BoxRec

Read the story and then the comment added by some ill-informed, sensationalist simpleton.

I tried to comment back but I'm in work and the facility is blocked. I'm sure some of you can get stuck in and fight the cause

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1811

I couldn't be bothered to read that shit, I think many boxing people are in denial that boxing is about violence, and effectively brain damage short term or long term.

You won't change her mind, no matter what your reply is. My Dad's girlfriend disagrees with boxing because she thinks it's barbaric, but I really don't care. She's allowed to have her opinion, and I respect it. I also understand it.

I can appreciate people not liking it and of course everybody is entitled to their opinion, and I also realise nobody will change this person's mind. BUT what I take exception to is the sheer lack of knowledge on display. If people want to argue a point, I feel they should at least be informed on the subject. She's obviously based her knowledge of the sport on Hollywood movies if she thinks boxing "often" ends in brain damage and death.

Why would you want to read Daily Mail..

Save yourself the Trouble, its all BS. Always!

I added a response a day or two ago now. And they've not put it up. Daily Mail. Pant. Fume. Feck. Arse

Terry D wrote:Read some of the comments. If anyone has time this avvo would they throw-up any comments they have had thrown at them as boxing fans.

For example. A person says, "what do you like?", I say "boxing, it is awesome!", they say, "barbaric sport, inhumane and violent", I then want to scream, "why ask me what I fooking like then!? To judge me?", instead I tend to verbally belittle them by showing them that they are wrong. I want to do that on a grander scale so need every objection you have heard against the sport.

If anyone gets a chance throw some comments they have heard up.

'Any sport whose sole purpose is to render the opposition unconscious has no place in a modern civilised society'. Discuss, discuss, discuss.

Terry D wrote:The comment annoys me. Here we are minding our own business and watching our sport when some feeble-minded idiot makes comments like that.

I aim to give this person a spank. I'll make my comment ASAP and let them take it down, I'll throw another one up. I'm having the same problem on Facebook with the British Nonce Party. why put a message box there if you are going to remove the messages? Bunch of fannies.

Problem is, they "moderate" the comments (or whatever they called it) before they're posted. It's not like your comments are automatically put up, and then taken down if the Daily Mail doesn't want them in. If it's just a delay, then I'll happily eat my words, but I don't think it is.

I submitted the following comments in retaliation to the Dago slut

To P Santamaria
I don't see the comparison between 2 willing boxers boxing each other in controlled conditions to 50 men and 30 dogs chasing a defenceless terrified fox for miles then ripping it to pieces and its also nothing like 2 ill-treated menacing dogs being forced to fight each other to the death. Its a ridiculous comparison IMO

Boxing training teaches children self-discipline and control and lets face it a large percentage of todays youth could do with both as they don't seem to be getting it at home.

I believe in freedom of choice (not a nanny state as you seem to), so if both boxers are willing to fight each other under strict rules and under the right conditions then why stop them. Boxing has saved thousands of people from a life of crime, drugs and/or jail and it's provided many of them with a very good living.

There are far more deaths in Rugby than boxing should it be banned? Motor racing is asking for trouble travelling at those speeds, should it be banned?

Terry D wrote:

SticknMove wrote:

Terry D wrote:Read some of the comments. If anyone has time this avvo would they throw-up any comments they have had thrown at them as boxing fans.

For example. A person says, "what do you like?", I say "boxing, it is awesome!", they say, "barbaric sport, inhumane and violent", I then want to scream, "why ask me what I fooking like then!? To judge me?", instead I tend to verbally belittle them by showing them that they are wrong. I want to do that on a grander scale so need every objection you have heard against the sport.

If anyone gets a chance throw some comments they have heard up.

'Any sport whose sole purpose is to render the opposition unconscious has no place in a modern civilised society'. Discuss, discuss, discuss.

If that was the sole purpose fights would last 50+ rounds. Fox hunting is not consensual so that analogy is just poor. The main argument is that boxers do violent harm to one another by striking one another. Yet it is consensual, so what is the problem? Gay lovemaking features a bloke striking another blokes arse with something and I imagine that causes pain but if we tried to ban that the liberal brigade would cry into their gimp masks.

Every anti-boxing argument can be flipped very easily.

That's why we have rules against such things ie. Klit v Ibragimov.

We should have laws against anything consensual. Fox hunting isn't and should be allowed. If Basil Brush enjoyed it, then I'd ban it. Hitting people in and around the ring appears consensual therefore an aberration that needs to be banned. The wearing of gimp masks in such an environment is dispicable behaviour so Hopkins should be expelled too.

Chambers2 wrote:
Boxing training teaches children self-discipline and control

It actually teaches children how to punch each other. No point trying to pretend boxing is something it isn't.

For sure, the training the goes with boxing requires self discipline .

whicker wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:
Boxing training teaches children self-discipline and control

It actually teaches children how to punch each other. No point trying to pretend boxing is something it isn't.

For sure, the training the goes with boxing requires self discipline .

and boxers get kicked out of the club if they go around abusing the fact that they can fight, also you can't lose your temper in the boxing ring (and be good at it), hence it teaches control IMO, but as you say it does also teach children to punch each other harder/better

I don't have any issues with people objecting to boxing on moral grounds but what I don't like is when they come up with rubbish by twisting facts to try and justify themselves i.e. safety, intent etc. most of which can be levelled at other sports but aren't.

Is it just my browser, or have they not allowed any comments on there other than that one?

and yeah, no one is calling to ban football, but legs get broken every week.

observer1 wrote:Why would you want to read Daily Mail..

Save yourself the Trouble, its all BS. Always!

Can you name a newspaper that is not a load of bullshit

do you really believe these people lose sleep over the outcome of boxing matches? dont be daft. boxing is often brutal thats one reason we like it. there are other reasons but human beings willing to test themselves to extremes is heroic and heroism is part of the great experience of humanity. i dont expect everyone to have as much insight into the nooks and crannies of the human experience as myself or the many wise and wonderful people i have found in our sport in over 50 years of involvement.
fox hunting is only ridiculous because the participants falsely claim it is an effective cull of the animals they hunt. of course it isnt and they should really be allowed to hunt for the honest reason that it is a pleasurable thing to do (if you like that kind of thing). i have to deal with a foxes destructive habit almost on a daily basis and the hunt as well as more effective ways of ridding our towns of these filth should be encouraged.

jomothepure wrote:I added a response a day or two ago now. And they've not put it up. Daily Mail. Pant. Fume. Feck. Arse

They once ran an article about a pupil who was expelled from my old school for eating in a non-designated area. I wrote a very polite response, but since I portrayed the head teacher in a negative light it wasn't approved. I wanted to add an informed reply, as I had first-hand experience of the problem.

Ultimately, those who buy the paper want to revel in misery and quickly judged anger. It wouldn't be in the Mail's interests to publish replies which tread the grey area. You'll probably only get through to the comments if you belong at one end of two extremes.

(Or in this case - given the subject, you'll need to write some 'Ban Danger' bobbins.)

telboy66 wrote:

observer1 wrote:Why would you want to read Daily Mail..

Save yourself the Trouble, its all BS. Always!

Can you name a newspaper that is not a load of bullshit

Well thats a good Point..

But Daily Mail seems to Exceed all expectations when it comes to BS.

observer1 wrote:

telboy66 wrote:

observer1 wrote:Why would you want to read Daily Mail..

Save yourself the Trouble, its all BS. Always!

Can you name a newspaper that is not a load of bullshit

Well thats a good Point..

But Daily Mail seems to Exceed all expectations when it comes to BS.

I do like the INDEPENDENT, and of course Private Eye

How many people have submitted a comment?

I have
Chambers has
Anyone else?

And yet P Santamaria Grant, Granada, Spain (Mr? Mrs? Homaphradite?) remains the only comment below the article. I feel like moving to Cuba for a bit more democracy.

Could someone post a response, but say they agree with P Santamaria Grant, and see if it goes up?

I'd do it myself, but just in case they have some sort of IP tracker, they might sniff me out.

jomothepure wrote:How many people have submitted a comment?

I have
Chambers has
Anyone else?

And yet P Santamaria Grant, Granada, Spain (Mr? Mrs? Homaphradite?) remains the only comment below the article. I feel like moving to Cuba for a bit more democracy.

Could someone post a response, but say they agree with P Santamaria Grant, and see if it goes up?

I'd do it myself, but just in case they have some sort of IP tracker, they might sniff me out.

I did.

whicker wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:
Boxing training teaches children self-discipline and control

It actually teaches children how to punch each other. No point trying to pretend boxing is something it isn't.
For sure, the training the goes with boxing requires self discipline .

I disagree there, our gym (which is situated in the middle of a council estate) has had quite a few kids come in as charlie big bollocks but calm down within a few weeks. We also get the community support officers and police oficers come round the gym and they often comment that such and such hasnt been in trouble for a while. I do think it teaches discipline and Ive seen with my own eyes kids come in rouges and turn themselves around.

MatthewS wrote:

jomothepure wrote:How many people have submitted a comment?

I have
Chambers has
Anyone else?

And yet P Santamaria Grant, Granada, Spain (Mr? Mrs? Homaphradite?) remains the only comment below the article. I feel like moving to Cuba for a bit more democracy.

Could someone post a response, but say they agree with P Santamaria Grant, and see if it goes up?

I'd do it myself, but just in case they have some sort of IP tracker, they might sniff me out.

I did.

As in one in defence of boxing, as opposed to the reverse psychology experiment to see if they'd post that?

I'll try a comment in support of P Santamaria Grant, Granada, Spain (different email address obviously) and see if that gets put up

Boxing is violent - any attempt (such as TErry D's bizarre semantic argument on Britishboxingnet) to deny that is just unwinnablw in an argument.

Let's be honest - the best fights, the most exciting, the most talked about are when two fighters take turns in rocking each other, being hurt, being knocked down etc. Sure some boxers eg Willie Pep etc are amazing to watch - but even Pep's most memorable fights are teh encounters with Saddler.

When people talk about the best fights ever we are talking Benn-McClenna, Hagler-HEarns, Castillo-Corrales etc.

The point is - there is no getting away that boxing is violent - the only real defence to boxing is that both participants are taking part of their own free will, and that boxing fulfils man's natural aggressive urges in a safe-ish environment.

Aimed for typical Daily Mail fayre.

I agree with the above comment. I find it incredible that in this day and age this barbaric "sport" is allowed. Any parent who allows their child to box - especially a young girl - should be locked up or have social services read the riot act to them. Why has capital punishment been banned yet boxing continues?

This is the line they give you after you've submitted a comment

Your comment will be reviewed shortly. Comments may be edited and not all will be published.

Let's see what happens