Time To Ban Boxing?

[Thumpalumpacus]

The boxer's children.  The boxer's spouse.  The boxer's friends, acquaintances, associates, relatives who care about his well being and are emotionally affected by adverse effects on health and mental function.  The same is true of people who depend on his unimpaired cognitive function, such as business partners.  To dismiss all of these is to claim no one has any social obligations, which we all bear, regardless of whether we think they're "fair" or "deserved".  Many, far too many, people do behave as if their needs and desires are untethered from their social circle, and we have a word for such people:  selfish.

Superficially, engaging willfully in a high risk activity that seems only to risk personal damage appears to affect only that individual, but that's only true for hermits with no living relatives, no friends, no connections with others.  Everyone else, which comprise 99.999999% of the human population, makes empathetic ripples in the common pond of humanity that cannot be casually disregarded.

Aside from perhaps children, your list is composed of people who can engage or disengage in relations with the boxer in question as they see fit. And even children -- I'm one of them -- can cut ties when need be, when old enough. And if abuse happens before then, there are already laws in place about it.

If one is against restricting abortion because a person has the right to bodily autonomy, or if one supports legalized suicide because a person has the right to bodily autonomy, then supporting the outlawing of boxing because it's hurtful to the boxers is not logically congruent.

[Minimalist]

The boxer's children.  The boxer's spouse.  The boxer's friends, acquaintances, associates, relatives who care about his well being and are emotionally affected by adverse effects on health and mental function.

Then they should tell them to quit if they care so much.... or, are they too attracted to the money?

[airportkid]

... supporting the outlawing of boxing because it's hurtful to the boxers is not logically congruent ...

I wasn't addressing whether boxing should be outlawed, even though that is the OP, I was simply pointing out that mere individual autonomy is a bad argument because none of us have it in any absolute sense.  I personally wouldn't outlaw many things currently outlawed, nor boxing, because the decision to do such things can incorporate wider considerations than narrow personal desire.  But I do advocate including those broad considerations, and not brushing them off because "the only person I'm hurting is me".

[Thumpalumpacus]

I wasn't addressing whether boxing should be outlawed, even though that is the OP, I was simply pointing out that mere individual autonomy is a bad argument because none of us have it in any absolute sense.  I personally wouldn't outlaw many things currently outlawed, nor boxing, because the decision to do such things can incorporate wider considerations than narrow personal desire.  But I do advocate including those broad considerations, and not brushing them off because "the only person I'm hurting is me".

Yeah, I was addressing the thread's author and premise. I want to know why someone who approves legalized suicide (which also inflicts harm upon survivors, by the way) doesn't approve legalized less-than-lethal agreed-upon harm in a boxing ring. It's not internally coherent.

[SYZ]

The boxer's children.  The boxer's spouse.  The boxer's friends, acquaintances, associates, relatives who care about his well being and are emotionally affected by adverse effects on health and mental function.  The same is true of people who depend on his unimpaired cognitive function, such as business partners.  To dismiss all of these is to claim no one has any social obligations, which we all bear, regardless of whether we think they're "fair" or "deserved".  Many, far too many, people do behave as if their needs and desires are untethered from their social circle, and we have a word for such people:  selfish.

Superficially, engaging willfully in a high risk activity that seems only to risk personal damage appears to affect only that individual, but that's only true for hermits with no living relatives, no friends, no connections with others.  Everyone else, which comprise 99.999999% of the human population, makes empathetic ripples in the common pond of humanity that cannot be casually disregarded.

Yes.  And one of the other major boxing related injuries and deaths result is of course the
dollar cost to the taxpayer in the provision of often long-term hospitalisation and/or rehabilitation,
and/or lifelong 24-hour institutional care.  And anyone who claims boxers only hurting
themselves doesn't affect the wider community is really ignoring those obvious social costs.

From ScienceDaily:  "Up to 20% of professional boxers develop neuropsychiatric sequelae.
In addition, boxers are at substantial risk for acute injuries to the head, heart, and skeleton.
Subacute consequences after being knocked out include persistent symptoms  such as
headaches, impaired hearing, nausea, unstable gait, and forgetfulness. The cognitive deficits
after blunt craniocerebral trauma last measurably longer than the symptoms persist in the
individual's subjective perception. Some 10-20% of boxers develop persistent neuropsychiatric
impairments. The repeated cerebral trauma in a long career in boxing may result in boxer's
dementia (dementia pugilistica), which is neurobiologically similar to Alzheimer's disease."

In several other studies, up to 40% of ex-boxers have been found to have symptoms of
chronic brain injury. Most of these boxers have mild symptoms. Recent research has shown
that most professional boxers—even those without symptoms—have some degree of brain damage.

[abaris]

Yes.  And one of the other major boxing related injuries and deaths result is of course the
dollar cost to the taxpayer in the provision of often long-term hospitalisation and/or rehabilitation,
and/or lifelong 24-hour institutional care.  And anyone who claims boxers only hurting
themselves doesn't affect the wider community is really ignoring those obvious social costs.

From ScienceDaily:  "Up to 20% of professional boxers develop neuropsychiatric sequelae.
In addition, boxers are at substantial risk for acute injuries to the head, heart, and skeleton.
Subacute consequences after being knocked out include persistent symptoms  such as
headaches, impaired hearing, nausea, unstable gait, and forgetfulness. The cognitive deficits
after blunt craniocerebral trauma last measurably longer than the symptoms persist in the
individual's subjective perception. Some 10-20% of boxers develop persistent neuropsychiatric
impairments. The repeated cerebral trauma in a long career in boxing may result in boxer's
dementia (dementia pugilistica), which is neurobiologically similar to Alzheimer's disease."

In several other studies, up to 40% of ex-boxers have been found to have symptoms of
chronic brain injury. Most of these boxers have mild symptoms. Recent research has shown
that most professional boxers—even those without symptoms—have some degree of brain damage.

Did you do the same research on other sports? Such as skying, rugby, American Football, Soccer?

They all have, sometimes lasting, injuries in their lives. Apart from the general population, boozing, smoking or eating unhealthy food.

Would you ban all?

[SYZ]

Yeah, I was addressing the thread's author and premise. I want to know why someone who approves legalized suicide (which also inflicts harm upon survivors, by the way) doesn't approve legalized less-than-lethal agreed-upon harm in a boxing ring. It's not internally coherent.

I'm sorry, but to conflate boxing injuries and/or fatalities with suicide, abortion,
or other contact sports—or any/all other sports—is unfounded and irrational.

I'll ask one final question that has to be answered in the confirmatory:

Is boxing the only so-called sport that requires one party to deliberately
injure/disable the other party in order to record a win?

A simple answer please...  yes or no?     

[Minimalist]

I think SYZ is sincere in his objection to boxing as a barbaric sport and it is really hard to dispute his observations about it.  But.  What he is asking is for his opinion to enacted into law and that is a whole other animal.  Right now we have a minority of the country preparing to outlaw abortion, not because it will ever effect them but because they simply do not like it for any number of silly reasons and want to force others to live by their rules.

[Dancefortwo]

Aside from perhaps children, your list is composed of people who can engage or disengage in relations with the boxer in question as they see fit. And even children -- I'm one of them -- can cut ties when need be, when old enough. And if abuse happens before then, there are already laws in place about it.

If one is against restricting abortion because a person has the right to bodily autonomy, or if one supports legalized suicide because a person has the right to bodily autonomy, then supporting the outlawing of boxing because it's hurtful to the boxers is not logically congruent.

I agree with that.  I hate boxing. I think it's barbaric but many sports and activities people engage in which are dangerous.   Heck, even dance can be very hard on the body.   Baryshnikov has had several knee operations from years of jumping.  A few figure skaters have fallen and had concussions when their heads have hit the ice.   Skates have dangerous metal blades on the bottom (about 1/4 inch thick) and speed skating accidents have cut other racers. It's not a pretty sight so I won't post any pictures.

I don't like boxing so I don't watch it.  Simple as that.

[SYZ]

For those who claim that people have the right to be deliberately
injured by other people—as do professional boxers—I present this
case of self-injury that affected the subject's entire future life, that
cost the taxpayers who fund the National Health System (NHS)
thousands of pounds, and deeply affected every one of his family
and friends.

(The NHS is 98.5% funded by British taxpayers.)

Johnathon Goodwin suffered a severed spinal cord, broke his spine, lost a kidney and suffered third degree burns...



The 42-year-old was crushed between the two cars which exploded
into a ball of fire.


They were supposed to release the two suspended cars just as he got
out of the strait jacket and fell onto an airbag. They misjudged it, and
let the cars go prematurely. The crash mat wasn’t moved in time, so
he fell 10 metres onto the hard surface.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm sorry, but to conflate boxing injuries and/or fatalities with suicide, abortion,
or other contact sports—or any/all other sports—is unfounded and irrational.

I'm not conflating anything. I'm pointing out that you're cherry-picking where and how you apply the principle of bodily autonomy.

I'll ask one final question that has to be answered in the confirmatory:

Is boxing the only so-called sport that requires one party to deliberately
injure/disable the other party in order to record a win?

A simple answer please...  yes or no?     

Looks like it to me. Do the boxers consent to being assaulted? That too is a yes or no question.

[Minimalist]

I present this
case of self-injury that affected the subject's entire future life, that
cost the taxpayers who fund the National Health System (NHS)
thousands of pounds, and deeply affected every one of his family
and friends.

But that was an accident.  A pre-planned stunt that did not work out as planned ( and doubtlessly rehearsed) many times.  That's more like an actor firing what he thought was a gun loaded with blanks that kills someone when it turns out some idiot put a live round in it.

[SYZ]

This little grudge match result was inevitable in hindsight.

27-year-old Jake Paul won in unanimous decisions
79-73, 79-73, 80-72 against a pathetic, mentally
challenged 58-year-old man.

Tyson was trying to overcome years of abuse, after
far too many drugs and far too much ­drinking, as
well as recent ­troubling issues with a ­bleeding ­stomach
ulcer and acute sciatica. Two years ago he was in such
pain that he had to be pushed around in a ­wheelchair.

It was plain that any vague hope of Tyson being able
to summon his once trademark ­ferocity belonged to a
forlorn fantasy.

Booing resounded in the last two rounds as if the crowd
finally accepted the bitter truth that this had never been
a real fight. People headed for the exits even before the
predictable scorecards were read out.

Seeing Tyson interviewed yesterday, it was made clear—by
his mumbled, slurred speech and slow responses to questions
that his multiple past concussions had finally caught up with
him.

The question has to be asked:    Did Tyson
not care if Paul—literally—caused his death?

[jerry mcmasters]

I think for Tyson, life is not just a thing to be endured and extended as long as possible, it is a thing to be lived to the fullest. Not uncommon in participants of many high adrenaline risky sports. The "juice" of the attention and excitement and challenge..and a shit ton of money...made it worthwhile to him, though one punch could have taken years off his mental health or life. I didn't see it but I was worried Paul would land at least one of those kind of blows. Paul is an ox of a dude. I certainly hope it was rigged and neither one was really trying to kill the other.

[Rhythmcs]

I did see it. Paul was worried Tyson would land a blow so he played it smart and stayed out long until the very end. Tyson had hoped to end it quick, and actually won the first two rounds. Eventually the fact that he's a old caught up to him, but I sure as shit wouldn't want to fight 58 year old Tyson. He had moments where he'd start bouncing and weaving or charging in and every time it looked like Iron Mike from when I was a kid, Paul just wasn't dumb enough to stand there and let himself get stamped. I think they both had a hell of a time.

I don't get the public health angle. There aren't alot of boxers, and plenty of people do things far more dangerous than boxing. Hell, if we were going to use the tyson event as a case example I think the other main event fight that night is was more apt. Serranos eyelid was hanging by a thread for a couple rounds. Surprised they didn't stop it.

[SYZ]

...I don't get the public health angle.  There aren't alot of boxers, and plenty of people do things far more dangerous than boxing.  Hell, if we were going to use the tyson event as a case example I think the other main event fight that night is was more apt.  Serranos eyelid was hanging by a thread for a couple rounds.  Surprised they didn't stop it.

Personally, I didn't—and wouldn't—watch any sort
of arranged, commercially-driven fight between two
(allegedly) grown men, each with a double-digit IQ.

I'm a pacifist, and have always been one.  Fight
when necessary to protect yourself or family, but
don't sink to the level of trying, deliberately, to hurt
another individual.  Any of these boxers' punches
would've resulted in a criminal charge of assault
had they occurred on the street outside the stadium.

The purported "sport" of boxing is the only such sport
whereby the purposeful intent of each boxer is to
wantonly cause a concussion to his or her opponent
in order to win.

Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is a brain
condition linked to repeated head injuries and blows
to the head. It slowly gets worse over time and leads
to dementia by causing the death of nerve cells in
the brain.

One has to only see Tyson interviewed to see a classic
example of CTE.  And who can forget Cassius Clay, who
ended up as a drooling, incoherent shell of a human being
at age 74 years?  At the end of his career Clay had taken
an estimated 200,000 hits.    QED.

[Cavebear]

I think for Tyson, life is not just a thing to be endured and extended as long as possible, it is a thing to be lived to the fullest.  Not uncommon in participants of many high adrenaline risky sports.  The "juice" of the attention and excitement and challenge..and a shit ton of money...made it worthwhile to him, though one punch could have taken years off his mental health or life.  I didn't see it but I was worried Paul would land at least one of those kind of blows.  Paul is an ox of a dude.  I certainly hope it was rigged and neither one was really trying to kill the other.

Boxing is a brutal sport. Granted, it takes skill, but that skill is not one I admire much. Sort of like jousting. I can't admire a skill based on trying to beat another person nearly to death. Having said that, I loved the 'Rocky' movies. But that was all acting... And I am re-considering that.

[Thumpalumpacus]

...I don't get the public health angle.  There aren't alot of boxers, and plenty of people do things far more dangerous than boxing.  Hell, if we were going to use the tyson event as a case example I think the other main event fight that night is was more apt.  Serranos eyelid was hanging by a thread for a couple rounds.  Surprised they didn't stop it.

Personally, I didn't—and wouldn't—watch any sort
of arranged, commercially-driven fight between two
(allegedly) grown men, each with a double-digit IQ.

I'm a pacifist, and have always been one.  Fight
when necessary to protect yourself or family, but
don't sink to the level of trying, deliberately, to hurt
another individual.  Any of these boxers' punches
would've resulted in a criminal charge of assault
had they occurred on the street outside the stadium.

The purported "sport" of boxing is the only such sport
whereby the purposeful intent of each boxer is to
wantonly cause a concussion to his or her opponent
in order to win.

Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is a brain
condition linked to repeated head injuries and blows
to the head. It slowly gets worse over time and leads
to dementia by causing the death of nerve cells in
the brain.

One has to only see Tyson interviewed to see a classic
example of CTE.  And who can forget Cassius Clay, who
ended up as a drooling, incoherent shell of a human being
at age 74 years?  At the end of his career Clay had taken
an estimated 200,000 hits.    QED.

If that's what they chose to do, how does it affect you?

[SYZ]

Personally, I didn't—and wouldn't—watch any sort
of arranged, commercially-driven fight between two
(allegedly) grown men, each with a double-digit IQ.

            [...]

And who can forget Cassius Clay, who ended up as a
drooling, incoherent shell of a human being at age
74 years?  At the end of his career Clay had taken an
estimated 200,000 hits.    QED.

If that's what they chose to do, how does it affect you?

Obviously it doesn't affect me personally in any way
at all, but that shouldn't, and won't stop me from
criticising what I consider nothing more than barbaric
acts of violence with the potential for life threatening
injury.   Boxing is NOT a sport.

It also creates entirely the wrong impression amongst
impressible, youthful males that often perceive physical
violence as a legitimate way to settle disputes.  Tyson
and his ilk are looked up to as some sort of gladiatorial
heroes, even—disturbingly—by some allegedly mature
adults.

What other sport has deliberately injuring and/or killing
one's opponent as the principal aim of contesting something?
Since 2000, there have been 57 boxers who've died as a
direct result of injury.  Do you think that's acceptable to
any modern altruistic, humanitarian society?

(How many cricketers, tennis players, golfers, footballers,
hockey players, or ballplayers have died as a result of their
sporting involvement in that period?)

This year, as almost every year, there have been calls for a complete ban on boxing.
Two fighters, Ardi Ndembo and Sherif Lawal, have died as a result of the sport since
April, with more than twenty meeting the same end in the last decade alone.

Steve Bunce, BBC’s ‘voice of boxing’, seemed in a recent interview to encapsulate
the central dilemma: ‘I’ve been in waiting rooms, I’ve been there when doctors have
told loved ones that their son, husband and father has died. Nobody in their right mind
is going to defend that.’

  —The UK Spectator, 16 November 2024.

[Rhythmcs]

Pretty much every contact sport has that in common. I think that alot of things you, I, or the housecat find abhorrent have a place in modern altruistic humanitarian societies (should you or I ever find ourselves in one of those, lol).

[Thumpalumpacus]

If that's what they chose to do, how does it affect you?

Obviously it doesn't affect me personally in any way
at all, but that shouldn't, and won't stop me from
criticising what I consider nothing more than barbaric
acts of violence with the potential for life threatening
injury.   Boxing is NOT a sport.

It also creates entirely the wrong impression amongst
impressible, youthful males that often perceive physical
violence as a legitimate way to settle disputes.  Tyson
and his ilk are looked up to as some sort of gladiatorial
heroes, even—disturbingly—by some allegedly mature
adults.

What other sport has deliberately injuring and/or killing
one's opponent as the principal aim of contesting something?
Since 2000, there have been 57 boxers who've died as a
direct result of injury.  Do you think that's acceptable to
any modern altruistic, humanitarian society?

(How many cricketers, tennis players, golfers, footballers,
hockey players, or ballplayers have died as a result of their
sporting involvement in that period?)

This year, as almost every year, there have been calls for a complete ban on boxing.
Two fighters, Ardi Ndembo and Sherif Lawal, have died as a result of the sport since
April, with more than twenty meeting the same end in the last decade alone.

Steve Bunce, BBC’s ‘voice of boxing’, seemed in a recent interview to encapsulate
the central dilemma: ‘I’ve been in waiting rooms, I’ve been there when doctors have
told loved ones that their son, husband and father has died. Nobody in their right mind
is going to defend that.’

  —The UK Spectator, 16 November 2024.

Sure, it's stupid. I'm not big on saving most people from themselves, though.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Obviously it doesn't affect me personally in any way
at all, but that shouldn't, and won't stop me from
criticising what I consider nothing more than barbaric
acts of violence with the potential for life threatening
injury.   Boxing is NOT a sport.

It also creates entirely the wrong impression amongst
impressible, youthful males that often perceive physical
violence as a legitimate way to settle disputes.  Tyson
and his ilk are looked up to as some sort of gladiatorial
heroes, even—disturbingly—by some allegedly mature
adults.

What other sport has deliberately injuring and/or killing
one's opponent as the principal aim of contesting something?
Since 2000, there have been 57 boxers who've died as a
direct result of injury.  Do you think that's acceptable to
any modern altruistic, humanitarian society?

(How many cricketers, tennis players, golfers, footballers,
hockey players, or ballplayers have died as a result of their
sporting involvement in that period?)



  —The UK Spectator, 16 November 2024.

Sure, it's stupid. I'm not big on saving most people from themselves, though.

Especially when (and only if) all parties have given consent.

[Rhythmcs]

Underground boxing rings would likely be worse for boxers, and consent would certainly not be a requirement then.