
I have no problem with women boxing, but to be in the Olympics at the expense of the men is another matter. If in the future standards are raised, yes they should be allowed, but not at this moment.

Easy. It's because the pro game for women's boxing is in its infancy & most fighters come from a martial arts/kickboxing background.

Sports where you're taught to square up your stance & rely on kicks. This is why most top girls (lucia Rijker apart) cannot turn their bodyweights behind their shots. Given time & the legitimising of the sport, more girls will be attracted to pure boxing rather than migrating from kicking-based combat sports (which buggers up their ability to punch, 'cos inthe heat of the moment the current top girls all revert to karate/kickboxing style punches -- it's ingrained).

If you want to see what I mean, watch videos of Troy Dorsey & Randall Tex Cobb, two male former martial artists whose punching technique is much like the majority of today's womens' pros: arm shots with their stance too square. Useful to block a leg kick, not so useful to throw a straight right or a solid uppercut.

As I said, legitimise this now & more girls will want to come in from the bottom up. This'll mean the ability to punch will be better because they aren't starting from a kick-centric background.

And the fact women have fought in wars before and competed in 17th century MMA has no relevance to this

Explain then about how this is because of the meddling of "champagne socialists" & not actually because you know, girls actually want to fight?

jizzle wrote:

crusader wrote:

jizzle wrote:OK and let's not go down the forum slag routine. Although admitedly my last comment was a bit out of order...

The reason womens boxing never got legitimised is because the standard has always been woeful.
It is alll to do with ability, in other sports women are held in high regard because the standard is good

How are they woeful? In comparison to what?

Comparison to men. Go through boxrec female rankings. The champions of some division are 3-4, 13-7, 10-6. Watch some female boxing. They are techniquless, slow, and have no power. I have sparred with a world class female boxer with over 100 amateur fights and got the better of it by far, I have 11 amateur fights. Generally the talent level in womens boxing is horrendous. I wouldn't have a problem with it being introduced to the Olympics if they weren't reducing the number of male competitors, but I think its terrible that they are preventing highly talented male boxers from going and sending lower grade female boxers.

OK then. That rules out all women sports. Well done.

No it doesn't. Many sports have a relatively equal amount of women and men competing. The ratio male boxers to female is staggering, and thus I don't think world class male boxers should be prevented from entering the Olympics. In my opinion the Olympics should be about having the highest level of talent possible, so I'm not a fan of vastly talented boxers being replaced with low grade boxers. And when I say low grade, I don't just mean in comparison to men. Since there are so few women boxing, the talent is simply, so few. To be the best female lightweight boxer in the world using Boxrec stats you have to be the best out of 54. To be the best male lightweight you have to be the best out of 1411.

jizzle wrote:OK then. That rules out all women sports. Well done.

Barring gymnastics of course.

banjo wrote:Was anyone actually impressed with the Olympic boxing last year anyway? The only fighter in the whole tournament who actually excited me was that Ukrainian featherweight(I can't for the life of me think what he's called now) but the rest of it was just pitty pat borefests.

Quiet honestly no.

Olympic boxing sucks balls big time, but if it is shite and boring, then women have as much right to bore the life out of me as their male counterparts.

Datsue wrote:

Coco wrote:IMO there skill level is very low, the vast majority of what have have seen they cannot even put decent combinations together, it's like watching 8 year old novices.
The obvious comparison is with mens boxing and the standard is of course far worse. You have to reach a very high standard in the mens to get into the Olympics, being British champion is not enough. This is why it annoys me that we will lose another weight class in the Olympics to allow this to happen.
I have no problem with women boxing, but to be in the Olympics at the expense of the men is another matter. If in the future standards are raised, yes they should be allowed, but not at this moment.

Easy. It's because the pro game for women's boxing is in its infancy & most fighters come from a martial arts/kickboxing background.

Sports where you're taught to square up your stance & rely on kicks. This is why most top girls (lucia Rijker apart) cannot turn their bodyweights behind their shots. Given time & the legitimising of the sport, more girls will be attracted to pure boxing rather than migrating from kicking-based combat sports (which buggers up their ability to punch, 'cos inthe heat of the moment the current top girls all revert to karate/kickboxing style punches -- it's ingrained).

If you want to see what I mean, watch videos of Troy Dorsey & Randall Tex Cobb, two male former martial artists whose punching technique is much like the majority of today's womens' pros: arm shots with their stance too square. Useful to block a leg kick, not so useful to throw a straight right or a solid uppercut.

As I said, legitimise this now & more girls will want to come in from the bottom up. This'll mean the ability to punch will be better because they aren't starting from a kick-centric background.

And the fact women have fought in wars before and competed in 17th century MMA has no relevance to this

Explain then about how this is because of the meddling of "champagne socialists" & not actually because you know, girls actually want to fight?

At last, a grain of reason!

crusader wrote: No it doesn't. Many sports have a relatively equal amount of women and men competing. The ratio male boxers to female is staggering, and thus I don't think world class male boxers should be prevented from entering the Olympics. In my opinion the Olympics should be about having the highest level of talent possible, so I'm not a fan of vastly talented boxers being replaced with low grade boxers. And when I say low grade, I don't just mean in comparison to men. Since there are so few women boxing, the talent is simply, so few. To be the best female lightweight boxer in the world using Boxrec stats you have to be the best out of 54. To be the best male lightweight you have to be the best out of 1411.

I give up....Your argument has gone right out of the window...

[/quote]
I love it when someone's prejudices come boiling out -- & appealing to an imaginary clique of "champagne socialists" who are somehow oppressing your manhood because they're letting girls box is evidence that you're delusional. You're rattled somehow deep where your sexuality & your psyche interconnect & it's showing, so you're casting around for something to blame. Well done.

The girls themselves have campaigned because they want to do it. Shock horror! It's bloody obvious that the idea of women's boxing is repellent to you, & your desperate backing & filling about quality levels & the legitimacy of dropping a men's category to make way seems a bit pointless, when you've already given yourself away.

If you were really that worried about the skill levels on hand you'd have posted about that first, rather than starting off with the imaginary notion that women doing what they want is somehow oppressing you & the oh-so lovely crack about the volleyball players' looks.[/quote]


What rattles me is that top quality male amateurs who have been fighting since they were kid will not go to the Olympics because a weight division has been lost. Instead we will have extra female classes where the standard is woeful and many will have only been in the sport for a short period.
As I have already said, if women want to box that is their perogative but their standard is not good enough to be in the Olympics, it only serves to trivialise the sport
.
This hasn't happened because of sporting reasons, it has happened probably for other reasons, such as these equality mongerers who have little grasp of the real world, and for financial reasons as the likes of womens beach volleyball put bums on seats for amusement purposes.

The reason I have not posted about the poor quality of womens boxing before is because it has no relevance to me, but now by impacting on the mens sport I felt the need to reply

I feel I have made my points adequately and rationally, and for you to take that as delusional, prejudiced, oppresing my manhood and pointless probably says far more about you, or maybe you shoud just ask for a refund in your BTEC amateur psychology

crusader wrote:

jizzle wrote:OK and let's not go down the forum slag routine. Although admitedly my last comment was a bit out of order...

The reason womens boxing never got legitimised is because the standard has always been woeful.
It is alll to do with ability, in other sports women are held in high regard because the standard is good

How are they woeful? In comparison to what?

Comparison to men. Go through boxrec female rankings. The champions of some division are 3-4, 13-7, 10-6. Watch some female boxing. They are techniquless, slow, and have no power. I have sparred with a world class female boxer with over 100 amateur fights and got the better of it by far, I have 11 amateur fights. Generally the talent level in womens boxing is horrendous. I wouldn't have a problem with it being introduced to the Olympics if they weren't reducing the number of male competitors, but I think its terrible that they are preventing highly talented male boxers from going and sending lower grade female boxers.

Of course the standard is lower, for god's sake, the sport is in it's infancy for women. They haven't been allowed to box competitively either professionally or as amateurs until recently, so what the hell do you expect.

Lucia Rijker who competed in combat sports for many years before turning to boxing used to kick the crap out of her male sparring partners, it's all about talent and experience levels. Lucia was a professional kickboxer who made the transition, and was a genuinely tough woman. A lot of the women's amateurs won't yet have had enough of a talent pool to develop their skills.



I'm sure John L Sullivan would have looked like a complete pratt if you brought him forward to Ali's era, because technique had evolved so much by then.

banjo wrote:Was anyone actually impressed with the Olympic boxing last year anyway? The only fighter in the whole tournament who actually excited me was that Ukrainian featherweight(I can't for the life of me think what he's called now) but the rest of it was just pitty pat borefests.

Same. I'm not that interested in male amateur boxing, let alone female. With female boxing all that's fresh in my mind is watching Holly Holm against Mary Jo Sanders, two of the best boxers in the World, apparently, and thinking that they were crap in comparison to the men.

I have no problem with women's boxing being in the Olympics. I'm not sure I'll watch it, though.

jizzle wrote:

crusader wrote: No it doesn't. Many sports have a relatively equal amount of women and men competing. The ratio male boxers to female is staggering, and thus I don't think world class male boxers should be prevented from entering the Olympics. In my opinion the Olympics should be about having the highest level of talent possible, so I'm not a fan of vastly talented boxers being replaced with low grade boxers. And when I say low grade, I don't just mean in comparison to men. Since there are so few women boxing, the talent is simply, so few. To be the best female lightweight boxer in the world using Boxrec stats you have to be the best out of 54. To be the best male lightweight you have to be the best out of 1411.

I give up....Your argument has gone right out of the window...

Why? You never had an argument anyways, all your posts where just a sentence or two of nothing.

Datsue wrote:

Coco wrote:IMO there skill level is very low, the vast majority of what have have seen they cannot even put decent combinations together, it's like watching 8 year old novices.
The obvious comparison is with mens boxing and the standard is of course far worse. You have to reach a very high standard in the mens to get into the Olympics, being British champion is not enough. This is why it annoys me that we will lose another weight class in the Olympics to allow this to happen.
I have no problem with women boxing, but to be in the Olympics at the expense of the men is another matter. If in the future standards are raised, yes they should be allowed, but not at this moment.

Easy. It's because the pro game for women's boxing is in its infancy & most fighters come from a martial arts/kickboxing background.

Sports where you're taught to square up your stance & rely on kicks. This is why most top girls (lucia Rijker apart) cannot turn their bodyweights behind their shots. Given time & the legitimising of the sport, more girls will be attracted to pure boxing rather than migrating from kicking-based combat sports (which buggers up their ability to punch, 'cos inthe heat of the moment the current top girls all revert to karate/kickboxing style punches -- it's ingrained).

If you want to see what I mean, watch videos of Troy Dorsey & Randall Tex Cobb, two male former martial artists whose punching technique is much like the majority of today's womens' pros: arm shots with their stance too square. Useful to block a leg kick, not so useful to throw a straight right or a solid uppercut.

As I said, legitimise this now & more girls will want to come in from the bottom up. This'll mean the ability to punch will be better because they aren't starting from a kick-centric background.

And the fact women have fought in wars before and competed in 17th century MMA has no relevance to this

Explain then about how this is because of the meddling of "champagne socialists" & not actually because you know, girls actually want to fight?

So if women pro boxing is only in it's infancy why is that a reason for them to compete in the Olympics, surely a standard must be reached first, this is what the argument is all about
I'm not saying girls do not what to fight, damn it I wanted to fight in the Olympics to but there were quality controls in place. Meddling of these equality mongerers, positive discrimination etc has allowed this to happen

Asterix wrote: Same. I'm not that interested in male amateur boxing, let alone female. With female boxing all that's fresh in my mind is watching Holly Holm against Mary Jo Sanders, two of the best boxers in the World, apparently, and thinking that they were crap in comparison to the men.

I have no problem with women's boxing being in the Olympics. I'm not sure I'll watch it, though.

It's like watching a F1 ferrari go round a race track, or a citoren CV go round a race track. They both go round, they both go brrrum on the way, both turn corners and both go faster on straights. If I'd never seen the ferrari the citoren would be chuigging along nicely, but once you seen the ferrari you'd just be comparing and thinking the Citoren was shite.


If womens boxing is in, then Darts has to go in. Can you imagine the kenyan dart entrant against Phil Taylor. Although its the kind of sport the chineese would excel at in a few years isnt it.

Coco wrote:I feel I have made my points adequately and rationally, and for you to take that as delusional, prejudiced, oppresing my manhood and pointless probably says far more about you, or maybe you shoud just ask for a refund in your BTEC amateur psychology

Coco, riddle me this. Why did you only start talking about the terrible injustice of having eleven mens' weight classes cut to ten so that their can be three womens' weights added after you started talking about "champagne socialists" & the looks of volleyball players? Can you not see that it might damage your argument somewhat?

& I'm not playing amateur anything, I'm reading the exact words you wrote. I'll say it again: your idea of a politically correct elite oppressing you is delusional. It just doesn't exist. & to see its manifestation in the inclusion of women's boxing in the Olympics is complete & utter shite.

such as these equality mongerers who have little grasp of the real world,

Which equality mongerers? Where? Girls want to box. They have campaigned to box. Just because that obviously upsets you does not mean that there exists a shadowy force behind the scenes, making women put on the headguards. There just isn't. It is your beliefs in this vein that I termed delusional & I stand by the comments.

There is no connection apart from inside your own mind between women's boxing, socialism, champagne & the terrible erosion of "traditional family values".

Meddling of these equality mongerers, positive discrimination etc has allowed this to happen

Allowed what to happen? Stopped you achieving your dream? I thought we were talking about why it's oh-so-terrible that women are allowed to box?

Wales wrote:It's like watching a F1 ferrari go round a race track, or a citoren CV go round a race track. They both go round, they both go brrrum on the way, both turn corners and both go faster on straights. If I'd never seen the ferrari the citoren would be chuigging along nicely, but once you seen the ferrari you'd just be comparing and thinking the Citoren was shite.


If womens boxing is in, then Darts has to go in. Can you imagine the kenyan dart entrant against Phil Taylor. Although its the kind of sport the chineese would excel at in a few years isnt it.

You're probably right. Haven't Asian players started to come to prominence in snooker?

There are only a few events I'm interested in at the Olympics. Mainly the 100M and 200M running. I could easily not watch any of it though.