A few weeks ago, I was talking to a work colleague about the kind of sport shown on the BBC television channels (not Sky or the satellite stuff). One thing that came up in conversation was how little boxing there was on the BBC. Was this just because Sky and the paid-for TV channels had bagged all the top fights? It seemed so, but was there something else going on, like a PC revulsion on the part of the BBC top brass about puglism? It seemed a bit odd. When I was a youngster, there was always some boxing match in the offing featuring the likes of Barry MacGuigan, or Joe Frazier, Lloyd Honeygan, Nigel Benn, Frank Bruno (“know wot I mean, ‘Arry?”) Chris Eubank, Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis, Sugar Ray Leonard… the list was endless. Some of the matches were brutal and there were tragedies: Michael Watson was seriously maimed in a fight; Ali, of course, suffers from a severe form of Parkinson’s which must, surely, be linked to the injuries he sustained. Boxing has always had a sleazy side too; some of the money-men involved in the sport probably have spent a lot of time brushing up against the law. In the early days of the big fights in Las Vegas or London’s East End, there was more than just a whiff of organised crime involved.
But – there is a but here – boxing is more than all that. Competitive pugilism involves a lot of skill, just as martial arts do; it is a terrific way to keep and get fit and it is also a good way for potentially wayward youngsters with lots of testosterone to channel their aggression and learn to act like a man in a fair fight under the guidance of a referee. And for all that boxing can be and is a brutal sport, I have watched some matches that had me sitting on the edge of my seat in excitement: I particularly remember the epic fight, in 1985, between MacGuigan and Predoza. Absolutely electrifying fight. And I defy anyone to watch an old video of Ali, in his fights against Patterson or Frazier, and not admit to be astonished by the man’s athleticism and skill.
British boxing is now in the best state that it has been in for years. Boxers like Ricky Hatton and others are blazing a trail; the countries of the UK look to be able to field a decent bunch of entrants for the Beijing Olympics next year. And even the BBC, which recently seemed to be turning up its nose at the sheer vulgarity and general non-PCness of boxing, seems to be covering boxing quite a lot all of a sudden, invalidating my earlier wonderment about whether the BBC had killed the sport from its programmes. No longer. Good. Boxing has been through a fallow time in Britain over the past few years and there remain legitimate worries about the potential injuries that can be inflicted. But if you accept – as a genuine liberal must – that grown-up adults can and should be able to consensually fight and accept the consequences, there should be absolutely no suggestion that boxing be banned, any more than say, wrestling or other contact sports which can cause injury, including life-threatening ones.
There is also a cultural issue worth throwing into the mix: boxing seems to be one of the few sports that have drawn in young Muslim men in Britain, apart from cricket. That has to be a good thing.
Banning boxing between consenting adults would be, of course, unjust. But I do sometimes worry about personally endorsing it because of the damage that it frequently causes people.
But fighting is an excellent talent, and be a useful channel of agression and passion for people and perhaps superior medical technology will eventually make it less problematic.
nick,
Well, amateur boxing is much safer. I can’t stand the pro version because of the ludicrous hype and the antics of the likes of Don King.
Well, it would certainly have been much less colorful if not for King:-) Boxing is the only sport I can really watch without getting bored when there is no other choice.
The guys I boxed with were from the rough side of town and I almost never heard of them after we parted ways except for exploits of pummeling regular joes. So I cannot comment on “positive channeling” of testosterone.
But boxing is truly a world of its own. A three-minute round is either the fastest 180 seconds on earth or feels like getting jackhammered for hours at a time.
Though modern boxing is a most excellent sport, I feel the need to point out that the boxing of today is nowhere near as good as it used to be.
Boxing is boring, silly and artificial.
MMA is the future.
I don’t care for boxing. In a rugby game, if someone is knocked unconscious the game stops and everybody makes sure he is okay. In boxing, the other competitor jumps up and down because he has just won.
(All the usual libertarian caveats apply here. If people want to box, or want to watch other people box, that’s entirely fine. It’s also entirely fine for me not to like it).
Boxing is boring, silly and artificial.
Since 1866 I think that your first two points are valid. The last point applies to any martial art that is adapted for sporting purposes, including MMA.
MMA is the future.
I had some MMA practitioners in a class of around 30 people at a HEMA event I was teaching at a few weeks ago. They found the 18th century pugilistic techniques very interesting indeed, and plan to incorporate them into their style. Other practitioners of 18th century pugilism have reported success sparring against MMA stylists.
Of course, 18th century pugilism included a much greater variety of allowed technique, including holds and throws. I understand that the reason for banning these from competition during the latter half of the 19th century was that the public were more interested in seeing punching and it was thought that banning grappling would encourage them to do this. To my mind it would be far more interesting if instead of the referee breaking up boxers in a clinch they would let them carry on in the traditional way by trying to throw their opponent to the ground.
Many human activities are damaging – no one gets out of life alive.
For example, shift work has recently been found to increase the chances of various forms of cancer – by messing up the various chemicals the body produces in day and night.
I suppose the difference is that no one stands around cheering as other people do shift work – at least not normal types of shift work.
The objection to boxing would seem not to be the damage that happens to people, lots of activities cause damage, or even that the damage is intentionally caused by another person (otherwise Rugby scrums would be banned – a pal of mine got his neck broke in one, but he accepted that doing damage to the other side is part of what the game is about).
The objection seems to be the pleasure the crowd take in the damage. For example, if someone has his neck broken in a rugby scrum the crowd do not cheer – if someone is knocked out in a boxing ring the crowd do cheer.
It is a bit like the Puritian reason for banning various animal sports – not concern for the animals, but hatred of the pleasure of those people watching.
After all they also banned dancing (including non contact all male dancing) and many other harmless activities.
But how far do we go with this?
For example, should people be allowed to fight to the death with swords or axes?
I am sure that if enough money was paid there would be no shortage of people who would agree to do this – and vast numbers of people would pay to watch (the television rights would be worth a fortune).
I do not know what my position is on this example.
knirirr,
Yes, that’s true about the artificiality. It is relative, though.
Pride was better than “unified rules”-era UFC, and the early UFC was the best.
Paul,
I’d already thought of reviving Roman sports and putting it on Sky pay per view.
Chariot racing would knock Formula 1 into a cocked hat and the gladiators would go down a storm – much classier than “Bumfights”.
I’d get the gladiators from Gitmo.
For example, should people be allowed to fight to the death with swords or axes?
Before boxing became popular public prize fights used to take place with swords, as written about by Pepys who attended one such display. These were used in a manner to cause gory cuts but to not with the intention to kill, although this is clearly a more dangerous activity than boxing. I’d have more time for this than a fight ‘to the death’ where death was an essential outcome. A fight that carries a risk of death yet isn’t intended as an ‘execution’ would seem a reasonable form of entertainment. Once it is arranged so that someone must die it does give the impression of being rather uncivilised.
By the way, the first boxing rules (linked to in my first post, above) were imposed after the writer had killed someone in a prize fight and wasn’t too happy about it. He thought that his rules would make the sport a little less lethal by banning the then legitimate practice of putting the boot in against an downed opponent.
Boxers like Ricky Hatton and others are blazing a trail;
Joe Calzaghe blazed that trail. Hatton is merely following.
Thank you Tim Newman.
I had just come on to make the point about Joe Calzaghe. He’s a fabulous fighter, complete in attacking and defensive skills and with a champion’s heart. And all done with dignity too.
Good luck to Ricky Hatton in his fight next week against Mayweather.
It’s a top-quality match with genuine uncertainty about the result; exactly what is best about sport.
I think Hatton will win,I think he’ll exert too much pressure and swon’t get disheartened if it’s slow to take effect, but anything could happen.
Mayweather’s people are confident too.
And however long it lasts it’ll be exciting.
Interesting stuff knirirr.
Nick M.
If you got the gladiators from Gitmo John McCain would have a fit – you know he will not even tolerate waterboarding (even if it is to get information to save a city from being nuked).
Of course his own torture influences his judgement – but the argument that “if we torture their guys they will torture ours” is false. Americans who are captured will be tortured to death however the United States treates enemies.
Under the Geneva Convention enemies who dress in civilian clothing are spies and can be shot.
So perhaps a “no prisoners” policy would satify the Senator – at least it would mean that Gitmo could be closed.
Paul,
I understand the legalities surrounding the Gitmo lads. Amazingly an staggering number of people don’t and witter on about the Geneva Conventions. Hence my modest proposal. That, and I thought it would make a bloody fortune.
America is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t. I can think of quite a few nations who would have quietly offed captured AQT. These are amongst the most vocal critics of Gitmo though that isn’t through ignorance.
“And down Pedroza went, eyes saucer size and legs like jelly”
Don’t remember who said it, but it’s always stuck with me since. I remember that fight well. He was a hero in Ireland. A wonderful achievement for an Irish boxer, even if the Beeb did seem to need to call him an “English boy” (only the victory was achieved, mind you)
Anyone remember that moment when Tyson went down against “Buster” Douglas? Electrifying.
Thanks, Paul.
If you have any interest in a period defence of boxing against killjoy statists, or a summary of the stars of the day, then this book may be worth a look.
Nick
I did not mean to imply that you did not know the legal background to Gitmo, I know that you do know, – so I apologize.
knirirr
I have heard that one advantage of the old bare knuckle (etc) boxing was that, normally, fights were shorter and one did not have the endless snap back of the head (time, after time, after time) that was a classic part of the new boxing. In short that brain damage was more a feature of the new boxing than the old.
Is this true?
knirirr
Nice looking book – and enterprise.
One of my regrets is not buying a modern reproduction of a standard 18th century gentleman’s sword (English style – for defence, not French style – for show) from an event held at Rockingham Castle near here.
It would have been absurd of me to buy the sword – both because I am poor and because I have no skill with the blade.
However, I still regret not buying the sword. The black grip (wrong word, I know) especially caught my eye. Oddly enough it reminded me of the spine of a well bound book.
hi johnathan!
great post,i realy recommand boxing ,i did it for 2 years it is great for ones body and confidance,keep on the good work
tal
Martial Art Training
I told some of my friends about your blog , i hope they will like it like i did
tal
Martial Art Training