women's boxing being considered for 2012 Olympics

[Bakunin]

there isn't a poll option for me Rollem.

i don't like boxing no matter who's doing it - but if men can do it, then women should be able to too.

Absolutely.

If women can go into the front line as soldiers, it's really nonsense to say that they can't go into a boxing ring if they want to.

 

[foo]

and you're 'arrogant' for thinking boxing is barbaric apparently ibj.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

and you're 'arrogant' for thinking boxing is barbaric apparently ibj.

Every time you are punched in the head, you risk brain damage. Especially if your opponent is wearing gloves that enable them to hit with more power without breaking their hands. That's not arrogance, it's simply the truth.

I'm a big fan of many martial arts, but I would never want any child of mine in a boxing ring, male or female. If that's arrogance, so be it.

 

[foo]

Every time you are punched in the head, you risk brain damage. Especially if your opponent is wearing gloves that enable them to hit with more power without breaking their hands. That's not arrogance, it's simply the truth.

I'm a big fan of many martial arts, but I would never want any child of mine in a boxing ring, male or female. If that's arrogance, so be it.

oh i'm with you all the way ibj - i was just quoting that 100% person cos i don't understand how it's arrogant to not like watching boxing.

 

[DexterTCN]

The Female boxer who was arguing their case on (I think) Newsnight was intelligent and articulate, putting forward a very strong case.

And she was quite pretty, too.

 

[Bakunin]

Every time you are punched in the head, you risk brain damage. Especially if your opponent is wearing gloves that enable them to hit with more power without breaking their hands. That's not arrogance, it's simply the truth.

I'm a big fan of many martial arts, but I would never want any child of mine in a boxing ring, male or female. If that's arrogance, so be it.

In the interest of fairness and accuracy, you are correct about the introduction of gloves in boxing. They were brought in primarily to enable fighters to hit harder and more often without suffering broken or damaged hands, and add a the weight of the glove to the power of the punch. Somewhere on this forum I started a thread a while ago about the use of bareknuckles in relation to gloves so do a forum search and hopefully it'll still be there.

Also, as a former martial artist myself (Bujinkai Karate, Judo, Kyushin Ryu Jiu Jitsu) the martial arts and boxing have a crucial difference when a fighter is being beaten down. In boxing a fighter is often encouraged to fight on and risk a stoppage or KO rather than simply retiring from the fight. Boxer Roberto Duran quit in a match against Sugar Ray Leonard and it forever tarnished his reputation in boxing circles (his infamous 'No mas' fight).

In martial arts, when a fighter is being beaten down or is locked into a submission hold and can't escape (usually a chokehold or joint lock) they have the option of what's known as 'tapping out.' This is when a fighter either gives a verbal submission ('the word 'Matte' in Japanese martial arts) or taps either his opponent or the mat to signify submission. The option of tapping out rather than risk a seemingly inevitable injury or KO is, I feel, a safer option that waiting for a referee to step in and stop a fight. Of course, in many martial arts, a referee can intervene or a corner can pull their fighter out if they've obviously had enough, but 'tapping out' makes great sense to me and there's no shame in doing so either.

 

[100% masahiko]

'it's only barbaric to the arrogant'.

how arrogant of you to say that.

wtf has arrogance got to do with it? seriously.

Because it's something that is said from the outside.
From people who haven't a clue on what it really entails.

You never see or hear a boxer/trainer say, 'we do boxing because it's barbaric."

 

[foo]

Because it's something that is said from the outside.
From people who haven't a clue on what it really entails.

You never see or hear a boxer/trainer say, 'we do boxing because it's barbaric."

okaaaaaaaaaay.



good post Bakunin.

edit: i shouldn't bother really but oi, 100% M - one of my older brothers was into amateur boxing as a late teen, and i often used to sit ringside - so i do know a bit about it as it happens. also, my kids' dad was a boxing fan, so i endured many an evening watching it on the telly and even went to a couple of fights.

through both experiences, i grew to dislike it, mainly for the reasons ibj states. am i arrogant because of this then?

 

[100% masahiko]

I don't know whether or not you have seen footage of this fight, but I have. You're either ignorant or naive.

Like any sporting tragedy - death in Formula One, player dying of heart failure on a footballl pitch etc - is rare though isn't it?

And it's never in any boxer's intention to kill their opponent.

 

[100% masahiko]

In the interest of fairness and accuracy, you are correct about the introduction of gloves in boxing. They were brought in primarily to enable fighters to hit harder and more often without suffering broken or damaged hands, and add a the weight of the glove to the power of the punch. Somewhere on this forum I started a thread a while ago about the use of bareknuckles in relation to gloves so do a forum search and hopefully it'll still be there.

I think it was in the Exercise thread.

Btw - I think bareknuckles is defo more dangerous. Think of fingers/thumb in the eye etc.

 

[Pip]

I think it was in the Exercise thread.

Btw - I think bareknuckles is defo more dangerous. Think of fingers/thumb in the eye etc.

They didn't do head blows with bareknuckle fighting, it would break your knuckles. It was all body blows.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Because it's something that is said from the outside.
From people who haven't a clue on what it really entails.

You never see or hear a boxer/trainer say, 'we do boxing because it's barbaric."

You appear not to have understood what I wrote at all. In fact, I would turn the tables on this and call you absurdly arrogant – you appear to claim that anyone who has never boxed has no right to call boxing barbaric (I in fact called enjoying watching boxing barbaric – the practice of boxing I would call simply a very misguided thing to do).

And if you deny that many (I would say most) people who like boxing are thrilled by contests such as those I've mentioned and for the reasons I gave then you are kidding yourself. The Eubank-Watson fight was the last one I watched. I was naive until that fight. It was what brought home to me what it was that I was doing when I tuned in.

Like any sporting tragedy - death in Formula One, player dying of heart failure on a footballl pitch etc - is rare though isn't it?

And it's never in any boxer's intention to kill their opponent.

It is a boxer's intention to hurt the opponent. The intention to land a punch as hard as you can on someone's head is an intention to hurt. For this reason, the death of Johnny Owen is very different from the kinds of deaths you mention. The boxer who killed him won. He fought well, as did Owen.

ETA: And boxers suffering brain damage is not rare. Not rare at all.

 

[revol68]

My views on female boxing are a bit like my views on crocs, people have the right to wear them and others have the right to think they are fucking repellent pieces of shit that only ugly sub mentals would wear.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think it was in the Exercise thread.

Btw - I think bareknuckles is defo more dangerous. Think of fingers/thumb in the eye etc.

You think or you have evidence? It depends which danger you are considering. There is more danger of serious brain damage with the gloves on.

Edit: Not that I in any way wish to defend bare-knuckle boxing either.

 

[kained&able]

People seem to be missing the fact that olympic boxing is ameteur. As in head guards, gloves that weigh fuck all, shorter fights(8 mins of fighting) and fuck all knockouts.

I haven't watched that much ametur stuff but can't off the top of my head every remember seeing someone get knocked out.

Much much safer.


dave

 

[foo]

I'm a big fan of many martial arts, but I would never want any child of mine in a boxing ring, male or female. If that's arrogance, so be it.

which reminds me, as a pretty laid back parent, i've never wanted mini-mes parroting my opinions or choices, so have tried not to force my views on the boys, political/lifestyle or otherwise. But, i have always said they'd get major grief from me if they either joined the army, or got into boxing.

neither of them has done either thing, thank god.

 

[Fruitloop]

With my mum it was always leather jackets, motorbikes and tattoos that were the signs of having gone completely off the rails. Now my Dad has a harley.

 

[foo]

ha i secretly added 'the police' to that list, but never told them.

they haven't become coppers though, phew.

 

[DotCommunist]

which reminds me, as a pretty laid back parent, i've never wanted mini-mes parroting my opinions or choices, so have tried not to force my views on the boys, political/lifestyle or otherwise. But, i have always said they'd get major grief from me if they either joined the army, or got into boxing.

neither of them has done either thing, thank god.

We were always told that joining the military is like getting mugged off by the state, twice, and the second time you asked for it. (in so many words)

 

[littlebabyjesus]

ha i secretly added 'the police' to that list, but never told them.

they haven't become coppers though, phew.

It's a good list.

 

[London_Calling]

Great sport, fantastic exercise and discipline.

I'm vaguely interested in ratio re female punching power/head gear/skull density but I presume the IOC's medical experts and professionals know the score. Hope being an Olympic sport provides an incentive.

 

[100% masahiko]

You appear not to have understood what I wrote at all. In fact, I would turn the tables on this and call you absurdly arrogant – you appear to claim that anyone who has never boxed has no right to call boxing barbaric (I in fact called enjoying watching boxing barbaric – the practice of boxing I would call simply a very misguided thing to do).

And if you deny that many (I would say most) people who like boxing are thrilled by contests such as those I've mentioned and for the reasons I gave then you are kidding yourself. The Eubank-Watson fight was the last one I watched. I was naive until that fight. It was what brought home to me what it was that I was doing when I tuned in.



It is a boxer's intention to hurt the opponent. The intention to land a punch as hard as you can on someone's head is an intention to hurt. For this reason, the death of Johnny Owen is very different from the kinds of deaths you mention. The boxer who killed him won. He fought well, as did Owen.

ETA: And boxers suffering brain damage is not rare. Not rare at all.

I train with boxers frequently. A huge chunk of my time is I spent with people in MMA, BJJ, Muay Thai, boxing, Judo etc -tis why I see similarities in all these sports.

I don't see boxing from a spectator's POV.
So when we speak of boxing, it's just I know that boxers - like most competitors - play to win.

In BJJ you go for a submission. In Judo an ippon. Wrestling a pin. Boxing/Muay Thai a KO. All of these things you could say are ways to give someone brain damage, hip displacement or a broken arm. But (sometimes) the intention is to win as fast as possible otherwise it goes to the judges.

Aplogies if I do sound arrogant. It's just most of the time, people who cast a negative judgement don't have the clue on what the sport entails, the amount of time that's spent in the gym. The hours. The love. The friends you make.

 

[Bakunin]

Aplogies if I do sound arrogant. It's just most of the time, people who cast a negative judgement don't have the clue on what the sport entails, the amount of time that's spent in the gym. The hours. The love. The friends you make.

In fairness. you have a point.

Some of the hardest and gamest fighters I've ever met will knock absolute lumps out of each other on the mats or in the ring, but once the fight's over then, win or lose, it's not at all unusual to see them having a pint afterwards and talking about how it went.

One of the differences between boxing and many other martial arts (and I consider boxing to be a full-contact striking martial art, by the way) is the level of seeming respect that martial artists have for one another compared to many boxers. Of course, boxers like to indulge in 'trash talk' in pre-fight interviews, show off their own talents and downgrade those of their opponents, mainly to talk up the upcoming fight and sell tickets as putting bums on seats is a big moneyspinner, and there's sometimes a fair bit of needle between rival martial artists as well. But martial artists from the traditional, old-school martial arts are trained to always show the utmost respect towards each other with strict rules of etiquette that apply just as firmly in training as they do in combat. A lot of boxers might do well to learn from fighters from other disciplines, I think so anyway. That's not to say that all boxers are unpleasant types, a lot of the 'trash talk' stuff is to pump up the paying audience and can be largely cosmetic, but some boxers could do with a lesson in charm and grace, methinks.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

My opinion of martial arts is a little different from yours. In my conception, if you injure the person you are fighting, you are not in control of what you are doing. This is why I said 'many martial arts' in my first post. Any martial sport, which is what I would describe boxing as, in which there is intention to do harm to the opponent, is one that I would have no desire either to see nor to practise. A few bruises, of course, but if you break someone's arm, you've either made a mistake or you are doing something that I am really not interested in.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Aplogies if I do sound arrogant. It's just most of the time, people who cast a negative judgement don't have the clue on what the sport entails, the amount of time that's spent in the gym. The hours. The love. The friends you make.

I do know something of what the sport entails. And I know what becoming properly good at any martial art entails. And I appreciate the friendships formed and the value of training.

It does irritate me when people make assumptions about other posters. Sorry, but you shouldn't run around calling people arrogant and telling them that they know nothing until you have something tangible upon which to base that judgement. It happens too much on here.

 

[Bakunin]

My opinion of martial arts is a little different from yours. In my conception, if you injury the person you are fighting, you are not in control of what you are doing. This is why I said 'many martial arts' in my first post. Any martial sport, which is what I would describe boxing as, in which there is intention to do harm to the opponent, is one that I would have no desire either to see nor to practise. A few bruises, of course, but if you break someone's arm, you've either made a mistake or you are doing something that I am really not interested in.

In a sporting context, you're right. Serious injury is to be avoided wherever possible. That said, the full-contact variants of martial arts there's always an element of pain involved, and sometimes there's the odd bloody nose, missing tooth, black eye, broken bone and so on.

The Kyo Kushin Kai style of Karate, for example, is what's known as 'traditional full-contact' in which fighters rarely wear much in the way of protective gear and fight full-contact on that basis. It's certainly the hardest style of Karate I've ever encountered and was pioneered by a man named Masatatsu Oyama. Obviously, crippling or killing techniques are outlawed, but these techniques are still taught to senior students in Kyo Kushin Kai, as they are in many other martial arts.

Something we also need to consider is that the combat sports are descended from 'pure' martial arts that originally had battlefield use, where the immediate infliction of massive injury and/or death was not only tolerated, but was precisely what the arts were designed to achieve. Leaving aside the military unarmed combat styles that are still in use and have themselves evolved from the martial arts of older times, many martial arts as we know them today are essentially toned-down versions of arts that soldiers depended upon for their lives. As such, you're rarely (except in the case of non-contact demonstrations or light-contact points sparring competition) going to see the arts quite as you'd like them to, perhaps.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, you're right, Bakunin. I do martial arts with weapons, and we have a lot of ex-karate people coming through our doors. They are usually 35-40 years old, and their bodies are now too buggered to do karate any more. I have mixed feelings about that. It's partly down to the macho over-enthusiasm of young men, partly down to poor instruction (the instruction in karate, from what I hear, seems very variable), and partly down to the nature of the art itself. But even then, I would draw a distinction between that and boxing.

And specifically with boxing, you are aiming blows at the head. There is simply no safe way in which to do that.

 

[Bakunin]

Yes, you're right, Bakunin. I do martial arts with weapons, and we have a lot of ex-karate people coming through our doors. They are usually 35-40 years old, and their bodies are now too buggered to do karate any more. I have mixed feelings about that. It's partly down to the macho over-enthusiasm of young men, partly down to poor instruction (the instruction in karate, from what I hear, seems very variable), and partly down to the nature of the art itself. But even then, I would draw a distinction between that and boxing.

And specifically with boxing, you are aiming blows at the head. There is simply no safe way in which to do that.

You're right about the standard of instruction in Karate (and in many other martial arts, sadly), it does vary a great deal in quality possibly because there are so many Karate instructors, Karate being by far the most popular martial art even today.

I think there's a problem within the martial arts generally of too many 'alphabet soup' governing bodies, each competing with each other for a bigger slice of the same pie. Some of the better governing bodies are strict with licensing of instructors, others are more, shall we say, 'affable' about who they allow to call themselves a teacher and represent themselves as an expert. And that's before you consider the number of outright frauds out there who are teaching outdated and dangerous techniques that could get people hurt or lead them to hurt others far more than would be necessary in a given situation. I'd be happy to see a rather more strict regulation brought into the martial arts industry to weed out the frauds, fakes and downright dodgy characters, as well as being good for the students it would be good for the public image of the arts themselves, I think.

Unfortunately, over the last twenty or thirty years, I've noticed the 'alphabet soup' syndrome creeping slowly into boxing as well. There seem to be more governing bodies and more world titles than ever before and I don't really think that it's necessarily a good thing either for the sport or for the fighters themselves.

And you're right about blows to the head, there's never a 100% safe way to strike to the head. Interstingly enough, boxers tend to show greater evidence of what's called, medically, 'dementia pugilistica' (punch drunk) while Muay Thai fighters often present with cumulative damage to the legs. I suspect this is because the majority of strikes in boxing (about 75% I think) are aimed at the head, while in Muay Thai a similar percentage are either aimed at (or delivered with) the legs.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think there's a problem within the martial arts generally of too many 'alphabet soup' governing bodies, each competing with each other for a bigger slice of the same pie. Some of the better governing bodies are strict with licensing of instructors, others are more, shall we say, 'affable' about who they allow to call themselves a teacher and represent themselves as an expert. And that's before you consider the number of outright frauds out there who are teaching outdated and dangerous techniques that could get people hurt or lead them to hurt others far more than would be necessary in a given situation. I'd be happy to see a rather more strict regulation brought into the martial arts industry to weed out the frauds, fakes and downright dodgy characters, as well as being good for the students it would be good for the public image of the arts themselves, I think.

What irritates me is this bit. I do some teaching at the dojo now and have been toying with the idea of setting up a small class where I live. I've been practising for 10 years, some years more intensively than others, and I'm far from an 'expert' – the experts in my martial art have been training much longer and harder than I have. That wouldn't stop me setting up a class, which would necessarily be for beginners, and to which I would invite my sensei periodically to check that I was teaching them correctly. I've got a lot to give, but I would be encouraging any of my students to attend seminars and would be very honest about my abilities (although to a beginner, I look pretty good). You sometimes have to 'show off' a tiny bit as a teacher to inspire the students and give them faith that you know what you're doing, but in the main, you have to teach them what is appropriate for their level. When I hear, for instance, of teachers hurting their students, I get very angry.

 

[Voley]

Between rounds, does a scantily-clad bloke come on with the round number and flash his kecks at everyone?

In the interests of equality, I think they should.