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?
And how many boxers get to fight at the Olympics every four years as compared to those that earn a living every year from not just boxing but from coaching the sport too. And it will go underground and many more will die as a result.
As for your assertion re the dangers of boxing as against football and cricket well you clearly do not know what it's like to be hit by a cricket ball at 90mph. Tragedies happen in all sports as with Phil Hughes in cricket - when this happened Bruce Millington in the Racing Post called for the ban of cricket balls and for tennis balls to be used instead.
What about those who have dropped dead as a result of a heart defect kicking a ball. Shouldn't we, on that basis, stop ALL sports to protect ALL lives ALL the time because we can never be 100% certain that it will be safe?
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?
And how many boxers get to fight at the Olympics every four years as compared to those that earn a living every year from not just boxing but from coaching the sport too. And it will go underground and many more will die as a result.
As for your assertion re the dangers of boxing as against football and cricket well you clearly do not know what it's like to be hit by a cricket ball at 90mph. Tragedies happen in all sports as with Phil Hughes in cricket - when this happened Bruce Millington in the Racing Post called for the ban of cricket balls and for tennis balls to be used instead.
What about those who have dropped dead as a result of a heart defect kicking a ball. Shouldn't we, on that basis, stop ALL sports to protect ALL lives ALL the time because we can never be 100% certain that it will be safe?
In which of these sports is the object of the game to inflict damage on one's opponent?
I'd be absolutely happy with coaches being paid. After all, as a kid, I played sport without reward, but was coached by professionals in tennis, rugby, cricket, etc.
My view is: if you're good at it, do it as an amateur; and if you're a good enough coach, do that as a professional. But people shouldn't be paid to inflict injury on others, the risks are too high.
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.
Agree wholeheartedly except for the Hearn point. He gets an unfair press given that Warren is many times worse (see Billy Jo Saunders' situation or Cleverly when he was champion).
On the point in question, let's ban peanuts cos some people have allergies! Or if comparing strawmen, let's ban football cos of Marc Vivien Foe (both had pre existing conditions and died playing the sport they love)
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?
And how many boxers get to fight at the Olympics every four years as compared to those that earn a living every year from not just boxing but from coaching the sport too. And it will go underground and many more will die as a result.
As for your assertion re the dangers of boxing as against football and cricket well you clearly do not know what it's like to be hit by a cricket ball at 90mph. Tragedies happen in all sports as with Phil Hughes in cricket - when this happened Bruce Millington in the Racing Post called for the ban of cricket balls and for tennis balls to be used instead.
What about those who have dropped dead as a result of a heart defect kicking a ball. Shouldn't we, on that basis, stop ALL sports to protect ALL lives ALL the time because we can never be 100% certain that it will be safe?
In which of these sports is the object of the game to inflict damage on one's opponent?
I'd be absolutely happy with coaches being paid. After all, as a kid, I played sport without reward, but was coached by professionals in tennis, rugby, cricket, etc.
My view is: if you're good at it, do it as an amateur; and if you're a good enough coach, do that as a professional. But people shouldn't be paid to inflict injury on others, the risks are too high.
It's not the "object" but it happens - and there are plenty of occasions when a bowler has bowled a bowl with a view to intimidate a batsman - and the consequence is that the batsman does get hurt. And as your remit is to stop it from happening the logical conclusion of your argument is to stop ALL sport.
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.
Agree wholeheartedly except for the Hearn point. He gets an unfair press given that Warren is many times worse (see Billy Jo Saunders' situation or Cleverly when he was champion).
On the point in question, let's ban peanuts cos some people have allergies! Or if comparing strawmen, let's ban football cos of Marc Vivien Foe (both had pre existing conditions and died playing the sport they love)
You know that Marc Vivien Foe was one person don't you?
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?
And how many boxers get to fight at the Olympics every four years as compared to those that earn a living every year from not just boxing but from coaching the sport too. And it will go underground and many more will die as a result.
As for your assertion re the dangers of boxing as against football and cricket well you clearly do not know what it's like to be hit by a cricket ball at 90mph. Tragedies happen in all sports as with Phil Hughes in cricket - when this happened Bruce Millington in the Racing Post called for the ban of cricket balls and for tennis balls to be used instead.
What about those who have dropped dead as a result of a heart defect kicking a ball. Shouldn't we, on that basis, stop ALL sports to protect ALL lives ALL the time because we can never be 100% certain that it will be safe?
In which of these sports is the object of the game to inflict damage on one's opponent?
I'd be absolutely happy with coaches being paid. After all, as a kid, I played sport without reward, but was coached by professionals in tennis, rugby, cricket, etc.
My view is: if you're good at it, do it as an amateur; and if you're a good enough coach, do that as a professional. But people shouldn't be paid to inflict injury on others, the risks are too high.
It's not the "object" but it happens - and there are plenty of occasions when a bowler has bowled a bowl with a view to intimidate a batsman - and the consequence is that the batsman does get hurt. And as your remit is to stop it from happening the logical conclusion of your argument is to stop ALL sport.
My "remit" (sic) isn't to stop all injuries. It's to prevent people being influenced by money into fighting.
There are many good reasons to see boxing continue and to thrive. It's great exercise. It's a distraction from what youngsters might otherwise get up to. It instills discipline. It helps vent anger. It enhances the competitors' self worth, self respect and sense of purpose. It gives direction.
But all of these can be achieved without needing to pay someone who shouldn't to step into a ring.
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?
And how many boxers get to fight at the Olympics every four years as compared to those that earn a living every year from not just boxing but from coaching the sport too. And it will go underground and many more will die as a result.
As for your assertion re the dangers of boxing as against football and cricket well you clearly do not know what it's like to be hit by a cricket ball at 90mph. Tragedies happen in all sports as with Phil Hughes in cricket - when this happened Bruce Millington in the Racing Post called for the ban of cricket balls and for tennis balls to be used instead.
What about those who have dropped dead as a result of a heart defect kicking a ball. Shouldn't we, on that basis, stop ALL sports to protect ALL lives ALL the time because we can never be 100% certain that it will be safe?
In which of these sports is the object of the game to inflict damage on one's opponent?
I'd be absolutely happy with coaches being paid. After all, as a kid, I played sport without reward, but was coached by professionals in tennis, rugby, cricket, etc.
My view is: if you're good at it, do it as an amateur; and if you're a good enough coach, do that as a professional. But people shouldn't be paid to inflict injury on others, the risks are too high.
It's not the "object" but it happens - and there are plenty of occasions when a bowler has bowled a bowl with a view to intimidate a batsman - and the consequence is that the batsman does get hurt. And as your remit is to stop it from happening the logical conclusion of your argument is to stop ALL sport.
My "remit" (sic) isn't to stop all injuries. It's to prevent people being influenced by money into fighting.
There are many good reasons to see boxing continue and to thrive. It's great exercise. It's a distraction from what youngsters might otherwise get up to. It instills discipline. It helps vent anger. It enhances the competitors' self worth, self respect and sense of purpose. It gives direction.
But all of these can be achieved without needing to pay someone who shouldn't to step into a ring.
But that's the point - they will still be paid. In more and more illegal fights without the right medical supervision. And more deaths, not less, will result.
No way should it be banned. There's an argument for using lighter/no gloves to minimise brain damage, but everyone going into that ring knows the risks
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?
No strong feelings.
I do think it's important to point out when people are damaging the debate by bringing in facile arguments though. You went from nought to crack den in record time.
Should boxing be banned because of the extremely sad death of a guy who in all honesty shouldn't have even got in the ring the other night? No.
"He had been complaining of headaches for the last few weeks but we put it down to migraines with the stress of his fight"
He clearly had issues and should've been properly checked out prior to the fight. as others have said, hundreds of fights take place every week and no one dies.
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?
No strong feelings.
I do think it's important to point out when people are damaging the debate by bringing in facile arguments though. You went from nought to crack den in record time.
I don't think it's damaging the debate to hold up a mirror to a spurious argument that goes "it needs to be legal, because, if it's not, then people will do illegally". If the only way to prevent people doing illegal things is to make sure those things are not made illegal is the thin end of a long wedge. I exaggerated the point in order to make it. You're right, I could have saved time by going from ending the cigarette ban in pubs and all the way to crack dens. But I hope the point was made anyway. Sorry I got there sooner than you might have preferred.
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?
No strong feelings.
I do think it's important to point out when people are damaging the debate by bringing in facile arguments though. You went from nought to crack den in record time.
I don't think it's damaging the debate to hold up a mirror to a spurious argument that goes "it needs to be legal, because, if it's not, then people will do illegally". If the only way to prevent people doing illegal things is to make sure those things are not made illegal is the thin end of a long wedge. I exaggerated the point in order to make it. You're right, I could have saved time by going from ending the cigarette ban in pubs and all the way to crack dens. But I hope the point was made anyway. Sorry I got there sooner than you might have preferred.
The point's not valid though. You're taking one specific case where a certain action could be useful, and then trying to invalidate it by expanding it outwards until you find an example that doesn't fit the proposal. That's spurious whataboutery I'm afraid. It is a good point that if you try and ban boxing at this stage you will create a market where there is no regulation. Crack dens aren't now and never have been legal; boxers are athletes who compete in a sport and currently have a certain degree of protection that they would lose if it wasn't regulated carefully. There's also a vast difference between the accessibility of drugs and the accessibility of punching someone in the head. But you know all this.
As I said, I don't agree with the idea of banning all boxing. But it's interesting to see the views of an expert.
There's no question that repeatedly heading a football for ten, fifteen, twenty years has the potential to cause long-term brain injury. (The obvious differences between that and boxing are that the ball isn't "inflicted" on the footballer and there's no "reward" to the opposition when a player heads the ball, in the way there is in boxing when a head meets a fist).
Some time down the line football is going to pay a heavy price for the damage footballers have - and will - suffer. I think football needs to take careful note of how American football has to deal with a similar issue.
I don't think banning football for this reason is appropriate. But I do think FIFA, EUFA, the FA and others need to be aware of the potential of lawsuits coming their 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.
Agree wholeheartedly except for the Hearn point. He gets an unfair press given that Warren is many times worse (see Billy Jo Saunders' situation or Cleverly when he was champion).
On the point in question, let's ban peanuts cos some people have allergies! Or if comparing strawmen, let's ban football cos of Marc Vivien Foe (both had pre existing conditions and died playing the sport they love)
You know that Marc Vivien Foe was one person don't you?
"Both" referring to both Mike Towell (had been having headaches before this fight) and Foe (had a pre existing but unknown heart problem before he collapsed on the pitch)
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.
Agree wholeheartedly except for the Hearn point. He gets an unfair press given that Warren is many times worse (see Billy Jo Saunders' situation or Cleverly when he was champion).
On the point in question, let's ban peanuts cos some people have allergies! Or if comparing strawmen, let's ban football cos of Marc Vivien Foe (both had pre existing conditions and died playing the sport they love)
You know that Marc Vivien Foe was one person don't you?
"Both" referring to both Mike Towell (had been having headaches before this fight) and Foe (had a pre existing but unknown heart problem before he collapsed on the pitch)
Comments
As for your assertion re the dangers of boxing as against football and cricket well you clearly do not know what it's like to be hit by a cricket ball at 90mph. Tragedies happen in all sports as with Phil Hughes in cricket - when this happened Bruce Millington in the Racing Post called for the ban of cricket balls and for tennis balls to be used instead.
What about those who have dropped dead as a result of a heart defect kicking a ball. Shouldn't we, on that basis, stop ALL sports to protect ALL lives ALL the time because we can never be 100% certain that it will be safe?
I'd be absolutely happy with coaches being paid. After all, as a kid, I played sport without reward, but was coached by professionals in tennis, rugby, cricket, etc.
My view is: if you're good at it, do it as an amateur; and if you're a good enough coach, do that as a professional. But people shouldn't be paid to inflict injury on others, the risks are too high.
On the point in question, let's ban peanuts cos some people have allergies! Or if comparing strawmen, let's ban football cos of Marc Vivien Foe (both had pre existing conditions and died playing the sport they love)
WTF is the trash talk about, it take boxing away from being an art form and takes it to closing time outside pubs or football fans being tribal.
Should be more respect between fighters.( before as well as after)
Promoters winding up their boxers to sell more tickets is crass in 2016.
Ali/clay was funny when he did it before a fight, thou not so funny during a fight when he had been wound up by a fighter calling him Clay.
The Marshall Arts, show respect before and after a bout.
If boxing wants to be a respected sport it needs to put it's house in order and stop the trash talk.
There are many good reasons to see boxing continue and to thrive. It's great exercise. It's a distraction from what youngsters might otherwise get up to. It instills discipline. It helps vent anger. It enhances the competitors' self worth, self respect and sense of purpose. It gives direction.
But all of these can be achieved without needing to pay someone who shouldn't to step into a ring.
I do think it's important to point out when people are damaging the debate by bringing in facile arguments though. You went from nought to crack den in record time.
"He had been complaining of headaches for the last few weeks but we put it down to migraines with the stress of his fight"
He clearly had issues and should've been properly checked out prior to the fight. as others have said, hundreds of fights take place every week and no one dies.
Banning the sport is way over the top. You'd need to ban every contact sport if the risk of head injury/death is too great for you in boxing.
And no of course it shouldn't be banned it's a brilliant sport.
news.sky.com/story/boxers-safety-in-spotlight-again-after-death-of-mike-towell-10601276
Well there is also a scientific study that suggests that footballers shouldn't head a ball either because of the damage it causes:
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-36015489
So where do we stop?
There's no question that repeatedly heading a football for ten, fifteen, twenty years has the potential to cause long-term brain injury. (The obvious differences between that and boxing are that the ball isn't "inflicted" on the footballer and there's no "reward" to the opposition when a player heads the ball, in the way there is in boxing when a head meets a fist).
Some time down the line football is going to pay a heavy price for the damage footballers have - and will - suffer. I think football needs to take careful note of how American football has to deal with a similar issue.
I don't think banning football for this reason is appropriate. But I do think FIFA, EUFA, the FA and others need to be aware of the potential of lawsuits coming their way.