Last night's boxing; Nick Blackwell v. Chris Eubank Jr.

[User482]

*Although I hear they are about to get rid of these and allow Pros to fight at the Olympics, which is madness IMHO.

On this point, as others have said, the decision to remove headguards was evidence-based, and was done before the last Commonwealth games. I can't comment on the quality of that evidence.

On safety grounds, I can't see why we would ban boxing, but allow other violent sports which regularly cause serious injuries: did anyone see Dylan Hartley knocked unconscious the other week? So we're left with deciding, as a society, whether we wish to have a sport whose purpose is to inflict injury on your opponent, which differentiates it from other sports where injuring an opponent may be an inevitable consequence, but is either unintentional or cheating. Personally, I'm not convinced that there is enough clear water between boxing and some other sports to justify that decision.

 

[Dec66]

Dare I bring head injuries to footballers from years of heading the ball into this?

Do I mention Jeff Astle?

If we ban boxing because of the potential for brain damage, then perhaps we should look at football, too. Maybe introduce a "no over head height" rule, like five a side.

 

[captain nemo1701]

What a foul, shameful, disgusting spectacle masquerading as 'sport'. Just reading the OP has made me feel physically sick.

I've never liked boxing. Just seems to be two blokes thumping each other to me.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

On this point, as others have said, the decision to remove headguards was evidence-based, and was done before the last Commonwealth games. I can't comment on the quality of that evidence.

On safety grounds, I can't see why we would ban boxing, but allow other violent sports which regularly cause serious injuries: did anyone see Dylan Hartley knocked unconscious the other week? So we're left with deciding, as a society, whether we wish to have a sport whose purpose is to inflict injury on your opponent, which differentiates it from other sports where injuring an opponent may be an inevitable consequence, but is either unintentional or cheating. Personally, I'm not convinced that there is enough clear water between boxing and some other sports to justify that decision.

1. Ban? I don't think I suggested that.
2. Yes, sure, other sports with similar propensities to permanent brain damage should also be regulated. There is finally, a serious debate about college football (of the American variety) in the USA now, and it's long overdue. And we've been discussing rugby elsewhere. But not every debate has to be about everything, although it's understandable that other martial arts would come up in this context.

 

[User482]

1. Ban? I don't think I suggested that.
2. Yes, sure, other sports with similar propensities to permanent brain damage should also be regulated. There is finally, a serious debate about college football (of the American variety) in the USA now, and it's long overdue. And we've been discussing rugby elsewhere. But not every debate has to be about everything, although it's understandable that other martial arts would come up in this context.

I didn't suggest you'd called for a ban - that was a reference to other comments on the thread: I was responding to your suggestion that removing headguards is madness. In fact, it's been done for safety, and there is apparently evidence to support it.

 

[Joffey]

From The Graun, today;

"Before the fight was stopped, Eubank Sr urged his son to avoid more blows to Blackwell’s head, and to focus instead on his torso.

“If the referee doesn’t stop it, then I don’t know what to tell you, but I will tell you this: one, if he doesn’t stop it and we keep on beating him like this, he is getting hurt; two, if it goes to a decision, why didn’t the referee stop the fight? I don’t get why,” he said. “So maybe you shouldn’t leave it to the referee. So you’re not going to take him out to the face – you’re going to take him out to the body.” "

That was exactly what Channel 5 showed, and what I heard.

Eubank Snr. wanted it stopped for Blackwell's safety.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...ing-fight-stopped-three-rounds-earlier-hamlyn

To me that is Chris Snr saying that punching him in the face and causing his eye to swell hasn't worked to get the fight stopped, unbelievably in his opinion, so move to the body and get a knockout there. If Chris Snr was that concerned he would have had a word with the doctor or referee, not tell his son to keep on hitting him. This was also the opinion of a boxer interviewed on 5 Live the following day after the fight. You are giving him too much credit. If he knew he was suffering a bleed to the brain he wouldn't have let the fight continue.

 

[OskarTennisChampion]

How would Eubank snr know he had a bleed to the brain ?

 

[Dec66]

To me that is Chris Snr saying that punching him in the face and causing his eye to swell hasn't worked to get the fight stopped, unbelievably in his opinion, so move to the body and get a knockout there. If Chris Snr was that concerned he would have had a word with the doctor or referee, not tell his son to keep on hitting him. This was also the opinion of a boxer interviewed on 5 Live the following day after the fight. You are giving him too much credit. If he knew he was suffering a bleed to the brain he wouldn't have let the fight continue.

Well, we're going to have to beg to differ, I think. All that I can say is that almost all opinion I've heard on it favours my interpretation.

I'll just leave this here...

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...blackwell-was-in-trouble-and-held-back-boxing

 

[Joffey]

Well, we're going to have to beg to differ, I think. All that I can say is that almost all opinion I've heard on it favours my interpretation.

I'll just leave this here...

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...blackwell-was-in-trouble-and-held-back-boxing

I've just listened to Eubank Snr on 5 Live tonight. In his own words he said to Jnr not to hit him in the face as he was so far in front in the fight there was no point doing more damage to his head. He didn't say that he thought he was in trouble and the ref should stop the fight. He was surprised that the ref hadn't stopped the fight as Jnr was obviously well in front and was walking away with it, not that it should have been stopped because there was obvious signs of brain injury.

Oh, Jnr made a good point tonight too. Boxing isn't trying to injure someone - they score points. If you can listen to the interview on iPlayer it is well worth it, might clear a few things up rather than believing the way the media have twisted this to being the fault of the sport and not just a tragic accident.

 

[Markymark]

So winning seems to have been more important than the welfare of the man who was so obviously losing the fight?

Correct. Its the same with all sparring. You trust in the judges to be objective and keep everyone within the rules and stop when they decide.

It appears the referee in this case did not do that.

 

[User482]

Oh, Jnr made a good point tonight too. Boxing isn't trying to injure someone - they score points. If you can listen to the interview on iPlayer it is well worth it, might clear a few things up rather than believing the way the media have twisted this to being the fault of the sport and not just a tragic accident.

It's not a good point at all, just sophistry. You score points by hitting your opponent hard, which cannot reasonably be separated from an attempt to cause injury. You will also note that scoring points is not the only way to win.

 

[Dec66]

Nothing anyone is saying is lessening my disgust for everything to do with this so-called 'sport'.

I don't think anybody is trying to do that.

You clearly have a visceral abhorrence of boxing, and that is your prerogative; I feel the same about bullfighting, as I have already said. I'm not seeking to alter your stance, and I am sure that you are not seeking to alter mine.

I must confess, the OP was just a passing observation on a contest I had watched, and enjoyed initially, but which I felt had been allowed by the official to go too long. That was a personal opinion, but I could appreciate the referee's standpoint, also. And that, really, was about it.

I really did not expect the debate which followed, not by a long way.

What I do take heart from is that this discussion forum has a great range of opinion on all manner of things; and whilst I do not agree with everyone's opinion on everything (which is why, by and large, I stay off the "Society, Culture and Politics" bit), it's nice to see that "cyclists" aren't this one big, amorphous, "militant" lump so often defined as such by the press whenever any cycling-related issue is reported.

I'm all for a broad church, and long may it continue.

 

[Inertia]

Martin Samuel sums up my view pretty well, yes I know, its the Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/bo...ne-aims-boxing-render-opponent-incapable.html

 

[newfhouse]

[QUOTE 4215955, member: 45"]Everybody allowed it to go on too long.[/QUOTE]
Yes, the moderators should have ended it after three pages

 

[shouldbeinbed]

Dare I bring head injuries to footballers from years of heading the ball into this?

Do I mention Jeff Astle?

If we ban boxing because of the potential for brain damage, then perhaps we should look at football, too. Maybe introduce a "no over head height" rule, like five a side.

Look at Gridiron (US) Football, even with all the padding and head protection for decades, repeated percussive injuries have been directly attributed to the death of some high profile names, there is a billions of dollars class action lawsuit going through, former players again very big names in the sport have committed suicide citing the damage and personality changes they believe/have been told by medics was caused by the repeated head percussions, very talented young players who could earn tens upon tens of millions of dollars over an average career are quitting during their (cheap in comparison) rookie contract years citing that they'd rather not run what they are determining from their experience inside the helmet to be too big a risk for them to take with their own long term wellbeing.

the cycling analogy is apt too in therms of the ban it people get hurt : I know it will change but snapshot of the last week we've high profile news of 2 dead young men who rode a bike for a living vs one Boxer in a coma. All awful and the world would be better if none of them had suffered as they have but I'm in the camp of allowing it as consensual risk by the participants.

I've no interest in boxing and have seen and heard the Eubank snr comments and instructions, I do wonder, with the benefit of hindsight, if someone of his stature in the game (and history with Michael Watson) is saying that to his son in between rounds, why is he not taking it a step further and grabbing the ref or the judges panel or even straight to the opposing trainers corner and saying to them: look throw in the towel /give a TKO in our favour whatever it takes but stop this boy taking more of a pasting before mine kills him - I'm taking responsibility for his safety by telling my lad to pull punches to protect him... protecting him is your job, do it.