Boxing...

[alumni]

Tyson was a rogue element. limited intellect but immensly powerful. Virtually uncontrollable. The hangers on and moneymen ensured he stayed that way.
Unfair to say boxing doesn't teach discipline by using Tyson as a generic example.

In all walks of life you get the bullies. Problem for the bullies who think they are 'well hard' and untouchable is they forget one thing. There's always someone harder bound to come along and sort them. You usually see this in rugby - especially when the ref just happens to look the other way at the crucial moment.

 

[LastMagicBean]

Unfair to say boxing doesn't teach discipline by using Tyson as a generic example.

I didn't say it didn't teach discipline. It does.

It just does NOT go hand in hand.

10 scumbag burglars in a room (for example) you can't tell me the discipline in boxing will miraculously cure ALL of them from re-offending.

It's b*llocks to assume it does.

 

[Alarm]

10 "wrong`uns" from day one. Is that what your saying?
Your upping the ante again.

It may well help the majority if they are willing to take onboard the training and ethics.

And its testicles to think otherwise.

 

[LastMagicBean]

It may well help the majority if they are willing to take onboard the training and ethics.

Of course it would The more the merrier

I agree completely.
But you're missing my point.

 

[alumni]

Unfair to say boxing doesn't teach discipline by using Tyson as a generic example.

I didn't say it didn't teach discipline. It does.

It just does NOT go hand in hand.

10 scumbag burglars in a room (for example) you can't tell me the discipline in boxing will miraculously cure ALL of them from re-offending.

It's b*llocks to assume it does.

Hmm, Burglary and boxing. Struggling to see the link personally. Now, Boxing and wanton violence, then yes, Boxing discipline will help.

But you're linking of boxing and burglary as good comparisons - it's b*llocks.

 

[Space cat]

I`ll say again we are carnivores, hence we hunted. We were tribal hence we killed.
I thought this was about Boxing anyway? Not wars?

Quite right. Comparisons with hunting and warfare - which are completely different from each other anyway - only cloud the issue. As I said way back in 2007 --

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.

Hunting is different again, having nothing to do with either hostility or aggression but the need to eat. (Yes, I know you can survive without meat but nature made me an omnivore - and the fact that I pay somebody else to do the killing for me is beside the point.)

So let the boxers continue to bash each other senseless if that's what they want. But one of my original questions remains unanswered; who introduced gloves and why? Whatever the original reason, the effect has been to reduce visible, external injuries while increasing invisible brain damage. (To be fair, this was probably not foreseen at the time.) There's a good argument for going back to bare fists - and if you think that would somehow be 'barbaric' and look 'too much like a real fight', you should stop and ask yourself why. You might find that your attitude to boxing is not as clear cut as you thought.

As for the discipline argument, I'm not sure that I learnt anything very useful from my miserable experience of school boxing. Over time I might have learnt to duck faster. I might also have perfected my instinctive, if not quite legal, back swing. Discipline certainly never came into the equation. With hindsight, the kid who spent his entire first round running around the ring in circles had the right idea.

 

[misterdubya]

I am a fan of boxing. 2 Powerful men fight each other - they have a choice, and earn well out of it.

Here are 2 old fights that might provoke, annnoy, or disgust you - but if you care to look into it, both parties were happy to fight....

Fight 1
Fight 2

 

[LastMagicBean]

But you're linking of boxing and burglary as good comparisons - it's b*llocks.

No, You thinking for one second I'm linking burglary with boxing... That's B*llocks.

 

[alumni]

Now you've done it.
mumsnet on here will be complaining.

 

[misterdubya]

But you're linking of boxing and burglary as good comparisons - it's b*llocks.

No, You thinking for one second I'm linking burglary with boxing... That's B*llocks.

That I understand. Was there a reason for using burgulars as a comparison to boxers?

 

[LastMagicBean]

That I understand. Was there a reason for using burgulars as a comparison to boxers?

I didn't use it as a comparison.
I used it as an example to explain my point about discipline.

As I said before, I'm a boxing fan but I don't think it's entirely accurate to use the word 'discipline' when defending the sport of boxing as a 'given'.

I know what i mean even if no-one else does.

 

[misterdubya]

I agree Magic. Thats for clarifying.

Mr. W.

 

[Djnikon]

Sky is responsible for a huge decline in boxing, especially in this country.
Huge purses being offered to relatively good fighters with massive, 3 or 4 month build ups, that rarely deliver.
Comparison for consideration, Lewis Vs Holyfield 1999, Pay Per View buys for Sky 3.7 million (65% of customer base)
Forward to 2011, Klitschko Vs Haye Pay per view buys for Sky 1.1 million (10% of customer base)

The buy results for Haye Vs Harrison were even worse.

Boxing used to be good, you could see the skill and poise in the fighters, nowadays you seldom get a good toe-to-toe fight.

 

[imamartian]

Sky is responsible for a huge decline in boxing, especially in this country.
Huge purses being offered to relatively good fighters with massive, 3 or 4 month build ups, that rarely deliver.
Comparison for consideration, Lewis Vs Holyfield 1999, Pay Per View buys for Sky 3.7 million (65% of customer base)
Forward to 2011, Klitschko Vs Haye Pay per view buys for Sky 1.1 million (10% of customer base)

The buy results for Haye Vs Harrison were even worse.

Boxing used to be good, you could see the skill and poise in the fighters, nowadays you seldom get a good toe-to-toe fight.

Maybe the rise in popularity of UFC and cage fighting has watered down interest in boxing?

 

[Djnikon]

Sky is responsible for a huge decline in boxing, especially in this country.
Huge purses being offered to relatively good fighters with massive, 3 or 4 month build ups, that rarely deliver.
Comparison for consideration, Lewis Vs Holyfield 1999, Pay Per View buys for Sky 3.7 million (65% of customer base)
Forward to 2011, Klitschko Vs Haye Pay per view buys for Sky 1.1 million (10% of customer base)

The buy results for Haye Vs Harrison were even worse.

Boxing used to be good, you could see the skill and poise in the fighters, nowadays you seldom get a good toe-to-toe fight.

Maybe the rise in popularity of UFC and cage fighting has watered down interest in boxing?

There are no evidence in viewing figures to suggest that UFC has a mainstream following that would cause that kind of impact to boxing viewing figures.
Highest recorded UFC broadcast figures are a shade over 1m at it's peak in 2009, since then highest recorded by ESPN (and formerly Setanta) was 920K for a so-called "show piece" fight featuring a Mr Couture.

So as my claim for Sky causing damage was based around the viewing figures IMAM, then there is no empirical evidence in said figures that suggest that UFC is remotely popular enough to cause that steep a decline in boxing viewing figures.

Sorry, edited to note that my viewing figures are UK only.