Mammoth, Black, Roaming Earth: Weapon...
Crosswords0 min ago
The gentle art of boxing
117 Answers
http://www.dailymail....-publicity-stunt.html
We hear of footballers being suspended for a number of matches, others arrested and charged by the police, and their captaincy taken off them, all for allegedly using abusive words.
So what should happen to thugs such as these, should they be banned from ever boxing again?
We hear of footballers being suspended for a number of matches, others arrested and charged by the police, and their captaincy taken off them, all for allegedly using abusive words.
So what should happen to thugs such as these, should they be banned from ever boxing again?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Actually Daisy it was andy who cited it as 'entertainment' initially, I simply replied to him, stating that an awful lot of people watch it, which is true thay do. I did also suggest they'd probably watch public executions as well, so that proves little about it's worth as ' entertainment'. My sole reasons for being against a ban is I have boxed myself (not professionally) and found it to be very therapeutic, met some nice people doing it and I do enjoy watching boxing as I'm not a great mollycoddler of people and believe they ought to be free to make their own minds up about what they do.
I don't deny for a moment your points that it appeals to the baser instincts of some people, but we outlawed cockfighting, hunting and dog fights because the animals involved could not make the conscious decision to fight, people can. That to me is the difference.
I don't deny for a moment your points that it appeals to the baser instincts of some people, but we outlawed cockfighting, hunting and dog fights because the animals involved could not make the conscious decision to fight, people can. That to me is the difference.
I'm not sure where I stand on the whole boxing issue to be honest.
What I do find strange though is that two grown men beating the crap out of each other can be a wonderful sport on the one hand, or disgraceful thuggery on the other, depending on where it happens.
All the people who like to see a good fight should be happy they got a bonus one for free shouldn't they, rather than condemning the participants?
What I do find strange though is that two grown men beating the crap out of each other can be a wonderful sport on the one hand, or disgraceful thuggery on the other, depending on where it happens.
All the people who like to see a good fight should be happy they got a bonus one for free shouldn't they, rather than condemning the participants?
A very enjoyable debate, but I wonder how many of those who do not wish to see this violent sport banned, would be crying for bull-fighting to be banned if it was allowed in this country?
Why boxing seems to be different from other sports is the fact that certain safety measures are taken in other sports, but apart from the wearing of special gloves, and perhaps the gum-shield no other safety measures seem to be taken.
If we must continue with the 'sport' of boxing why isn't it obligatory to wear protective head gear, as those used in sparring, or perhaps the 'knock-out' rule could be outlawed and the winner be chosen just on the points system?
Why boxing seems to be different from other sports is the fact that certain safety measures are taken in other sports, but apart from the wearing of special gloves, and perhaps the gum-shield no other safety measures seem to be taken.
If we must continue with the 'sport' of boxing why isn't it obligatory to wear protective head gear, as those used in sparring, or perhaps the 'knock-out' rule could be outlawed and the winner be chosen just on the points system?
andy, I'd go the other way, as I suggested above: ban gloves. You're going to hurt someone's head a lot less if it involves breaking your own knuckles. Gloves protect the wearer, not the victim.
aog, as someone suggested above: people want bullfights (or fox-hunts or bear-baiting) banned because the animal cannot consent. Boxers, for better or worse, do.
aog, as someone suggested above: people want bullfights (or fox-hunts or bear-baiting) banned because the animal cannot consent. Boxers, for better or worse, do.
An interesting point jno, unlikely to find favour with the boxing fraternity who regard 'bare knuckle' fighting as uncivilised - although frankly I fail to see the civilisation element applied by the use of gloves.
Your point is a fair one - the interface of large areas of the human skull - solid bone, few nerves, and the human hands - lots of bones, serious pain potential - is only facilitated by protection of the latter, though sadly not the former.
As Jack Reacher advises in the Reacher novels, the way to stop a fight is not to punch a man in the face with a fist, it's to hit him in the temple with an elbow - fight over instantly.
It's a thought ... not!
Your point is a fair one - the interface of large areas of the human skull - solid bone, few nerves, and the human hands - lots of bones, serious pain potential - is only facilitated by protection of the latter, though sadly not the former.
As Jack Reacher advises in the Reacher novels, the way to stop a fight is not to punch a man in the face with a fist, it's to hit him in the temple with an elbow - fight over instantly.
It's a thought ... not!
"I still don't agree with banning things because I don't personally like them even if they are in somone else's interest"
whilst the above is in many ways commendable, we are told that a great swathe of our society (more than we'd like to acknowledge) like to watch dog fights. just because 'other' people like it, it doesn't mean we should be sensitive and accepting to their distasteful lust for blood sport.
anyway, back to boxing. personally i really fail to see the 'entertainment' value, or art of duffing each other up. of the recent boxing matches i have seen, they mostly walk around the ring cuddling each other. it all seems rather puerile to me.
i had a friend who was very high up in thai kick boxing winning lots of things. he always got us into fights in pubs. in reality he was actually a loser.
whilst the above is in many ways commendable, we are told that a great swathe of our society (more than we'd like to acknowledge) like to watch dog fights. just because 'other' people like it, it doesn't mean we should be sensitive and accepting to their distasteful lust for blood sport.
anyway, back to boxing. personally i really fail to see the 'entertainment' value, or art of duffing each other up. of the recent boxing matches i have seen, they mostly walk around the ring cuddling each other. it all seems rather puerile to me.
i had a friend who was very high up in thai kick boxing winning lots of things. he always got us into fights in pubs. in reality he was actually a loser.
Interesting point ankou.
the inescapabale fact about boxing is that by definition, you are entering a ring with the pre-arranged task of hurting someone.
Frank Bruno always came over as fundamentally to nice a person to be a boxer against someone like Mike Tyson. The difference in approach was palpable when they met - Bruno wanted to box Tyson, Tyson wanted to kill Bruno - a difference in mindset that changed the outcome of the match from a maybe to a certainty.
The basic mindset of hurting someone is something I have yet to hear explained in the name of sport or entertainment.
the inescapabale fact about boxing is that by definition, you are entering a ring with the pre-arranged task of hurting someone.
Frank Bruno always came over as fundamentally to nice a person to be a boxer against someone like Mike Tyson. The difference in approach was palpable when they met - Bruno wanted to box Tyson, Tyson wanted to kill Bruno - a difference in mindset that changed the outcome of the match from a maybe to a certainty.
The basic mindset of hurting someone is something I have yet to hear explained in the name of sport or entertainment.
Andy, I think the basic mindset of hurting someone in the name of sport is simply down to competition, to be the best. I don't believe it's the ingrained desire to hurt someone that is the pull factor in boxing, it's the sheer machismo of being the strongest, the toughest and, certainly in lower weights, the best boxer.
It's the same in any sport, I play rugby, in everyday life I'm a nice chap who wouldn't say boo to a goose, but when I'm on the pitch, the 6'5" hulk running right at me has to be coming out of our challenge in pain because if he doesn't a) he'll keep running at me b) he'll have the mental edge when I run at him, at the end of the game I'll hope he's not hurt badly but the simple matter is, he's challenged me and one of us have to win, most of the time it's the 6'5" hulk but I'll at least have a go! That's what sport is about!
It's the same in any sport, I play rugby, in everyday life I'm a nice chap who wouldn't say boo to a goose, but when I'm on the pitch, the 6'5" hulk running right at me has to be coming out of our challenge in pain because if he doesn't a) he'll keep running at me b) he'll have the mental edge when I run at him, at the end of the game I'll hope he's not hurt badly but the simple matter is, he's challenged me and one of us have to win, most of the time it's the 6'5" hulk but I'll at least have a go! That's what sport is about!
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.