BoxRec

I just want to say, by women's boxing becoming a part of the Olympics, the standard will improve considerably by the time the Olympics come around!

jamesmcdonnell 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.

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.

She was also knocked the only time she fought a man in a real match, after going undefeated for years against women.

Women competing in the Olympics is fine, but in my opinion male boxers should not be eliminated. Hurting one area of the sport too help another is not a good idea. Men's boxing should not have to suffer any further reductions. It was already reduced by a weight class to make way for womens wrestling in 2004. Olympic boxing already has enough problems, those should be dealt with first before adding women to the mix.

I'm not arguing that women shouldn't be allowed to box in the Olympics, but the men deserve first priority.

Look at it from the perspective of an athlete. If you are the 28th best boxer in the world out of 2000, would you think its fair that you don't get to go to the Olympics, but some other boxer who is 12th out of 150 does?

Asterix wrote:

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.

Same here, although the footy will be good in 2012, even though wales, scotland and ireland have droped out the GB team... mind, how many players would realistically get in the squad?

crusader wrote: She was also knocked the only time she fought a man in a real match, after going undefeated for years against women.

Crusader, your repeated assertions about how men are better than women have already been answered, but I'll state it really simply 'cos you seem to be missing it: men are on average stronger & faster bodyweight-for-bodyweight than girls. By using your reasoning, girls shouldn't be allowed to compete in any sport where men are better.

This is patently ridiculous.

& as for the guff about "hurting the men's sport" I bet you dollars to donuts that the inclusion of women's boxing will just raise boxing's profile as a whole.

I don't see men's MMA fans pissing themselves over the Cyborg-Whatserface match. They're probably glad that their sport (yes, their sport, whether it's a hermaphrodite or a klingon fighting they see it as their sport) is getting more column inches. If boxing fans could put aside their politics, their earnest eulogising for a vanished world & perhaps try & keep a lid on the infighting & bitching maybe our sport (the sport of boxing, practised by whomever) wouldn't be in the crapper.

Datsue wrote:

crusader wrote: She was also knocked the only time she fought a man in a real match, after going undefeated for years against women.

Crusader, your repeated assertions about how men are better than women have already been answered, but I'll state it really simply 'cos you seem to be missing it: men are on average stronger & faster bodyweight-for-bodyweight than girls. By using your reasoning, girls shouldn't be allowed to compete in any sport where men are better.

This is patently ridiculous.

& as for the guff about "hurting the men's sport" I bet you dollars to donuts that the inclusion of women's boxing will just raise boxing's profile as a whole.

I don't see men's MMA fans pissing themselves over the Cyborg-Whatserface match. They're probably glad that their sport (yes, their sport, whether it's a hermaphrodite or a klingon fighting they see it as their sport) is getting more column inches. If boxing fans could put aside their politics, their earnest eulogising for a vanished world & perhaps try & keep a lid on the infighting & bitching maybe our sport (the sport of boxing, practised by whomever) wouldn't be in the crapper.

Thats not what I'm getting at. Obviously men are naturally stronger, etc. But in this case we have such a huge ratio of men to women competitng that the gap in talent is massive even if you eliminate biological differences between the sexes.

Thats because they didn't need to eliminate a whole division of MMA to make the match possible. If they did I can guarntee you that they would be pissing themselves. Ok "Anderson Silva isn't allowed to fight anymore because we need to see Carano-Cyborg"

Coco wrote:It's an embarassment really, esp as the men lose a weight class, 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

That is my quote that seems to have caused all the fuss.
To clarify the statement, if it needs any clarifying, it is embarrassing for the sport of boxing that the womens event has been allowed in because the standard is so bad. Furthemore by allowing women to compete it says to the world 'this is our sport' Imagine if only ski jumpers of Eddie the Eagle, or swimmers of Eric the Eel's standard were allowed to compete, it would make the sport a joke.
The comparison with the beach volleyball, is that they are both joke's of a sport, beach volleyball does generate cash though as plenty want to watch this soft porn.
So I went on to reason why have the Olympic administrators made this decision? I felt it was in the name of positive discrimination, highly paid members of the IOC thinking they are doing their bit for the Olympic movement and equality, and I thought it was appropriate to call them champagne socialists, typical sort of thing New Labour would do. And such that is my connection between womens boxing and socialism etc
These are the equality mongerers that you asked about. Just because girls want to box at the Olympics does not mean they should, I wanted to box there to, and despite reaching a good standard was obviously never good enough, as quality contols were in place. However these quality controls have now been sidestepped

To reiterate I don't think it's terrible women are allowed to box, but I do think it is terrible that they can box in the Olympics as the standard is so low, esp as it is at the expense of the much more talented men.

A politically correct elite certainly do not oppress me but they have had an impact on quality male amateurs being able to box at the next Olympics. How would you feel if that was the reason you missed out on the games?

And if I need to make the point again, which my whole argument is based around, AT THIS MOMENT WOMEN HAVE NOT REACHED A GOOD ENOUGH STANDARD TO BOX IN THE OLYMPICS, and to be honest I am amazed that people disagree with this.

She was also knocked the only time she fought a man in a real match, after going undefeated for years against women.

Women competing in the Olympics is fine, but in my opinion male boxers should not be eliminated. Hurting one area of the sport too help another is not a good idea. Men's boxing should not have to suffer any further reductions. It was already reduced by a weight class to make way for womens wrestling in 2004. Olympic boxing already has enough problems, those should be dealt with first before adding women to the mix.

I'm not arguing that women shouldn't be allowed to box in the Olympics, but the men deserve first priority.

Look at it from the perspective of an athlete. If you are the 28th best boxer in the world out of 2000, would you think its fair that you don't get to go to the Olympics, but some other boxer who is 12th out of 150 does?[/quote]

Yes, she was knocked out - so what? I never said she was better than male fighters I said she held her own in sparring and that she brutalised SOME of her male sparring partners. Probably the ones who weren't that talented themselves. Men are physically MUCH stronger, but Lucia was a very special lady, and her talent enabled her to compete on fairly even terms in sparring against physically stronger opponents.

It is not the women who are competing who are hurting the men, it's the blazers who run the sport, if you want to direct your anger at someone, direct it at them.

Oh, and she was knocked out in a kickboxing match, not boxing, I've watched it,.

What has the fairness got to do with it? How does women participating hurt men who want to compete. If I am the 12th best female boxer out of 150, surely I'd feel cheated if I wasn't allowed to participate merely because the olympic committee determine there were not enough female competitors.

Datsue wrote:
Crusader, your repeated assertions about how men are better than women have already been answered, but I'll state it really simply 'cos you seem to be missing it: men are on average stronger & faster bodyweight-for-bodyweight than girls. By using your reasoning, girls shouldn't be allowed to compete in any sport where men are better.

I dont really want to get embroiled in this argument, as I dont have enough knowledge of womens sport. What I will say is this

Men on average are stronger and faster bodyweight for bodyweight than their counterparts - fine. However, Zab Judah was stronger and faster than Kostya Tszyu, but Tszyus technique won him through. And thats the problem. The technique and quality is poor. Boxing isnt about being strong and fast. Im sure Dwain chambers is sronger and faster than John Mcdermott - but who would you put your mortgage on?

Wales wrote:

Datsue wrote:
Crusader, your repeated assertions about how men are better than women have already been answered, but I'll state it really simply 'cos you seem to be missing it: men are on average stronger & faster bodyweight-for-bodyweight than girls. By using your reasoning, girls shouldn't be allowed to compete in any sport where men are better.

I dont really want to get embroiled in this argument, as I dont have enough knowledge of womens sport. What I will say is this

Men on average are stronger and faster bodyweight for bodyweight than their counterparts - fine. However, Zab Judah was stronger and faster than Kostya Tszyu, but Tszyus technique won him through. And thats the problem. The technique and quality is poor. Boxing isnt about being strong and fast. Im sure Dwain chambers is sronger and faster than John Mcdermott - but who would you put your mortgage on?

That is the point though, who cares how strong the women are, it's the skill level is what matters. If there is a contest between two evenly matched women with high skills levels, then who cares how they would fare against men, they ain't fighting men.

I've seen some excellent women's boxing on german undercards, that surpassed the main events for skill.

I mean come on, look at the gigantic lumbering apeths we have in the heavyweight division, people still watch that shite, are women really going to be much worse?

Yes, she was knocked out - so what? I never said she was better than male fighters I said she held her own in sparring and that she brutalised SOME of her male sparring partners. Probably the ones who weren't that talented themselves. Men are physically MUCH stronger, but Lucia was a very special lady, and her talent enabled her to compete on fairly even terms in sparring against physically stronger opponents.

It is not the women who are competing who are hurting the men, it's the blazers who run the sport, if you want to direct your anger at someone, direct it at them.

Oh, and she was knocked out in a kickboxing match, not boxing, I've watched it,.

What has the fairness got to do with it? How does women participating hurt men who want to compete. If I am the 12th best female boxer out of 150, surely I'd feel cheated if I wasn't allowed to participate merely because the olympic committee determine there were not enough female competitors.

I know that, Ive watched it too. I took it literally when you said "kicking the crap out of her male sparring partners."

It takes alot less talent to be 12th out of 150 than to be 28th out of 2000. Any intelligent individual realizes that.

You say "what has fairness got to do with it" then you contradict yourself by saying "surely I'd feel cheated if I wasn't allowed to participate merely because the olympic committee determine there were not enough female competitors" Why? Would that be unfair?

The Olympics should always be fair, I'm shocked that anyone would disagree with that. In my opinion its only far that the high level athletes are not replaced by lower grade level athletes.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Wales wrote:

Datsue wrote:
Crusader, your repeated assertions about how men are better than women have already been answered, but I'll state it really simply 'cos you seem to be missing it: men are on average stronger & faster bodyweight-for-bodyweight than girls. By using your reasoning, girls shouldn't be allowed to compete in any sport where men are better.

I dont really want to get embroiled in this argument, as I dont have enough knowledge of womens sport. What I will say is this

Men on average are stronger and faster bodyweight for bodyweight than their counterparts - fine. However, Zab Judah was stronger and faster than Kostya Tszyu, but Tszyus technique won him through. And thats the problem. The technique and quality is poor. Boxing isnt about being strong and fast. Im sure Dwain chambers is sronger and faster than John Mcdermott - but who would you put your mortgage on?

That is the point though, who cares how strong the women are, it's the skill level is what matters. If there is a contest between two evenly matched women with high skills levels, then who cares how they would fare against men, they ain't fighting men.

I've seen some excellent women's boxing on german undercards, that surpassed the main events for skill.

I mean come on, look at the gigantic lumbering apeths we have in the heavyweight division, people still watch that shite, are women really going to be much worse?

What exactly are you watching? 99% of womens boxing today, even at the highest level involves virtually no technique, speed, or power.

For example take 21-0 (12) Natasha Ragosina. She is by far the best boxer in her division (super middleweight), but she is slow, plodding, throws arm punches, has limited power, poor stamina and virtually no snap or explosiveness to her.

Even watching Susi Kentikian who has easily won all of her fights and beaten other champions, all you see is her flailing around with no technique or skill what so ever.

I wholeheartedly agree the emphasis should be on skill and not strength and I still feel that skill level has not been achieved by the women.
Datsue has previously explained at length why this has not been achieved, due to martial art and kickboxing backrounds.
I say let them achieve these skill levels before they are allowed to compete in the Olympics, being an Olympian is not a right it should be earned

crusader wrote:

Yes, she was knocked out - so what? I never said she was better than male fighters I said she held her own in sparring and that she brutalised SOME of her male sparring partners. Probably the ones who weren't that talented themselves. Men are physically MUCH stronger, but Lucia was a very special lady, and her talent enabled her to compete on fairly even terms in sparring against physically stronger opponents.

It is not the women who are competing who are hurting the men, it's the blazers who run the sport, if you want to direct your anger at someone, direct it at them.

Oh, and she was knocked out in a kickboxing match, not boxing, I've watched it,.

What has the fairness got to do with it? How does women participating hurt men who want to compete. If I am the 12th best female boxer out of 150, surely I'd feel cheated if I wasn't allowed to participate merely because the olympic committee determine there were not enough female competitors.

I know that, Ive watched it too. I took it literally when you said "kicking the crap out of her male sparring partners."

It takes alot less talent to be 12th out of 150 than to be 28th out of 2000. Any intelligent individual realizes that.

You say "what has fairness got to do with it" then you contradict yourself by saying "surely I'd feel cheated if I wasn't allowed to participate merely because the olympic committee determine there were not enough female competitors" Why? Would that be unfair?

The Olympics should always be fair, I'm shocked that anyone would disagree with that. In my opinion its only far that the high level athletes are not replaced by lower grade level athletes.

I'm not contradicting myself at all, I'm providing a counterpoint to your argument.

An intelligent individual would recognise that a woman's right to compete in the sport has nothing to do with how the administration have cacked things up and bodged it by removing a weight class from the men.

You are the one banging on about how unfair it is, I was merely pointing out that you could argue the unfairness of people not being able to compete because their sport was currently a minority one at least for their gender.

Anyway, it seems you are unable to take on board my points, so I will just leave the argument there.

Coco wrote:I wholeheartedly agree the emphasis should be on skill and not strength and I still feel that skill level has not been achieved by the women.
Datsue has previously explained at length why this has not been achieved, due to martial art and kickboxing backrounds.
I say let them achieve these skill levels before they are allowed to compete in the Olympics, being an Olympian is not a right it should be earned

I agree 100%

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

crusader wrote:

Yes, she was knocked out - so what? I never said she was better than male fighters I said she held her own in sparring and that she brutalised SOME of her male sparring partners. Probably the ones who weren't that talented themselves. Men are physically MUCH stronger, but Lucia was a very special lady, and her talent enabled her to compete on fairly even terms in sparring against physically stronger opponents.

It is not the women who are competing who are hurting the men, it's the blazers who run the sport, if you want to direct your anger at someone, direct it at them.

Oh, and she was knocked out in a kickboxing match, not boxing, I've watched it,.

What has the fairness got to do with it? How does women participating hurt men who want to compete. If I am the 12th best female boxer out of 150, surely I'd feel cheated if I wasn't allowed to participate merely because the olympic committee determine there were not enough female competitors.

I know that, Ive watched it too. I took it literally when you said "kicking the crap out of her male sparring partners."

It takes alot less talent to be 12th out of 150 than to be 28th out of 2000. Any intelligent individual realizes that.

You say "what has fairness got to do with it" then you contradict yourself by saying "surely I'd feel cheated if I wasn't allowed to participate merely because the olympic committee determine there were not enough female competitors" Why? Would that be unfair?

The Olympics should always be fair, I'm shocked that anyone would disagree with that. In my opinion its only far that the high level athletes are not replaced by lower grade level athletes.

I'm not contradicting myself at all, I'm providing a counterpoint to your argument.

An intelligent individual would recognise that a woman's right to compete in the sport has nothing to do with how the administration have cacked things up and bodged it by removing a weight class from the men.

You are the one banging on about how unfair it is, I was merely pointing out that you could argue the unfairness of people not being able to compete because their sport was currently a minority one at least for their gender.

Anyway, it seems you are unable to take on board my points, so I will just leave the argument there.

What are your broad points? I am able to take on anything you say.

Everything is unfair to someone. It was unfair to slave masters that slavery was abolished. You have to look at it with from a neutral perspective. In events of athletic prowess the better athletes should have priority.

crusader wrote:

Coco wrote: I say let them achieve these skill levels before they are allowed to compete in the Olympics, being an Olympian is not a right it should be earned

I agree 100%

Okay, I think we're never going to come to a meeting of minds here, but I'll say this as a final thingie:

The increase in skill levels amongst female boxers that you have both stated that you desire will be achieved quicker once female boxing's part of the Olympics. I guarantee it. The inclusion in the Olympics will increase the popularity of the women's game hugely, most probably amongst girls.

I for one welcome it.

If there's a limited number of places, & the men have to lose some, so what? There'll be more men than women boxing in the Olympics for the foreseeable future anyway.

& if one day the ratio of female to male boxers competing is fifty-fifty, again, so what? People complain about the amount of divisions all the time. Getting rid of some of them & letting the girls fight is fine by me.

Datsue wrote:[
The increase in skill levels amongst female boxers that you have both stated that you desire will be achieved quicker once female boxing's part of the Olympics. I guarantee it. The inclusion in the Olympics will increase the popularity of the women's game hugely, most probably amongst girls.

I just cant see bus loads of women deciding they want to box just because its in the olympics with virtually no coverage anyway.

crusader wrote:
Everything is unfair to someone. It was unfair to slave masters that slavery was abolished. You have to look at it with from a neutral perspective. In events of athletic prowess the better athletes should have priority.

That's just it Crusader, whether you think you are or not, you're not starting from a neutral perspective.

Otherwise, you would not have a problem with the allocation of places being given fifty-fifty girls/boys (or whatever the ratio is). I'm not valourising a neutral perspective, I don't even think I have one, but you cannot seriously believe that you have one on this issue. You say one thing then disregard it when someone pulls you up on it & say something else. But both come from the same mindset to start with, & it certainly ain't a neutral one.

Wales wrote:I just cant see bus loads of women deciding they want to box just because its in the olympics with virtually no coverage anyway.

There won't be busloads. Boxing is a minority interest sport. Which is one of the many reasons I think it's effing stupid to be patriarchal & 19th Century about stopping anyone who would bloody well like to box.

Girls are allowed to kickbox. They are allowed to engage in MMA. They are allowed to practise karate. But heaven forefend that they want to box.

Datsue wrote:

crusader wrote:
Everything is unfair to someone. It was unfair to slave masters that slavery was abolished. You have to look at it with from a neutral perspective. In events of athletic prowess the better athletes should have priority.

That's just it Crusader, whether you think you are or not, you're not starting from a neutral perspective.

Otherwise, you would not have a problem with the allocation of places being given fifty-fifty girls/boys (or whatever the ratio is). I'm not valourising a neutral perspective, I don't even think I have one, but you cannot seriously believe that you have one on this issue. You say one thing then disregard it when someone pulls you up on it & say something else. But both come from the same mindset to start with, & it certainly ain't a neutral one.

When I say neutral that doesn't mean everything should be 50/50. People who work hard and people who don't work at all shouldn't get a 50/50 split when it comes to pay day. Some people are better than others and have more talent, and thus the 50/50 rule shouldn't apply. I mean we should look at issues from behind a veil of ignorance (as Rawls put it). To me it doesn't seem rational or fair that in an event that is supposed to bring about the best boxers in the world, less skilled ones are taking the place of superior athletes. I would say the same thing if the situation was reversed.

Datsue wrote:

crusader wrote:
Everything is unfair to someone. It was unfair to slave masters that slavery was abolished. You have to look at it with from a neutral perspective. In events of athletic prowess the better athletes should have priority.

That's just it Crusader, whether you think you are or not, you're not starting from a neutral perspective.

Otherwise, you would not have a problem with the allocation of places being given fifty-fifty girls/boys (or whatever the ratio is). I'm not valourising a neutral perspective, I don't even think I have one, but you cannot seriously believe that you have one on this issue. You say one thing then disregard it when someone pulls you up on it & say something else. But both come from the same mindset to start with, & it certainly ain't a neutral one.

Wales wrote:I just cant see bus loads of women deciding they want to box just because its in the olympics with virtually no coverage anyway.

There won't be busloads. Boxing is a minority interest sport. Which is one of the many reasons I think it's effing stupid to be patriarchal & 19th Century about stopping anyone who would bloody well like to box.

Girls are allowed to kickbox. They are allowed to engage in MMA. They are allowed to practise karate. But heaven forefend that they want to box.

Is anyone here saying that womens boxing should be banned all together as a sport? I don't think it should and I don't have any problem with womens pro boxing other than the lack of talent. I don't think they should get rid of that, unless of course they had to eliminate a large group of male boxers. I've had no problems with them holding the World Amateur Championships for females.

crusader wrote:

Coco wrote:I wholeheartedly agree the emphasis should be on skill and not strength and I still feel that skill level has not been achieved by the women.
Datsue has previously explained at length why this has not been achieved, due to martial art and kickboxing backrounds.
I say let them achieve these skill levels before they are allowed to compete in the Olympics, being an Olympian is not a right it should be earned

I agree 100%

Well, take it up with olympic committee then. It's their decision to allow boxing. That being the case, I'm all behind women's right to compete if there are places available.

Datsue wrote:
Girls are allowed to kickbox. They are allowed to engage in MMA. They are allowed to practise karate. But heaven forefend that they want to box.

Woah there germian grear. Ive never once said in this thread that women shouldnt be allowed to box, or indeed that it shouldnt be in the olympics.

The only thing I was disagreeing with was this notion that women around the world are goignt o think "oh, boxings an olympic sport now... i think i'll take it up" As I responded to James earlier, it wont reduce the numbers, but this idea that loads more will take it up cos its in the feckin olympics, I just dont buy it.


Womens boxing is even more a minority because, stereotypically, women dont like to fight. men, historically do. No prospect of an olympic gold medal will change what is engrained in you by nature.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

crusader wrote:

Coco wrote:I wholeheartedly agree the emphasis should be on skill and not strength and I still feel that skill level has not been achieved by the women.
Datsue has previously explained at length why this has not been achieved, due to martial art and kickboxing backrounds.
I say let them achieve these skill levels before they are allowed to compete in the Olympics, being an Olympian is not a right it should be earned

I agree 100%

Well, take it up with olympic committee then. It's their decision to allow boxing. That being the case, I'm all behind women's right to compete if there are places available.

I'm aware its their decision James. Im not going to start a major protest about it, I just disagree with it. In my opinion they should eliminate one of the about 35 swimming events, "ribon dancing", or synchronized swimming, and let women compete in all 11 weight classes.

Wales wrote:
Woah there germian grear. Ive never once said in this thread that women shouldnt be allowed to box, or indeed that it shouldnt be in the olympics.

The only thing I was disagreeing with was this notion that women around the world are goignt o think "oh, boxings an olympic sport now... i think i'll take it up" As I responded to James earlier, it wont reduce the numbers, but this idea that loads more will take it up cos its in the feckin olympics, I just dont buy it.


Womens boxing is even more a minority because, stereotypically, women dont like to fight. men, historically do. No prospect of an olympic gold medal will change what is engrained in you by nature.

It's Germaine Greer, dear.

& I'm really not going to start a fecking "Nature vs Nurture -- twelve x three million year rounds!!" debate anywhere, let alone around here, but I do think women's boxing at the Olympics will increase the popularity of the women's game. You don't. Fair enough.

I actually agree with you in one sense, that the increase will not be massive, 'cos boxing itself is no longer massive (& as you alluded to there are significant socio-cultural factors which mitigate against it).

Just an aside, the last sentence was anyway aimed at crusader. I edited the post when I saw you'd posted while I previewed it, so I stuck your quote in on the end. Sorry I didn't format it correctly.

well... anyway... ermm... womens boxings rubbish <runs away>

Also, apologies for not knowing how to spell some cretinous womens rights womans name. Im all for womens rights, burning of bras and all that. But that bulldog licking piss faced fuckwitt is a sour faced opinionated tw@ of the highest order. Infact, im glad i mis-spelt her name.