Isn't it time this brutal 'sport' was banned?

First topic message reminder :

Yet another boxer seriously ill in an induced coma in hospital.
We frown on dog/cock/any other animal fighting, but encourage one human being to beat another human being to a pulp....all in the name of sport.
http://news.sky.com/story/1667832/boxer-blackwell-in-coma-after-eubank-fight

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Judo is ultimately about throwing someone onto the ground as hard and as many times as you can... and fencing is ultimately about killing someone with a sword...


Boxing is about the skill of being able to hit without being hit... if it was about beating each other then they would just be made to stand still and take turns at having a free punch at the other until damage/knock out decided winner...

It might be if you are a musceteer...but in this country in this day and age fencing isn't really about killing anyone anymore.

Only because of the padding and protective gear...


But still just about the 'art' of one person being better than another at stabbing them to death with a sword...!

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Some people do cheer on men who fight in the street - if it was a fair fight. There are rules in boxing, and there's a referee.

The referee wasn't much good in this latest fight. The opponent of the boxer  who is in a coma  was advised  by his own father to avoid his head as he was obviously badly hurt....the ref allowed the fight to carry on for 10 rounds.

That is just an argument about poor refereeing... or existing safety measures being poorly enforced...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:

It might be if you are a musceteer...but in this country in this day and age fencing isn't really about killing anyone anymore.

Only because of the padding and protective gear...


But still just about the 'art' of one person being better than another at stabbing them to death with a sword...!

Yes it's an art...the cut and thrust etc, but no one ever gets hurt never mind stabbed do they?...that's not the object of the sport.
Boxing IS about hurting the other person.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:

The referee wasn't much good in this latest fight. The opponent of the boxer  who is in a coma  was advised  by his own father to avoid his head as he was obviously badly hurt....the ref allowed the fight to carry on for 10 rounds.

That is just an argument about poor refereeing... or existing safety measures being poorly enforced...

Would most boxing enthusiasts support professional fighters wearing padded head protectors to minimise brain injuries do you think?

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


That is just an argument about poor refereeing... or existing safety measures being poorly enforced...

Would most boxing enthusiasts support professional fighters wearing padded head protectors to minimise brain injuries do you think?

Fencing... root is stabbing and killing opponent... protective gear is the only thing preventing this...


However many professionals in boxing are saying that the bigger padding in gloves IS reducing external facial physical damage but this actually prolongs most fights and the brain is being rattled about much more than otherwise would be!

A punch to the head might cause damage even with headgear because of the brain banging against the other side of the skull.

Raggamuffin wrote:A punch to the head might cause damage even with headgear because of the brain banging against the other side of the skull. 

So does heading a football

What are we going to ban every sport because people are kill joys?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:

Would most boxing enthusiasts support professional fighters wearing padded head protectors to minimise brain injuries do you think?

Fencing... root is stabbing and killing opponent... protective gear is the only thing preventing this...


However many professionals in boxing are saying that the bigger padding in gloves IS reducing external facial physical damage but this actually prolongs most fights and therefore the brain is being rattled about much more than otherwise would be!

I understand that the protective gear when fencing prevents injuries....boxing gear does not.

Even if protective helmets were worn in boxing, it wouldn't prevent some brain injuries because like you say the continuous rattling around of the brain would still happen.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:A punch to the head might cause damage even with headgear because of the brain banging against the other side of the skull. 

So does heading a football

What are we going to ban every sport because people are kill joys?

I didn't suggest banning boxing.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

So does heading a football

What are we going to ban every sport because people are kill joys?

I didn't suggest banning boxing.

But the arguments are being made on  head injuries, which would then incorporate far many more sports

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/nov/01/football-heading-brain-damage

So why single out boxing by some here

I think its more to do with the fact its associated with violence than a view on injuries as the real reason

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't suggest banning boxing.

But the arguments are being made on  head injuries, which would then incorporate far many more sports

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/nov/01/football-heading-brain-damage

So why single out boxing by some here

I think its more to do with the fact its associated with violence than a view on injuries as the real reason

I was addressing Syl's point about the possible use of head protection.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


But the arguments are being made on  head injuries, which would then incorporate far many more sports

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/nov/01/football-heading-brain-damage

So why single out boxing by some here

I think its more to do with the fact its associated with violence than a view on injuries as the real reason

I was addressing Syl's point about the possible use of head protection.

I just read that Rags....yes you are right, I added a post saying the same thing after you.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


But the arguments are being made on  head injuries, which would then incorporate far many more sports

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/nov/01/football-heading-brain-damage

So why single out boxing by some here

I think its more to do with the fact its associated with violence than a view on injuries as the real reason

I was addressing Syl's point about the possible use of head protection.

I am well aware of that, but again the view is being made on injuries in boxing ignoring the risks in many other sports

So clearly the reason on injuries is not the real motive is it?

As clearly they would be against any sport that caused or could cause head injuries

Like I say the view is based on the associated violent nature of the sport as to why people generally oppose

Sorry, I can't see the ethical way to ban something consenting adults do together without hurting anyone else. (See what I did there?)

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Only because of the padding and protective gear...


But still just about the 'art' of one person being better than another at stabbing them to death with a sword...!

Yes it's an art...the cut and thrust etc, but no one ever gets hurt never mind stabbed do they?...that's not the object of the sport.
Boxing IS about hurting the other person.

Injuries From Fencing

Fencing is a combat sport involving three different weapons that approximate those used in historic sword fights. Thrusting weapons are the fencing foil and epee; the cutting weapon is the sabre. As with any intense athletic activity that involves direct competition against an opponent, injuries can occur in fencing. Modern safety equipment has evolved to minimize, if not eliminate, the risks. Most fencing injuries today happen to the joints of the lower extremities as a result of footwork


The Most Common Injuries in Fencing

The majority of fencing injuries are to the knees and ankles. These injuries can be chronic overuse injuries, or acute injuries that happen suddenly. The incidence of these injuries is split about evenly between practice and competition. Since most fencers spend far more time practicing than competing, however, the intensity of competition seems to increase the likelihood of injury. A fencing lunge, for example, can result in an impact equivalent to seven times your body weight on the lead foot.


Fatalities in Fencing

Death in fencing is not a common occurrence, but some fatalities have occurred during its history. All of these fatal injuries share certain features in common. The majority of fatalities have occurred during epee fencing due to injuries from broken blades that developed jagged edges. The injuries were inflicted either to the throat, head or the upper body through the ribcage. All have involved elite-level male fencers, whose physical abilities may exceed the protective capacity of safety equipment.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/352096-injuries-from-fencing/

Didge wrote:My Uncle second person in the photo

Second person from where? Left or right?

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

It's an opinion ...this is a forum, and boxing and it's devastating result of a fight has been in the news.

As for 'interfering' you are the worst poster on this forum for barging in with unwanted interference....leave the thread if it offends you.

You are trying to impose a ban on boxing, which is more than an opinion

Its not up to you what people do with their lives

They know the risks, thus its their choice not yours

Your views on me just prove what a fucking retard you are as your views on me are irrlevant

You just can't help yourself, can you?

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

Another thing about this barbarism called sport is the way people work themselves up into a frenzy when they see someone being half killed...or even actually killed as has happened.
Personally I find it obscene. If they saw two men fighting in the street would they cheer and jeer and egg them on? Well some might, but they would be the weak minded.....yet because they have paid good money to watch a planned fight it's acceptable.

Men have fought for thousands of years, originally over women for the best mate or all of them
Its an instinctive evolutionary part within men to fight
You cannot just take away hundreds of thousands of years of instinct

We've gathered that from the way you drag your knuckles all over this forum.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:A punch to the head might cause damage even with headgear because of the brain banging against the other side of the skull. 

So does heading a football

What are we going to ban every sport because people are kill joys?

Heading footballs...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/major-league-soccer/11986163/Heading-the-ball-to-be-banned-for-children-under-11.html


Rugby tackles...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/12179548/Ban-contact-rugby-in-schools-say-health-experts.html



Raggs... in boxing it is said that bigger padding in gloves actually makes fights go on for longer... cuts/swelling/outright knockout chances ARE reduced... YES... but by limiting these injuries that would have meant end to fight... Instead the fight goes on for much longer meaning more potential for damage inside the head to brain!!


Adding even more padding by forcing headgear to be worn will only make things worse...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:

So does heading a football

What are we going to ban every sport because people are kill joys?

Heading footballs...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/major-league-soccer/11986163/Heading-the-ball-to-be-banned-for-children-under-11.html


Rugby tackles...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/12179548/Ban-contact-rugby-in-schools-say-health-experts.html



Raggs... in boxing it is said that bigger padding in gloves actually makes fights go on for longer... cuts/swelling/outright knockout chances ARE reduced... YES... but by limiting these injuries that would have meant end to fight... Instead the fight goes on for much longer meaning more potential for damage inside the head to brain!!


Adding even more padding by forcing headgear to be worn will only make things worse...

Tommy, I wasn't suggesting using headgear - Syl was. I pointed out that headgear would not necessarily prevent brain injuries.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:

Men have fought for thousands of years, originally over women for the best mate or all of them
Its an instinctive evolutionary part within men to fight
You cannot just take away hundreds of thousands of years of instinct

We've gathered that from the way you drag your knuckles all over this forum.

Do you ever shut up?

Seriously, get over your stupidity and get back to debating

 you are boring the fuck out of everyone with this petty hate

Ben_Reilly wrote:Sorry, I can't see the ethical way to ban something consenting adults do together without hurting anyone else. (See what I did there?)

That's what I always say... don't know why I'm so misunderstood here...!?

I gather that Nick Blackwell sustained an injury just above one eye, and it was that which did the damage - it wasn't actually to his head as such. Wearing headgear wouldn't prevent such damage unless it came right down to their eyes.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:

So does heading a football

What are we going to ban every sport because people are kill joys?

Heading footballs...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/major-league-soccer/11986163/Heading-the-ball-to-be-banned-for-children-under-11.html


Rugby tackles...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/12179548/Ban-contact-rugby-in-schools-say-health-experts.html



Raggs... in boxing it is said that bigger padding in gloves actually makes fights go on for longer... cuts/swelling/outright knockout chances ARE reduced... YES... but by limiting these injuries that would have meant end to fight... Instead the fight goes on for much longer meaning more potential for damage inside the head to brain!!


Adding even more padding by forcing headgear to be worn will only make things worse...

Boxing is scored on points though.  A knockout is not that common.   So, it's about choices.  If two people are stupid enough to want to beat shit out of each other, that's up to them.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Heading footballs...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/major-league-soccer/11986163/Heading-the-ball-to-be-banned-for-children-under-11.html


Rugby tackles...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/12179548/Ban-contact-rugby-in-schools-say-health-experts.html



Raggs... in boxing it is said that bigger padding in gloves actually makes fights go on for longer... cuts/swelling/outright knockout chances ARE reduced... YES... but by limiting these injuries that would have meant end to fight... Instead the fight goes on for much longer meaning more potential for damage inside the head to brain!!


Adding even more padding by forcing headgear to be worn will only make things worse...

Tommy, I wasn't suggesting using headgear - Syl was. I pointed out that headgear would not necessarily prevent brain injuries.

Yes I know... I was agreeing with you and adding supporting theory!

Raggamuffin wrote:I gather that Nick Blackwell sustained an injury just above one eye, and it was that which did the damage - it wasn't actually to his head as such. Wearing headgear wouldn't prevent such damage unless it came right down to their eyes.

I should think more percussive injury might happen if they wore headgear, which could mean more brain damage.   Also, it would obscure peripheral vision.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy, I wasn't suggesting using headgear - Syl was. I pointed out that headgear would not necessarily prevent brain injuries.

Yes I know... I was agreeing with you and adding supporting theory!

Oh I see. I thought there was some confusion.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I gather that Nick Blackwell sustained an injury just above one eye, and it was that which did the damage - it wasn't actually to his head as such. Wearing headgear wouldn't prevent such damage unless it came right down to their eyes.

I should think more percussive injury might happen if they wore headgear, which could mean more brain damage.   Also, it would obscure peripheral vision.

Yes. Headgear might actually cause more damage if a punch rammed the headgear into the head.

I played Rugby Football from 8 to almost 40.
I had some bangz and gave some.
The only bad injury I remember was a broken leg for my mate.
There are more serious injuriz from cycling.
Let the players choose.

My boxing career was roughly the same, don't tell Didge or he will troll me.
Everyone gets hurt in boxing, we knew the score.

Some aerosolz wanna stop 'conkers.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:

Men have fought for thousands of years, originally over women for the best mate or all of them
Its an instinctive evolutionary part within men to fight
You cannot just take away hundreds of thousands of years of instinct

We've gathered that from the way you drag your knuckles all over this forum.

Witty.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:

Yes it's an art...the cut and thrust etc, but no one ever gets hurt never mind stabbed do they?...that's not the object of the sport.
Boxing IS about hurting the other person.

Injuries From Fencing

Fencing is a combat sport involving three different weapons that approximate those used in historic sword fights. Thrusting weapons are the fencing foil and epee; the cutting weapon is the sabre. As with any intense athletic activity that involves direct competition against an opponent, injuries can occur in fencing. Modern safety equipment has evolved to minimize, if not eliminate, the risks. Most fencing injuries today happen to the joints of the lower extremities as a result of footwork


The Most Common Injuries in Fencing

The majority of fencing injuries are to the knees and ankles. These injuries can be chronic overuse injuries, or acute injuries that happen suddenly. The incidence of these injuries is split about evenly between practice and competition. Since most fencers spend far more time practicing than competing, however, the intensity of competition seems to increase the likelihood of injury. A fencing lunge, for example, can result in an impact equivalent to seven times your body weight on the lead foot.


Fatalities in Fencing

Death in fencing is not a common occurrence, but some fatalities have occurred during its history. All of these fatal injuries share certain features in common. The majority of fatalities have occurred during epee fencing due to injuries from broken blades that developed jagged edges. The injuries were inflicted either to the throat, head or the upper body through the ribcage. All have involved elite-level male fencers, whose physical abilities may exceed the protective capacity of safety equipment.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/352096-injuries-from-fencing/

Sort of fades in comparison against this....and this was written over 20 years ago, there have been many other serious injuries and deaths since then.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/boxing-boxers-dying-or-left-seriously-injured-after-fights-1575159.html

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Sorry, I can't see the ethical way to ban something consenting adults do together without hurting anyone else. (See what I did there?)

That's what I always say... don't know why I'm so misunderstood here...!?

Err...what about incest?

Stormee wrote:I played Rugby Football from 8 to almost 40.
I had some bangz and gave some.
The only bad injury I remember was a broken leg for my mate.
There are more serious injuriz from cycling.
Let the players choose.

My boxing career was roughly the same, don't tell Didge or he will troll me.
Everyone gets hurt in boxing, we knew the score.

Some aerosolz wanna stop 'conkers.

I think conkers are great.....I have no wish to stop any sport or activity that doesn't deliberately set out to hurt, badly injure, maim or kill.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


That's what I always say... don't know why I'm so misunderstood here...!?

Err...what about incest?

Ben...!?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:

Men have fought for thousands of years, originally over women for the best mate or all of them
Its an instinctive evolutionary part within men to fight
You cannot just take away hundreds of thousands of years of instinct

We've gathered that from the way you drag your knuckles all over this forum.

Yet again another wonderful example of your immaturity

Just how do you maintain such ignorance

Well being so ignorant must be bless for you I guess
 

How about, I dont know you actually y counter the points instead of being a twat? 

See if you are capable

You already replied to that post earlier Didge ...

Syl wrote:

Stormee wrote:I played Rugby Football from 8 to almost 40.
I had some bangz and gave some.
The only bad injury I remember was a broken leg for my mate.
There are more serious injuriz from cycling.
Let the players choose.

My boxing career was roughly the same, don't tell Didge or he will troll me.
Everyone gets hurt in boxing, we knew the score.

Some aerosolz wanna stop 'conkers.

I think conkers are great.....I have no wish to stop any sport or activity that doesn't deliberately set out to hurt, badly injure, maim or kill.

Your stance is hypocritical as again the view is being made on injuries in boxing ignoring the risks in many other sports

So clearly the reason on injuries is not the real motive is it?

As clearly they would be against any sport that caused or could cause head injuries

Like I say the view is based on the associated violent nature of the sport as to why people generally oppose

Raggamuffin wrote:You already replied to that post earlier Didge ...

Stop harassing and stirring

i will only warn you once

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:You already replied to that post earlier Didge ...

Stop harassing and stirring

i will only warn you once

Just helping you out - in case you forgot you already replied to it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Stop harassing and stirring

i will only warn you once

Just helping you out - in case you forgot you already replied to it.

Its up to me if I reply again because its me wanting a reason for its continued immaturity, which is none of your business

Now you have been told why

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Just helping you out - in case you forgot you already replied to it.

Its up to me if I reply again because its me wanting a reason for its continued immaturity, which is none of your business

Now you have been told why

You mean you were stirring ... because you didn't get a reply the first time.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Its up to me if I reply again because its me wanting a reason for its continued immaturity, which is none of your business

Now you have been told why

You mean you were stirring ... because you didn't get a reply the first time.

Reported

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You mean you were stirring ... because you didn't get a reply the first time.

Reported

What for? Everyone had moved on, but you just had to bump the post.

Mods a Pm has been sent

Didge wrote:Mods a Pm has been sent

I shall report you for reporting me for frivolous reasons.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:Mods a Pm has been sent

I shall report you for reporting me for frivolous reasons.

Is he spamming the complaints line now too...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I shall report you for reporting me for frivolous reasons.

Is he spamming the complaints line now too...!?

I think so.

Moving on then ...

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

I think conkers are great.....I have no wish to stop any sport or activity that doesn't deliberately set out to hurt, badly injure, maim or kill.

Your stance is hypocritical as again the view is being made on injuries in boxing ignoring the risks in many other sports

So clearly the reason on injuries is not the real motive is it?

As clearly they would be against any sport that caused or could cause head injuries

Like I say the view is based on the associated violent nature of the sport as to why people generally oppose

Right now that the children have been dealt with.

back to the points