Could a woman beat a man in a boxing match?

Matchfixer · Post by **Matchfixer** » 07 Jul 2004, 19:05

I'm not joking here. I saw the undercard of the cley-bay v mayfield fight on channel 5 and there were two women boxing. Can't remember their names but it was a good fight. So...

If you matched two equal weight (or maybe equal power if it could be measured) fighters - one male and one female could the woman win?

Obviously there is the hitting a woman issue but I'm talking theoretically

adamiw · Post by **adamiw** » 07 Jul 2004, 19:12

Few women fighters have any technique and win by over powering their opponent, i doubt they could do this against a male opponent.

Lucia Rijker is very talented. I reckon she could beat at least some journeyman men at her own weight, She has very good skills.

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 07 Jul 2004, 19:12

One of the gals you saw fighting is a fave of mine, Layla McCarter. Cute and skilled - I'd let her beat on me with those sweet little fists of hers anytime.

(I know, I'm a loathsome chauvinist pig. ;))

Seriously, I think at equal weights and similar skill level a woman would still be very much at adisadvantage in a boxing match because men have proportionally more upper body strength. Yes, legs have a lot to do with punch power as well, but look at Laila Ali and look at Tommy Hearns and tell me who had more pop.

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 07 Jul 2004, 19:16

Its happend, and the woman won. Although it was a joke surrounding - I think the guy was a journeyman who hadn't fought in ages. Sorry, if I'm a bit hazy I just wasn't interested in the PR stunt.

Anyway, I would say in most scenerio's it would be no - its all down to science, women do not produce near the same quantity of testosterone as men (not even Mahood) - men are more biologically fit to fight than women, and should win.

Having said that - I releative of mine who used to wrestle in the 40-50's (proper wrestling, Buldog Bill Garnon) was pretty much the best wrestler in the world (Went to America to chase the world champ, who ducked him for years - they never met). Anyway, stories I have heard is that his sister would beat the crap into him in training.

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 08 Jul 2004, 04:35

I started a simular thread about this a few months ago, it has some info and links about man vs women bouts.

http://www.boxrec.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=15262

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 08 Jul 2004, 04:47

Lucia Rijker could definetly kick a few amateurs in. She's seriously built, but sexy in a very odd way, a bit like Vasquez from Aliens. Rijker reminds me of a sort of pumped version of J-lo.

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 08 Jul 2004, 04:49

jamesmcdonnell wrote: pumped version of J-lo.

Nice image

Post by **John** » 08 Jul 2004, 05:31

Yes
http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=033554

knockout · Post by **knockout** » 08 Jul 2004, 05:52

Lucia Rijcker fought a guy in kick boxing and got badly knocked out....

She was so dominant against women and was looking for a challenge....

There are a number of females with great technique and skill....

Shanee Martin boxes down at the Peacock, she is only 7 1/2 stone but has superb technique and skills...

Well worth watching her but unfortunately due to the lack of BBBC and ABA interest in female boxing she has to fight on unlicensed bills

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 08 Jul 2004, 06:01

I think this country's attitude to boxing is very backward, I see no reason why women should not be allowed to participate, it's not like they are fighting men.

All the supposed greater health risks can be overcome. Damage to breast tissue is largely not an issue, as women boxers tend to have very little in the tit department due to training.

The other concern which is the damage to the ovaries, could be countered with specially designed protectors.

The women's game will not really come into fruitiion until they have amateur boxing and are represented at olympic level.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 08 Jul 2004, 06:06

Maybe if the woman was one of the heavier weights and the bloke was like 8 stone 7 the woman might win.

knockout artist · Post by **knockout artist** » 08 Jul 2004, 06:08

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I think this country's attitude to boxing is very backward, I see no reason why women should not be allowed to participate, it's not like they are fighting men.

All the supposed greater health risks can be overcome. Damage to breast tissue is largely not an issue, as women boxers tend to have very little in the tit department due to training.

The other concern which is the damage to the ovaries, could be countered with specially designed protectors.

The women's game will not really come into fruitiion until they have amateur boxing and are represented at olympic level.

If you like that sort of thing then fine. If women want to box each other fair enough, I suppose.

Personally, I dont agree with it and will walk out of a hall if there is a womans bout on.

A friend of mine, a fairly big promoter, wont feature womens boxing.

Call me old fashioned but I wouldnt either.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 08 Jul 2004, 06:15

I don't understand why people find it distasteful, I really don't.

Why do we have these persisting victorian views with regard to women? In Israel, Women fight and die alongside their male counterparts in war, and some of the most decorated soliders in their country are women. Though hormonally and psychologically different, women are more than capable of fighting in war, so why not in the ring?

Is somehow the life of a woman worth more than a man's, that is something I find fallacious in the extreme. Women in fact have a far greater tolerance for pain than men do, and their bodies are just as robust (so long as they are fighting opponents of the same gender), it's not like they will fall apart if hit.

Christ, look at all the highly successful female atheletes out there, why do we have a problem with then boxing, because we feel that women should be protected? I find it a very anachronistic attitude myself.

knockout artist · Post by **knockout artist** » 08 Jul 2004, 06:19

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I don't understand why people find it distasteful, I really don't.

Why do we have these persisting victorian views with regard to women? In Israel, Women fight and die alongside their male counterparts in war, and some of the most decorated soliders in their country are women. Though hormonally and psychologically different, women are more than capable of fighting in war, so why not in the ring?

Is somehow the life of a woman worth more than a man's, that is something I find fallacious in the extreme. Women in fact have a far greater tolerance for pain than men do, and their bodies are just as robust (so long as they are fighting opponents of the same gender), it's not like they will fall apart if hit.

Christ, look at all the highly successful female atheletes out there, why do we have a problem with then boxing, because we feel that women should be protected? I find it a very anachronistic attitude myself.

Boxing is different. Women should be rearing children, not fighting. IMO

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 08 Jul 2004, 06:20

I don't either. I don't see why women shouldn't box if they want to. Unfortunately it just isn't a very strong division and the leading female boxers records are full of people with 0-3 records.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 08 Jul 2004, 06:26

knockout artist wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:I don't understand why people find it distasteful, I really don't.

Why do we have these persisting victorian views with regard to women? In Israel, Women fight and die alongside their male counterparts in war, and some of the most decorated soliders in their country are women. Though hormonally and psychologically different, women are more than capable of fighting in war, so why not in the ring?

Is somehow the life of a woman worth more than a man's, that is something I find fallacious in the extreme. Women in fact have a far greater tolerance for pain than men do, and their bodies are just as robust (so long as they are fighting opponents of the same gender), it's not like they will fall apart if hit.

Christ, look at all the highly successful female atheletes out there, why do we have a problem with then boxing, because we feel that women should be protected? I find it a very anachronistic attitude myself.

Boxing is different. Women should be rearing children, not fighting. IMO

Oh come on now, a woman's sole purpose in life is to rear children. I guess all those women atheletes around the world are wasting their time then? Very victorian attitude, you're entitled to your opinion of course, I just find it slightly amazing.

As for why the divisions are so weak, it's because there is no amateur structure, and therefore no talent pool of properly trained fighters.

knockout artist · Post by **knockout artist** » 08 Jul 2004, 06:34

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
knockout artist wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:I don't understand why people find it distasteful, I really don't.

Why do we have these persisting victorian views with regard to women? In Israel, Women fight and die alongside their male counterparts in war, and some of the most decorated soliders in their country are women. Though hormonally and psychologically different, women are more than capable of fighting in war, so why not in the ring?

Is somehow the life of a woman worth more than a man's, that is something I find fallacious in the extreme. Women in fact have a far greater tolerance for pain than men do, and their bodies are just as robust (so long as they are fighting opponents of the same gender), it's not like they will fall apart if hit.

Christ, look at all the highly successful female atheletes out there, why do we have a problem with then boxing, because we feel that women should be protected? I find it a very anachronistic attitude myself.

Boxing is different. Women should be rearing children, not fighting. IMO

Oh come on now, a woman's sole purpose in life is to rear children. I guess all those women atheletes around the world are wasting their time then? Very victorian attitude, you're entitled to your opinion of course, I just find it slightly amazing.

As for why the divisions are so weak, it's because there is no amateur structure, and therefore no talent pool of properly trained fighters.

I know, I am very old fashioned when it comes to things like this.

Not all women should rear children. Only the good looking ones

I note and agree with your point concerning the lack of amatuer structure. It could be said that declining amatuers are lowering the standard in the mens game as well.

mrbassie · Post by **mrbassie** » 08 Jul 2004, 06:34

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I don't understand why people find it distasteful, I really don't.

Why do we have these persisting victorian views with regard to women? In Israel, Women fight and die alongside their male counterparts in war, and some of the most decorated soliders in their country are women. Though hormonally and psychologically different, women are more than capable of fighting in war, so why not in the ring?

Is somehow the life of a woman worth more than a man's, that is something I find fallacious in the extreme. Women in fact have a far greater tolerance for pain than men do, and their bodies are just as robust (so long as they are fighting opponents of the same gender), it's not like they will fall apart if hit.

Christ, look at all the highly successful female atheletes out there, why do we have a problem with then boxing, because we feel that women should be protected? I find it a very anachronistic attitude myself.

Good post m8

mickeybeard · Post by **mickeybeard** » 08 Jul 2004, 06:44

Yep, don't have a problem with it myself. I don't watch a lot of women's boxing because the overwhelming majority of fights I have seen have been shocking, but they've every right to earn a living fighting.

Women should spend their time raising children eh? I wonder if I can sell that idea to the missus. I'll go tell her. If I don't post in the next hour, somebody call the police...

J · Post by J » 08 Jul 2004, 06:45

mickeybeard wrote:Yep, don't have a problem with it myself. I don't watch a lot of women's boxing because the overwhelming majority of fights I have seen have been shocking, but they've every right to earn a living fighting.

Women should spend their time raising children eh? I wonder if I can sell that idea to the missus. I'll go tell her. If I don't post in the next hour, somebody call the police...

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 08 Jul 2004, 06:52

mickeybeard wrote:Yep, don't have a problem with it myself. I don't watch a lot of women's boxing because the overwhelming majority of fights I have seen have been shocking, but they've every right to earn a living fighting.

Women should spend their time raising children eh? I wonder if I can sell that idea to the missus. I'll go tell her. If I don't post in the next hour, somebody call the police... :D

Or the local family planning clinic.

DavidPayne · Post by **DavidPayne** » 08 Jul 2004, 07:54

The Original Hurricane wrote:I don't either. I don't see why women shouldn't box if they want to. Unfortunately it just isn't a very strong division and the leading female boxers records are full of people with 0-3 records.

Exactly how can a division be 'full' of 0-3 fighters?

Whos beating them then?

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 08 Jul 2004, 07:58

One female boxer whose better than all the others.

Some divisions only have about 6 fighters in them...

Matchfixer · Post by **Matchfixer** » 08 Jul 2004, 08:13

KOJOE90 wrote:I started a simular thread about this a few months ago, it has some info and links about man vs women bouts.

http://www.boxrec.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=15262

Sorry - Didn't see it! Thanks for the info

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 08 Jul 2004, 08:49

I've seen some photos of the man v woman bout in which the woman proved victorious. Margaret MacGregor handed out a real shellacking to a weak-looking male opponent by the name of Loi Chow, who hadn't fought in three years, stood 5ft 2ins, weighed 128 pounds (MacGregor was 129), was 33, made a living as a jockey and entered the ring with a 0-2 record (Margaret had won three fights on the spin).
The 36-year-old MacGregor, nicknamed "Tiger", was due to fight Mexico's Hector Morales in October 1999 at the Mercer Arena in Seattle but Morales bottled out (well, decided it was morally wrong). Loi Chow took his place - but Chow also did not really want to do it. He boxed to go the full four rounds and that was it.