connoisseur series500 Posted June 22, 2003 Report Share Posted June 22, 2003 As mentioned in another thread, I was a big boxing fan as a youth. Now I am just horrified by it. The blood; the ugly knockouts. There's courage too, and it speaks to the male psyche in some atavistic but perhaps meaningful way too. The question is: should we outlaw boxing just as bareknuckles has been outlawed? Let's hear your thoughts... I've voted already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Larsen Posted June 22, 2003 Report Share Posted June 22, 2003 If two guys want to pummel each other for a hefty check, or even just for kicks, far be it from me to stop them. BTW, I'm pretty sure boxing gloves are only designed to protect the knuckles of the puncher (if you connect with more than just your first two knuckles wothout gloves you're likely to break knuckles). I don't think they soften the blow for the guy on the receiving end to any significant extent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted June 22, 2003 Report Share Posted June 22, 2003 My "no" vote is just the old libertarian strain emerging again. I can't say anything really good about boxing, although I personally prefer my memories of participating (back in my youth) more than my spectator memories. Boxing itself doesn't bother me, it's the fans that are scary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Use3D Posted June 23, 2003 Report Share Posted June 23, 2003 Absolutely not. There's enough stupid banning going on. Those contenders aren't forced into the ring, they do it becuase they love it. Let them do what they want. Ban this, ban that, I don't like the blood blah blah, STOP WATCHING IT THEN. Ok, I'm fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connoisseur series500 Posted June 23, 2003 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2003 I voted for some kind of reform. Having said that I really don't have any immediate suggestions; maybe they should require headgear as in the amateurs. Although, I thought seriously about it, I couldn't vote for a ban, as like Moose, I feel that we shouldn't take away yet another choice and another freedom. People could argue that boxing provides a road out of the ghetto, but then I would respond what kind of road is that--to be punch drunk and slur words and be susceptible to Parkinson's disease? It's not so clear. I notice a couple of "yes" votes, but the posters are silent. Any comments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed S Posted June 23, 2003 Report Share Posted June 23, 2003 I hate boxing. I hope that someday people will no longer have the need to watch two people try to beat each other into unconsciousness and the "sport" will die the death that it deserves. That said, I am against a ban. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Use3D Posted June 23, 2003 Report Share Posted June 23, 2003 Yeah headgear, better designed protection, that's a good idea. People are violent creatures, some need to hit stuff. At least they can do it in sport and not get a prison sentence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connoisseur series500 Posted June 23, 2003 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2003 I hate boxing. I hope that someday people will no longer have the need to watch two people try to beat each other into unconsciousness and the "sport" will die the death that it deserves. That said, I am against a ban. Can you elaborate on that? Why don't you think it shouldn't be banned? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted June 23, 2003 Report Share Posted June 23, 2003 I voted reform, because at it's best, boxing is a fascinating sport to watch for the strategies and the improvisational tactics used by the boxers. It's no mystery why so many jazz musicians have been big boxing buffs. But - the sport has become so corrupt and such a circus run amock that whatever there is to be enjoyed and valued in the sport is on the verge of being lost, if it hasn't been already. Reform of both in-the-ring matters and business/regulatory matters are greatly needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed S Posted June 23, 2003 Report Share Posted June 23, 2003 (edited) I hate boxing. I hope that someday people will no longer have the need to watch two people try to beat each other into unconsciousness and the "sport" will die the death that it deserves. That said, I am against a ban. Can you elaborate on that? Why don't you think it shouldn't be banned? I guess it's because I believe that if two consenting adults ( or minors with appropriate permission/supervision) want to beat each other senseless and others care to watch them do so they have that right. There's too much banning talk going on and I prefer to have government stay out of things like this. I suppose that reform - such as head gear - would get things focused on technique and strategy, but I don't care enough about it to even think about any other reforms. Edited June 23, 2003 by Ed Swinnich Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Posted June 23, 2003 Report Share Posted June 23, 2003 I voted no because even though I consider myself a pacifist, I actually like boxing. It's the only sport I really enjoy, actually. There's SO much more to boxing than two men beating each other senseless. Boxing requires a rare form of intellegence - the ability to make quick decisions and improvise on one's feet. There's a lot of grace involved in boxing too. To that end, I think Mike Tyson is one of the worst things to ever happen to the sport. He employs no footwork, no strategy...he just hits HARD (or used to, in his prime). He's a brute, and it's quite telling that as he grows older and his ability to hit HARD is fading, he's completely lost in the ring. There's none of the elegance that made someone like Sugar Ray Leonard or Ali so much fun to watch. It's sad, because the sport really has declined since Tyson made his mark. More and more young fighters aspire to be like him. I think people flocked to Tyson in the 80s because it's fun to back a winner, but all those fights that ended during the first sixty seconds proved rather dull in the end... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 I think I just like boxing because it's the only sport where the commentator can say "you have to hook a hooker" and get away with it.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris olivarez Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 I was in a bar watching the 96 olympics when Muhammad Ali received another gold medal. It crushed me to see him in his detiorating condition.I had to leave the bar because I was starting to break down while I was watching that and no I wasn't three sheets to the wind. Unless boxing does something to further guard the health and safety of the fighters and to also rid itself of the politics and corruption which putrify boxing then I would reluctantly have to say ban it. I used to know the champion of every weight division and the top 10 contenders but I no longer care because as far as I'm concerned it's all bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connoisseur series500 Posted June 24, 2003 Author Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 I voted no because even though I consider myself a pacifist, I actually like boxing. It's the only sport I really enjoy, actually. There's SO much more to boxing than two men beating each other senseless. Boxing requires a rare form of intellegence - the ability to make quick decisions and improvise on one's feet. There's a lot of grace involved in boxing too. To that end, I think Mike Tyson is one of the worst things to ever happen to the sport. He employs no footwork, no strategy...he just hits HARD (or used to, in his prime). He's a brute, and it's quite telling that as he grows older and his ability to hit HARD is fading, he's completely lost in the ring. There's none of the elegance that made someone like Sugar Ray Leonard or Ali so much fun to watch. It's sad, because the sport really has declined since Tyson made his mark. More and more young fighters aspire to be like him. I think people flocked to Tyson in the 80s because it's fun to back a winner, but all those fights that ended during the first sixty seconds proved rather dull in the end... Surprising comments from Alex. I believe boxing is banned in Sweden which is one of Alex's Utopian places to live. This despite having produced a heavyweight champion in Ingemar Johnanneson. Before Tyson it was Liston; before him it was Marciano; before him Dempsey, etc. There have always been mean sluggers whose best assets were a good punch and ability to take a few in order to deliver that punch. Not every boxer is a boxer. I used to be able to name all the champions in all the divisions as a kid, but again, I see only the brutality now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cali Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 I was in a bar watching the 96 olympics when Muhammad Ali received another gold medal. It crushed me to see him in his detiorating condition.I had to leave the bar because I was starting to break down while I was watching that and no I wasn't three sheets to the wind. Unless boxing does something to further guard the health and safety of the fighters and to also rid itself of the politics and corruption which putrify boxing then I would reluctantly have to say ban it. I used to know the champion of every weight division and the top 10 contenders but I no longer care because as far as I'm concerned it's all bullshit. I agree, wholeheartedly, with all of your points. And I love the sport. Boxing at it's highest level is an art form to me. When I look at film of Sugar Ray Robinson or Ali in their prime it's like poetry. The speed, coordination, reflexes, vision, strength, durability, and endurance of a top fighter are unmatched in any sport, IMO. It's the underbelly that's so ugly. The greed and corruption, the criminal operations of some of the top promoters, the lack of standardized testing of mental and physical fitness of fighters, the incompetence and corruption of referees and judges, as well as no pension plan for ex-boxers is shameful. If Ali had been made to pass vigorous physical exams as he got older he wouldn't have received a license to box. And we probably would not see the Ali we see today. But as in the case of Joe Louis, he was a cash cow and too many people were making money from him and they let him continue long after he should have retired. With all of these damn organizations, the IBF, WBA, WBC, WBO, etc., none of them have the welfare of the boxers as part of their mission. I hope Sen. McCain is successful in his efforts to establish national regulation and benefits for fighters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mnytime Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 (edited) What was with announcing Lewis as the Linear Champion? I don't think I have heard anyone called the Linear Universally Accepted Undisputed Champion before. Edited June 24, 2003 by Mnytime Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 I voted no - it does need reform outside the ring theres too many versions of world titles & too many mismatches . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BERIGAN Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 Well, I voted to ban it...I have followed it since Ali was in the later stages of his career...not all that closely, just the heavyweights...but damn, I realize the goal is to cause brain concussions, and I just don't want to see folks kill themselves slowly....no, it is true no one forces them into the ring, but they don't have a clue as to the real damage they are going to do to themselves over time, and no one gets out when they should, perhaps because of minor brain damage...wouldn't you love to hear Ali speak again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Larsen Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 no, it is true no one forces them into the ring, but they don't have a clue as to the real damage they are going to do to themselves over time, and no one gets out when they should, perhaps because of minor brain damage... I hope this doesn't start a whole big argument, but this sentiment doesn't strike me as a very conservative philosophy! I thought conservatives didn't like the government acting as the "wiser parent" of the citizen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son-of-a-Weizen Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 I'd rather listen to Chet Baker sing than watch a boxing match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Larsen Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 But would you rather listen to Chet Baker sing than watch Chet Baker box? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Use3D Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 but they don't have a clue as to the real damage they are going to do to themselves over time.. Right, because no one has seen the effects of boxing on Muhammed Ali except you. Especially a professional boxer, would have NO idea what made one of the greatest champions of all time the way he is now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connoisseur series500 Posted June 24, 2003 Author Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 but they don't have a clue as to the real damage they are going to do to themselves over time.. Right, because no one has seen the effects of boxing on Muhammed Ali except you. Especially a professional boxer, would have NO idea what made one of the greatest champions of all time the way he is now. Or he imagines he'll be able to get out of the game before any serious damage is done. The problem is that when a fighter needs to get out of the business, it takes one bad beating before he is able to recognize that. You don't know if it's time to get out until you get that bad beating. I think also that Mike Tyson has introduced a greater level of brutality in the sport as well; what with the intentional low blows and the ear biting and the slugging of refs. Boxing hardly needed that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 I'd rather listen to Chet Baker sing than watch a boxing match. I like Chet Baker's singing AND boxing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cali Posted June 25, 2003 Report Share Posted June 25, 2003 What was with announcing Lewis as the Linear Champion? I don't think I have heard anyone called the Linear Universally Accepted Undisputed Champion before. This is a term that has come into being in recent years due to all of the different sanctioning bodies having their own world champions. The term linear champion is used to imply that the particular champion is the man, who beat the man, who beat the man.......... all the way back to the time when there was only one champion per division. In Lennox Lewis case, it implies that he is the heavyweight champion who can claim the same title that John L. Sullivan first won. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.