The Student Room Group

The Guardian Decides Boxing Is Too Violent

The Russian heavyweight Magomed Abdusalamov is in a coma because of us

What should boxing fans and the media do to stop young men dying and being incapacitated again and again?

Heavyweight boxer Magomed Abdusalamov is in an induced coma from which he may never wake up. He was taken to hospital in New York on Saturday night after a bruising heavyweight fight with Mike Perez on HBO, where he underwent surgery to remove a blood clot from his brain. The New York Post's George Willis reported Abdusalamov's prognosis had worsened after he suffered a stroke on Tuesday. Abdusalamov's condition has forced boxing fans and writers to take an uncomfortable look at our sport for the second time in as many weeks. On October 22 junior featherweight Frankie Leal died from a brain injury after being knocked out by Raul Hirales in Mexico. Iron Mike Gallego wrote beautifully but painfully on the subject.

But here's the thing about what happened to Leal: it was preventable. As Gallego points out, Leal had been knocked out four times, had already left the ring on a stretcher once before, and the fight in which he was killed was essentially a protracted beating. You can't really say any of those things about Abdusalamov or the fight that put him in a coma. The Russian had never been knocked out. He finished the bout with Perez with a disfigured face, but apart from the first round, he was never really "hurt" in the boxing sense; being close to losing consciousness.

The fight was one-sided, but there was not an overwhelming outcry about it until after Abdusalamov was taken to hospital. No moment stood out in which the referee, Benjy Esteves Jr, or Abdusalamov's corner should have stopped the fight (at least not by the usual criterion of a boxer being unable to defend himself).The uncomfortable truth is that if Abdusalamov had told his corner he didn't want to continue on Saturday night, many (but by no means all) would have called him a "quitter". Going into the bout with 18 knockouts from his 18 fights, he was in many ways a victim of one of boxing's oldest tropes: "the puncher's chance".

Abdusalamov's life-threatening injuries should be even more confronting to boxing fans than Leal's death. Abdusalamov is not on death's door because of boxing's regulatory failings, he's on death's door because he boxed.We're all hypocrites for watching and then wringing our hands after the fact. Despite what we may say about skill, personality and the triumph of will, we watch boxing because of its brutality, not in spite of it. HBO's own compulsively watchable "Greatest Hits" segments are all the evidence you need of that.

Abdusalamov fought on a high-rating telecast on boxing's biggest network in one of the best regulated jurisdictions in America. As arguments for banning the sport go, you don't get much more convincing. So if we don't want to see the sport banned (and if we want to watch with a clean conscience), is there anything boxing fans and media can do to stop young men dying and being incapacitated again and again? I honestly believe there is.We have to wean ourselves off the worst of boxing's violence, even if it's what we find attractive. Talk of "early stoppages" needs to become a thing of the past, at least in situations where they're not obviously corrupt. We in the media need to do our bit to dismantle some of the more macho elements of boxing culture. Springs Toledo has said much the same thing. Our own Tim Starks also had an intelligent, short take. Fighters need to know they don't betray us by begging out of fights when they get hurt.

This is not self-righteous preaching. I see all the worst elements I've been talking about in myself. At the time, I didn't think the referee or doctor should have stopped the fight. To put it bluntly, I enjoyed the beating that put a man in hospital and may kill him. Last week, more out of a sense of guilt than anything, many of us donated to support Frankie Leal's family. Let's all hope there will no appeal necessary for Abdusalamov's.


Source: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/queensberry-rules-boxing-blog/2013/nov/12/magomed-abdusalamov-coma-because-us

Amazingly, some of the Guardian hippies on the Facebook page were post such comments as:

"Boxing is barbaric & brutal, a blood sport !!"

" I think any situation that forces people to continue when their body is screaming stop is dangerous. The same thing could be said of all those running races because they are sponsored for charities, remember that year that four people died at the Great North Run, most likely not to disappoint the charities"

"I don't understand it, of course, that must be why I disagree with it. Or, could be because it's a sport that is watched by idiots and taken part in by retards. You are literally watching, as I said, two men punch each other until one falls over or the time runs out. What a thrill."

Personally, I think the 'ban boxing' brigade have to understand that boxing is a combat sport, participated in by thousands and watched by millions. Most fighters who get injured in the ring would never call for it to be banned, which can be said about any other sport - if you don't agree with it, or don't want to take part - don't watch or take part. To try to take away the fundamental element of what attracts us to boxing will make it into a tired, dull sport with no energy.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
well that is the Guardian for you. If you let people thump your head for a living then there is a chance you will die at work.
The Guardian does not campaign against drugs ... that would be far too un-PC, but far more people die of drugs than boxing.
Reply 2
I agree with the spirit of the article, that boxing is too violent. I think in its current state it oughtn't to be permitted.

I disagree with the article in what it proposes though; I don't think you can expect or trust boxers to bow out of fights when they are losing. They probably won't ever want to, and not because they're worried about letting their fans down - they'd most likely see it as cowardice.

I'm not sure what measures could reasonably be taken to reduce the violence in what is, essentially, a contest of who can injure the other into submission.
Reply 3
Original post by Kiss

"I don't understand it, of course, that must be why I disagree with it. Or, could be because it's a sport that is watched by idiots and taken part in by retards. You are literally watching, as I said, two men punch each other until one falls over or the time runs out. What a thrill."


People who say this demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of boxing. It's the equivalent of saying "football is just kicking a ball about" or "Chess is just moving pieces on a board around". There is so much more to boxing than that.
Reply 4
Original post by the bear
well that is the Guardian for you. If you let people thump your head for a living then there is a chance you will die at work.
The Guardian does not campaign against drugs ... that would be far too un-PC, but far more people die of drugs than boxing.


Guardian logic.

Original post by miser
I agree with the spirit of the article, that boxing is too violent. I think in its current state it oughtn't to be permitted.

I disagree with the article in what it proposes though; I don't think you can expect or trust boxers to bow out of fights when they are losing. They probably won't ever want to, and not because they're worried about letting their fans down - they'd most likely see it as cowardice.

I'm not sure what measures could reasonably be taken to reduce the violence in what is, essentially, a contest of who can injure the other into submission.


I thought you did Aikido? I know they're fundamentally different in the intent of the combat and types of combat style, but surely if people are happy to fight in a sport which has existed for hundreds of years then they shouldn't be denied the chance in a regulated sport? What would you change if you don't agree with it in it's current state? What is it in particular, including violence, that you think it shouldn't be permitted?

Original post by arson_fire
I agree if you don`t like it dont watch it. I`ve never been into boxing or MMA (if i want to watch two guys knocking lumps out each other i can go down the local pub) but theres no way they should be banned.

The Guardian comments section is inhabited by a bunch of middle-class economically-illiterate socially-retarded communists who were bullied at school and want everone else to have the miserable pathetic life they have.


I get the impression that some of the people who've never tried boxing/never tried any sport in their life like to pass judgement on it. I mean don't knock it before you've tried it.
Tbh boxing is boxing - a boxer knows the fatalities that can happen when playing this sport. Sad story tho
Reply 6
Original post by Kiss
I thought you did Aikido? I know they're fundamentally different in the intent of the combat and types of combat style, but surely if people are happy to fight in a sport which has existed for hundreds of years then they shouldn't be denied the chance in a regulated sport?

I do do aikido, but it's not a sport and I have no wishes to unnecessarily harm another person (unlike I imagine a boxer must have to make his or her peace with).

Original post by Kiss
What would you change if you don't agree with it in it's current state?

I am not sure what could be changed. Maybe some other people will have some ideas on this subject, but in the absence of them I would support a ban rather than reform.

Original post by Kiss
What is it in particular, including violence, that you think it shouldn't be permitted?

I don't think people can meaningfully consent to what would otherwise be considered violent crimes, but that on its own doesn't cause me to disagree with the practice, since the revocation of people's ability to consent in practice also restricts their freedom (and by extension their well-being, which is what we're aiming to secure). I think that it is a trade-off. I would disagree for example with allowing people to consent to fights to the death, but probably not to a game of slapsies. Boxing and martial arts are somewhere in the middle, depending on how violent they are. Somewhere there will be a line that separates what is too violent from what is not, and currently professional boxing strikes me as too violent given the prevalence of long-term serious injuries.
Reply 7
Not the best answer to the issue, but this is why I prefer Olympic-level boxing. They're all wearing head guards so the potential for serious injury is dramatically less and they're awarded points for being the more skillful boxer and getting hits on the opponent. The bouts are, usually (and imo), more entertaining to watch and there's less-to-none of the insane and ridiculous posturing that the pros do.
It is slightly strange that we have a sport where the aim is to hit your opponent's head so hard that his brain switches off for a little while.
Original post by the bear
well that is the Guardian for you. If you let people thump your head for a living then there is a chance you will die at work.
The Guardian does not campaign against drugs ... that would be far too un-PC, but far more people die of drugs than boxing.


Campaigning against drugs... 'Politically incorrect' ... These words you are using, do you even know what they mean?
Consent is all that matters here, really. If two people consent to beat the **** out of each other for money in front of an audience then they should be allowed to do that, and if they fall into a coma they have nobody to blame but themselves.
The author of the article is a boxing fan and did not call for the sport to be banned, and neither did any of the commenters you quoted, for that matter. All he's saying is if boxers are being killed/put into comas for the sport, maaayyyyybe the culture of the sport could stand to change a little bit. Why does everything have to be such a ****ing drama with you?
Reply 12
Original post by InnerTemple
It is slightly strange that we have a sport where the aim is to hit your opponent's head so hard that his brain switches off for a little while.

Ice hockey?
Champagne Socialists!
Reply 14
Original post by MJ1012
Ice hockey?


The aim of ice hockey isn't to bash your opponent's skull in, it's to score goals. The checking comes in as part of that game, but the game can exist perfectly well without that element. Remove checking from hockey and you still have hockey. Remove punching from boxing and you no longer have boxing.
The people who box know the risks and they choose to accept them, it's articles like this that make Daily Mail readers spout on about the 'Nanny State' all the time. Isn't the Guardian supposed to be for people being able to make their own choices in life?
Reply 16
Original post by Drewski
The aim of ice hockey isn't to bash your opponent's skull in, it's to score goals. The checking comes in as part of that game, but the game can exist perfectly well without that element. Remove checking from hockey and you still have hockey. Remove punching from boxing and you no longer have boxing.

It was a joke about the checking and widely accepted fights that happen in ice hockey, I wasn't being serious.:tongue:
However, In sports like rugby, american football, ice hockey etc. protecting yourself isn't the main priority. If you have to lift your arms up to catch a ball and get run over by some 17 stone bull dozer that's just what you do while in fighting sports the main rule is protect yourself at all times.
Reply 17
Original post by Algorithm69
What is the death rate of boxing I wonder? I remember reading somewhere that it is lower than a lot sports, and that horse racing has a higher death rate.

I read somewhere that cheerleading is one of the most dangerous sports in America. I think people confuse brutality and violence with danger sometimes.
Reply 18
Original post by MJ1012
It was a joke about the checking and widely accepted fights that happen in ice hockey, I wasn't being serious.:tongue:
However, In sports like rugby, american football, ice hockey etc. protecting yourself isn't the main priority. If you have to lift your arms up to catch a ball and get run over by some 17 stone bull dozer that's just what you do while in fighting sports the main rule is protect yourself at all times.


Well, I have to been to fights where hockey games have broken out...

But it's also worth noting that in most of those sports you do wear protection to prevent those regular impacts becoming anything worse (something which is, allegedly, failing in American Football).
Reply 19
Original post by Drewski
Well, I have to been to fights where hockey games have broken out...

But it's also worth noting that in most of those sports you do wear protection to prevent those regular impacts becoming anything worse (something which is, allegedly, failing in American Football).

Rugby players wear very little protection and for some reason hockey player take their helmets off before fighting, I'd be leaving it on.:colondollar:
Both rugby and american football don't deal with concussions anywhere near the level of at least MMA to my knowledge, don't really know about boxing.

Quick Reply

Latest