|
Aswad -> RE: Boxing... (4/28/2007 6:47:47 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MsMacComb
From what I know there are two "types" of boxing. One is the sport that could use better padded gloves, padded helmets shorter rounds and shorter bouts with technical expertise and technique being the focal point.
More padding would probably prolong the fights, which might be just as harmful unless one, as you suggest, shortens the rounds, which will lead to a loss of popularity, I guess.
The technical expertise and technique is already catered to. Very much so. These people spend an enormous amount of time perfecting both. But there aren't very many moves in boxing, compared to many other things. If you want to get more technical, you will have to look at Muay Thai or somesuch, and if you think boxing is brutal, I don't think you'll like that any better.
quote:
The other is the Mike Tyson etc version where the prefight talk is about rattling someones brain stem around inside their skull till they are knocked out, unconscious maybe dead and then eating the fingers of their children (after an appetizer of half ear ala carte).
Mike Tyson has issues. Some people do. One of them got to be a top boxer. Big deal.
And boxing is about those things. Winning effectively speaking comes from either landing more blows than your opponent, which involves lots of blunt trauma, or knocking them out. Mostly, you want to rattle their brains about, because that is pretty much the only way to bring them to the point of a KO when wearing huge gloves. That, or harmful levels of physical exhaustion.
This is part of why I don't do boxing. Another part is the aggression needed to go after someone with the intent of bruising their brains to the point where they pass out.
quote:
There is danger in any sport and in everyday life. Most sports objective is not to pummel the opponent.
Yet they still manage to cause a lot of injuries, don't they? Forgetting about hooligans and such for the moment, football causes tons of injuries. Boxing causes long-term damage to the body (pugilistic dementia, retinal damage, etc.) as well, which is why I prefer the martial arts.
I've seen people go at each other with katanas that have been tested in cutting things far tougher than the human body, where the participants are to stop less than an inch from the skin and only if not blocked or deflected. I haven't seen anyone killed or seriously injured yet, although I'm sure there have been some, even in the modern era.
All the people I know who have been into martial arts, whether all the way or just a little bit, are still in pretty good health, although some Tae Kwon Do schools have had similar issues to football, due to not using resistance properly.
All the people I know who have been into non-combative sports in a serious way have had one or more surgeries by now, while the others just have "common" health problems that oddly enough don't seem as common to the MA crowd.
quote:
Still, man (males) are a bit violent and brutal and while they should have their "sports" must the most vicious be rewarded?
Lots of women enjoy watching boxing too, and there are women's boxing matches as well. Not all men are violent and/or brutal, and I'd say the sexes differ in this respect only with regards to average muscle mass, preferred form of confrontation and social conditioning. With the equality movement, it's been evening out a lot. Note also that women tend to be more vicious than men in the social arena, and frequently choose non-physical means of confrontation. Poisoning and legal attacks have been fairly popular.
quote:
Pro-boxing ( Tyson style etc) and Ultimate Fighting is not as much sport as it is just barbaric and doesnt really reflect a civil society does it?
Define civil and barbaric in gender-neutral terms, please.
And when did civility become a goal of society, anyway? Society is there to allow individuals to cooperate better; anything else is just people trying to take control over other people without their consent.
quote:
Lastly, I always find it amusing (hypocritical and disgusting) that many on the far right that see a little spanking fetish as "violent and horrid, illegal and a sin" thrill at blood at the more violent matches.
That's conservativism for you. Doesn't have much to do with political leanings, although conservatives tend to want to enforce their views on others, leading to right-wing or far left leanings.
|
|
|
|
