This video will make you NEVER allow your kid to take up boxing
- Thread starter Imtotallynottribe
- Start date
And people wonder why I am so passionate about head injuries in football and soccer... for example. If a sport, by the nature in which the game is played, causes people to become a vegitable after they play then I have a problem with it. Maybe others will have issues one day as well...
On a related note here is the latest article from Manchester, UK:
Wow this is so telling: On heading..."They are doing it constantly in training every day and don’t realise the damage they are doing"
https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...k.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar
On a related note here is the latest article from Manchester, UK:
Wow this is so telling: On heading..."They are doing it constantly in training every day and don’t realise the damage they are doing"
https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...k.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar
Last edited:
The goal is to give your opponent a severe concussion.
The heading "injuries" in soccer are ridiculously over-exaggerated. We have plenty of evidence football and boxing have these issues long-term. But soccer has been around just as long, and you don't hear soccer players slurring their words in their 50s (unless they're just drunk) or offing themselves randomly.
People make their own decisions and reap the benefits, while suffering the consequences, for those decisions. If someone wants to play football that's their decision. Enough with the nanny state and the thought process that you know better than the person making the decision.
Pleeeease don’t get Gwinnett started on this topic. My god he never lets it go!
That's fair to a point but it should be studied in depth such that all people have all the information necessary to make an informed decision.
To the extent that there are still CTE deniers out there, there needs to be more conversation, video evidence (such as the clip OP posted), and research done and broadly disseminated.
I would find it hard to believe that many parents would let their kids box (or play football) if they understood the full scope of the damage being done to their child's participation. Perhaps only parents who are either inattentive, negligent, or struggling so badly they sacrifice their child's health in exchange for the slim chance he succeeds and becomes wealthy enough to relieve the family's financial woes.
A sport that can't survive when potential participants fully understand the health ramifications of the sport is likely to struggle long term.
Very sad.
A very ironic (probably unintentional) use of a Jay Z quote at the beginning...
http://www.latimes.com/sports/boxing/la-sp-daniel-franco-20171202-story.html
It's one thing to allow such dangerous sports, and given the rewards and the nature of personal responsibility, nothing is probably going to change. They've been banning or talking about banning boxing for well over 100 years.
But it's quite another to have a structure in which people who suffer such things receive ZERO support and their injuries can ruin a family financially for a generation. While a couple of those (Chacon and Benitez) were the results of a cumulative career, most of those were the results of a single bout. At a fundamental level, they could be classified as an "accident", like someone being seriously injured in lacrosse, or even something like Hank Gathers (which is not a judgement on whether someone should be participating in a sport so prone to "accidents" or an implication that boxing isn't more reckless or dangerous than most sports). The fact that a single bout can result in a catastrophic injury with absolutely no help is something that CAN be changed.
It's definitely tragic when a 60 year old man has the brain of a 90 year old man, or something like that, but at least you are dealing with something that is not unheard of in the general population, and there are at least social mechanisms around it. It's horrible that people are dealing with parents being basically infirm two decades ahead of when they should be, but at least elder care, elderly maladies, etc are something that there's a construct around. It's unpleasant, but everyone with a parent in their 60s or older has thought about what they would do if one of them got sick, or something happened to them, etc. And (although it never happens) the earnings of someone in their prime could theoretically offset the financial costs.
But when a 27 year old, making no meaningful money earned, maybe with a wife and kids, walks into a ring and comes out a vegetable needing lifelong daily care...there absolutely has to be mechanism in place for these situations around insurance carried by promoters, managers or sites.
A very ironic (probably unintentional) use of a Jay Z quote at the beginning...
http://www.latimes.com/sports/boxing/la-sp-daniel-franco-20171202-story.html
It's one thing to allow such dangerous sports, and given the rewards and the nature of personal responsibility, nothing is probably going to change. They've been banning or talking about banning boxing for well over 100 years.
But it's quite another to have a structure in which people who suffer such things receive ZERO support and their injuries can ruin a family financially for a generation. While a couple of those (Chacon and Benitez) were the results of a cumulative career, most of those were the results of a single bout. At a fundamental level, they could be classified as an "accident", like someone being seriously injured in lacrosse, or even something like Hank Gathers (which is not a judgement on whether someone should be participating in a sport so prone to "accidents" or an implication that boxing isn't more reckless or dangerous than most sports). The fact that a single bout can result in a catastrophic injury with absolutely no help is something that CAN be changed.
It's definitely tragic when a 60 year old man has the brain of a 90 year old man, or something like that, but at least you are dealing with something that is not unheard of in the general population, and there are at least social mechanisms around it. It's horrible that people are dealing with parents being basically infirm two decades ahead of when they should be, but at least elder care, elderly maladies, etc are something that there's a construct around. It's unpleasant, but everyone with a parent in their 60s or older has thought about what they would do if one of them got sick, or something happened to them, etc. And (although it never happens) the earnings of someone in their prime could theoretically offset the financial costs.
But when a 27 year old, making no meaningful money earned, maybe with a wife and kids, walks into a ring and comes out a vegetable needing lifelong daily care...there absolutely has to be mechanism in place for these situations around insurance carried by promoters, managers or sites.
I have zero problems with researching the issue, as that seems like the smart thing to do. I also don't have a problem with other people taking issue with the head trauma caused. Where I draw the line is when people start talking about making these things illegal.
It’s interesting - two guys square up outside a Walmart and it’s illegal and both can go to jail. If one is hurt or dies, you could go away for some time.
But sanctioned fighting is ok - what’s the differenc, legally?
But sanctioned fighting is ok - what’s the differenc, legally?
Gerald McClellan was winning the fight against Nigel Benn, and until his brain started to fail, he was even winning the 10th (ultimately, the last) round. McClellen had clean knockdowns of Benn in the 1st (knocked him out of the ring) and 8th rounds. McClellan fought from a distance (with his hands low), and when Benn came in to close that distance they banged heads a bunch of times, including one that sent McClellan to the canvas for a few seconds in the 9th.
McClellan spent numerous rounds doing a very stupid and dangerous thing - he kept spitting his mouthpiece halfway out so he could breath easier. The purpose of the mouthpiece is not only to protect the fighter's teeth, but to make him clench his jaw and thereby stabilize it. Then when he takes a shot to the chin his neck can flex to absorb the blow, and the jaw is hard against the rest of the skull so the shock gets transmitted directly to the skull without jarring it into the skull. McClellan's nose and orbits looked ok, I don't think he was having "structural problems" with his breathing, I believe he was just gassed and his corner let this basic safety precaution slide because he was winning a close, brutal fight.
In the 10th, McClellan was cruising along picking up points for the first minute, then got hit with a clean-but-not-heroic shot to the jaw. It wasn't a case of him "getting knocked down" - he just took a knee, breathed heavy for a few seconds, then popped back up. This would not have been a strategic maneuver, the fight was too close for that. After the 8-count the fight resumed, McClellan clinched, Benn threw some punches, then connected on one uppercut that send McClellan to the canvas again. Again, it wan't a "normal knockdown," rather, McClellan just basically sat down on one knee. His legs never wobbled like you usually see, he had his hands up - then sat down again. The announcer said "Head as clear as a bell; eyes as clear as a bell, nothing wrong with him" and, unkindly, concluded that McClellan had run out of gas and had given up.
For several rounds, McClellan had been blinking excessively. He never looked confused, and was never disoriented. His face was nearly unmarked. He took a knee and was counted out. After the 10-count, McClellan stood right back up without assistance, walked back to his corner without wobbling. He stood while they got his stool, he sat and answered the doctor's questions - then passed out and slipped into a coma for 2 weeks.
Benn also collapsed, after leaving the ring and before making it to the dressing room. His was due to exhaustion.
In that "after" clip of McClellan, you can see he had significant hearing loss. What is more difficult to see is that he was blind as well.
McClellan spent numerous rounds doing a very stupid and dangerous thing - he kept spitting his mouthpiece halfway out so he could breath easier. The purpose of the mouthpiece is not only to protect the fighter's teeth, but to make him clench his jaw and thereby stabilize it. Then when he takes a shot to the chin his neck can flex to absorb the blow, and the jaw is hard against the rest of the skull so the shock gets transmitted directly to the skull without jarring it into the skull. McClellan's nose and orbits looked ok, I don't think he was having "structural problems" with his breathing, I believe he was just gassed and his corner let this basic safety precaution slide because he was winning a close, brutal fight.
In the 10th, McClellan was cruising along picking up points for the first minute, then got hit with a clean-but-not-heroic shot to the jaw. It wasn't a case of him "getting knocked down" - he just took a knee, breathed heavy for a few seconds, then popped back up. This would not have been a strategic maneuver, the fight was too close for that. After the 8-count the fight resumed, McClellan clinched, Benn threw some punches, then connected on one uppercut that send McClellan to the canvas again. Again, it wan't a "normal knockdown," rather, McClellan just basically sat down on one knee. His legs never wobbled like you usually see, he had his hands up - then sat down again. The announcer said "Head as clear as a bell; eyes as clear as a bell, nothing wrong with him" and, unkindly, concluded that McClellan had run out of gas and had given up.
For several rounds, McClellan had been blinking excessively. He never looked confused, and was never disoriented. His face was nearly unmarked. He took a knee and was counted out. After the 10-count, McClellan stood right back up without assistance, walked back to his corner without wobbling. He stood while they got his stool, he sat and answered the doctor's questions - then passed out and slipped into a coma for 2 weeks.
Benn also collapsed, after leaving the ring and before making it to the dressing room. His was due to exhaustion.
In that "after" clip of McClellan, you can see he had significant hearing loss. What is more difficult to see is that he was blind as well.
Last edited:
Well, if I removed your appendix outside a Walmart, that is also illegal and I would go to jail. There are lots of ways we restrict who does something and where.
Sure. Just curious about where that’s spelled out. I’m wondering if there’s a carve out of some kind in the criminal statutes for sanctioned fights, etc.
It is an old sport that dates back to when dueling was a legal means of settling a dispute. Dueling with swords, dueling with guns, and dueling with fists. As we advance socially we have implemented rules to prevent "duels to the death" - but as we have advanced scientifically at a much faster rate, training and conditioning improvements have resulted in more dangerous fighters.
"Sanctioned" means that the rules are followed, including the rules to augment safety. Many of us are old enough to remember when fights lasted 15 rounds, but they shorted that to 12 rounds decades ago. That was a safety measure.
We need a few more safety measures - but they are often at odds with the concept of an "exciting fight" that people pay lots of money to see. Olympic boxers use gloves with more padding, wear protective headgear, and only box for 3 rounds. Nice and safe, but no money in it.
Last edited:
I don't think either party should go to jail if two people willingly fight each other. That's their business, not mine.
I'd say it's mostly about licensing. Fighters have to be licensed by state athletic boards, and are subject to health tests, etc, as well as passing drug screens. You can also be denied a license for things like, say, biting an ear off.
Athletic commissions also have to sign off on bouts, and are supposed to not sign off on clear mismatches.
Of course, there are plenty of "soft commissions" that are small, ineffectual and underfunded, and even the strong commissions are accused of corruption and/or poor judgement.
Promoters and managers have to be licensed as well, as do the refs and medical people responsible for keeping participants safe (theoretically).
I guess it's sort of similar how some amateur daredevil trying to get Youtube clicks will be arrested if he scales 30 stories up the side of a city building, but Tom Cruise can do it for a movie as long as all the proper conditions are met.
But it IS your business if one is your oncologist and the other is your radiologist...we are all connected to other people. While I generally agree with you, I also believe that society (through the legal system) has a say in our behavior.
I watched the first act of the original Footloose last night - Kevin Bacon moved to a town were dancing was illegal. If you got startled by a snake you could be convicted of dubstepping.
Worth mentioning as well...Alaska and Wyoming have no athletic commissions, so fights there can (and do) take place with nobody enforcing anything, ensuring competent referees or safety personnel, or making sure that fighters are fit to fight. I think it's been cleaned up a lot, but there was a time when tribal lands were outside these kind of terms as well and would stage things that couldn't be staged elsewhere. To your question...I'm not sure if there's a reason the cops couldn't go in and arrest those guys for assault or disturbing the peace, but there's really no reason to.
There's a lot less of that than there used to be, as for the most part boxing and MMA promoters and sanctioning bodies won't patronize a state or tribal lands without a proper commission. So any of the tribal organizations that actually want to have boxing in their venues, and many do, put together real commissions and abide by the Muhammad Ali act, etc just like a regular state commissions.
How so? Not following this line at all, unless you're trying to get chemo in the middle of a fight. I get this reasoning with the classic "what if your child's bus driver is on LSD" trope, but sincerely not following that thread with this one. Do people make sure their radiologist doesn't rock climb or cave dive?
I'm just trying to continue my treatments and beat my lung cancer into submission - but those treatments get interrupted because the two specialists that know me best got into a fight yesterday and are not working today. THAT makes it my business.
That would apply to cops; to my dry cleaner; my kid's first grade teacher; to the investment banker that is taking my company public in 2 weeks, and everyone else I have any dependencies on. I am dependent on them for services, and for being service providers they get paid.
What happens when our QB gets ejected for fighting in the first quarter? It is satisfying to see him defend himself by kicking a Gator DT in the huevos, but it would be a much better decision to remain available for the rest of the game and help us beat those jerks.
I am all for licensed fighting - boxing, MMA, fencing, et. al. I am addressing Nole Soup's "I don't think either party should go to jail if two people willingly fight each other. That's their business, not mine." which would logically extend to road rage, bar fights, and general douchebaggery, a la my two hypothetical cancer doctors.
We have added safety guidelines etc to try and make it safer since people like it. Not any different in the evolution of football.
Many states allow mutually combat.
On a related note, I always knew that MMA was safer than boxing despite looking more brutal because most of the long term damage doesn’t come from short quick knockouts but constant micro concussions from pitter patter strikes over a long time. And the science supports that.
“What we do know is this: in November 2015, researchers at the University of Alberta’s Sather Sports Medicine Clinic discovered that although MMA fighters are more likely than boxers to experience minor but visible injuries like bruises or contusions, they are less likely to receive long-term injuries such as concussions, fractured eye sockets and broken bones. Dr. Shelby Karpman, a sports medicine physician and the study’s lead author, explained: “You’re more likely to get injured if you’re participating in mixed martial arts, but the injury severity is less overall than boxing. Most of the blood you see in mixed martial arts is from bloody noses or facial cuts; it doesn’t tend to be as severe but looks a lot worse than it actually is.”
Considered the largest study of its kind in mixed martial arts vs. boxing injuries, researchers analysed the post-fight medical data of 1,181 MMA fighters and 550 boxers who competed between 2003 to 2013 in Edmonton, Canada. What they found was 59.4% of MMA fighters and 49.8% of boxers suffered some form of injury on fight night, but that 7.1% of boxers lost consciousness or suffered more serious injuries compared to 4.2% of those competing in MMA.”
My thought on how to make boxer safer without resorting to boring Olympic style boxing would be to eliminate multiple knockdowns, if you lose your feet for anything other than a slip or another fighter pushing/tripping then the match is over. Combine that with lower round numbers (maybe a max of six) and smaller gloves which don’t deaden the impact meaning more microconcussions rather than KOs and which fighters are less likely to “hide behind” while taking minor shots to the head behind the gloves.
“What we do know is this: in November 2015, researchers at the University of Alberta’s Sather Sports Medicine Clinic discovered that although MMA fighters are more likely than boxers to experience minor but visible injuries like bruises or contusions, they are less likely to receive long-term injuries such as concussions, fractured eye sockets and broken bones. Dr. Shelby Karpman, a sports medicine physician and the study’s lead author, explained: “You’re more likely to get injured if you’re participating in mixed martial arts, but the injury severity is less overall than boxing. Most of the blood you see in mixed martial arts is from bloody noses or facial cuts; it doesn’t tend to be as severe but looks a lot worse than it actually is.”
Considered the largest study of its kind in mixed martial arts vs. boxing injuries, researchers analysed the post-fight medical data of 1,181 MMA fighters and 550 boxers who competed between 2003 to 2013 in Edmonton, Canada. What they found was 59.4% of MMA fighters and 49.8% of boxers suffered some form of injury on fight night, but that 7.1% of boxers lost consciousness or suffered more serious injuries compared to 4.2% of those competing in MMA.”
My thought on how to make boxer safer without resorting to boring Olympic style boxing would be to eliminate multiple knockdowns, if you lose your feet for anything other than a slip or another fighter pushing/tripping then the match is over. Combine that with lower round numbers (maybe a max of six) and smaller gloves which don’t deaden the impact meaning more microconcussions rather than KOs and which fighters are less likely to “hide behind” while taking minor shots to the head behind the gloves.
So you don't approve of people drinking then? It is legal, but if they drink on Sunday they COULD be drunk on Monday and since that impacts you, your stance is no alcohol for everyone right?
And what if they go to the grocery and get bread, but get hurt in a car accident? You disapprove of people driving cars since it can be deemed risky and impacts you if an unplanned result occurs?
Where do you draw the line of people conducting business on their time that might impact you later? Whats the distinction?
The other difference is the submission game. Boxing is only won by out punching the other. Plenty of fights have resulted in submissions where no or few shots landed (thinking of Bader's win 10 days ago). I don't think he took a single punch.
Yeah, I think this is apparent if you follow how boxers generally get seriously injured. Those specific results seem a little odd compared to what I would have thought, but what you said about microagressions is right on. It's really as simple as this...boxers take more punches to the head than UFC fighters in general, and all punches to the head matter, not just knockout blows.
Two things would be easy to do in boxing without changing the nature of the sport too much. One is technical...smaller gloves as you said. Bigger gloves were put in place for safety reasons, which makes logical sense, but science now shows that in fact it's the opposite. In addition, it would have a great affect on the aesthetic appeal of the sport, it's a true win-win. But it will never be done because it "sounds bad" and it's counter-intuitive to say we're going to make boxing safer by having more knockouts. But it's almost unassailable that it's the case.
The other thing is cultural, and there has to be a removal of the aura around "finishing on your feet." The ref should feel comfortable stopping a fight that is absolutely one-sided without one guy being "stopped." There are way too many fights that go 12 rounds, obvious 12-0 to one fighter, and could be stopped anywhere after about the seventh or eighth round. I'm not saying that if a guy gets up 2 or 3 points the fight should be stopped, but complete, non-competitive mismatches are not at all uncommon. You know what is uncommon? Fights where a guy has lost every round and then gets a knockout in the last round...maybe it's a once every several years occurrence, and very rarely in a high profile fight. It just isn't enough of an occurrence to preserve.
I also think this would make for better fights, as if you watch boxing a lot, you see guys all the time that by the early rounds are simply fighting to survive and making no effort to win. There is no effort to let that fight continue...it doesn't benefit the winner, the loser or the fans. It seems like there should be a mechanism by which the fight is stopped, either by referee's judgement alone, or in conjunction with a look at the scores. Sure, there would be some controversial stoppages, as there are now, but the sport would adjust. And by nature, they'd likely be way less controversial than regular stoppages...you'd be arguing whether somebody's chances in the fight when it was stopped was completely hopeless, or just merely almost completely hopeless.
I don't necessarily want to see rounds shortened in general, but I would like to see a lot of these second and third and fourth tier "interim regional title" fights that are nowhere near the top of the sport be reduced to 10, and 12 rounds be reserved for true top-level fights. I'd like to see the "championship rounds" of 11 and 12 be that. I think you could make about 30% of the 12 rounders actually 10 rounds, and 30% of the 10 rounders to 8 rounds. Again, good for the sport I believe, better fights would result. It would shave a few rounds off a fighter's tread for sure.
While I do believe that in-fight injuries are more likely to be catastrophic brain injuries than MMA, we're still a bit early in the history of MMA to make too many conclusions as to the cumulative damage effect. I would expect it would also be a little less prevalent than boxing because of fewer cumulative blows, but we'll see how much when more MMA legends start hitting their mid 60s and so forth.
With all due respect, that is insane. You can't wrap everyone you interact with in bubble wrap. Do you make sure they eat a proper diet and exercise also?
We're not talking about conducting business - we are talking about them fighting each other, unsupervised. That is where I draw the line. If my aforementioned theoretical oncologist gets locked up for DUI and my theoretical radiologist gets jailed for selling meth, that still leaves them unavailable to their patients - but we failed (as a society) to de-incentivize their illicit behavior with the current probabilities of catching them and the current level of destroying their lives by punishing them.
We can't Big Brother everyone 24-7, but we can offer circumstances to deter bad behavior with a threat of arrest and punishment. If fighting is legal - no arrest, no punishment - what is there to stop a big guy from dragging a little guy out of his BMW for following too close and beating the snot out of him? No supervision means there is nobody to judge whether or not the fight is fair, or justified, or mutually agreed-upon.
Even Thunderdome was organized, and supervised. Are you guys looking for something more barbaric than that as a legal means of settling disputes?
Nope - I draw a line long before that. No bubble wrap - but no legalized, unsupervised violence either.
Even as we post in conflict with each other, we are incentivized to follow the rules of this board. We can disagree all we want, but as long as we stay within the rules we are fine. I am in favor of the current law that forbids people from attempting to beat the hell out of each other (with no official there to tell the winner when to stop) over a parking space or the last Diet Mt. Dew at 7-11. If you find my position on this issue strange, that is ok, we all are allowed to offer up our opinions.
We're not talking about conducting business - we are talking about them fighting each other, unsupervised. That is where I draw the line. If my aforementioned theoretical oncologist gets locked up for DUI and my theoretical radiologist gets jailed for selling meth, that still leaves them unavailable to their patients - but we failed (as a society) to de-incentivize their illicit behavior with the current probabilities of catching them and the current level of destroying their lives by punishing them.
We can't Big Brother everyone 24-7, but we can offer circumstances to deter bad behavior with a threat of arrest and punishment. If fighting is legal - no arrest, no punishment - what is there to stop a big guy from dragging a little guy out of his BMW for following too close and beating the snot out of him? No supervision means there is nobody to judge whether or not the fight is fair, or justified, or mutually agreed-upon.
Even Thunderdome was organized, and supervised. Are you guys looking for something more barbaric than that as a legal means of settling disputes?
So if they are engaged in mutually agreed upon combat which is legal in many places, they you are okay with it? You only take issue if its illegal behavior? Just trying to understand where the line is.
That is close, but I am looking for a layer of "sanctioned" as well - in the same way 2 Naval officers can't get pissed and fight it out in the bathroom (like in Battleship), 2 doctors, 2 commuters, 2 construction workers, or any other 2 people should not be allowed to jeopardize their ability to contribute to society (and absorb state-subsidized healthcare) in a fight over a parking space.
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-09-24/news/mn-966_1_steelers-fan
I suppose that puts me in the camp that believes the current law is more or less correct, and should not be diluted per Nole Soup's (and subsequent supporters) desired paradigm.
From the article is indicates a taunting and then attack with severe injury (doesn't give more details), but based on lack of agreement to fight, it seems this was just an attack so doesn't really fit mutual combat.
I am just curious where you are drawing the line is all. I guess I don't care if they go fight club on each other. Assuming they have sick time, they so can burn it on Monday and their employer has to support the client list when they are out if they need the time off.
Last edited:
In Florida, ‘mutual combat’ is a recognized battery defense predicated upon both parties assenting to a physical altercation and therefore consenting to be touched as an understood consequence of that altercation. Both parties must be at fault, and the defendant must not be the primary aggressor or initiate the fight. Eiland v. State, 112 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959); A.L. v. State, 790 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). - http://www.husseinandwebber.com/crimes/violent-crimes/simple-battery/
I don't know about everyone else, but next month, if Francois kicks a Gator DT in the huevos, I'm going to go ahead and consider that a win.
Heading was removed until u13. That makes sense that younger kids whose brains are still developing should not be heading balls.
