Page 1 of 1
Is boxing really about rendering your opponent unconscious?
Posted: 02 Mar 2008, 09:17
by Maelstrom
I have just been reading through the various topics/themes on the morals of the sport. It seems we are getting a bit bogged down in semantics and human rights.
Don't get me wrong, these are all valid and interesting, but is there a response on a more obvious level to the naysayers who object to one person trying to render the other unconscious?
Is this actually ever a boxers intention?
I asked a fighter once and he said there was far more to it than that. This may seem obvious, but it seems that the fact that it is actually about a fighter demonstrating his superior ability/skillset is often overlooked.
Of course, it is also about demonstrating your superior strength and power. But then so are many sports. Rugby is a far more dangerous sport, but there are never calls for it to be banned even though the intention there is often to prove you are stronger and more powerful, not just more skillful.
There are sports where power/strength isn't the focus but the danger is higher. Why aren't there calls for these to be banned - is outcome not more important than focus.
And this brings me back to my main point - thankfully, as I am in danger of getting mired in a debate focussed on specifics/semantics!
Do boxers actually want to render their opponent unconscious? A boxer is generally knocked out without being unconscious. I am not sure how many times I have seen an unconscious boxer.
I believe this is key:- a healthy, fully trained and adequately hydrated boxer will not be damaged permanently by being knocked out. It is a temporary status that his body is able to overcome.
Much like the marathon runner who collapses at the end of a race having given his everything. Perhaps his everything wasn't as much as his rivals so he loses - and neither suffer damage. They are athletes able to recover.
Do we think this is true? That a a 'healthy, fully trained and adequately hydrated boxer' will not suffer long term damage?
Boxers taking repeated punishment over a long time will of course suffer damage, but I would say that takes them out of the description of being 'healthy'. They have gone on too long....
Posted: 02 Mar 2008, 09:23
by Maelstrom
As an obvious addendum, why is it wrong to want to prove yourself more powerful/stronger/resilient? Particularly if no-one suffers long term effects?
There will be aberations - exceptions to the rule - but these happen in any sport.
Posted: 02 Mar 2008, 12:08
by E
Well you're unlikely to win by rendering yourself unconscious.
Fight fans should stop trying to find bizarre ways to justify boxing.
It is violent.
Most pro boxers suffer some form of long term damage.
You definitely lose brain cells when you're hit.
A stufy has showed that the average life expectancy for a former pro boxer is 7 years less than other males.
BUT...
It is a way to teach discipline, kepp kids out of trouble, let off natural male aggression....
It is 2 humans who know of the dangers taking part of their free will (comparable to drinkers, smokers, obesity.)
There are health benefits - fitness etc.
=========
Point is that Boxing, like most things in life, is a grey area - both good and bad things.
I can accept someone being disgusted by boxing and understand their rteasons. I just take a different stance. I lean towards the positives.
But anyone denying the negatives is just deluded.
Posted: 02 Mar 2008, 12:28
by DG.
If you are the away fighter boxing in Italy ( or in some cases England) then yes it is about that - it better be and even then you may only get a draw!
Posted: 02 Mar 2008, 12:57
by Maelstrom
Yes but knocking somebody out, doesn't mean rendering them unconscious does it?
On the statement that you lost brain cells every time you gut punched.. I think the comparison to drinking is an excellent one.
The point is, you can take a certain amount of punches and have a certain number of drinks without it apparently effecting you. i.e. you remain healthy.
I'm not making an argument or taking a position really. I just don't know... I am asking these questions out of interest. What better to take a stance to debate out all the possibilities first.
Posted: 02 Mar 2008, 14:10
by whicker
Boxing is combat- The most obvious way to win is by striking the opponent so hard in the head that they are rendered physically unable to stand- a "knockdown." If the effects of this are such that the boxer is unable to regain his feet/composure within 10 seconds then he is defeated.
The fact that most boxers arn't render unconscious is due to their fitness and training, the skill of the referee and corner in stopping fights, and the strict weight and health limits sets by the Board of Control.
But the fact is that boxers ARE trying to knock out the opponent- thats the point of the sport.
Posted: 02 Mar 2008, 14:15
by ArtOfWar
E wrote:Well you're unlikely to win by rendering yourself unconscious.
Fight fans should stop trying to find bizarre ways to justify boxing.
It is violent.
Most pro boxers suffer some form of long term damage.
You definitely lose brain cells when you're hit.
A stufy has showed that the average life expectancy for a former pro boxer is 7 years less than other males.
BUT...
It is a way to teach discipline, kepp kids out of trouble, let off natural male aggression....
It is 2 humans who know of the dangers taking part of their free will (comparable to drinkers, smokers, obesity.)
There are health benefits - fitness etc.
=========
Point is that Boxing, like most things in life, is a grey area - both good and bad things.
I can accept someone being disgusted by boxing and understand their rteasons. I just take a different stance. I lean towards the positives.
But anyone denying the negatives is just deluded.
Bang on the money. In a 'free' world it is an individuals choice about whether to watch and or participate or not. Coming up with different reasons to justify boxing is just stupid. Pain is the name of the game, end of story.
HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted: 02 Mar 2008, 16:30
by HeavyHitters
Posted: 03 Mar 2008, 16:14
by Maelstrom
How many times have you seen a boxer unconscious during/after being knocked out? Very few I doubt.
I have been thinking about this. Justifying boxing by saying it's a calculated risk on behalf of the individual isn't enough. You need to at least estimate what those risks are.
If they are akin to drinking - seeing as we mentioned it earlier - then no problem given all the benefits.
If, on the other hand, they are far higher, then perhaps they are not? Society often attempts to stop people indulging in behaviour where the risk is too high - i.e. taking heroin.
People are not always equipped to make the correct choices.
Obvious it is impossible to ascertain the real risks, but at an estimate I would say that on balance those associated with boxing are acceptable.
I think so long as a boxer is in good health and has not crashed his weight, he will recover from a knock out 99.9999% of the time. Think about how many fights there are every week. We know the fatality rate is lower than other sports.
Additionally, there may be long term some side effects through boxing if repeated blows are taken, but these can be minimised by preventing fights from going on too long and by not allowing boxers to continue when they are not healthy....
Re: Is boxing really about rendering your opponent unconscio
Posted: 04 Mar 2008, 22:55
by Blue
Maelstrom wrote:I have just been reading through the various topics/themes on the morals of the sport. It seems we are getting a bit bogged down in semantics and human rights.
Don't get me wrong, these are all valid and interesting, but is there a response on a more obvious level to the naysayers who object to one person trying to render the other unconscious?
Whenever such a question is asked, I quote editorials by Bert Blewett: South African Boxing World, Sept.1985-p3.)
and Dick Mastro : Official Boxing Record; (Vol.IX #1) Jan.1985-p10. Bert Blewett wrote:The object of boxing is not to injure your opponent. The object is to score points and win decisions.
In fact, if you look at the results of fights around the world you'll find that the majority are decided on points.
Dick Mastro wrote:If the object were to injure there would not be foul rules written into the regulations and submitted to the English parliament by the Marques of Queensbury in the late 1800's. It is not an "anything goes, fight to the death activity."
The rules are there, and enforced, to protect the contestants.
In other sports when two opposite team players vying for the ball run head on into each other at 15 mph get knocked out.
Later they get back in the game as soon as they regain their senses.
In boxing they would have to wait 30 to 60 days depending on jurisdiction.
Posted: 05 Mar 2008, 05:04
by fist
Maelstrom wrote:How many times have you seen a boxer unconscious during/after being knocked out? Very few I doubt.
I have been thinking about this. Justifying boxing by saying it's a calculated risk on behalf of the individual isn't enough. You need to at least estimate what those risks are.
If they are akin to drinking - seeing as we mentioned it earlier - then no problem given all the benefits.
If, on the other hand, they are far higher, then perhaps they are not? Society often attempts to stop people indulging in behaviour where the risk is too high - i.e. taking heroin.
People are not always equipped to make the correct choices.
Obvious it is impossible to ascertain the real risks, but at an estimate I would say that on balance those associated with boxing are acceptable.
I think so long as a boxer is in good health and has not crashed his weight, he will recover from a knock out 99.9999% of the time. Think about how many fights there are every week. We know the fatality rate is lower than other sports.
Additionally, there may be long term some side effects through boxing if repeated blows are taken, but these can be minimised by preventing fights from going on too long and by not allowing boxers to continue when they are not healthy....
The intention is to hit the opponent as hard and damaging as possible in order to get them to the floor, just because the boxer may not intend to kill or put the guy in a state of unconciousness does not limit or reduce the impact of the punch. The emphasis has to be to hit the person as hard as possible in order to disable them for at least ten seconds. So from that perspective I think your argument is meaningless. Clearly engaging in a sport whereby your opponent is trying to damage your body and head to the extent that you can be disabled on the floor for ten seconds has risks. Every boxer and medic would say so. It doesnt matter how fit and healthy you are, you can still end up brain damaged or dead.
Re: Is boxing really about rendering your opponent unconscio
Posted: 05 Mar 2008, 06:24
by E
Blue wrote: Bert Blewett wrote:The object of boxing is not to injure your opponent. The object is to score points and win decisions.
In fact, if you look at the results of fights around the world you'll find that the majority are decided on points.
Dick Mastro wrote:If the object were to injure there would not be foul rules written into the regulations and submitted to the English parliament by the Marques of Queensbury in the late 1800's. It is not an "anything goes, fight to the death activity."
This is extremely week, especially the BErt Blewett quote - unless he is referring to amateur boxing, there is no way 'the majority' of contests end on points...
Posted: 05 Mar 2008, 07:13
by sharpei_louis
Hey the way I see it the object of boxing is to get hit as little as possible (less than you hit!). Although the punches thrown are seen to win the fight but I believe it is the skill of defending better than your opponent that probably defines the sport.
Unfortunately the best way of doing this is to hit your opponent hard enough to knock him out; hence meaning he cannot hit you at all.
If you can be slick enough to dodge all your opponents' blows, you won't need to get anywhere near knocking him out to win. But deciding which is the riskier strategy is what dictates the necessity of a knockout.
Posted: 05 Mar 2008, 11:28
by jamesmcdonnell
I think you are right, statistically KO's when fighters are evenly matched are not in the majority.
Posted: 05 Mar 2008, 12:43
by SticknMove
f you hide behind "yeah but..." you may find boxing getting the same treatment as cigs in pubs. Who would have thought that would be outlawed? As a non-smoker I associate cigs with pubs but did not support a ban because smoking in a pub does not = death.
Yeah but no 8) one's health is at risk by passive boxing.
Posted: 05 Mar 2008, 14:17
by fist
jamesmcdonnell wrote:I think you are right, statistically KO's when fighters are evenly matched are not in the majority.
Doesnt detract from the point that boxers will attempt to knock each other down, to diable them sufficiently so that they are unable to get up within ten seconds.
Posted: 06 Mar 2008, 13:54
by tony3
Much like war, the object of boxing is to negate the arsenal of your opponent. Obviously the most definitive way of accomplishing this goal is to render them unconscious but for a variety of reasons, this isn't always possible so many boxers have had to develop the skills to use the points system as a means of establishing supremacy.
The best example I can conjure off-hand is Gene Tunney. He probably knew that the chances of finishing Jack Dempsey inside of the distance, without putting himself in extreme danger, were slim to none. Instead he developed the perfect game plan the neutralize the assets of a KO artist like Dempsey. By using his lateral mobility and footspeed, he became a very difficult target to pin down whilst simultaneously keeping his punch-count high enough to remain ahead on the score cards.
Although successful on two occasions, it was a strategy that firmly divided opinion. Some hailed it as boxing artistry but the naysayers claimed that he was a runner and had ripped off the audience by refusing to plant himself in the middle of the ring and trade with Dempsey like a champion should.
One thing that is almost beyond dispute is that knockouts are what attract casual viewers to boxing because on some level people relish watching with fascinated horror, the spectacle of person being dramatically incapacitated.
Posted: 06 Mar 2008, 14:04
by fist
Its one thing to outbox and another to simply run and do virtually no damage to your opponent. As a boxing fan I want to know who's the best between to fighters. Runners use the limitations indirectly provided by boxing rules, gloves, refs, medics and the finite number of rounds just so they can get to the end of the fight without being hurt. But if they do not make any impact on the other fighter, simply hugging, running and jabbing, then they do not deserve to win. When you watch a fight you want to know who the hardest bloke is! Who the most skilled fighter is! As said, its one thing to have an excellent defence balanced with effective counter attack, and another simply to run, hold and jab.
Posted: 06 Mar 2008, 14:19
by tony3
fist wrote:Its one thing to outbox and another to simply run and do virtually no damage to your opponent. As a boxing fan I want to know who's the best between to fighters. Runners use the limitations indirectly provided by boxing rules, gloves, refs, medics and the finite number of rounds just so they can get to the end of the fight without being hurt. But if they do not make any impact on the other fighter, simply hugging, running and jabbing, then they do not deserve to win. When you watch a fight you want to know who the hardest bloke is! Who the most skilled fighter is! As said, its one thing to have an excellent defence balanced with effective counter attack, and another simply to run, hold and jab.
I hear what you are saying fist, and sometimes I wonder if they shouldn't start punishing an overly apprehensive style with a no contest verdict.
However isn't part of boxing accumilating the tools to overcome a professional spoiler?
Posted: 06 Mar 2008, 17:17
by HomicideHenry
Let's get down to business...
Would you rather pay for a chance to see someone get knocked out?
OR...
Would you rather pay to see what Lennox Lewis called 'boxingology'?
Tyson is just about the greatest example of this, it was his devestating kayos that made him, not Lewis, the richest prize fighter in the history of the game. Sure Lewis was the better technician, better boxer, but nobody cares to see who could out point who...why the hell you think UFC is so popular, as it goes under the concept that anything goes and you win by knockout or submission and yes, also, by points?
It is the possibility for danger, for violence, for brutality, that has kept boxing going...even Muhammad Ali, great boxer that he was, was best known for his one sided blow out over Cleveland Williams, his violent actions against Ernie Terrell, humiliating Sonny Liston and his life and death struggles against Frazier.
It's all bout the wars, not the scores!
KAYOS= $$$
Decisions= not as much dollars
Posted: 06 Mar 2008, 19:13
by Maelstrom
fist wrote:Maelstrom wrote:How many times have you seen a boxer unconscious during/after being knocked out? Very few I doubt.
I have been thinking about this. Justifying boxing by saying it's a calculated risk on behalf of the individual isn't enough. You need to at least estimate what those risks are.
If they are akin to drinking - seeing as we mentioned it earlier - then no problem given all the benefits.
If, on the other hand, they are far higher, then perhaps they are not? Society often attempts to stop people indulging in behaviour where the risk is too high - i.e. taking heroin.
People are not always equipped to make the correct choices.
Obvious it is impossible to ascertain the real risks, but at an estimate I would say that on balance those associated with boxing are acceptable.
I think so long as a boxer is in good health and has not crashed his weight, he will recover from a knock out 99.9999% of the time. Think about how many fights there are every week. We know the fatality rate is lower than other sports.
Additionally, there may be long term some side effects through boxing if repeated blows are taken, but these can be minimised by preventing fights from going on too long and by not allowing boxers to continue when they are not healthy....
The intention is to hit the opponent as hard and damaging as possible in order to get them to the floor, just because the boxer may not intend to kill or put the guy in a state of unconciousness does not limit or reduce the impact of the punch. The emphasis has to be to hit the person as hard as possible in order to disable them for at least ten seconds. So from that perspective I think your argument is meaningless. Clearly engaging in a sport whereby your opponent is trying to damage your body and head to the extent that you can be disabled on the floor for ten seconds has risks. Every boxer and medic would say so. It doesnt matter how fit and healthy you are, you can still end up brain damaged or dead.
Of course Fist.. bust as I said in my last post it is a calculated risk, (much as with other activities). And given the very low likelihood of injury, so long as precautions are followed, I believe it is an acceptable one.
Posted: 07 Mar 2008, 06:46
by fist
Maelstrom wrote:fist wrote:Maelstrom wrote:How many times have you seen a boxer unconscious during/after being knocked out? Very few I doubt.
I have been thinking about this. Justifying boxing by saying it's a calculated risk on behalf of the individual isn't enough. You need to at least estimate what those risks are.
If they are akin to drinking - seeing as we mentioned it earlier - then no problem given all the benefits.
If, on the other hand, they are far higher, then perhaps they are not? Society often attempts to stop people indulging in behaviour where the risk is too high - i.e. taking heroin.
People are not always equipped to make the correct choices.
Obvious it is impossible to ascertain the real risks, but at an estimate I would say that on balance those associated with boxing are acceptable.
I think so long as a boxer is in good health and has not crashed his weight, he will recover from a knock out 99.9999% of the time. Think about how many fights there are every week. We know the fatality rate is lower than other sports.
Additionally, there may be long term some side effects through boxing if repeated blows are taken, but these can be minimised by preventing fights from going on too long and by not allowing boxers to continue when they are not healthy....
The intention is to hit the opponent as hard and damaging as possible in order to get them to the floor, just because the boxer may not intend to kill or put the guy in a state of unconciousness does not limit or reduce the impact of the punch. The emphasis has to be to hit the person as hard as possible in order to disable them for at least ten seconds. So from that perspective I think your argument is meaningless. Clearly engaging in a sport whereby your opponent is trying to damage your body and head to the extent that you can be disabled on the floor for ten seconds has risks. Every boxer and medic would say so. It doesnt matter how fit and healthy you are, you can still end up brain damaged or dead.
Of course Fist.. bust as I said in my last post it is a calculated risk, (much as with other activities). And given the very low likelihood of injury, so long as precautions are followed, I believe it is an acceptable one.
Hmm I suppose it depends on the extent to which the boxer is defensive. Of course, there is room for someone who does not have much power but who has great skill. However, they will get found out eventually and will not always be guaranteed to win by points. Aggression does count. A true runner will never make it as an all time great, or indeed maintain an unbeaten undisputed status. Nor would they win the respect of fans.
This is boxing and of course, skill is very important, but at the end of the day the intrinsic element to the sport is trying to damage your opponent via the use of fists. This is not some sort of semi-contact sport whereby fighters simply tag each other for points. Boxers hit hard, they hit with speed, which equals HARD. There is no room at the top of this sport for a true runner.
That said, you do get some elite boxers who favour spoiling, running and defence. Its worth mentioning Hopkins in this vein. I have to say I've never been a fan and I've never rated him up there with the greats. Eastman in my opinion, showed that Hopkins was limited. I feel that Hopkins' style meant he was never going to get through his career without defeats.
