Tweet
Boxing was one the first sports in the history of humankind. We know that the sport goes back thousands of years to when boxing was no more than a bare fist fighting with no rules. The Romans would fight until one of the competitors was killed to please the crowds. The Ancient Greeks believed fighting was played by the gods, and boxing was introduced to the Olympic Games in 688BC. The Romans abolished boxing in 393AD because it had become too violent.
Today boxing is more popular than before. In a world getting increasing safe and politically correct some are starting to question if it is time for boxing to be banned in the United Kingdom for good. Boxing killed over 1000people in the 20th century and 43 in the 21st century such as Yoi-Sam Choi once flyweight champion of the world who died after a fight on Christmas day 2007. Surly this alone is a good enough reason to stop boxing.
Boxing has been banned in other there will be no risk of the sport being played illegally? Countries, such as Sweden. Here there have been no side affects, why should here be any different? Surely if the police do their job correctly then there is no risk of the sport being played illegally.
People against the sport argue that it is wrong for spectators to have fun watching two people fighting. In 1983 the Journal of the American Medical Association called far a total ban on boxing saying that it “Should not be sanctioned by civilised society.”
This view is not limited to America. Spokesman for the British Medical Association Bill O’Neill said, “It is the only sport where the intention is to inflict serious injury on your opponent and we feel we must have a total ban on boxing.”
While there has been much change in the rules in boxing over the last hundred years boxing is still not safe enough. With the introduction of boxing gloves after the Queensbury rules were introduced in 1866 there has been less visible damage to the boxer. However there is evidence that modern boxing gloves cause more long term damage to the boxer’s brain.
Brain damage is caused by boxing because when a boxer sustains a direct blow to the head - which has been likened to the effect of being hit by a 12lb wooden mallet travelling at 20mph - the head rotates sharply and then returns to its normal position at a much slower speed. In addition, the different densities of the different parts of the brain also move at different rates and the overall result is to create a "swirling" effect inside the brain. The resulting damage is surface damage from the brain hitting against the inner surface of the skull.
Brain damage is in many ways worse than visible injury, primarily because it is much harder to detect. It does not show its main problems until a long time after the injuries are inflicted. This is why so many boxers continue fighting without knowing that they have potentially life threatening injuries. Infact 60% of retires boxers go on to suffer brain damage in retirement.
In amateur boxing this problem has tried to be resolved by equipping participants with protective headgear. However a study n 2007 showed that this has very little, if any effect against the long term damage.
As well as the physical damage caused by boxing, some against the sport would say that teaching children that it is okay to fight in such a violent manor would cause them to be more likely to be involved in fights outside the ring and in school.
This view is not accepted by supporters of boxing who would point out that boxing is good for taking out anger as well as developing self confidence and respect. Most professional boxers have been known to give large amounts of their own money to various charities, Amir Khan to name one.
Amir Khan has also been involved in a scheme aiming to encourage teenagers living in poor areas of the United Kingdom to take up boxing. While there was a risk that their new skills would be put to bad use, it must not be forgotten that all the time they spent practising was time that would otherwise have been spent on the street getting up to no good.
The main argument for boxing is that it is part of human nature. People enjoy watching and participating in boxing. When boxers choose to get involved in this pastime they know the dangers, and make an educated decision that they want to continue. It is not as if they are being forced to box against their will. Nobody but the boxers is getting hurt, so if you do not like it, why do you just not watch it?
While some argue that boxing I dangerous, it is only true to say that very few competitors die compared to some other sports. For every 100,000 participants only 1.3 boxers die. This doesn’t mean anything until you see that Horse Racing causes 128 deaths and Shy Diving causes123 deaths. Even collage football suffers a death rate of over double that of boxing.
People against the sport argue that boxing has been banned in Sweden. It is true their law has been enforced well, but this is not a fair comparison as the Swedes do not have a history of boxing, whereas this country does.
If boxing does get banned here that is almost certain that is will go underground. The police are busy as it is, they couldn’t cope if such a law was passed. If boxing continues illegally there would be no referee, less pay for the boxers, and no medical assistance.
It is amazing how good the medical care is that modern boxers are given. Organisers of boxing contests must always contact the accidents and emergency department of the local hospital. This is so they can arrange to have a medic next to the ring so they can be quick on the scene if there is a large injury. If a boxer needs to go to hospital they will be there within 20 minuets and they keep injured boxers in hospital for at least 24 hours to monitor their health.
While boxing is safer than one may expect, if it causes one person to die, that is one person to many. Boxing will not be truly ‘safe’ until it causes no deaths.
It would be wrong to ban boxing, but it would also be wrong to leave it as it is. Boxing has evolved ever since it started and should continue to evolve o meet modern standards, but remain a good spectator sport.
One of the recommendations I would make is that the number of rounds in a contest should be reduced to 10. This is because most of the large injuries happen in the final rounds when the boxers start to become tired and loose focus.
It would also be true that there would be less of a risk of Brain damage if boxing went back to bare knuckle fighting, but it would be hard to convince those who don’t know boxing that this is the case. That is why I feel it would be best if the boxing authorities could try to get scientists at a good university to work on a new type of glove that will not cause as much internal damage. At the very least it would be a good publicity exercise, showing that they do care about boxers’ safety.
Today boxing is more popular than before. In a world getting increasing safe and politically correct some are starting to question if it is time for boxing to be banned in the United Kingdom for good. Boxing killed over 1000people in the 20th century and 43 in the 21st century such as Yoi-Sam Choi once flyweight champion of the world who died after a fight on Christmas day 2007. Surly this alone is a good enough reason to stop boxing.
Boxing has been banned in other there will be no risk of the sport being played illegally? Countries, such as Sweden. Here there have been no side affects, why should here be any different? Surely if the police do their job correctly then there is no risk of the sport being played illegally.
People against the sport argue that it is wrong for spectators to have fun watching two people fighting. In 1983 the Journal of the American Medical Association called far a total ban on boxing saying that it “Should not be sanctioned by civilised society.”
This view is not limited to America. Spokesman for the British Medical Association Bill O’Neill said, “It is the only sport where the intention is to inflict serious injury on your opponent and we feel we must have a total ban on boxing.”
While there has been much change in the rules in boxing over the last hundred years boxing is still not safe enough. With the introduction of boxing gloves after the Queensbury rules were introduced in 1866 there has been less visible damage to the boxer. However there is evidence that modern boxing gloves cause more long term damage to the boxer’s brain.
Brain damage is caused by boxing because when a boxer sustains a direct blow to the head - which has been likened to the effect of being hit by a 12lb wooden mallet travelling at 20mph - the head rotates sharply and then returns to its normal position at a much slower speed. In addition, the different densities of the different parts of the brain also move at different rates and the overall result is to create a "swirling" effect inside the brain. The resulting damage is surface damage from the brain hitting against the inner surface of the skull.
Brain damage is in many ways worse than visible injury, primarily because it is much harder to detect. It does not show its main problems until a long time after the injuries are inflicted. This is why so many boxers continue fighting without knowing that they have potentially life threatening injuries. Infact 60% of retires boxers go on to suffer brain damage in retirement.
In amateur boxing this problem has tried to be resolved by equipping participants with protective headgear. However a study n 2007 showed that this has very little, if any effect against the long term damage.
As well as the physical damage caused by boxing, some against the sport would say that teaching children that it is okay to fight in such a violent manor would cause them to be more likely to be involved in fights outside the ring and in school.
This view is not accepted by supporters of boxing who would point out that boxing is good for taking out anger as well as developing self confidence and respect. Most professional boxers have been known to give large amounts of their own money to various charities, Amir Khan to name one.
Amir Khan has also been involved in a scheme aiming to encourage teenagers living in poor areas of the United Kingdom to take up boxing. While there was a risk that their new skills would be put to bad use, it must not be forgotten that all the time they spent practising was time that would otherwise have been spent on the street getting up to no good.
The main argument for boxing is that it is part of human nature. People enjoy watching and participating in boxing. When boxers choose to get involved in this pastime they know the dangers, and make an educated decision that they want to continue. It is not as if they are being forced to box against their will. Nobody but the boxers is getting hurt, so if you do not like it, why do you just not watch it?
While some argue that boxing I dangerous, it is only true to say that very few competitors die compared to some other sports. For every 100,000 participants only 1.3 boxers die. This doesn’t mean anything until you see that Horse Racing causes 128 deaths and Shy Diving causes123 deaths. Even collage football suffers a death rate of over double that of boxing.
People against the sport argue that boxing has been banned in Sweden. It is true their law has been enforced well, but this is not a fair comparison as the Swedes do not have a history of boxing, whereas this country does.
If boxing does get banned here that is almost certain that is will go underground. The police are busy as it is, they couldn’t cope if such a law was passed. If boxing continues illegally there would be no referee, less pay for the boxers, and no medical assistance.
It is amazing how good the medical care is that modern boxers are given. Organisers of boxing contests must always contact the accidents and emergency department of the local hospital. This is so they can arrange to have a medic next to the ring so they can be quick on the scene if there is a large injury. If a boxer needs to go to hospital they will be there within 20 minuets and they keep injured boxers in hospital for at least 24 hours to monitor their health.
While boxing is safer than one may expect, if it causes one person to die, that is one person to many. Boxing will not be truly ‘safe’ until it causes no deaths.
It would be wrong to ban boxing, but it would also be wrong to leave it as it is. Boxing has evolved ever since it started and should continue to evolve o meet modern standards, but remain a good spectator sport.
One of the recommendations I would make is that the number of rounds in a contest should be reduced to 10. This is because most of the large injuries happen in the final rounds when the boxers start to become tired and loose focus.
It would also be true that there would be less of a risk of Brain damage if boxing went back to bare knuckle fighting, but it would be hard to convince those who don’t know boxing that this is the case. That is why I feel it would be best if the boxing authorities could try to get scientists at a good university to work on a new type of glove that will not cause as much internal damage. At the very least it would be a good publicity exercise, showing that they do care about boxers’ safety.
Comment