billyo said:
Boxing and screen violence are two completely different things. Violent movies are popular if they meet at least two conditions: Firstly, the violence isn't real. This is obvious enough when the enemy is the Romulan Empire but not so easy when the action is closer to home. The producer sometimes has to walk a fine line between realism and fantasy. The other golden rule is that the good guy always wins. You can get away with almost anything in a cartoon but you break this rule at your peril, as the creators of Bugs Bunny quickly found out.
Boxing is real but it isn't violence in the conventional sense of the word. It's a fair fight with rules and a referee (as was a duel) and there's no bad guy. It also illustrates what that sloppily used word 'aggression' is and isn't. Hostility is the desire to clobber somebody, whether by hand or with bombs. Aggression is the desire to be best. Whatever it might look like there's no hostility in a boxing match. They spend 45 minutes trying to knock each other senseless then collapse in a big hug when the final bell goes. Next thing you know they'll be down the pub laughing about it.
To get back to the original post, in my opinion boxing is no more noble than any other sport. I don't watch it and never did (though I was a keen wrestling fan back in the late sixties) - and Hell will freeze over before I ever put on a pair of boxing gloves again!
PS: Oddly enough, I was glued to the screen watching the first three Rocky films. Fantasy boxing perhaps?
