Boxing is a very violent game. There have been reports of somebody getting killed after a professional fight?

Question

Shouldn't boxing then be banned ? If hunting is banned because violence for pleasure can't be justified then what about boxing ? Isn't it pleasure from violence ? I am surprised that americans pride themselves about being christians but love boxing very much!

Answer 1

Although I love boxing and appreciate the game, you have some good questions.

The answers will depend on who you ask.

On the "let it be" side you may find amateur and professional boxers, fight promoters, MMA fighters, and the entertainment-loving public. (I say "may" because some inside the sport are proponents of better safety and higher moral standards in pugilism.)

On the "ban it" side you may find pacifists, priests, neurosurgeons, and doctors. (I say "may" because some of these people box, believe it or not).  

Now me, I belong to the first group, speech slurring, knuckles dragging on the pavement, hitting a heavy bag with a crooked tooth.

I believe that boxing is a great sport, wonderful exercise, and very exciting to watch.

However, I do concede that it is also a very violent and brutal sport.

And, the danger issue is very hard for boxers to face, as you can see from the comments so far. Boxers and those in the business are simply to close too the sport to make very rational  observations.  

That is understandable. The business of boxing needs to sell tickets, and anything that takes away from the entertainment spectacle can lose fans very quickly. Moreover, boxers are used to the sport as it is. They have worked incredibly hard to develop the skills and heart needed to survive in professional or amateur boxing. Therefore, any kind of of change would be extremely difficult for those already practicing the sport.

They might rethink how much the sport has already changed over the years.

Boxers are aware of the risks. Anyone who boxes should know these well. It is widely documented that both the pituitary gland and the brain pay a heavy price. Young athletes rationalize the risks as they have not yet experienced any apparent consequences. The blithe journey down this path may can end suddenly when if there is a realization of some degree of disability. Then society must share this burden, as the medical and social costs must be borne that inevitably accompany an aging fighter. Mohammad Ali's pugilistic Parkinson's syndrome is a textbook case for anyone in denial about boxing's cumulative effect on the brain.  If that is not enough, then a study of the "G-man" Gerald McClellan will reveal the possibility of very acute effects.  

There is really no debating these realities, and indeed, candid conversations on these topics are common in the boxing business, including your question of the morality of "legalized assault", which is one definition of boxing.

Boxers know they are in a very tough sport. They can, they do, indeed they must rationalize the risks. Ring doctors face the oxymoron, their love of the sport and the same time the desire and obligation to protect the fighters....a "do do harm" proponent attending a harm sport.

The morality issue seems easier to deal with than the risk issue. In many cases boxers know their opponents, and may even be close friends. Despite the bravado to sell tickets, the majority of boxers are not violent despots outside the ring. There is a kind of fraternity among boxers that allows them to battle as sportsmen and then leave all behind in the "squared circle" of competition.  

Marciano reportedly cried after beating his hero Lewis. Even Tyson, who has a less than gentlemanly reputation, often spoke with respect about his targets after the shots were thrown. Holyfield, a very vocal Christian, is somehow able, as are many others, to reconcile his violent sport with a religious perspective.  

Boxers face the violence with a disarming calm. Boxing is their world, and they have learned to live there without any malice. Most are fine sportsmen.  

Having said all that, as medical knowledge advances and the dangers to athletes becomes clearer, our society will continue to question both the risk/rewards of boxing and the morality of beating each other senseless. And, there is nothing wrong with considering these questions and recognizing the merits of arguments on both sides.

In the very long term, safety concerns will certainly triumph over the entertainment and business aspects of professional boxing.

Boxing will evolve, as surely as it has through London Prize and Queensberry rules.   As data is collected and medical knowledge improves, perhaps we will see fewer rounds and headgear even in pro boxing, or perhaps an eventual outright ban.

Boxing has had a long history, and there is tremendous support for the sport.

However, we live in an information age, so there is no excuse for ignorance either. Consider the following two articles: first, the British Medical Association speaking for physicians across the entire united kingdom....

Boxing – the BMA’s position

September 2007

(This briefing paper applies to the UK)

Introduction

Since the early 1980s, the BMA has called for a total ban on amateur and professional boxing in the UK. As a first step, there should be a ban on children below the age of consent from boxing.

The BMA’s opposition to boxing is based on medical evidence that reveals the risk not only of acute injury but also of chronic brain damage which is sustained cumulatively in those who survive a career in boxing. It may take many years before boxers and ex-boxers find out they are suffering from brain damage. The BMA believes that there is sufficient evidence for the risks of brain injury associated with boxing for the Secretary of State at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to call for an independent inquiry into these risks.

In 1993 the BMA’s report The Boxing Debate, found no evidence to suggest that boxing was any safer in the 1990s than it was when the BMA began its campaign in the 1980s.

In a new report Boxing, an update from the Board of Science (September 2007) the BMA extends its call for a complete ban on amateur and professional boxing to include mixed martial arts (MMA) competitions.

In 1991, eleven national medical associations Reference 1 added their voice to the opposition to boxing, and expressed their concerns regarding the dangers of boxing believing that ultimately it should cease to exist. The medical associations stated that modern medical technology demonstrates beyond doubt that chronic brain damage is caused by the recurrent blows to the head experienced by all boxers, amateur and professional alike. “As long as it is legal to hit an opponent above the neck, there are no safety precautions which can be taken to prevent this damage.” Reference 2

In 2005 the World Medical Association [WMA] stated that “Boxing is a dangerous sport. Unlike most other sports, its basic intent is to produce bodily harm in the opponent. Boxing can result in death and produce an alarming incidence of chronic brain injury. For this reason, the WMA recommends that boxing be banned.”

Damage caused by boxing

Pro-boxing arguments point out the fact that other sports result in injury, but the major concern over boxing is the brain damage sustained cumulatively rather than in any one recorded instance. In addition to causing some major acute injuries, boxing can lead to chronic damage following repeated trauma. Each time someone is hit on the head they may sustain a minor degree of brain injury. Once damaged, the brain is increasingly susceptible to further damage. Boxing also damages the eyes, ears and nose - in some cases there may be permanent sight or hearing loss.

Doctors are gravely concerned about the risk of serious impairment to those who survive a career in boxing. These are the post-traumatic brain diseases which can result in a progressive failure of brain function. In the last few years fighters have been left wheelchair bound, blind and comatose after going into the ring. All boxers are at risk of acute and chronic brain and eye injuries. Boxing, therefore, cannot be justified on health and safety grounds as an appropriate or legitimate ‘sport’.

Brain injury

Whereas much of the rest of a boxer's body is protected by bone, fat, skin and well developed muscle, the brain is encased only by the skin-covered skull and attached to its interior by fine filaments of blood vessels and nerves. (One of the most useful models to describe the structure is that of a jelly suspended in a box by threads on all sides). When a boxer sustains a direct blow to the head - which has been likened to the effect of being hit by a 12lb padded, wooden mallet travelling at 20mph - the head rotates sharply and then returns to its normal position at a much slower speed. In addition, the different densities of the different parts of the brain also move at different rates and the overall result is to create a "swirling" effect inside the brain. The resulting damage is surface damage from the brain hitting against the inner surface of the skull; tears to the nerve networks; tension between the brain tissue and blood vessels may cause lesions and bleeding; pressure waves created causing differences in blood pressure to various parts of the brain; and (rarely) large intracerebral clots (as sustained by the boxer, Michael Watson in September 1991).

The effect on a boxer includes, grogginess, weakness, paralysis, weakening of limbs, inability to focus, possible loss of consciousness, ie. the "knock-out". The long-term effects are cumulative and may not show immediately after a match. Most signs of damage are more likely to appear towards the end of a boxer's career or even after retirement. Stretched fibres may recover after many weeks but cut nerve fibres do not repair. Ex-boxers are less able to sustain natural ageing of brain or diseases of brain and may be more likely to suffer diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinsonism. Boxers' brains are smaller, surface grey matter is thinner, fluid-containing ventricles enlarged because of t

Answer 2

first of all hunting isn't banned and it won't be banned for violence as hunting is a way people feed there families. secondly boxing is no more violent than any other contact sport. injuries from hockey and football can be just as bad and even worse. thirdly Americans pride ourselves on good boxing skills not b/c boxing is violent but b/c it is a martial art and sport of discipline and athleticism

Answer 3

no should not be banned

What does "someone getting killed" has to do with a boxing match.

I think what you are trying to say is "Somebody passed away due to injuries sustained during a boxing match"

All sports have some degree of danger, horse jockeys, football players, and many more have die due to injury related to the sport.

A boxing match is stopped way before the ref thinks he or she has had enough and thus avoiding permanent damage.

Answer 4

no and boxing is not a game

Answer 5

Last fighter to die after a fight was Pedro Alcazar around 2002.

Answer 6

If 2 consenting adults agree to beat each others brains out for cash, why shouldn't it be allowed in a free society.  Who gets to decide otherwise?  Some bureaucrat?  You?  Boxing is a blood sport, violence for money, but it is a sport.  Many other sports, if not all, have some aspect of violence, and I'm curious as to who draws the line as acceptability?

Most folks who make comments like yours about Christianity and America, as it's been my experience, have very little knowledge of each.

Answer 7

No it shouldnt be banned. It is probably much more likely for someone to die in nascar racing than in boxing. The last fighter I remember dying was Duk Ko Kim a korean fighter who died after his fight with Ray Boom Boom Mancini. I am not sure what year, but it was the early 80's. The fighter knows the risk before entering the ring.