Brutal Purgation: Does Boxing Serve As A Violent Catharsis-Is It Good for Our Souls?

Tenereef

 

My personal favourite feeling is when some guy punches me in the face because for some reason he thinks he can bully me, and then when I feed him MY knuckle sandwich in return his eyes go big and I can see the thought "Oh f*ck what have I done" bouncing around in his head :good

 

Greetings from SC this week:hi:

Well Freud always tried to say everything in our dreams was related to a Dck. No matter what object was in your dream is was truly a d/Ick:nut

I think he was on the right track more often than not when he was not off his rocker with his *** obsession :hey. S@ex obsession

The desire to feed the inner need buried deeply is truly there and few take the time to reflect on so I agree. Now, others will laugh this off but it will linger inside the minds and perhaps encourage them to do research or to just got back walking through life with closed eyes.

Nice wrote up CST. :thumbsup

 

I've only been popping in this week to **** on Blizzy
For a good laugh check out the epic shzit Storm inside his post titled, "My mother told me a story"
Now you see that kid feeds my inner demon :rofl

 

No. I'm drunk now so I'm not going to go into much detail but there are several problems with what you posed. I'll see if I can break them all down coherently. Although I am numbering them it is mainly for my own benefit. There is no set order to this in any form.

1. Aristotle's theory on the subject is a subjective conclusion. It applies to his own experience with it, which is romanticized. Even if it was correct and applied to everyone universally boxing although we think of it as an art of fighting it is NOT an artform in the context of what Aristotle had in mind. Because of that alone what he has to say is irrelevant.

2. This a minor point, but the ideas Freud had are better found in the writings of Schopenhauer, who might I add, had the ideas before him and put them forth even more clearly. There is also Jung who had differing ideas than Fraud, I'm sorry, Freud. Freudian slip hehe, anyway, his ideas were different but his arguments made a bit more sense.

3. The idea of this being cathartic truthfully only makes sense if there is a set amount of "violence" we are containing and upon release (in any form) we are then calm. This isn't the case. If anything exposure to violence in any context makes one more prone to violent acts and this can be easily proven without even dedunking the premise which in itself is easy.

4. The paragraph of the idea of man being violent by nature sounds like you are ...not apologizing. Accepting? One's own violent impulses but rather than change them or even admit it is a problem you determine that it is simply the way you should be. I'm speaking in general terms, society, man, in general. Not you specifically.

5. Violent acts breed violent acts. You cannot like savage acts for the sake of savagery and claim not to be a savage.

 

Super Hans is still around
Well I am up and headed to Savannah, GA for a meeting then stretching the company buck to stay the weekend for some R&R.
Maybe I will run into David Spade again
I think that photo of us was posted last year in Kirks championship thread:thumbsup
Take it easy CST

 

boxing is very dangerous providing little protection to participants. Less protection than any one I can think of with the exception of cyclist coming a a mountain a 50 mph in a speedo and toy helmet.

I dont like the brutality of the sport that rios and alvarado bring i am more of a sweet science guy i know the punches are doing the same damage but i prefer watching someone not trying to be a punching bag. people have died in those kinds of fights and some maimed for life.

I like boxers with real skill like hit a guy three times and he standing asking which way did he go. that takes skill.

 

CST80 in his obsession with bodies and passions misses what makes boxing great and what attracts me and most fans to boxing as the sweet science. Boxing isn't the acceptance of violence in a civilised society. I've always been disturbed by violence. Fights like Arakawa-Figuerora made me question why I watch boxing. But the essense of boxing is the opposite. The art of hitting without getting hit, defence, footwork, outwitting your opponent is a civilising force that conquers violence. Sure boxing accepts violence, but there is no success nor catharsis in mere violence, but only in overcoming violence through reason. The better 'boxer' gains confidence and fulfillment that isn't possible for a 'slugger'. Through developing skill and an aware, effective style that becomes part of himself and besting other skilled boxers a boxer can discover confidence and happiness and personal realisation.

Because it is about the conquering of reason and imagination over violence boxing is in fact part of our heritage of western Enlightenment, not an expression of brutality or madness. That boxing might be losing popularity to the babarism of cage fighting only shows that we're living in a more illiberal age than decades past.