Should Boxing Be Banned? Definitely ... Maybe ... No! (Is boxing worth the risk?)

Name: splodgethecat

Hello doyoo user, You have to be logged in to use these functions... Login or register Close window

Send message to member

Product:	Is boxing worth the risk?
Date:	21/08/01 (20442 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Boxing is meone young mens 'life' , Many jobs in the boxing world, Many fans of the sport

Disadvantages: Injury, death

Cuts and bruises, broken ribs, internal bleeding, brain damage, death. Is the sport of boxing too much of a risk? On the face of it, you would think definitely yes. It’s not something I have particularly thought about until now, after all, any sport to me is a complete waste of time. Sorry guys. The subject only comes to my mind only when I hear about some new tragedy that has happened in the ring, the latest of which was Paul Ingle who was rushed to hospital to have a blood clot removed from his brain after a boxing match.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Having read many of the opinions here, which put forward a number of points for and against, I thought I would add my own personal view of the subject. However, I must say that during the time I was reading, my opinion changed somewhat, therefore, thanks to other Dooyooers I have a slightly different slant on this from what I was originally going to write. My argument is presented in such a way as to put both sides of the coin, and finishes with my own personal take on whether boxing should be banned, so here goes.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-


Reasons why boxing should be banned
------------------------------------

1;
A number of doctors are behind the banning of the sport because of the serious nature of the injuries that can be sustained during a match. Cuts and bruises are the most common injuries, which lead to stitches and dental work being required. Body blows can lead to internal bleeding and broken ribs, but the most serious risk comes from the possibility of either catastrophic or gradual brain damage. Catastrophic brain damage comes from an injury sustained with a single blow or number of blows, where blood vessels in the skull burst and a clot puts pressure on the brain tissue. Gradual brain damage occurs over time and is due to repeated blows to the head over a long period. The British Medical Association makes no bones about wanting the sport banned.
The BMA represents over 84% of British doctors and opposes boxing because of the serious threat to the eyes and the brain. They advocate that seemingly minor external injuries can still cause unseen damage to the brain.

Why does the BMA then, consider boxing injuries different to those sustained in other sports? Well, it comes down to intent. The intention to inflict hurt. They make a comparison between boxers and footballers, saying that if you hit someone’s head in football you would get sent off. Bit of a strange analogy, but that is how they see it. It was written in the British Medical Journal that doctors could effectively make boxing illegal by simply withdrawing their assistance at the ringside. As medical cover is legally required to cover all boxing promotions, by doing this, it would make matches untenable.

2;
There is no absolutely safe level of boxing. The risk is always there. Any blow to the bodsy and especially the head can lead to complications or even death. Opponents to the sport say that although medical staff can attend to various injuries and remove blood clots, prevention is the best route - i.e. ban boxing. What makes boxing different from other ’dangerous’ sports is the chronic and consistent damage inflicted on the participants. Even if no, what could be seen as, serious injury occurs, repeatd head and body blows, in time take their toll.

3;
Professional boxing has been banned in Norway since 1981 and in Sweden since 1970. The governments in these countries viewed the heath concerns involved as being more important that the freedom of the individual to take part in boxing matches. If a ban on the sport can work in other countries, it can certainly work here.

4;
There are a number of tragic cases involving boxers. The risks cannot be denied. Can we carry on letting these young men put their lives at risk for ’sport’? Some of these tragic cases are as f
ollows;

The talented Welsh boxer, Johnny Owen died in 1980, during a bantamweight world title fight against Mexican Lupe Pintor in Los Angeles. After being knocked out, he lay in a coma for six weeks, before dying. He was only 24 years of age.

In 1986, Steve Watt, a British boxer, died after a welterweight clash with Rocky Kelly in Fulham. He was found to have suffered extensive brain damage, however, doctors said that he had been suffering from brain damage for quite some time prior to his death and his death was, in fact, caused by the recurrence of an old injury.

Rod Douglas needed brain surgery in 1989 following his British middleweight fight defeat to Herol 'Bomber' Graham. Fortunately, he made a recovery after a life-saving operation.

Michael Watson's fight with Chris Eubank in 1991 left him so injured he was forced into hospital and he remains in a wheelchair to this day.

Young bantamweight, Bradley Stone, in his fight with Richie Wenton in 1994 sustained massive punishment during the fight. Although he left the ring fine, he later collapsed and never regained consciousness.

Gerald McClellan during his fight with Nigel Benn in 1995 slipped into a coma after being stretchered out of the ring. He is still in a wheelchair and has only 20% vision. He also requires 24 hour looking after even to this day.

In 1995 Scottish boxer Jimmy Murray died following a bantamweight bout with Drew Docherty in Glasgow. He was operated upon to remove a blood clot but he died a few days later.

The latest tragedy, involving boxer Paul Ingle, who suffered critical injuries in the ring, just highlights the continuing problem

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-


Reasons why boxing should not be banned
---------------------------------------

1;
No one forces boxers into the ring. For many of these young men, boxing is ‘their life’ and they know nothing e
lse. They *want* to be there, they know the risks involved and they accept that before stepping into the ring.

2;
Although injury is part and parcel of the sport, according to Dr Whiteson, chief medical officer for the British Boxing Board of Control, chronic injuries are rarely seen within the *whole* concept of the sport. Although the tragic cases hit the news haedlines, the large majority of matches are unremarkable.

3;
Banning the sport could send it ‘underground’. Then it would be extremely difficult to administer, making the risk of injury much more accute, especially when you consider that there would be then no legal requirement for medical cover. There would be fewer controls and fewer safeguards.

4;
Boxing is no more dangerous than some other sports. Consider motorcycling, drag racing, formula one, speedboat racing, ski jumping, sailing, even rugby. I could go on. It was this point, which was brought up by another Dooyooer that made me reconsider my opinion. You don’t often hear calls for any of these sports to be banned, so why the relative vociferousness about the dangers of boxing specifically?


~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

In December 2000, the labour MP, Paul Flynn called for a bill that could charge boxers with manslaughter if their opponents were seriously injured or killed. He also stated that he would like to see a ban on blows to the head during matches. To me, this sounds a bit stupid. It’s like taking part in a race that has an upper speed limit. What would be the point then? You wouldn’t be able to punch the lower body and you wouldn’t be able to punch the head. Mr Flynn’s proposal about the manslaughter charge is also a bit idiotic too I feel. How could boxers be charged for doing something which is outlined in the *rules* of the sport as being perfectly admissible? Mr Flynn’s answer? He would remove that defence!

Recentl
y there have also been calls for boxers to wear protective headgear during matches. However, some of the boxing fraternity are against this because when wearing these, you cannot always see punches coming and statistics show that head guards only protect someone from cuts and bruises. They don’t stop a boxer from being knocked out.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-


My take on all this
-------------------------

In the beginning, I suppose I would have come along and said I thought that the sport should be banned. There are documented cases, which I have mentioned, where boxers have sustained terrible injuries or even death. Also, being a sport non-lover, it wouldn’t make a ha’porth of difference to me whether the sport was banned or not.

However, after researching this opinion, and after reading some of the other contributions, I have come to the conclusion, that banning the sport would be in no one’s best interests. Fanatical boxers would still find a way to fight if it was made illegal, there are many other sports which have a high rate of injury and even death, but you don’t hear calls for them to be banned all the time.

Boxing is, at present, as safe as it can be. Medical cover is required for every bout and there is ringside medical assistance ready at all times in the case of emergency.

I feel desperately sorry for the families of theose who have died or who have been injured, but at the end of the day, these young men are acting through free will when they get in the ring. Also, if you look at the total number of boxing matches, the number of fatal or serious injuries sustained are relatively small. I do take on board that many boxers are left ‘punch drunk’ but I bring my argument back to the boxer’s free will when he decides to take up the sport.

So, do I think the sport should be banned? On balance no, but I would imagine that the argument on thi
s topic will rage on.

Summary: