Is Classic Boxing Immoral?

There are no morals. Syed is just a *****.

 

I don't think that's it at all...

The reason that I believe boxing was so popular in decades past, was that the public had fewer options. There was no internet. Television channels were limited and there was no cable or satelite TV. At one point, there was only radio and again, with limited stations. In America, your options consisted of Boxing, Baseball or hoarse racing.. That's it... As years went by, basketball, football, Hockey and other sports became more popular. Television evolved and with it came more channels, more programs, etc... Then came the internet..... Hell, we even have MMA now, which converted a lot of traditional boxing fans to the more violent and arguably LESS moral octagon ring.

 

My morals are rooted in personal sovereignty which means grown men should decide for themselves how to spend their time, and if they want to spend their time punching each other in the face, then so be it. I want to watch.

What he is talking is not about morals but about squimishness, about weakness, a problem identified decades ago by the German social scientist Norbert Elias. We don't burp and fart in public, either. We don't like to see dead bodies. We hide war from our children. We hide execution and punishment from the public. We hide sex from our children. We hide sex from each other. We are panicked over illness and dying. We are obsessed over what other people put in their bodies. It's got nothing to do with morality. It has to do with making people cowards. It's about controlling our sensibilities.

It's the control of our spirit that is immoral.

 

Boxing is a minefield of ambiguity, but immoral? A great deal of things could rightly be labeled as being considerably more immoral than boxing. For what it's worth, I doubt that every boxing observer or participant on any level who possesses the slightest degree of human integrity hasn't, at some point, thought to him or herself something along the lines of 'Is this right?'. Two people inflicting physical harm upon one another in the name of sport is bound to traverse the greyer areas of human existence at some point.
There are, however, far greater threats to human morality than something such as boxing, and ones that a good deal of the populus fail to question even on the most basic level. I for one find it incredible that the bile spouted by the BNP and their sympathisers is actually taken seriously as a political philosophy. So much so that they've managed to gain legal power in a constituency in my home county. And I have to listen to the same 'respectable members of society' tell me that boxing is cruel?

Boxing is a sport that has, like others, been greatly shaped by poverty and inequality within society. So as the quality of life has improved (in certain aspects at least), so the outlet has become less important. Couple this in with the rise of the ******ed attention span, mass consumerism and the greed of particular aspects of the media, and you have a losing formula as far as the development of the sport is concerned.

More morals? ****ing bollocks.

 

Its very Human.Is it Immoral? Is man for the most part Immoral, yes...are politics and politicians immoral, yes...where is man not Immoral...Boxing is a science of hitting and not being hit. It is the science of attack. Is survival only for animals, No it exist everywhere and everyday and when 2 people enter a ring alone to fight for the victory, it is a battle of the mind body and will. Boxing or sports like it will live on as long as there is a competitve spirit in man. And even if the craft loses some of its art and science there will always be wiiners...In the land of the Blind the one eyed man is King.

 

Jeez, all this talk about morals is making think about that nut case moral man who used to post here a few years ago.

 

You folks just need to nut up. Life is short and miserable. Enjoy the feast of souls and hearts or buy into the bull**** of salvation.

See you on the other side that doesn't exist.

 

Way to look on the bright side Seamus...

 

word.

 

That's silly. Backwards, in fact.

Boxing was illegal (presumably as an extension of being socially regarded as immoral) the century before last, prior to destigmatizing.

Even with the Alis and Kims and McClellans, the general public seems to accept that it's consenting adults knowing what they're signing up for. It's just not everybody's taste (back in the olden days, sports were man's business; now you have everybody and their aunt and sister watching the ballgame on Sunday), and is probably the worst promoted professional of all high-level sports.

 

Let's start a debate about morailty. I mean, we can't even come to an agreed post-fight conclusion let alone discussing one of the most fundamental philosophical riddles.

Syed is stirring the pot. How is boxing immoral? It is not, because two men agree to fight each other. The only immoral part of boxing is the Don King's and the other greedy scumbags, which is the same for all sports.

 

Total crap if you ask me. Morals have gone down the drain these days in comparison to what they were in boxings golden era.

 

He's probably trying very hard to be intellectual and hint at a comparison to Roman times and the colloseum, when morals were at an all-time low and gladiators fought for the right to remain alive.

It goes entirely limp, ofc, but that doesn't stop men who write for a living.

 

Actually Gladiators were rarely killed. This is a myth. They were just too expensive to be killed. :good