BoxRec

Here is a very relevant question. Could the Rock have won it back from Floyd? Or Ingemar if it could/would have been arranged? Did he ever seriously consider chiming back in?

I'm asking these questions in real time no prime vs prime nonsense. Also when do you think he would have been too old to consider carrying on? I'm thinking he would not have been a force by the time Liston came along. Anyone disagree?

I know he was great though I was not a big fan, however I have always wondered when his number would have been up and who would have brought the curtain down on him. I was a huge fan of Archie Moore and I know he wouldnt have been the one to do it since he did give it a shot and came up short.

Jaclem if you see this I'd appreciate your take as well.

rocky marciano only seriousely considered a comeback when ingemar johansen won the title. he trained in secret for a month doing his road work and working on sboxing with gil clancy until he realized he didnt have it anymore and he called it off. but that was the only time he seriousely considered a comeback.

if rocky did decide to comeback, i believe he would have beat johanssen but looked not at all like his former self which would have prompted him to retire.
rock said when he retired " i prob have two or 3 good fights left."

if rocky never retired after moore, he would have proably fought bob baker or nino valdez and then waited a year to fight patteron in 1956 or 1957, at which time marciano would be almost 34 and prob show definte signs of aging. patterson was young 21, and had a weaker chin and i dont think he had the expeiecne at that age to handle even an aging marciano. he might have outboxed him but marciano would have caught him and knocked out patterson.
now marciano at 34, in 1957 would have probably fought have fought a still green clevelan williams or most likely undefeated eddie machen. i still think marciano would have beat machen. but it depends on how much marciano ages, by 34 i would feel he would be defintely showing signs of aging and this could be the downfall. if he gets past machen, liston who returned to the ring in 1958 after missing a year of inactivity for beating up the cop. so liston would have to fight some fights to get into form and if marciano were to meet liston, it would be at the end of 1958 or beginning of 1959 at which marciano was 35, and probably defitenly lost it and is past his prime. i suspect a prime liston by now would prob stop marciano or beat him on points. all marciano had by then is a punchers chance.

so as u see, not much big names to fight. heres what i think would have happened.

1956: Nino Valdez: Marciano winner by KO 11
1957: Floyd Patterson : Marciano winner by KO 6
1958: Eddie Machen: Marciano 15 decision
1958: Hurricane Jackson : Marciano TKO 8
1959: Sonny Liston: Liston TKO 12 marciano age 36


thats my opinion on what who marciano would have fought and what would have happened if he stayed until he lost.

my mistake. i meant to say marciano worked with lou duva who was going to work in his corner if he fought johannsn. also cus d amato blocked the marciano- johannsen match from happening.

i think he would have lost within the next two years. i don't know who would have beaten him, but he was having some serious back and neck problems when he stepped away and given the style he fought (a blood and gut warrior who didn't take a step back) those problems would not allow him to continue to fight that way. even had he lasted a few more years sooner or later he would have run into sonny liston who would have taken him out at rocky's advanced age. i would say much the same way rocky took out joe louis.

The smartest thing Rocky Marciano ever did...was to retire when he did...he played it smart, made his money, and was an American hero...he didn't make the stupid mistake of virtually eveyone who came after him...to fight too long and get humiliated by guys that couldn't possibly have won a few years earlier...He may have been the only guy who knew when to quit!

So both of your take seem to be that if he would have stayed in the game it would have prevented the "floyd-ingemar era" altogether.

You say Marciano was the only guy smart enough to quit while he was ahead. You don't think Lewis did that? Or is it that you think it is too early to write that chapter? Since there is always a rumbling that Lewis will return.

Of course I'm on record as saying I don't think any champion should quit with the belt. Something just not right about goofing up the lineage and not allowing the next guy his rightful place in history. I'm a big man who beat the man advocate.

I suppose if I was living my life as a boxer and had to face a beating from someone to preserve the heritage I might choose to retire as well. But nevertheless from a spectator point of view I like the sacrificial aspect for the good of the game.

And me being a head injury specialist...go figure. I'm a big seat belt and motorcycle helmet advocate but for boxers who are trained volunteers when it comes to taking a beating I'm more libertarian. Life has risks so long as you go in with eyes open I'm not averse to letting people manage their own risk level. Though sometimes it has tragic results, as does going to the store to buy groceries on occasion.

BoxBuzz wrote:So both of your take seem to be that if he would have stayed in the game it would have prevented the "floyd-ingemar era" altogether.

You say Marciano was the only guy smart enough to quit while he was ahead. You don't think Lewis did that? Or is it that you think it is too early to write that chapter? Since there is always a rumbling that Lewis will return.

...too early...Lewis could still come back and rake in millions in a PPV bonanza considering the current shape of the heavyweight division..although, I wouldn't advise it...I like to see these guys stay healthy...they have something to add to our sporting culture and history...I really get sick looking at Ali now...He always had so much to say when he was young, and now...nothing...it's a shame he can't joke around with a reporter anymore without a 'translator'...

Of course I'm on record as saying I don't think any champion should quit with the belt. Something just not right about goofing up the lineage and not allowing the next guy his rightful place in history. I'm a big man who beat the man advocate.

I suppose if I was living my life as a boxer and had to face a beating from someone to preserve the heritage I might choose to retire as well. But nevertheless from a spectator point of view I like the sacrificial aspect for the good of the game.

And me being a head injury specialist...go figure.

...indeed...that is a stange paradox...and the 'lineage' was technically broken (for heavyweights) when Gene Tunney retired in 1928, was it not?

I'm a big seat belt and motorcycle helmet advocate but for boxers who are trained volunteers when it comes to taking a beating I'm more libertarian. Life has risks so long as you go in with eyes open I'm not averse to letting people manage their own risk level. Though sometimes it has tragic results, as does going to the store to buy groceries on occasion.

I like watching any great athlete in their prime...I feel sad to watch an athlete, past his prime, in decline, just hanging on...I felt sad to watch Mickey Mantle & Willie Mays at the ends of their careers, just hanging on...in the hopes of one more chance at glory that never really came...

...and it's 10 times worse for a boxer who takes a physical beating to go along with that athletic decline...a baseball player just hits for a low average...a boxer gets his brains scrambled by some young kid trying to make a name for himself...it can really be sickening...letting people manage their own risk level is great in the stock market...in the prize fighting ring...it can be disasterous...How many interviews have I seen from a boxer who took too many to the head, and they still think they're as good as ever...Meldrick Taylor & Riddick Bowe pop into mind...sad...

Yep when Tunny retired we went back to "concensus" we reached critical mass and continued on with rebuilding the lineage. It's what happens every time. And did I mention I don't like it? It was Tunny's, Marciano's and Lewis's choice so what can you do? Pick up the pieces and move on.

I worry more about a law that says once you become champion you have reached the peak you have nothing left to prove and must now retire.

We can go round and round on the dignity of risk issue.

And TIME OUT!

Sounds like this is all about whether or not you are SAD! Heart breaking as that is I would offer that it is not about you, it is about the person living the life in question. Not about whether you are experiencing sadness beacause you have signed up as "hero worshipper" It's about the person living their life and deciding for themselves what is and what is not important.

Sometimes people make mistakes so the rest of us can learn from them, then their value as a teacher is important in and of itself. You and I differ on the odds regarding Ali's condition but let's say you are right.
What have we learned in masse? Don't do what he did,right?. So your "bad outcome" is not so bad is it? Except you imagine you would have preferred to be his momma and make that choice for him because you imagine you mignt be "wiser".?

Ok so what have we learned here class? Many many better choices are made by others as a result of what an Ali or Joe Louis sound or look like as a result of their rather well advertised choices. We all get to use our minds and make our decisions and excercise our freedom to choose. Not someone elses choice in our behalf.

The market place of good ideas thrives this way and as a species we benefit by it.

Pass the physical, step up, take your chances, reap the consequences good or bad, enjoy your freedom and your life.

I do my little part in my job to help others put their lives back together if they make a poor choice or have a bad accident. I don't judge what they did particularly, I do hope they enjoyed their lives both pre and post such an event. I advise those who have compomised their systems to take it easy but if they feel the need to go back on their motorcycle again....well I guess they improve the human condition by eliminating themselves from the gene pool. I have faith that things happen for a reason.

I happen to like the "sport", which assumes risk, sounds like you might make it more exclusive though. Eliminating those you feel don't cut the mustard. Maybe Age restrictions? Or maybe introducing headgear? Or maybe convert to video game style no actual contact? You trying to put me out a business? Just kidding there as nothing could please me more.

But I'm puzzled why you like the sport if what you really wish for is less risk and sweeter outcomes? Pool, chess, checkers,golf are other exciting choices to meet that need. And one is less likely to become "saddened" as result of the natural loss of skills due to age, poor life choices, foolishness and random unpredictable events that the participants will inevitbably face.

I'm very very moved at the personal saddness you describe and rather than change boxing we should ask people to take a senstivity test and anyone too sensitive to experience the raw nature of this sport should have their "observers liscense" revoked.

Far more people suffer from pschological problems from being exposed to events beyond their "pay grade" than people hurt in accidents or sporting events. Restricting access to such moments may be a more reasoned approach than restricting the sport itself.

I do not want to see poor helpless people saddened as they watch free and courageous people go about what they love to do. I'm going to write my Senator and see just what can be done to protect the innocent observer of sports from being so traumatized. I'm simply concerned for their basic welfare and am not sure they can make this kind of decision on their own.

Room for disagreement here! Love the debate, I love boxing, I do not want to see it diluted. Markus of Queensbury made it just civil enough for me. Call me Neanderthal.


Respect! 8)

I'd imagine he could've taken care of the Valdeseseses, Satterfields, and Bakers of the division, along with Patterson, in 56-58, although by 1959 I suspect he would've really been feeling his age and ring wear, and he probably would've lost to a young Johansson or Liston around 1960. Had he made a comeback in the late '50s, I would expect him to be able to continue a little longer than if he'd just stayed on, although I don't think a past-prime Rocky could take Liston in the early '60s.

BoxBuzz wrote: We can go round and round on the dignity of risk issue.

And TIME OUT!

Sounds like this is all about whether or not you are SAD! Heart breaking as that is I would offer that it is not about you, it is about the person living the life in question. Not about whether you are experiencing sadness beacause you have signed up as "hero worshipper" It's about the person living their life and deciding for themselves what is and what is not important.

Is it 'sad' to see someone OD on heroin? Is it 'sad' to see someone get drunk and die in a car wreck? Is it 'sad' to see someone continue in the ring until they have severe brain damage? All three are 'choices'...all three are 'about the person living their life and deciding for themselves what is and what is not important'...All three lead to the same thing...disaster...doesn't really matter how I feel...

Sometimes people make mistakes so the rest of us can learn from them, then their value as a teacher is important in and of itself. You and I differ on the odds regarding Ali's condition but let's say you are right.
What have we learned in masse? Don't do what he did,right?. So your "bad outcome" is not so bad is it? Except you imagine you would have preferred to be his momma and make that choice for him because you imagine you mignt be "wiser".?

Ali was beginning to slur his speech in the '70's...only the ancient Romans at the colosium would want to see a guy continue like that...what purpose does it serve to watch a 'shell' try to recapture glory that has been gone for years...so you can have your 'lineage' maintained...

Ok so what have we learned here class? Many many better choices are made by others as a result of what an Ali or Joe Louis sound or look like as a result of their rather well advertised choices. We all get to use our minds and make our decisions and excercise our freedom to choose. Not someone elses choice in our behalf.

The market place of good ideas thrives this way and as a species we benefit by it.

Pass the physical, step up, take your chances, reap the consequences good or bad, enjoy your freedom and your life.

...Something tells me you won't teach your offspring that theory, especially when it applies directly to them....

I do my little part in my job to help others put their lives back together if they make a poor choice or have a bad accident. I don't judge what they did particularly, I do hope they enjoyed their lives both pre and post such an event. I advise those who have compomised their systems to take it easy but if they feel the need to go back on their motorcycle again....well I guess they improve the human condition by eliminating themselves from the gene pool. I have faith that things happen for a reason.

...yeah...bad reasons

I happen to like the "sport", which assumes risk, sounds like you might make it more exclusive though. Eliminating those you feel don't cut the mustard. Maybe Age restrictions? Or maybe introducing headgear? Or maybe convert to video game style no actual contact? You trying to put me out a business? Just kidding there as nothing could please me more.

...In case you haven't noticed, the sport is indeed dying...it's no longer a major sport that it once was...and it's fading fast...and every boxer who gets his brains scrambled adds to it...Yes I'd make it more exclusive...you have documented signs of brain damage, you're out...

But I'm puzzled why you like the sport if what you really wish for is less risk and sweeter outcomes?

Why I like the sport?...to see another great fight between two reasonably young, healthy fighters in their primes...to see Mayweather-Hatton type fights...not to see Holyfield fight again...or Joe Mesi...or somebody else have their health beaten out of them for the fans who think, 'let him make his own choice'...You imply let them make their own choice? Then why have drug laws?...why have stop lights?...why have order instead of anarchy?...because some people can't seem to make the right decisions, that's why...

Pool, chess, checkers,golf are other exciting choices to meet that need. And one is less likely to become "saddened" as result of the natural loss of skills due to age, poor life choices, foolishness and random unpredictable events that the participants will inevitbably face.

I'm very very moved at the personal saddness you describe and rather than change boxing we should ask people to take a senstivity test and anyone too sensitive to experience the raw nature of this sport should have their "observers liscense" revoked.

You like to see brain damaged participants in the sport, do you? What does it do for you...help add to 'freedom' or something?

Far more people suffer from pschological problems from being exposed to events beyond their "pay grade" than people hurt in accidents or sporting events. Restricting access to such moments may be a more reasoned approach than restricting the sport itself.

I do not want to see poor helpless people saddened as they watch free and courageous people go about what they love to do. I'm going to write my Senator and see just what can be done to protect the innocent observer of sports from being so traumatized. I'm simply concerned for their basic welfare and am not sure they can make this kind of decision on their own.

Are you sure you weren't in ancient Rome? Maybe you'd prefer fights to the death in steel cages...go to any inner city and you can see that kind of action around 3 AM...just look around in any alley...they won't even charge you to watch...maybe...

Room for disagreement here! Love the debate, I love boxing, I do not want to see it diluted.

It's already been 'diluted'...no more saved by the bell, no more 15 round fights, etc. Might need just a bit more dilution for the sport to survive...

Markus of Queensbury made it just civil enough for me. Call me Neanderthal.

if you insist...

Ok Sweets you are a very good advocate for what I consider to be very poor choices. Choices that I clearly and honestly disagree with in almost every way.

I'm not going point for point with you, I get the holism of your position. In my opinion you appear to be very socialistic and judgemental in this area and those can be fine virtues for socialists and judges. I'm not going to disrespect you I am going to disagree.

We seem to disagree on basic fundamentals. The greatest one is you don't appear to me to value personal freedom or consider the person living the life as capable and competent once they meet a certain theshold (which you will defend as objective and I suspect of being subjective) of deciding things for themselves. You seem to indicate that mommies and daddies should do it for them/us based on whatever values you champion.

Very noble because you want to see to it that to we are all properly diapered to prevent rash. I see your point I understand that it is your value system and I simply do not agree. I'm not even going to argue that it wouldnt be a safer world if you were King I just can't say.

But it would be your world. Not much in the sharing dept it seems to me.

Now as for Marciano I'm taking it from this thread that the concensus is that he owns it until Liston takes him out late 50's or Early 60's which would suit me fine because the Patterson/Ingemar era has always bugged me anyway (being a big Archie Moore Fan). To bad it didnt happen that way. That darn freedom of choice thing with Marciano up an retireing like he did really goofed up history.

But Sweets is happy because it was the "safe choice" for Rocky. I am so Neanderthal and Barbaric that I would have loved to see Liston put Rock on Queer street. Ya know as I think about it I honestly wish he would have taken that beating from Liston.........Not because I'm such a bad guy as it turns out, but because it just might have changed the Rock's life just enough that he would not have been on that particular plane on that day in 1969. And we would have had him around for quite a few more years.

But like the Science guy implied earlier all things may be happening for "bad" reasons.

Love the give and take on these kinds of things SS. I read your posts pretty regularly and am surprised at the amount of times we agree.

BoxBuzz wrote:Ok Sweets you are a very good advocate for what I consider to be very poor choices. Choices that I clearly and honestly disagree with in almost every way.

I'm not going point for point with you, I get the holism of your position. In my opinion you appear to be very socialistic and judgemental in this area and those can be fine virtues for socialists and judges. I'm not going to disrespect you I am going to disagree.

We seem to disagree on basic fundamentals. The greatest one is you don't appear to me to value personal freedom or consider the person living the life as capable and competent once they meet a certain theshold (which you will defend as objective and I suspect of being subjective) of deciding things for themselves. You seem to indicate that mommies and daddies should do it for them/us based on whatever values you champion.

Very noble because you want to see to it that to we are all properly diapered to prevent rash. I see your point I understand that it is your value system and I simply do not agree. I'm not even going to argue that it wouldnt be a safer world if you were King I just can't say.

But it would be your world. Not much in the sharing dept it seems to me.

Now as for Marciano I'm taking it from this thread that the concensus is that he owns it until Liston takes him out late 50's or Early 60's which would suit me fine because the Patterson/Ingemar era has always bugged me anyway (being a big Archie Moore Fan). To bad it didnt happen that way. That darn freedom of choice thing with Marciano up an retireing like he did really goofed up history.

But Sweets is happy because it was the "safe choice" for Rocky. I am so Neanderthal and Barbaric that I would have loved to see Liston put Rock on Queer street. Ya know as I think about it I honestly wish he would have taken that beating from Liston.........Not because I'm such a bad guy as it turns out, but because it just might have changed the Rock's life just enough that he would not have been on that particular plane on that day in 1969. And we would have had him around for quite a few more years.

But like the Science guy implied earlier all things may be happening for "bad" reasons.

Love the give and take on these kinds of things SS. I read your posts pretty regularly and am surprised at the amount of times we agree.

Actually, I enjoy reading your stuff...sometimes a bit too sarcastic, and sometimes on a couple too many tangents, but what the hell...the real fundamental point I'm making is: In my opinion...It's in the best interest of the boxer, and the sport, not to keep fighting on too long. The downside risk exceeds the benefits...and there's no 'sport' in watching an over-the-hill fighter get pounded...period.

Yeah I understand the tangetial thing I'll work on it,
but I'm not going to let you have the last word here.

In the best interest of the Boxer it is my humble Op, that he be allowed to execute his own decisions. Not have them imposed on him as much as reasonably possible. I don't this as a seperate issue from the best interest of the sport as a whole.

This does not disallow for reasonable disqualifications such as Mesi's medical stuff though. If we were to find ourselve appointed arbitrators on this issue, I could see you and I looking at the same data and differing greatly. I would likely be on the "liberal" side of letting him box and take his chances and I imagine you might be equadistant to the "conservative" side saying hold on it's just too much risk for the boy! we cannot allow it" I can almost hear you moaning to yourself "oh my god has Buzz served on an arbitration team on an issue such as this"?

Your are far too cavalier for me with "freedom" being a throw away line as in one of your earlier rebuttals. And you have already chided me for being too barbaric in the name of same so we just might need to depend on more moderate voices to fetter out the subtle nuances and make sense of it all I suppose.

One thing I do very well is work with and accept concensus and quickly put the matter into the archives.

While Liston beating Marciano might be appealing I don't see how this would have prevented Marciano from dying in the plane crash. It's possible I suppose but Marciano's continued presence in the ring might not affect how he travelled.

obviously not familiar with the 'butterfly effect"

bump

on the surface, for me rocky (in fair shape) could beat Floyd and probably ingo, but by 1958 he is finished. though johansson could hit hard and might get a KO against a slower, easy to hit marciano!

however, this is not a simple answer and I will give it more consideration.

I think Marciano knew his time was up.

Read Russell Sullivan's great bio of the Rock. Marciano had too many reasons to retire and nothing really to bring him back. If he had cured his back and neck problems and got free of Al Weill, I could see him beating up on Patterson in '56 to get to 50-0, then maybe, if the money is huge, Machen in '57. But there was no one else really worth his time, and the hellacious work in the gym, until Johansson came around in '58, and by then he's pretty much worn out as a fighter.

I think rocky retired at the right time, he was resenting weill, which was understandable considering weill was wanting 50% of rocky

after he retired. I think he was hurting, [his back,] and that cut he sustained in the Charles bout would open if he had to go 11 or 12 rounds, and it was a deep one.

all said and done he started late, and he got out before he was beat, making him an undefeated world heavyweight champion.

which will always be with us.

Rocky's time was defo up. He was looking and feeling his age for sure. All those give and take wars he had certainly took their toll. I think he's trouble for any heavy in history in his prime - which for me was just before and around when he won the title. I prefer the less volume but harder punching version of the rock.

However, I've thought about this a lot and it sounds crazy but I bet Patterson would have beaten him. Moore decked him and a young fresh fighter with very very fast hands maybe would have caught an aging rock by surprise? Stranger things have happened.

cfang wrote:Rocky's time was defo up. He was looking and feeling his age for sure. All those give and take wars he had certainly took their toll. I think he's trouble for any heavy in history in his prime - which for me was just before and around when he won the title. I prefer the less volume but harder punching version of the rock.

However, I've thought about this a lot and it sounds crazy but I bet Patterson would have beaten him. Moore decked him and a young fresh fighter with very very fast hands maybe would have caught an aging rock by surprise? Stranger things have happened.

but, you have a glass chined Floyd Patterson, against one of, if not the greatest puncher in heavyweight history.
no contest, rocky by a knockout, early.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:r
now marciano at 34, in 1957 would have probably fought have fought a still green clevelan williams

I think Marciano was wise to avoid an up and coming fighter like Williams, only Sonny Liston stopped Williams getting to the top in the pre-Ali era. Marciano only defended against fighters on the way down or who he had already beaten (and one blown up middleweight) so we will never know.

Neil Gee wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:r
now marciano at 34, in 1957 would have probably fought have fought a still green clevelan williams

I think Marciano was wise to avoid an up and coming fighter like Williams, only Sonny Liston stopped Williams getting to the top in the pre-Ali era. Marciano only defended against fighters on the way down or who he had already beaten (and one blown up middleweight) so we will never know.

Bob Satterfield had knocked out Cleveland Williams COLD before Liston ever did in 1954.
There was a link to a newspaper photograph of Williams compleatly unconcious on the canvas,
but I think that was in a thread by Il Duce and has long been since deleted.

BoxBuzz wrote:Yep when Tunny retired we went back to "concensus" we reached critical mass and continued on with rebuilding the lineage. It's what happens every time. And did I mention I don't like it? It was Tunny's, Marciano's and Lewis's choice so what can you do? Pick up the pieces and move on.

I worry more about a law that says once you become champion you have reached the peak you have nothing left to prove and must now retire.

We can go round and round on the dignity of risk issue.

And TIME OUT!

Sounds like this is all about whether or not you are SAD! Heart breaking as that is I would offer that it is not about you, it is about the person living the life in question. Not about whether you are experiencing sadness beacause you have signed up as "hero worshipper" It's about the person living their life and deciding for themselves what is and what is not important.

Sometimes people make mistakes so the rest of us can learn from them, then their value as a teacher is important in and of itself. You and I differ on the odds regarding Ali's condition but let's say you are right.
What have we learned in masse? Don't do what he did,right?. So your "bad outcome" is not so bad is it? Except you imagine you would have preferred to be his momma and make that choice for him because you imagine you mignt be "wiser".?

Ok so what have we learned here class? Many many better choices are made by others as a result of what an Ali or Joe Louis sound or look like as a result of their rather well advertised choices. We all get to use our minds and make our decisions and excercise our freedom to choose. Not someone elses choice in our behalf.

The market place of good ideas thrives this way and as a species we benefit by it.

Pass the physical, step up, take your chances, reap the consequences good or bad, enjoy your freedom and your life.

I do my little part in my job to help others put their lives back together if they make a poor choice or have a bad accident. I don't judge what they did particularly, I do hope they enjoyed their lives both pre and post such an event. I advise those who have compomised their systems to take it easy but if they feel the need to go back on their motorcycle again....well I guess they improve the human condition by eliminating themselves from the gene pool. I have faith that things happen for a reason.

I happen to like the "sport", which assumes risk, sounds like you might make it more exclusive though. Eliminating those you feel don't cut the mustard. Maybe Age restrictions? Or maybe introducing headgear? Or maybe convert to video game style no actual contact? You trying to put me out a business? Just kidding there as nothing could please me more.

But I'm puzzled why you like the sport if what you really wish for is less risk and sweeter outcomes? Pool, chess, checkers,golf are other exciting choices to meet that need. And one is less likely to become "saddened" as result of the natural loss of skills due to age, poor life choices, foolishness and random unpredictable events that the participants will inevitbably face.

I'm very very moved at the personal saddness you describe and rather than change boxing we should ask people to take a senstivity test and anyone too sensitive to experience the raw nature of this sport should have their "observers liscense" revoked.

Far more people suffer from pschological problems from being exposed to events beyond their "pay grade" than people hurt in accidents or sporting events. Restricting access to such moments may be a more reasoned approach than restricting the sport itself.

I do not want to see poor helpless people saddened as they watch free and courageous people go about what they love to do. I'm going to write my Senator and see just what can be done to protect the innocent observer of sports from being so traumatized. I'm simply concerned for their basic welfare and am not sure they can make this kind of decision on their own.

Room for disagreement here! Love the debate, I love boxing, I do not want to see it diluted. Markus of Queensbury made it just civil enough for me. Call me Neanderthal.


Respect! 8)

Let this be on record that this is Buzz's one and only use of a smilie.