Asymmetrical Information

We're not allowed to set felines on fire?

Maybe just a little bit?

Please?

Matt

Not a big boxing fan, but as far as I know, no one is being fo_ed to parti_ipate. In my opinion, barbarism is about for_ing people to a_t against their will, not simply the presen_e of violen_e. Thus boxing is an extreme preferen_e involving violen_e, but banning boxing would be barbari_.

Hey, you guys are right! The spam blo_ker doesn't like the third letter of the alphabet. I even had to use an email address of .om. Hilarious.

Boxing is the seed of all sport. The will to win.

Hand to hand fighting is philosophi-ally behind nearly every -ompetitive sport.

At it's best it's the most thrilling spe-tator sport, at it's worst it's -orrupt and brutally effi-ient. More than Baseball it refle-ts the dark and light of Ameri-a and is my favorite sport.

Funny, when I think barbarism, I think about UK football fans (or Oakland Raiders fans, for that matter). I wonder how Mark O'Hare feels about the degree of ta_it support those folks get.

Judson is right -- Boxing is simply the purest form of _ompetition; of getting the upper hand against your opponent, so to speak. It's mu_h more about skill, enduran_e, training and strategy than in trying to beat someone's brains in. Anyone who boxes, even re_reationally, will tell you that -- and I do, so I am.

And some sports are more dangerous than others. Go figure.

(oh, and the gloves ARE there for the prote_tion of your opponent -- that's why you are required to wear thi_ker goves when sparring or fighting.)

((and what's up with this _ thing??))

The nise thing is that people like Kleiman will eventually get so refined that they konsider sex to be unsivilized, and will stop reprodusing and thus bothering the rest of us.

Can I post this?

I'm a boxer. I train three times a week at an amateur boxing gym across on the other side of my city. I've been going there for a little over a year.

Boxing is a hard and tough sport. If go boxing, you have to expect to be hit, and hit often. You'll also go through a lot of extremely demanding fitness training, which actually hurts more than the punches. It's a lot of work, and requires a lot of commitment.

It's also one of the best forms of self-defence training you can find. Even a mediocre boxer is someone you do not want to mess with. This is because boxing, unlike most martial arts as they are taught in the West, teaches you to deal with getting hit. If you think you can learn to fight without getting hit (the part that Mark Kleinman seems to have a problem with), you're kidding yourself. Boxing training also makes you a lot stronger, a lot faster, and holds you to a very high level of fitness. A lot of people, including me, find it satisfying and very exciting as well.

Of course, the company I see at the boxing gym is quite different from what you'll find on the weblogs. There are, for instance, very few people like Mark Kleinman delivering long lectures on how 'barbaric' and 'disgusting' I am for participating in a sport which offends his delicate sensibilities.

Personally, I don't think that's much of a sacrifice.

I don't know why you think martial arts doesn't prepare you for getting hit. We do more ab work than I ever did boxing, and that's considerable.

I must take this opportunity to defend the Manly Art of Self Defense.

First, I must say that, speaking from personal experience, boxing is a great "civilizer". For many young men of difficult circumstance, including, once upon a time, myself, internalized rage is an aspect of every day life. But instead of discovering drugs or criminality as an outlet, I discovered boxing. It gave me discipline, self respect, a sense of confidence, and a feeling of accomplishment based firmly upon my own hard work. Eventually, I was able to come to grips with my personal demons. I graduated from Tufts University, and have a successful career and a great family. At age 36, I no longer box competitively, but I still work out hard to stay fit.

Which brings me to point number two. Boxing is HARD WORK. It is the most physically demanding of any sport. To really succeed, you need the speed of a sprinter, the stamina of a marathon runner, the strength of a weightlifter, the toughness of a rugby player, and the agility of a gymnast. Add to that mix the strategic thinking of a chess master and the reflexes of a mongoose, and you've got yourself a boxer. The training is relentless. It is physcially and mentally demanding in ways that I can't even express in words - you just have to do it to understand. And, in our increasingly obese country, if more people got involved with boxing, there'd be a lot fewer fatso's walking around.

Point three - LIFE IS NOT ALL PEACHES AND CREAM, BUDDY. There is a place in this world, a revered place, for people who are physically and mentally tough. It strikes at something deep in the human soul to see two men, in prime physical condition, fight to the finish. Its a part of human nature that predates our humanity. And it calls to the brave and powerful part of you that makes you stand up nose-to-nose with the bully and say "If you want to get to him, you're going to have to get past ME." And mean it.

My last point is not really an argument at all, more of an expression of a personal attitude. And, to be honest and fair, its not right for me to judge other people, especially people who I don't know. That being said, no one has ever accused me of being perfect. So, now I must add that my impression of men who don't like boxing has always been that they are cowards. They denigrate it because it points right at an imortant part of them, and finds them wanting. They know that they would never have the guts to step into the ring against another man, and so they hide behind a facade of criticism. "I would NEVER fight anyone - not because I'm SCARED, but because its WRONG." Well, I'm sorry, but its not wrong, and you are scared. And, because you are a coward, I hold you in contempt, and sincerely believe that you are less of a human being, and less of a man, than I am.

I know. Not nice. My wife is trying to help me get over this psychological hump before we have any boys.

Kyeikki,

Apparently, you have taken to many blows to your delicate brain. Your spelling and grammar are perfect, and your argument is sound. Commenters on blogs usually don't make that kind of effort. Have you been screened for Parkinson's? I hear you can get it, just like Ali did, from boxing. You know, just like Magic got HIV from playing basketball and kissing Isiah Thomas on the cheek.

People: It is Mike O'Hare's post at Kleiman's blog. Perhaps you've taken too many manly poundings in the head to be able to notice.

Kleiman himself advocated going back to bare knuckles, which you pansies wouldn't care for, I'm sure.

Now I have to go burn some witches, which you idiots probably think is barbaric but I think is a great tradition and important for preserving our souls.

Heh. :)

Spongeworthy - yes, you're right, some types of martial arts training do teach you to deal with getting hit. There are a lot of MA schools in America that don't, though, especially the 'belt factory' types. This can be very dangerous, because it makes students overestimate their own abilities. It's all too easy to start thinking you're invincible when no-one's trying to hit you back!

Scott: Whoops, my bad. Read Mark Kleiman at the top of the post and didn't see the Michael O'Hare signature. Clearly, I've taken so many 'manly poundings in the head' that my eyesight's going...

Muhammad Ali, whose brain-damaged wreckage...

Kleiman should come up with a better example of a boxer with brain damage. Ali has Parkinson's Disease, which may or may not have anything to do with his boxing career, and does not involve the cognitive impairment usually meant by 'brain damage.' For more info:

http://www.parkinson.org/site/pp.asp?c=9dJFJLPwB&b=164717

Kyekeikki: I always liked Jeet Kune Do's attitude, take what works from each and leave the rest.

Boxing? No better way to learn how to punch, period. You want to learn to punch, and to protect your face & body with your arms, and good footwork for fighting standing up, you talk to a boxer.

Problem is that you'll never see a boxer protecting his groin, and boxing won't teach you to wrestle or to kick. Also, LAPD estimates that 97% of fights end up on the ground...so you'll need to know how to wrestle, too. Gracie Jiu Jitsu is great for that, Muy Thai is great for kicking. A lot of strengths and weaknesses out there in every discipline. I only really know enough to keep myself safe in a situation where I'm fighting somebody not trained, and I'll admit that, but I've no shame in running. Better to tie 0-0 than to win 5-4, as my JKD instructor used to say of knife fights.

I had a total of 8 hours of self-defense training at Parris Island. That doesn't count pugil sticks, which simulate using a bayonet on a rifle.

I place my trust in a .45.

Now I have to go burn some witches, which you idiots probably think is barbaric but I think is a great tradition and important for preserving our souls.

Ah, the old "all or nothing" argument. I'll never understand why people think this kind of "reasoning" makes even a modicum of sense.

I don't think Kleiman is condemning boxers. He's condemning the people who pay money that incentivize people to enter the sport, as well as those who raise interest in the sport to cause others to pay money.

Man, how dare people do what they want for a living and pay to see what they want to watch! GAH, the NERVE of some folks!

Rex: Yes, kung fu doesn't stop bullets.

Okay, I've got a question for the boxers/boxing fans: what do you do about being hit in the head? When you're an amateur, is it a big deal? How about being a professional? Is there an advantage in being able to 'take a punch' in the head? Is that training something you wish to encourage on a broad scale? Finally, is there non-anecdotal medical-neurological-type data on what happens to boxers long term?

I'm a big fan of mixed martial arts, so it's not like I'm squeamish about two men fighting. I am ignorant enough that I'm going to ask questions; I hope that people understand that I'm not being purposefully naive.

I'd be rather curious to see Mr. O'Hare's take on the increased play of B&D in our culture over the last 20 years or so. It strikes me, being ignorant of either boxing or B&D, that the major difference (well other than sexual) is that boxing doesn't involve use of any instruments. Oddly, though many of the people who seek to stigmitize boxing treat the latter as perfectly acceptable and outside the boundaries of society to stigmatize. So, my only question is, is boxing okay if the boxers wear little rubber outfits?

Bill: It strikes me, being ignorant of either boxing or B&D, that the major difference (well other than sexual) is that boxing doesn't involve use of any instruments. Oddly, though many of the people who seek to stigmitize boxing treat the latter as perfectly acceptable and outside the boundaries of society to stigmatize. So, my only question is, is boxing okay if the boxers wear little rubber outfits?

Speaking of people that took too many hits in the head...

Well, let's play compare and contrast, shall we?

- B&D is vastly less violent, in almost all cases. There have been isolated incidents of people getting hurt and yes, even dying, and that's almost always in incident of either extreme inexperience and/or drug use.

- B&D is not a competitive sport. Not that competition (or sports, for that matter) are bad; it is just a notable difference between the two that Bill apparently missed.

- The goals of boxing and sexual play are slightly different.

- People playing sex games make up their own rules; boxing involves highly ritualized violence; sex games don't need to have any violence at all.

- Having sex, however you do it doesn't cause brain damage as a normal and predictable outcome.

- Last I checked, boxers don't tie each other up and titillate each other. But hey, I'm not a boxing fan; maybe I'm missing the good parts.

What Bill is getting at; I have no idea.

If he's attempting to say that controlled consensual violence is OK, then I agree. O'Hare agrees in the piece, too - he compares boxing to smoking.

So... what was the point of comparing boxing to sex again?

Watching one guy beat the hell out of another guy who is just barely standing and can't hit back is hard for me to enjoy. Contact sports, including a fair fight that either ends in a KO or a decision, can be entertaining and even exciting. It isn't a black/white situation, but most violent sports involve some degree of savagery. Yet, properly directed savagery can be gratifying--watching Mike Tyson get his ass handed to him or watching a group of Taliban's get nailed can be an uplifting experience. The problem with a boxing ban is that it won't stop there, regardless of whether boxing is your cup of tea. There are those who would ban football and even some who would outlaw competitive sports entirely.

OTOH, we wouldn't allow gladiatoral contests to the death or even maiming (although internal maiming seems to be acceptable). Today, the envelope is being pushed outward, not inward. A boxing ban is not on the realistic horizon, but those, myself included, who are ok with violent, contact sports need to figure out where--and under what clear rationale--the line will be drawn.

Getting hit in the head is not a very big deal. I've boxed and done Tae Kwon Do and have been punched (and kicked) in the head many times.

In the movies, when a martial artist kicks someone in the head, the person will collapse into unconsciousness instantly. In reality, they don't. Here is an illustration of this point. One day in college, I was teaching some of the green belts how to do jump spinning hook kicks. These were big guys -- 6', 180 lbs. -- in excellent physical condition. Since they were novice martial artists, they could perform the kick, and had tremendous power, but had no control over where thier kick landed.

I was holding up a target in my right hand for the students to kick. One of them, a really big weightlifter, jumped too far forward, missed the target and kicked me right in the head at full power.

Nothing happened. I didn't even get knocked down. I just shook my head and was fine. Though I'd just been hit with one of those fancy kicks, at full force, I was fine. At the time I was in really good condition and think this had something to do with it.

This is just one example of many. I've had my nose broken two or three times -- no big deal. Black eyes, loose teeth -- I've noticed no neurological impairment. Granted, you don't take shots like this all the time. I try very hard to protect my head and almost always wear headgear. But no matter what percautions you take, you are going to get injured every so often -- I broke my fingers quite frequently -- and you just have to get used to it.

I too am a big boxing fan but find the public spectacle of boxing revolting. Boxers and martial arts people enjoy boxing becuase it is an art, but most of the drunken fans just want to see two guys beat the crap out of one another. That part does bother me.

Boy, =0=, since I took too many hits to the head, I sure am lucky I got a smart guy (or woman) like you to fill me in on all this stuff. I'm just a simple number cruncher, so maybe a sophisticated type like you can explain to me:

B&D is vastly less violent, in almost all cases. There have been isolated incidents of people getting hurt and yes, even dying, and that's almost always in incident of either extreme inexperience and/or drug use.

Wow! You mean people get killed from it? If that were to happen in boxing...boy, there'd be major calls for its ban. I guess that inexperience or drug use makes it a whole different story though. Maybe they should require a ref. It seems to work for boxing.

-B&D is not a competitive sport. Not that competition (or sports, for that matter) are bad; it is just a notable difference between the two that Bill apparently missed.
* The goals of boxing and sexual play are slightly different.

Oh! I get it. Violence for sex play is okay, but but not violence for competition. Okay, now that makes...wait...Why? I mean is sexual titillation a better thing than competition? If so...uhh...why? Remember you're going to have to help me out here. I'm just a simple number cruncher who took too many shots to the head.

- People playing sex games make up their own rules; boxing involves highly ritualized violence; sex games don't need to have any violence at all.

So you're saying that the fact that boxing is structured makes it bad. Why's that? I mean it seems to me that if they didn't structure it somebody could get hurt real bad. I guess that's all the more reason to put a ref in there. Might stop some of those people from dyin' you were talking about.

- Having sex, however you do it doesn't cause brain damage as a normal and predictable outcome.

Yeah, like you said, it can get you killed. But, hey, at least it ain't brain damage.

If he's attempting to say that controlled consensual violence is OK, then I agree. O'Hare agrees in the piece, too

Wait, you're gonna have to bear with me. I ain't real smart like you. I thought what said was:

Boxing should have its lights put out by social disgrace, the way we taught each other that lighting a cigarette in someone else’s house or a bus is uncivilized and disgusting. The next time you think you want to watch a fight, think about your kids watching you at the moment the blood sprays and the brain slaps the inside of the skull. The next time you walk into a water-cooler conversation on the fine points of this sick behavior, try walking away the way you’d leave a conversation about setting cats on fire.

Boy, I'm glad to know he thinks boxing is okay. To a palooka like me it sure sounds like he's saying that it ain't okay, even if it should be allowed. Thanks for setting me straight on that one. I mean don't get me wrong here, what anybody wants to do in their own homes is up to them. It's just, having taken too many shots to the head and all, I don't get why violence for sport is bad, but violence for sex is somehow...yunno...trendy.

but most of the drunken fans just want to see two guys beat the crap out of one another. That part does bother me.

Which brings up another point, and one that Mr. O'Hare totally overlooks (or manipulates to try and make his case; take your pick).

Most fights are not the Rocky-esque bloodfests that he says they are. In fact, the overwhelming majority of them end with two men sweaty, tired, and perhaps a little bruised; or, they're cut short because the ref (or other member of the fighter's entourage who is there to look out for his well-being) calls the fight in the interest of safety. To say that a Hollywood portrayal of a sport is an honest or practical one is not only inaccurate, it's disingenuous.

Bottom line, the goal in boxing is not to beat the other guy into a pulp, any more than the goal of a NASCAR race is to ram the other car as hard as you can and cause a fiery wreck. Admittedly, the tension and potential for sensational outcomes makes each of these events more exciting, but far, far more often than not, anyone who wants to see a man beaten within an inch of his life or a spectacular crash is going to go home disappointed.

To say that such things as bloodlust are the only reason these sports draw fans is absurd; I mean, if it were true, we'd have a lot of disappointed patrons out there, and a lot of empty seats.

So please explain what the attraction is, Aaron.

I happen to think that over time, humanity is learning, and getting "better." I think we have a long way to go, but I believe in progress. Given this belief, I can't imagine how in 1,000 years, let's say (if we're still around then), that we'd still have a violent sport like boxing and people would be arguing for its merit. I think we'll look at it in the way we now look at witch hunts, the Inquisition, bleeding patients, and etc., as the ignorant and harmful thing it is.

My god, people, we're talking about people hitting each other in the head. It's dumb. Really stupid. In my humble opinion, of course.

I think we'll look at it in the way we now look at witch hunts, the Inquisition, bleeding patients, and etc., as the ignorant and harmful thing it is.

Oh, for god's sake, how can you possibly equate sinister, unlawful persecution, torture and death with a legitimate sport?

Obviously, nothing anyone has said here resonates with you, and most have offered up far better justifications and first-hand accounts of the merits of boxing than I ever could. I suggest you re-read those, and then read The Tao of Muhammad Ali by Davis Miller. If that doesn't work, then maybe you're just not meant to understand it.

Before this verbal slugfest runs out of steam, I will try to tickle it back to life. Those who oppose boxing, on the ground that boxers (who are volunteers) sometimes suffer serious injury and death, exhibit the same kind of paternalism that has brought us Social Security, affirmative action, and McCain-Feingold -- to name but three of the many egregious manifestations of the regulatory-welfare state. Opposition to boxing strikes me as a knee-jerk Leftist position, on a par with gun confiscation and government-enforced smoking bans in private establishments. If you don't like boxing, don't watch it. If you don't like guns, don't own one (and don't allow your bodyguard to own one). If you don't like smoking, don't go to bars. But quit telling other people how to live their lives.

What is interesting about Scott's question is not so much the question itself, but the way in which it is asked. You see, he's not really interested in understanding the attraction of boxing to its participants and aficianados.
No, he's asking you to JUSTIFY it to him.
Well Scott, nobody has to justify it to you. In the land where we are all free to pursue happiness as we each see it, you have your right to sit looking surly on the sidelines. I'm sure I disagree with some of the things you like, but I'm happy that you like them.

What is interesting about Scott's question is not so much the question itself, but the way in which it is asked. You see, he's not really interested in understanding the attraction of boxing to its participants and aficianados.
No, he's asking you to JUSTIFY it to him.

Bingo -- you've just articulated something I've never quite put my finger on. Thank you, gazzer.

Snarkiness aside, I've got to agree. Consider Scott's comment:

I happen to think that over time, humanity is learning, and getting "better."...Given this belief, I can't imagine how in 1,000 years, ...that we'd still have a violent sport like boxing

It not only presumes the rightness of Scott's position, but his own moral and intellectual superiority. He's (sniff, sniff) more evolved than you barbarians who like boxing.

At the end of the day, aggressiveness is part of the masculine nature. There's really nothing particularly "evolved" about trying to suppress that nature. On the other hand, channeling that nature into useful outlets is why we scale mountains, why we buid bridges, why we seek out the origins of space and time, and, yes, why we practice boxing and the other martial arts. As even O'Hare seemed to acknowledge, there are few activities that more tightly integrate physical and mental activity.

I think we'll look at it in the way we now look at witch hunts, the Inquisition, bleeding patients, and etc., as the ignorant and harmful thing it is.

That is, frankly, severe-blow-to-the-head stupid.

Those things are considered backward these days because they were based on superstition or other incorrect beliefs about some kind of factual truth, not a normative principle like "It's acceptable for a sport to involve people trying to hit each other."

How in God's name can you analogize that to boxing?

Rex: Yes, kung fu doesn't stop bullets.

Not at a distance, sure. That distance needs to be sufficient, though; I was told by the son of a retired US Army high-up that the army performed combat tests with trained soldiers, whereby one had a paintball pistol and the other had a rubber knife, and the knife-slinger won every time at distances up to 25 feet.

Moreover at close-range, anyone with decent aikido training (some principles of which are taught in Jiu Jitsu, Hopkido, and others) will quickly have the armed man on his knees with a broken finger. It is surprisingly hard to hold onto a gun if the other person knows how to twist it; most people (a) just don't know how and (b) become pathetically submissive at the sight of one.

Generally speaking a gun may be an excellent self-defense device, but at the end of the day it is still only a tool of finite capabilities.

Legitimate outlets for aggression, sports that not only allow (primarily) boys and men to use what God give 'em but also teach them how to do it (mostly) safely and refine the urges so as to teach difficult lessons like strategy and perseverence - these I support, even if they don't appeal to me personally. I guess boxing, as other professional sports, can get somewhat twisted at the highest levels, when winning equates to bundles of cash rather than just the satisfaction of knowing you competed and overcame. Incentives work.

Society(TM) already successfully "shuns" boxers as well as it "shuns" NASCAR participants and more successfully than it "shuns" smokers, if the continuing cinematic portrayal of smoking as kinda cool is any indication; it's just another red state/blue state thing already. (For that matter, are there any professional sports figures who have the respect of Big Blue Manhattan, in the sense that Martin Sheen or Dave Matthews does, for instance?)

I consider that I have it a lot easier than mothers of boys a hundred years ago, when boxing would've been something the kids did spontaneously, like dodgeball when I was a kid or whatever they do today; if my sons or daughter want to learn to box, chances are very good they'll have to do it in a supervised setting, and I'll support them in their interest.

BTW, I know my subject/verb construction in the last sentence was wrong, but "if my sons or daughter wants... she'll have to..." was too much like, "To go where no man has gone before, boldly," and to say "if my daughter or sons want..." gives a false impression of the likelihood of the occurrence. Whatever.

Aaron, all-

People like me, who box and practice martial arts, apprecite the sport for its grace and skill. We can which of the two contenstants in the ring is the better boxer at a glance, long before the 15th round or a knockout. We admire footwork, speed, and conditioning. I can watch boxing all day.

But people who actually know how to box represent a vanishingly small percentage of the people who watch boxing on TV. Probably 95% of people watching a typical PPV match know absolutely nothing about boxing and have never stepped into the ring in thier entire lives.

Think of the guys at the frat house, or at the local sports bar, who show up to watch the Tyson fight. Why do they do it?

Personally, I think the explanation is twofold. First, a lot of them like to see a couple of guys beat the snot out of one another. To me, this is wrong. It's no different than watching Christians fight lions in the arena. There is something primtive, uncivilized, and sadistic about wanting to see men spill blood and suffer pain for no reason other than entertainemnt.

Second, a lot of guys think of the big fight as a male bonding ritual. They show up to watch it with their buddies becuase they think it is something that guys are supposed to do. This is okay, if a little pathetic.

Only 5% of the spectators have experiene with boxing and actually know what is going on.

I don't think boxing should be banned, but I do think there is something unseemly about the sport in its current form. It does cater to people's ignoble instincts.

Although I am a martial artist (a black belt, for what it is worth) I have never watched those Ultimate Fighting Championships for this very reason. To me, they represent an even more extreme example of catering to bloodlust. While I would be very, very interested to see martial arts practiced in a semi-realistic setting, and have alwyas been curious about things like Gracie ju-jitsu and whether it is really as good as it supposed to be, I am disgusted by everything else about the UFC. The contestants fight in a cage, like animals. The fighters give inteviews in which they express their love of inflicting pain on their opponents. The promoters are always playing up the "illegal" and "banned in 48 states" angle.

This isn't right. Personally, I've never been all that interested in Eastern philosophy. To me, the martial arts are about punching and kicking, not about harnessing the power of qi, a mind still as a pool of water, and all that stuff. But I have always taken seriously the idea that they are to be used for defense only. Martial arts aren't about dominating others with your power and skill, or about training in newer and better ways to inflict pain on others. The very idea of them being used in that way is appalling. They are about self-defense and, when practiced regularly, self-improvement.

Anyway, that's one POV.

anony:

Yeah, at close ranges the best bet is to rush and disarm while staying out of the muzzle line. Which isn't that hard if you can get a quick hold and twist the gun hand. You can disarm a knife the same way, but a guy with a knife might cut you while flailing, the gun will likely be held steady in hopes of shooting you. Still probably pretty dangerous, but better than certainly getting shot.

We can which of the two contenstants in the ring is the better boxer at a glance, long before the 15th round or a knockout. We admire footwork, speed, and conditioning. I can watch boxing all day.

Are you sure you box or even watch it regularly? There hasn't been a fifteen rounder since sometime in the 1980's.

Wow! You mean people get killed from it? If that were to happen in boxing...boy, there'd be major calls for its ban. I guess that inexperience or drug use makes it a whole different story though. Maybe they should require a ref. It seems to work for boxing.

Too late. (For the record, it occurs far less frequently than in other sports, but don't pretend it doesn't happen.)

Oh! I get it. Violence for sex play is okay, but but not violence for competition. Okay, now that makes...wait...Why? I mean is sexual titillation a better thing than competition? If so...uhh...why? Remember you're going to have to help me out here. I'm just a simple number cruncher who took too many shots to the head.

Um, I would suggest actually reading what was written. You know, that part where I said: Not that competition (or sports, for that matter) are bad.

So you're saying that the fact that boxing is structured makes it bad. Why's that? I mean it seems to me that if they didn't structure it somebody could get hurt real bad. I guess that's all the more reason to put a ref in there. Might stop some of those people from dyin' you were talking about.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Feel free to completely misapprehend the notion of compare and contrast; that's your right. However, don't expect reasonable people to want to talk to you.

Yeah, like you said, it can get you killed. But, hey, at least it ain't brain damage.

I heart blog comments, where people willfully misunderstand things. It is sort of like performance art, except even less interesting.

Me: If he's attempting to say that controlled consensual violence is OK, then I agree. O'Hare agrees in the piece, too.

Wait, you're gonna have to bear with me. I ain't real smart like you. I thought what said was:

[...]

Boy, I'm glad to know he thinks boxing is okay. To a palooka like me it sure sounds like he's saying that it ain't okay, even if it should be allowed. Thanks for setting me straight on that one. I mean don't get me wrong here, what anybody wants to do in their own homes is up to them. It's just, having taken too many shots to the head and all, I don't get why violence for sport is bad, but violence for sex is somehow...yunno...trendy.

I'm not entirely sure which proposition holds here. Either:

- you believe in the notion that that which is not permitted should be denied, or
- you believe that disapproving of legal acts is somehow wrong.

If it is the first, then I understand your misunderstanding. Clearly, in your world view, disapproving of the drunk in the gutter is not an option - they should be locked up.

If it is the second, then I also assume that you approve of the KKK, NAMBLA, MeCHA, the ACLU, and American Communist Party. Because, of course, since they aren't illegal, disapproving of them would be wrong.

COME ON!!!

Boxing is an ancient art form - pugilism has been around forever. It's exciting to watch, highly skillful and a big earner for a lot of people in the game.

So long as we are doing our level best to keep it as safe as possible - then let it rip!!

We need fewer nannies - not more!

No, =0=, it's you who is being deliberately obtuse. I guess it's an occupational hazard of snide anklebiting.
You can say that comptetition is okay to your heart's content. At the end of the day, though, either you consider violence for competition somehow less acceptble than violence for sexual titillation or you don't. If you don't, then fine, I don't really see what the point of your original response to my post was. If you do, would you please be so kind as to explain to us benighted souls exactly why this is so?
As to the point regarding structure, either my analysis is accurate or you're simply point out that sport and sex play are different. If its the latter, I can only thank you for pointing out the blindingly obvious and entirely irrelevant. My question focuses on why violent sport is somehow less acceptable than violent sex play. That the two are different things is kind of a given. You cite the structure of sport. Again, would you care to explain how this makes violent sport somehow less acceptable, or are you just here to grace us with your verbal masturbation.
Finally, with regard to your comparision of social opprobium versus illegality, I again have to thank you for stating the patently obvious. Since you're not sure which proposition holds, I'll make it clear. Your previous statement that O'Hare thinks boxing is okay is demonstrably, verifiably, false. I was pointing that out to you. (Hint: If you're going to spend your time ankle-biting, it helps to do so with accurate facts.) Since you seem a little slow on the uptake (I took too many shots to the head. What's your excuse? Were you just born that way?), I'll explain the basic question I raised to you once again: Why does violent sport somehow deserve a greater level of opprobium than violence for sex play?
Telling me that they are different things doesn't cut it. You'll have to make clear to me WHAT ABOUT those differences makes violent sport somehow less acceptable. And, frankly at this point, unless you can provide me some sort of answer to this question, rather than just a self-satisfied response to what I'm posting, I really don't have much interest in carrying this discussion on much further. If I want to spend my time with an opponent spending their time ducking and weaving, I'll take up boxing.

Marc said: "So, now I must add that my impression of men who don't like boxing has always been that they are cowards. They denigrate it because it points right at an imortant part of them, and finds them wanting. They know that they would never have the guts to step into the ring against another man, and so they hide behind a facade of criticism. "I would NEVER fight anyone - not because I'm SCARED, but because its WRONG." Well, I'm sorry, but its not wrong, and you are scared. And, because you are a coward, I hold you in contempt, and sincerely believe that you are less of a human being, and less of a man, than I am."

Well, Marc, what that shows me is that your opinion is completely and utterly worthless no matter what the subject might be. Why? Because your excuse for reasoning on this subject betrays that you almost certainly aren't capable of it on any other subject.

Joe Schmoe said: "In the movies, when a martial artist kicks someone in the head, the person will collapse into unconsciousness instantly. In reality, they don't."

Correct. Although an extremely hard punch to the head can cause a concussion, it is rare to knock someone out that way. Most knockouts in boxing are caused by body blows.

Boxers:
"I'm bored. Let's do something."
"I've got an idea - lets punch each other until one of us can't stand up!"

Boxing fans:
"I'm bored. Let's do something."
"I've got an idea - lets pay two guys to punch each other until one of them can't stand up!"

This might not be an accurate quote, but I belive a certain big-haired boxing promoter once said "Boxing is a regional sport. Minneapolis, for example - I could have God vs Satan on the ticket and still not sell out the crowd."

What bothers me more about martial arts in movies is when characters take a beating that would lay most people out, if not seriously injure them, and they get right back up again. A blow to the head may not render me unconscious, but it would certainly slow me down, and make me think twice about continuing my course of action.

"My question focuses on why violent sport is somehow less acceptable than violent sex play." Maybe it's because boxers do it in public? Just think about what would happen if Don King hired people to engage in violent sex play in the ring at Madison Square Garden, sold tickets, and broadcast it nationwide on PPV.

Ed Minchau posted:

"Correct. Although an extremely hard punch to the head can cause a concussion, it is rare to knock someone out that way. Most knockouts in boxing are caused by body blows."

I am not sure that I agree with this. I have watched a good number of fights and can only recall one where a fighter went down from a body blow and couldn't beat the ten count. (Hopkins v. De La Hoya). Also, with techinal knockouts, it seems to almost always be when a fighter is taking too many headshots without hitting back. Unless you mean that it is the body blows which lower the other fighter's guard to the point that he can't protect his head.

markm,

Point taken. But Madonna puts it in a book or implies it in a video and its a best seller.

Boxing is going to be around a long time. All that is needed to insure it is that whatever illegal activities which have been associated with it are kept at bay. It's a fun sport to watch, very much the same sort of fun if you like football. However, like football, I have one concern for the physical health of boxers these days. Both football players and boxers have built their bodies up to physical specimen levels rarely if ever seen in the past. When you get hit by a linebacker or a middleweight, you will cause some damage. The bones that protect the brain or the spine or other body organs haven't evolved to the point muscles have. It's a concern of mine, and perhaps a few others if they thought about it.
It's fun to watch. Anytime two or more guys get together to do something (especially) physical, something interesting is bound to happen. Not always, but sometimes you'll see something you've never seen before. Like the time I saw this scrawny boxer get backed up all over the ring to the point where the ref said "either box or quit" and the guy was warned about this several times. Sometime maybe in the 4th or 5th round the guy finally throws a punch. To the midsection. His opponent drops to his knees and is down for the count. Never would have believed it.
There was a guy in baseball named Sid Bream. Some years back he was pinch hitting in the playoffs for Atlanta, I think. I asked my husband if he could hit. He said, "Yah, he can hit, but he can't run." What followed was the most enjoyable moment I ever had watching ANY sport and up until that time, baseball was pretty low on my list of favorite sports. Sid made it home after a few errors on the part of the opposing team. The camera followed the ball, then Sid, huffin' and puff round first, followed the ball, the Sid, hitting second, then the ball, Sid headin' toward third looking like he's running in place (Sid's a big, tall fella, but there was no stretch to those old legs and according to husband, there never was), then the ball, then the third base coach waving Sid home, the ball's being thrown home, Sid's running chest out, head back, arms a-pumpin', the ball's nearing the catcher, Sid slides, the catcher covers him - SAFE - and EVERYONE piles on Sid. Athletes - you are all wonderful creatures. From a sweet game like baseball to an really rough sport like boxing - you never know what's going to happen. You just have to watch to see what kind of experience and determination will see an athelete through the day.

You got me cheering for Sid all over again!

So, now I must add that my impression of men who don't like boxing has always been that they are cowards

Because it takes true courage to sit on your ass and watch other people hit one another.

prosolution penis pill

pro solution pill review

Comments are Closed.