Boxing should be banned

We are now in the 21st century.We still have people whooping and wooing when a fist smashes into someones head. Yeah..Great. Give me brain damage anytime. Woo hoo. What a ridiculous 'sport' boxing is. Spectacle? yes of course it is because it has been built up as such but you could equally build up any comp and make it seem exciting for punters. Boxing is a bygone age, it's bloodlust, it should be banned. One day it will be.

 

If you don't like, don't watch it.

 

irrelevant comment. I'm not talking about the watching of it, I'm saying it should be banned, full stop. It's animalistic. Barbaric. Legal fighting. Crap.

 

No it won't.

Neither should it be.

Similarly they won't ban heading a football, bowling bouncers in cricket, tackling in gridiron and/or rugby. Or any sport.

Horse riding has 128 times more fatalities per participant than boxing. (Source - an article in the telegraph, google it if it's of interest). Cycling has many many more fatalities too.

Aside from death, both of those sports have thousands more injuries directly caused from it. They aren't alone. Most sports have a worse injury record. Much worse actually.

The long term health risks from repeated concussions etc are proven to actually be much worse in sports like American football and cycling.

Not just sport. Two lorries caused a big accident Saturday near Milton Keynes. Killed at least eight minibus passengers and maimed several others. Shall we ban lorries, or minibuses? Or driving at all? If someone is going to a boxing match by road they are much more likely to be killed or injured on the journey than in the ring when they get there.

I'm not the worlds biggest boxing fan, I prefer football and cricket as a spectacle. Enjoy lots of sport actually, unfortunately as a viewer rather than participant as I have injuries sustained in a car crash which mean I can't do much more than walk.

But I much prefer watching boxing than horse riding of any form, cycling, American football. All of which are short and long term proven to be more dangerous in terms of both incidence of death and injury of any type.

All physical activity has an element of risk attached. You could make an argument to ban every sport known.

In fact everything in life has some risk. Boxing has like anything else a lot of people who participate wholly at their choice. Who are we to say they can't?

You can have your opinion - that's fine. But you don't have a moral monopoly.

 

I don't agree with KAM that is should be banned. People that take part accept the risks, It is better regulated theses days too from the safety perspective.

However, ....... listing all those sports that are more 'dangerous or higher risk 'is not the issue. Professional boxing, unlike those listed isia sport where participants deliberately set out to knock out their opponent and physically hurt him/her. As such it is completely different. Incidentally does anyone know whatever happened to that controversial report that said bare knuckle and pro boxing was 'safer' than amateur boxing with protective headgear. The argument and 'evidence' was that the headgear and gloves means the head takes more sustained albeit less violent blows resulting in more widespread bruising and brain damage. I can only assume that got vetoed by other medicos and the BB of C

I think it (the professional sport) will gradually die out as a major spectator event because it is a shadow of its former self. In the glory days of the 50s 60s and 70s and events like Foreman vs M Ali the 'hype' was backed up with real action and matched opponents. Nowadays it is about mismatched opponents, multiple titles, PPV, and gambling. It has become a fringe sport where once, millions tuned in to watch Ali vs Frazier only people interested in gambling and a few diehard supporters tune in, and 'celebrities ' attend the overhyped events paying massively overpriced tickets because they can, and to be seen and not because they are boxing fans.

 

I'll add to this that boxing is partaken by 2 individuals who know exactly what they are getting themselves into. If they wish to be punched in the face repeatedly for money, who are we to stop them?

This is why I can understand the argument against Horse/Greyhound Racing, but I don't get how you can make such an argument against 2 consenting adults.

 

There are plenty of other sports where getting the upper hand physically, by stopping and/or hurting your opponent, is actively sought. This is largely ignored as there is also some sort of ball involved, at times arbitrarily.

Some sports don't - but still cause more damage to the participants. I maintain that it's perfectly valid to point this out. Especially when someone is claiming it ought to be banned. My point is whatever I or anyone else think of somebody's hobbies, we have no right to hold any moral high ground and stop them.

Any activity that has willing participants has no place being banned. I reckon some folk want a nanny state.

 

No it won't and shouldn't be plenty more dangerous sports than boxing, rugby for one.
As for causing brain damaged I watched a fight the other day some old bloke called mayweather he was 9 rounds in his corner not a mark on him laughing and the other bloke was heavier taller and younger.

 

Agreed.
It needs banning.
Only sport where opponents deliberatly set out to hurt each other badly.
But for some reason - although rarely, I will watch a YouTube clip of a fight

 

The thing about boxing, apart from the objective of actually wanting to inflict physical damage on their opponent is that it is seen to glamorize the 'event' So much so that impressionable people get their kicks on Fridays and Saturday nights by, admittedly fuelled by a drink or two, want to imitate what they've seen and fight other, in some cases innocent people. In my opinion Boxing, in any form is just plainly wrong.

 

There's plenty of stuff 2 consenting adults are banned from doing for their own safety or the safety of others.

Should that have been legal? 2 consenting adults. As for the argument boxing is relatively safe try having a coherent conversation with a boxer a few years down the line.

 

Boxing isn't about wanting to inflict damage on the other person the main objective is to hit your opponent but not get hit your self.

 

Isn't the main objective to hit your opponent hard enough and do enough damage to them that you knock them out and gain the victory?

 

Well the main objective especially at amutuer level is to hit your opponent and not get hit yourself. With the nature of the sport people will get hurt unfortunately. But to say it should be banned is stupid. I'm sure over the years boxing has saved many young people's lives and kept them out of bother.

 

If there is one

I think is only half right - If no-one gets hit then isn't it a draw - so what's to stop two boxers not attempting to hit each other?

 

I'd argue that the difference with your example is that could be classed as euthanasia. I take your point though. Assisted suicide is illegal. However you could make an argument for legalising that.

But that's a whole other bag of worms.

 

Ridiculous comment

 

We all have our opinions and it's good to have debate. I don't quite agree with you on your horse racing, football etc analogies however. The objective in horse racing and all the other sports you mention is not to deliberately inflict damage to win the contest. In boxing the boxer wins by inflicting damage on his opponent. You cant win at boxing by keeping your hands by your side. If two blokes in Barnsley had a punch-up in the town centre the police would be out and they'd be locked up. Because we put Boxers in a ring and call it a sport it's legal.

 

Thanks

 

Para 1 But trying to HURT an opponent is NOT (or should not be) the main objective in other sports particularly any sport involving a ball. Yes, American football is physical and tthe 'defence' trying to stop the 'offence' opponent moving the ball forward is what the game is about. Rugby, even Association football is the same but any opponent deliberately trying to injure an opponent would be penalised.(high tackles in R.U. as an example).
Para 2 Again, Boxing is about injuring an opponent inentionally making it different. HOWEVER, I agree with your last sentence in that paragraph.
Para 3 Agree 100% H&S for the most part is fully worthwhile and important but some would like us to eliminate risk 100%. Perhaps we should all stay in bed so no injury befalls us... Oh!... Hang in... didnt the only injury in that UK Earthquake a few years ago occur when a lad in bed in Barnsley had his legs broken when the Chimney stack collapsed on his legs? No hiding place then!! Life is a risk!

I am not an animal rights activist, veggie or Vegan. I like my meat . However the argument someone raised that boxers have free will, but horse (steeplechasers and Grand National runners in particular) have no say in whether to compete or not is a more pressing moral issue for our time