ChatterBank4 mins ago
Another Death From Boxing.
36 Answers
http://
In these days where 'health and safety' seem to be a prime concern, hasn't the time come for boxing to be outlawed?
Apart from the use of gloves, which was a huge improvement from the days of bare fist boxing, it is still allowed to take place at a considerable risk to those who partake in the sport.
While on the subject of health and safety in sport, why not go further by making the use of head protection compulsory in soccer also, after all one would not be allowed to ride a racehorse without head protection?
In these days where 'health and safety' seem to be a prime concern, hasn't the time come for boxing to be outlawed?
Apart from the use of gloves, which was a huge improvement from the days of bare fist boxing, it is still allowed to take place at a considerable risk to those who partake in the sport.
While on the subject of health and safety in sport, why not go further by making the use of head protection compulsory in soccer also, after all one would not be allowed to ride a racehorse without head protection?
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.
No irony what so ever......The headline of the question seem to emphasized the word "Another" like it was and all to common thing, I stated the fact that the last fatality in the uk resulting from boxing was a staggering 18 years ago, So if you want to ban boxing because of one death in 18 years then surely you should look at Horse racing, motor racing, down hill skiing and lawn bowls and numerous other sports, all of which have a higher death rate than boxing?
MrIncredible - as I, and others, have outlined before, fatalities in all the sports mentioned, in fact any other sport at all, are an unintended tragic by-product usually caused by a freak accident which could not have been prevented.
In boxing, the entire object of the exercise is to render the opponent unable to continue - either by concussion leading to unconciousness, or sufficient damage to the face and body to make continuation impossible.
Aside from the deaths immediately attributable to boxing - in other words death within hours or days, there are numourous examples of a long slow death from brain damage which can take years to reveal its effects, but can still be traced back to brain damage sustained in a boxing career - Muhamed Ali being the most obvious and high-profile example.
How sad that he is lauded as a champion and example to young people to follow, when what he is is a monument to tbe barbaric sport in which he partipated, and the price he and his family must pay watching his long slow undignified decline and death.
If MA was the only single boxer to suffer like that, he would be one boxer too many, but he is one of hundreds of not thousands of unknown and unrememebred men who died in this way, and that is the most barbaric side of all that this sport offers to its supporters.
In boxing, the entire object of the exercise is to render the opponent unable to continue - either by concussion leading to unconciousness, or sufficient damage to the face and body to make continuation impossible.
Aside from the deaths immediately attributable to boxing - in other words death within hours or days, there are numourous examples of a long slow death from brain damage which can take years to reveal its effects, but can still be traced back to brain damage sustained in a boxing career - Muhamed Ali being the most obvious and high-profile example.
How sad that he is lauded as a champion and example to young people to follow, when what he is is a monument to tbe barbaric sport in which he partipated, and the price he and his family must pay watching his long slow undignified decline and death.
If MA was the only single boxer to suffer like that, he would be one boxer too many, but he is one of hundreds of not thousands of unknown and unrememebred men who died in this way, and that is the most barbaric side of all that this sport offers to its supporters.
It is a weird thing for folk to want to do, but I don't see any compelling reason to ban it. It'd come under the title of "yet more government interference where they ought not stick their nose in". I'm unsure where lines should be drawn to protect those unable to avoid putting themselves in peril, but I'd suggest it isn't here.
ummm - which is not to say that it is less brutal - just that the absence of close-ups makes the brutality less apparent to the observer.
Although really, you don't need to watch a boxing match to know it is barbaric, simply consider the object of the exercise - infliction of brain damage, temporary or permanent is the result both fighters are aiming for.
Although really, you don't need to watch a boxing match to know it is barbaric, simply consider the object of the exercise - infliction of brain damage, temporary or permanent is the result both fighters are aiming for.
Andy, are you suggesting society prevents all citizens from driving, drinking, eating, drug-taking, obesity .... the list going on and on ?
It's not for me to draw the line, but I'd suggest an activity that causes fewer injuries than many that are not being singled out as a possible banned activity, is on the 'leave folk alone' side of the line. Actions that clearly cause common permanent damage could be considered the other side of it. Then the debate starts as one argues the exact position of the line.
It's not for me to draw the line, but I'd suggest an activity that causes fewer injuries than many that are not being singled out as a possible banned activity, is on the 'leave folk alone' side of the line. Actions that clearly cause common permanent damage could be considered the other side of it. Then the debate starts as one argues the exact position of the line.
aog - 'apart from the use of gloves, which was a huge improvement from the days of bare fist boxing.'
there is a common misconception that gloves have improved the safety of boxing, this is not true.
gloves are used to protect the hand and not the head. most bare knuckle fights ended early due to broken hands or a quick decisive blow. this annoyed the gambling fraternity so gloves were introduced to help prolong fights by protecting the fist from fracture or collapse.
The glove allows a boxer to increase the power and frequency of his/her punches and because of the increased size of the glove the area of impact to the head is also increased.
I have boxed at an amateur level and am a big fan of the sport. for me it boils down to personal freedom.
You're either a boxer or you're not.
there is a common misconception that gloves have improved the safety of boxing, this is not true.
gloves are used to protect the hand and not the head. most bare knuckle fights ended early due to broken hands or a quick decisive blow. this annoyed the gambling fraternity so gloves were introduced to help prolong fights by protecting the fist from fracture or collapse.
The glove allows a boxer to increase the power and frequency of his/her punches and because of the increased size of the glove the area of impact to the head is also increased.
I have boxed at an amateur level and am a big fan of the sport. for me it boils down to personal freedom.
You're either a boxer or you're not.
Old_Geezer - "Andy, are you suggesting society prevents all citizens from driving, drinking, eating, drug-taking, obesity .... the list going on and on ?"
Not at all - the point i am making is that society views these activities as possessing potentially dangerous and / or fatal consequences, and as such, exervises moral and legal controls over them - which is nothing to do with banning them, simply acting to make them safer.
In the same way that smoking - which if carried out as intended, will harm and or kill you - boxing should be be banned for the same reason.
It has no place in a civilised society.
in the same way as i would like to see gun control enforced, the rule would be as follows -
Anyone asked - would you like to hit someone about the head and body until they are sufficiently damaged to be unable to defend themselves, who answers 'Yes' - would henceforth be prevented by law from ever doing so.
Not at all - the point i am making is that society views these activities as possessing potentially dangerous and / or fatal consequences, and as such, exervises moral and legal controls over them - which is nothing to do with banning them, simply acting to make them safer.
In the same way that smoking - which if carried out as intended, will harm and or kill you - boxing should be be banned for the same reason.
It has no place in a civilised society.
in the same way as i would like to see gun control enforced, the rule would be as follows -
Anyone asked - would you like to hit someone about the head and body until they are sufficiently damaged to be unable to defend themselves, who answers 'Yes' - would henceforth be prevented by law from ever doing so.
But your argument is applicable the same for the other activities you have mentioned too. No one is banning smoking or drinking, or claiming it has no place in a civilized society. If we don't for them we have presented no justification for doing so for boxing.
Gee; folk will be trying to ban "Page 3" next !
Gee; folk will be trying to ban "Page 3" next !
They get a lot of money for taking the risks. They know what might happen, but they probably adopt the usual idea, that it won't happen to them. In a way it is like soldiers - they know what they might face and that it might end in their death, but they still do it - only soldiers don't get paid so much.
