Boxing is a great sport, with many good reasons for supporting it. It provides fitness, direction, discipline and focus for participants. And it's a brilliant, compelling spectacle for crowds.
Yet, at the same time, it's a dangerous, deadly combination of violence and reward. Put simply, where the prize is worth it, competitors put themselves in danger.
So, the solution should be to allow - in fact, to promote and encourage - amateur boxing for all the benefits it provides, but to ban professional boxing.
That way, if you want to take part as a participant or spectator, you can. But the dangerous risk of competitors going too far for reward is eliminated.
ban it and drive it underground .. no efficient monitoring of boxers health .. no regulated purses and crowd control etc. etc. .. if young men want to fight and prove themselves, they will find a way to do so .. better 'legally'
ban it and drive it underground .. no efficient monitoring of boxers health .. no regulated purses and crowd control etc. etc. .. if young men want to fight and prove themselves, they will find a way to do so .. better 'legally'
This.
Whilst I have never shared my Dad's love of the sport (he was friends with Laszlo Papp and also acted as interpreter for the Hungarian Amateur Boxing team when they fought here against the likes of Charlie Magri) Boxing is littered with stories of boys who have been given a "raison d'etre".
And keeping it amateur does not fill that void in my opinion as ultimately the best of these individuals need to be rewarded for their commitment to the sport.
ban it and drive it underground .. no efficient monitoring of boxers health .. no regulated purses and crowd control etc. etc. .. if young men want to fight and prove themselves, they will find a way to do so .. better 'legally'
This.
Whilst I have never shared my Dad's love of the sport (he was friends with Laszlo Papp and also acted as interpreter for the Hungarian Amateur Boxing team when they fought here against the likes of Charlie Magri) Boxing is littered with stories of boys who have been given a "raison d'etre".
And keeping it amateur does not fill that void in my opinion as ultimately the best of these individuals need to be rewarded for their commitment to the sport.
You mean, like an international competition, run every - say - four years? With the best being rewarded with medals?
ban it and drive it underground .. no efficient monitoring of boxers health .. no regulated purses and crowd control etc. etc. .. if young men want to fight and prove themselves, they will find a way to do so .. better 'legally'
So professional boxing is legal purely because it might happen "underground" otherwise? And, if it's "underground" there will be greater risks to the participants, because they'd lack medical access? Do you see where that argument leads? "If something is so compelling that people are forced to do it underground we must legalise it". So we legalise crack dens? The use of heroin?
There might be reasons to continue to allow professional boxing. But "they might carry on and do it illegally" isn't a strong one.
Slippery slope when you start banning sports. If you accept the risks of being in a life threatening sport then it is your choice.
The world is full of whinny bitches already because we ban anything we is perceived as bad for you such as competitive sports.
I'm not suggesting we ban any sports. I'm suggesting we ban *professional* boxing.
There are plenty of reasons to continue supporting and encouraging participation in amateur boxing. But removing the temptation, lure and corruption of heavy financial reward for boxing will prevent anyone being persuaded to fight when they shouldn't.
It's risk v reward. Remove the reward and that equation tips back towards a much safer outcome.
There will always be tragic accidents in sport and other walks of life even with the most stringent safety precautions. Do we ban football because of the tragic death of David Longhurst for example or cricket because of Phil Hughes?
In response to @Chizz you can let the genie out of the bottle but you cannot put it back in.
It is probable that both tobacco and alcohol would be 'banned' if just discovered today but to do so now is both impractical and undesirable. The same applies to the legal activity of professional boxing.
ban it and drive it underground .. no efficient monitoring of boxers health .. no regulated purses and crowd control etc. etc. .. if young men want to fight and prove themselves, they will find a way to do so .. better 'legally'
So professional boxing is legal purely because it might happen "underground" otherwise? And, if it's "underground" there will be greater risks to the participants, because they'd lack medical access? Do you see where that argument leads? "If something is so compelling that people are forced to do it underground we must legalise it". So we legalise crack dens? The use of heroin?
There might be reasons to continue to allow professional boxing. But "they might carry on and do it illegally" isn't a strong one.
There will always be tragic accidents in sport and other walks of life even with the most stringent safety precautions. Do we ban football because of the tragic death of David Longhurst for example or cricket because of Phil Hughes?
In response to @Chizz you can let the genie out of the bottle but you cannot put it back in.
It is probable that both tobacco and alcohol would be 'banned' if just discovered today but to do so now is both impractical and undesirable. The same applies to the legal activity of professional boxing.
In neither of those two sports (football and cricket) are athletes paid to commit physical harm on their opponents. Boxing is different.
Do you have a good reason why professional boxing should not be banned?
ban it and drive it underground .. no efficient monitoring of boxers health .. no regulated purses and crowd control etc. etc. .. if young men want to fight and prove themselves, they will find a way to do so .. better 'legally'
So professional boxing is legal purely because it might happen "underground" otherwise? And, if it's "underground" there will be greater risks to the participants, because they'd lack medical access? Do you see where that argument leads? "If something is so compelling that people are forced to do it underground we must legalise it". So we legalise crack dens? The use of heroin?
There might be reasons to continue to allow professional boxing. But "they might carry on and do it illegally" isn't a strong one.
Epic straw man. Well done.
Great contribution.
What's your view? Do you have a strong opinion either way? Do you have any reasons to back up your view?
There will always be tragic accidents in sport and other walks of life even with the most stringent safety precautions. Do we ban football because of the tragic death of David Longhurst for example or cricket because of Phil Hughes?
In response to @Chizz you can let the genie out of the bottle but you cannot put it back in.
It is probable that both tobacco and alcohol would be 'banned' if just discovered today but to do so now is both impractical and undesirable. The same applies to the legal activity of professional boxing.
Agree. No way.
If we keep taking away things that have any risk attached, we'll be left with a lot of boring sport on telly and far fewer activities we can take part in.
And it's a cliche, but there are few other sports that (if taught right) are as good as boxing as instilling discipline in young people that like to fight. The professional sport can take a lot of credit for that, as that's where people see the big blockbuster bouts on television and get into it... unless Eddie Hearn is in charge and fills the card with his fighters vs bums.
There will always be tragic accidents in sport and other walks of life even with the most stringent safety precautions. Do we ban football because of the tragic death of David Longhurst for example or cricket because of Phil Hughes?
In response to @Chizz you can let the genie out of the bottle but you cannot put it back in.
It is probable that both tobacco and alcohol would be 'banned' if just discovered today but to do so now is both impractical and undesirable. The same applies to the legal activity of professional boxing.
In neither of those two sports (football and cricket) are athletes paid to commit physical harm on their opponents. Boxing is different.
Do you have a good reason why professional boxing should not be banned?
It is enjoyed by participants and spectators alike because it is a stark manifestation of man's desire to test himself against man. Better for the loser in particular that this is done in a controlled environment with medical support at the ready rather than not.
For those participants talented enough it enables them to make life changing sums of money and escape from tough, oppressive backgrounds. Even the less proficient but still talented can augment their income sufficiently to enhance their quality of life.
And I note you ignored my 'genie out of the bottle' point.
EDIT: Boxers are not paid to commit physical harm. Boxing is an art of self defence. Physical harm sometimes occurs as a consequence in the same way that footballers sometimes break legs or jockeys fall from horses. Physical harm is not the raison d'etre.
ban it and drive it underground .. no efficient monitoring of boxers health .. no regulated purses and crowd control etc. etc. .. if young men want to fight and prove themselves, they will find a way to do so .. better 'legally'
So professional boxing is legal purely because it might happen "underground" otherwise? And, if it's "underground" there will be greater risks to the participants, because they'd lack medical access? Do you see where that argument leads? "If something is so compelling that people are forced to do it underground we must legalise it". So we legalise crack dens? The use of heroin?
There might be reasons to continue to allow professional boxing. But "they might carry on and do it illegally" isn't a strong one.
To be fair in a few countries, legalising the use of these drugs in safe environments has proved beneficial.
There will always be tragic accidents in sport and other walks of life even with the most stringent safety precautions. Do we ban football because of the tragic death of David Longhurst for example or cricket because of Phil Hughes?
In response to @Chizz you can let the genie out of the bottle but you cannot put it back in.
It is probable that both tobacco and alcohol would be 'banned' if just discovered today but to do so now is both impractical and undesirable. The same applies to the legal activity of professional boxing.
In neither of those two sports (football and cricket) are athletes paid to commit physical harm on their opponents. Boxing is different.
Do you have a good reason why professional boxing should not be banned?
It is enjoyed by participants and spectators alike because it is a stark manifestation of man's desire to test himself against man. Better for the loser in particular that this is done in a controlled environment with medical support at the ready rather than not.
For those participants talented enough it enables them to make life changing sums of money and escape from tough, oppressive backgrounds. Even the less proficient but still talented can augment their income sufficiently to enhance their quality of life.
And I note you ignored my 'genie out of the bottle' point.
EDIT: Boxers are not paid to commit physical harm. Boxing is an art of self defence. Physical harm sometimes occurs as a consequence in the same way that footballers sometimes break legs or jockeys fall from horses. Physical harm is not the raison d'etre.
You're wrong about "self defence" and you're wrong about boxers not being paid to commit physical harm. But you're right I didn't answer your other point, "genie out of the bottle". So I will.
You're suggesting some aspects of a sport can't be altered, once they've proliferated. Can I suggest that this has happened, over and over again? We used to have bear baiting and cock fighting. Dog fighting is now banned. Have you seen legal bare-knuckle fights recently? The "sport" of fox hunting with hounds has been firmly put back in the bottle.
ban it and drive it underground .. no efficient monitoring of boxers health .. no regulated purses and crowd control etc. etc. .. if young men want to fight and prove themselves, they will find a way to do so .. better 'legally'
So professional boxing is legal purely because it might happen "underground" otherwise? And, if it's "underground" there will be greater risks to the participants, because they'd lack medical access? Do you see where that argument leads? "If something is so compelling that people are forced to do it underground we must legalise it". So we legalise crack dens? The use of heroin?
There might be reasons to continue to allow professional boxing. But "they might carry on and do it illegally" isn't a strong one.
There are very good arguments why it might be a positive step to legalise (at least some forms of) drug taking. The second you throw in phrases like 'crack dens' you make that discussion unnecessarily emotive and logical discourse becomes impossible. In then making that emotive link to boxing you also do a disservice to the arguments that Lincs made.
The official mortality statistics do not differentiate boxers from other athletes, but if you look at the total number of deaths for this group, the numbers that are attributed to the sort of accidents that may happen in the ring are really very low (see below for figures for England and Wales over a ten year period) - in fact for every one of these conditions more people died who were employed in literary and artistic occupations. Perhaps on that evidence painting should be outlawed. The death of Mike Towell was a terrible tragedy, but lets not get carried away and pretend that it's a bigger problem than it is.
Encephalitis 0 Epilepsy 2 Fall Unspecified 0 Fracture unspecified 1 Injury undetermined as accidental or purposeful 5 Other accidents 4 Other aneurysm 0 Other fall 0 Other hernia 0 Parkinson's disease 0 Pulmonary embolism and phlebitis 4 Slipping and tripping 0 Sub-arachnoid haemorrhage 2
Mike towell had been suffering headaches for two weeks prior to the bout, seems to me that an opportunity missed by firstly himself and secondly his team notvthe sport of boxing
I love watching small Hall fights as much as big venue, and the safety of the boxer is paramount,
Boxing is an art form, not just a sport it is majestic in its artistry, its endurance to make fight Night is unreal, its fitness unparalleled, its camaraderie like no other, it is the one sport that really does have no exclusive club or rules
There is no reason to ban it, there is a fine safety record
There will always be tragic accidents in sport and other walks of life even with the most stringent safety precautions. Do we ban football because of the tragic death of David Longhurst for example or cricket because of Phil Hughes?
In response to @Chizz you can let the genie out of the bottle but you cannot put it back in.
It is probable that both tobacco and alcohol would be 'banned' if just discovered today but to do so now is both impractical and undesirable. The same applies to the legal activity of professional boxing.
In neither of those two sports (football and cricket) are athletes paid to commit physical harm on their opponents. Boxing is different.
Do you have a good reason why professional boxing should not be banned?
It is enjoyed by participants and spectators alike because it is a stark manifestation of man's desire to test himself against man. Better for the loser in particular that this is done in a controlled environment with medical support at the ready rather than not.
For those participants talented enough it enables them to make life changing sums of money and escape from tough, oppressive backgrounds. Even the less proficient but still talented can augment their income sufficiently to enhance their quality of life.
And I note you ignored my 'genie out of the bottle' point.
EDIT: Boxers are not paid to commit physical harm. Boxing is an art of self defence. Physical harm sometimes occurs as a consequence in the same way that footballers sometimes break legs or jockeys fall from horses. Physical harm is not the raison d'etre.
You're wrong about "self defence" and you're wrong about boxers not being paid to commit physical harm. But you're right I didn't answer your other point, "genie out of the bottle". So I will.
You're suggesting some aspects of a sport can't be altered, once they've proliferated. Can I suggest that this has happened, over and over again? We used to have bear baiting and cock fighting. Dog fighting is now banned. Have you seen legal bare-knuckle fights recently? The "sport" of fox hunting with hounds has been firmly put back in the bottle.
A marvelous sport from the days where the skills were directly transferable to hand to hand combat between armies. 21st century? I think drones have replaced the need for these skills.
Surely it is within our capabilities to come up with an alternative to organized beatings of fellow humans? Maybe one day soon human boxer vs robot boxer?
Mike towell had been suffering headaches for two weeks prior to the bout, seems to me that an opportunity missed by firstly himself and secondly his team notvthe sport of boxing
I love watching small Hall fights as much as big venue, and the safety of the boxer is paramount,
Boxing is an art form, not just a sport it is majestic in its artistry, its endurance to make fight Night is unreal, its fitness unparalleled, its camaraderie like no other, it is the one sport that really does have no exclusive club or rules
There is no reason to ban it, there is a fine safety record
Can you see that there might be a link between a boxer suffering from headaches and his compulsion to fight, given the financial losses he and his advisors might suffer by not fighting.
A boxer choosing, or being persuaded, to fight for money despite not being in peak physical condition is the strongest argument supporting a ban on professional boxing.
Comments
Yet, at the same time, it's a dangerous, deadly combination of violence and reward. Put simply, where the prize is worth it, competitors put themselves in danger.
So, the solution should be to allow - in fact, to promote and encourage - amateur boxing for all the benefits it provides, but to ban professional boxing.
That way, if you want to take part as a participant or spectator, you can. But the dangerous risk of competitors going too far for reward is eliminated.
I'm not a lover of boxing in the slightest, but I'd rather die doing something I love, than die being prevented from doing it.
The world is full of whinny bitches already because we ban anything we is perceived as bad for you such as competitive sports.
Whilst I have never shared my Dad's love of the sport (he was friends with Laszlo Papp and also acted as interpreter for the Hungarian Amateur Boxing team when they fought here against the likes of Charlie Magri) Boxing is littered with stories of boys who have been given a "raison d'etre".
And keeping it amateur does not fill that void in my opinion as ultimately the best of these individuals need to be rewarded for their commitment to the sport.
There might be reasons to continue to allow professional boxing. But "they might carry on and do it illegally" isn't a strong one.
There are plenty of reasons to continue supporting and encouraging participation in amateur boxing. But removing the temptation, lure and corruption of heavy financial reward for boxing will prevent anyone being persuaded to fight when they shouldn't.
It's risk v reward. Remove the reward and that equation tips back towards a much safer outcome.
If you love boxing, there's no harm in competing against others who also love it, on an amateur basis.
There will always be tragic accidents in sport and other walks of life even with the most stringent safety precautions. Do we ban football because of the tragic death of David Longhurst for example or cricket because of Phil Hughes?
In response to @Chizz you can let the genie out of the bottle but you cannot put it back in.
It is probable that both tobacco and alcohol would be 'banned' if just discovered today but to do so now is both impractical and undesirable. The same applies to the legal activity of professional boxing.
Do you have a good reason why professional boxing should not be banned?
A lot of boxers will go on to suffer from Alzheimer's though.
What's your view? Do you have a strong opinion either way? Do you have any reasons to back up your view?
If we keep taking away things that have any risk attached, we'll be left with a lot of boring sport on telly and far fewer activities we can take part in.
And it's a cliche, but there are few other sports that (if taught right) are as good as boxing as instilling discipline in young people that like to fight. The professional sport can take a lot of credit for that, as that's where people see the big blockbuster bouts on television and get into it... unless Eddie Hearn is in charge and fills the card with his fighters vs bums.
For those participants talented enough it enables them to make life changing sums of money and escape from tough, oppressive backgrounds. Even the less proficient but still talented can augment their income sufficiently to enhance their quality of life.
And I note you ignored my 'genie out of the bottle' point.
EDIT: Boxers are not paid to commit physical harm. Boxing is an art of self defence. Physical harm sometimes occurs as a consequence in the same way that footballers sometimes break legs or jockeys fall from horses. Physical harm is not the raison d'etre.
You're suggesting some aspects of a sport can't be altered, once they've proliferated. Can I suggest that this has happened, over and over again? We used to have bear baiting and cock fighting. Dog fighting is now banned. Have you seen legal bare-knuckle fights recently? The "sport" of fox hunting with hounds has been firmly put back in the bottle.
The official mortality statistics do not differentiate boxers from other athletes, but if you look at the total number of deaths for this group, the numbers that are attributed to the sort of accidents that may happen in the ring are really very low (see below for figures for England and Wales over a ten year period) - in fact for every one of these conditions more people died who were employed in literary and artistic occupations. Perhaps on that evidence painting should be outlawed. The death of Mike Towell was a terrible tragedy, but lets not get carried away and pretend that it's a bigger problem than it is.
Encephalitis 0
Epilepsy 2
Fall Unspecified 0
Fracture unspecified 1
Injury undetermined as accidental or purposeful 5
Other accidents 4
Other aneurysm 0
Other fall 0
Other hernia 0
Parkinson's disease 0
Pulmonary embolism and phlebitis 4
Slipping and tripping 0
Sub-arachnoid haemorrhage 2
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm:77-168405
I love watching small Hall fights as much as big venue, and the safety of the boxer is paramount,
Boxing is an art form, not just a sport it is majestic in its artistry, its endurance to make fight Night is unreal, its fitness unparalleled, its camaraderie like no other, it is the one sport that really does have no exclusive club or rules
There is no reason to ban it, there is a fine safety record
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30940176
I'll give you bear baiting, largely because of the dearth of bears, but the other two still occur illegally as does bare knuckle fighting.
21st century? I think drones have replaced the need for these skills.
Surely it is within our capabilities to come up with an alternative to organized beatings of fellow humans? Maybe one day soon human boxer vs robot boxer?
A boxer choosing, or being persuaded, to fight for money despite not being in peak physical condition is the strongest argument supporting a ban on professional boxing.