Should Boxing be Banned ?

[Prometheus]

9 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

The difference between pharmacology and murder is intent.

What has pharmacology and murder got to do with boxing? This equivalence is stretching credulity. 

 

9 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

I understand that there is consent.
I also understand that the law doesn't  always recognise consent.

So sometimes consent is valid and sometimes not. What you have still failed to address is why consent in boxing is not valid, and consent in rugby, say, is.

 

9 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

That sort of decision making is, essentially, what I do for a living.

Then you should be able to explain your reasoning, not argue from authority.

 

9 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

You have made a common error.
You have  only got half way to the well established idea of a "risk/ benefit" analysis.

By your "logic" we should ban cars- since they kill more people than rugby.

Except i'm not advocating banning rugby, or boxing - you are. So no, i'm not advocating banning cars. 

 

9 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

The "benefit " of boxing is, largely, the entertainment of the people.

And the cardiovascular and psychological wellbeing boxing (yes, some people gain confidence from it). Most boxing actually happen at junior levels, with little 'entertainment' (and smaller risk).

 

9 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

If the crowds were big enough, would you think it was "right" to feed Christians to the lions?

I wasn't aware that Christians consented to that. Learn something new every day.

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, Prometheus said:

So sometimes consent is valid and sometimes not. What you have still failed to address is why consent in boxing is not valid, and consent in rugby, say, is.

Because, though you repeatedly fail to accept it, there is a difference.

You do not set out to brain damage your opponent when you play Rugby.

Do you accept that there is a fundamental difference between boxing and other sports?

I can only presume that you don't understand the difference.

The difference is that of intent.

Like the other difference you don't seem to understand- that between pharmacology and murder.

Giving people physiologically  active chemicals  might be homicidal, or it may be medical.

The difference rests solely on why you do it.

[Prometheus]

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

Because, though you repeatedly fail to accept it, there is a difference.

You do not set out to brain damage your opponent when you play Rugby.

Do you accept that there is a fundamental difference between boxing and other sports?

I can only presume that you don't understand the difference.

The difference is that of intent.

I get there's a difference (though you greatly exaggerate it - 99% of a boxers time is spent outside the ring ), but you fail to address why it is relevant.

[John Cuthber]

3 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

99% of a boxers time is spent outside the ring

That's relevant if cricketers typically spend the night on the field.

Are you saying that, because it is premeditated- they trained and practiced to deliberately hurt people- it is somehow better?
 

As far as I can tell, that's the opposite of the view taken society (as codified by the courts.)

[Prometheus]

What? Sorry, i just don't know what you're trying to communicate. Maybe someone else who understands your point can try to articulate it in a different way.

X increases health risk by a. Y increases health risk by b.

a < b.

Society will ban something if the health risk >= b. Therefore Y is banned.

Tell me where intention comes into this equation. 

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

That's relevant if cricketers typically spend the night on the field.

Are you saying that, because it is premeditated- they trained and practiced to deliberately hurt people- it is somehow better?

The bouncer an aggressive delivery by a fast bowler, is aimed at the head. It doesn't follow that they deliberately try to hurt people.

Max Baer 

Quote

My father cried about what happened to Frankie Campbell. He had nightmares. In reality, my father was one of the kindest, gentlest men you would ever hope to meet. He treated boxing the way today's professional wrestlers do wrestling: part sport, mostly showmanship. He never deliberately hurt anyone.^[15]

 

Edited December 7, 2019 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

He never deliberately hurt anyone.

Did he ever knock his opponent out?

 

5 hours ago, Prometheus said:

What? Sorry, i just don't know what you're trying to communicate. Maybe someone else who understands your point can try to articulate it in a different way.

X increases health risk by a. Y increases health risk by b.

a < b.

Society will ban something if the health risk >= b. Therefore Y is banned.

Tell me where intention comes into this equation. 

In general cutting someone's leg off is banned.

But removing a gangrenous leg, to save the patient is permitted.

 

In both cases, harm is done- the guy loses a leg.
But in one case the intent (even if the operation fails) is to help them.

 

Also, if this"Society will ban something if the health risk >= b. Therefore Y is banned." was right, the drugs policy would be utterly different.

 

 

 

[Carrock]

On 12/7/2019 at 12:42 AM, John Cuthber said:

Currently "Boxing"- by the Queensbury rules" is lawful and knuckle fighting is not.

I didn't know knuckle fighting was actually illegal.

My limited understanding is that bare knuckle fighting usually causes bleeding and may break facial bones, while using (weighted?) gloves protects the hands and causes little visible injury but far more brain damage.

Quote

The record for the longest bare-knuckle fight is listed as 6 hours and 15 minutes for a match between James Kelly and Jonathan Smith, fought near Fiery Creek, Victoria, Australia, on December 3, 1855, when Smith gave in after 17 rounds.

Presumably gloves facilitate knockouts...

 

I wouldn't necessarily ban boxing as it's no worse than some other sports, but if boxing gloves were banned, I suspect a lot of people would be upset at seeing the resulting less serious but more visible injuries.

[Prometheus]

On 12/7/2019 at 6:26 PM, John Cuthber said:

In general cutting someone's leg off is banned.

But removing a gangrenous leg, to save the patient is permitted.

In both cases, harm is done- the guy loses a leg.
But in one case the intent (even if the operation fails) is to help them.

False equivalence. Cutting off someone's leg is not the same as boxing. The former always increases morbidity, and quite possibly mortality. The latter sometimes increases morbidity and mortality, though sometimes improves it (through cardiovascular effects), although, as has been pointed out, the evidence isn't clear either way. For instance, this 2007 study on the life expectancy of professional boxers between 1870-1930, when the sport was far more dangerous than today, concludes:

Quote

...this study indicates that LE in top-level athletes is unaffected by the type of discipline, and not related to physiological demand and intentional contact.

 

You've shown consent doesn't always justify actions that include some intention to harm.  Now can you show why it is relevant to the particular case of boxing?

 

On 12/7/2019 at 6:26 PM, John Cuthber said:

Also, if this"Society will ban something if the health risk >= b. Therefore Y is banned." was right, the drugs policy would be utterly different.

I would like to see a more rational drug policy, but that's a different conversation. Does the fact some drinkers go out specifically to 'kill a few brain cells' mean alcohol should be banned?

 

 

[John Cuthber]

4 hours ago, Prometheus said:

but that's a different conversation.

You brought it up...

Edited December 10, 2019 by John Cuthber

[joigus]

I think "informed decision" are the key words for tackling this problem. The boxer should be able to decide given as much of the objective information as it's technologically possible.

Also, we tend to think in terms of banning or just plain allowing; yes or no solutions for problems that admit graded solutions. If you think about it long enough, it's not difficult to see that there are ways to tackle this that take care of the risks without just banning the activity. Banning was good enough for pre-industrial societies. We can, and should, I think, do better than that.

"Case studies" is another bundle of key words. The case of Anthony Joshua that @mistermack proposes, strongly suggests that not everybody would suffer the same effects, so proper monitoring of every sportsperson would be in order.

[jajrussel]

On 12/3/2019 at 6:26 PM, MigL said:

Other sports result in more deaths.
Parachute jumping, hang gliding, bungee jumping, etc. …
Should they not be banned first ?

As for occupations that require risky behaviour, driving probably results in more deaths than many other activities.
Should we outlaw other professions that require you to drive ( salesmen, truck drivers, etc. ) ?

How about fire-fighters ? Or cops ?

I was just thinking that this post might be more in line time wise, today... every time I read it I think “well, yeah!” then I start laughing. 
 

Sorry - it is still a little too soon after the brain surgery, so I occasionally laugh at the most inappropriate times. I also have developed a fear of trees that might drop, well, actually will drop branches, somewhat  scientifically based on my own observations of where I’ve parked my car and the number of dents on the hood and roof. Statistically, speaking I should never venture under a tree. Especially after the surgery.

 On a somewhat serious note I used to fearlessly wander amongst the flying fist of fury, but there is something about having one’s  skull intentionally split That seems to have given me a certain respect for this head I was born with and I’ve started to think that just maybe violence wouldn’t be so easily legitimized by those who have a point to prove if there wasn’t a sense of heroics implied by the act of knocking someone out. It’s just a game. It’s just a sport. It’s just a rap song. It’s just a question. It’s just an opinion. It’s just politics.

Apparently, violence is a justifiable means of winning period. The world right now is an example of an argument carried to a ridiculous extremes. If I thought eliminating every violent sport in the world would help I’d say go for it, but it won’t, and I’ve already listed the reasons why.

Hmm, I may have gotten a little too serious So, I’ll try to lighten  the mood by pointing out that if it were up to me. I’d call in the National Guard and have them cut down every tree in the neighborhood. 

[Endy0816]

Banning gloves might improve things. Recently saw a video discussing how gloves made attacks to the head more common, as fighters no longer ran the risk of damaging their own hands as a result.

[jajrussel]

On 7/10/2020 at 6:40 PM, Endy0816 said:

Banning gloves might improve things. Recently saw a video discussing how gloves made attacks to the head more common, as fighters no longer ran the risk of damaging their own hands as a result.

It would certainly shorten careers. There was a movie that made breaking your opponents hands a tactical move. If I remember it kinda became popular in more than one movie, of course dead men walking became popular in the movies😒, but there are many places that actually are easy to break using the bare fist, so many, that banning gloves would simply make things more brutal.

At my age my tactical antics are a good pair of running shoes and my motto, “stents Don’t fail me now!”

[molbol2000]

Ali is not a typical case, no one except him behaved so passively and did not receive so many powerful blows, some people say he was stuffed with drugs so that he would not lose consciousness.
Apparently this was necessary to promote game boxing. With Ali many "girls" comes on the ring, and there are no true punchers

There is no true boxing at all now

This is cyrcus

[Bufofrog]

5 hours ago, molbol2000 said:

Ali is not a typical case, no one except him behaved so passively and did not receive so many powerful blows, some people say he was stuffed with drugs so that he would not lose consciousness.
Apparently this was necessary to promote game boxing. With Ali many "girls" comes on the ring, and there are no true punchers

There is no true boxing at all now

This is cyrcus

Evidence to support any of this?

[molbol2000]

3 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Evidence to support any of this?

Yes, lol. Youtube

Thrilla in manilla aspecialy