Savannah "The Gypsy Queen" Marshall vs Claressa "T-Rex" Shields - Who you got?

Great post, and spot on. Unfortunatly some people are still in the dark ages.

 

Yeh I don’t understand it mate. I’m not gonna lie and say I’m looking forward to shields v Marshall as I was say Joshua v usyk but I’ll look forward to it more than Del Boy v Parker say. I just don’t understand the disgust and vitriol towards women’s boxing even exsisting

 

I know its mental. That is an example I have, Marshall v Shields is a much better watch than Chisora v Parker. People worry about womens toughness for boxing, woman can give birth to children. Im sure getting punched isnt the same as that.

 

How did you miss this point if you've been reading my posts thus far? I watch because male bouts and female bouts (which are currently very overrepresented on TV shows) are unsegregated, and because I've been watching boxing shows from start to finish since I was an adolescent. Do you suggest I play tiddlywinks, switch over to the golf, take an extended restroom break? If the main event is a womens' bout, granted, I'll turn off after the chief support.

If you're referring specifically to Mitchell-Courtenay, I figured I might as well make some dough off something I was going to sit through anyway. Call it a sweetener.

Just for the record, I'm not saying the girls can't be brave and (relatively) tough. Physical strength isn't the only differential, as I noted previously. It's an overall inferior version of the sport.

The Taylor-Persoon fights were awful. Guys were saying Fury-Wilder III was sloppy, and you're repping those absolute slopfests as prime advertisements for womens' boxing? Good grief.

I have shown myself willing to put that aside, however. One of the points you keep missing is that I haven't even categorically stated that the women shouldn't be on TV, despite my aesthetic reservations about the womens' professional sport and any ethical concerns I may have about its existence. In fact, I suggested that female-only shows should be platformed to such an extent as to give them potential access to up to 3,000,000 live viewers (I'm using the audience peak from Fury-Chisora I as a benchmark), which is a far greater audience than they could achieve on Sky or DAZN. Let's see how much appeal they really have without the men pulling their weight. Why are the pro-womens' boxing folks so scared of such a scenario?

There has been a few in gyms for as long as I've been around. Nothing's really changed except for the level of advancement of a social agenda which is primarily responsible for the recent overrepresentation of womens' boxing on Sky Sports (Hearn's cheapness, too, has been a factor).

Giving them the time of day in what sense? I'm not saying they should be kicked out of boxing gyms or forbidden from learning to box, I'm saying they should be guided away from pursuing a profession that offers them lasting damage for small reward. It's not every young person that walks into a gym that learns to box and goes on to be a pro. Gyms don't solely exist for coaches to make money, they're community services and people who set up gyms and/or coach in them are community servants who offer guidance to young people.

Incidentally, I saw a womens' EBU title fight not long ago involving some English girl (I forget her name, she was the challenger). She looked utterly lost in there, had taken on the appearance of someone who really wanted to burst into tears after two or three rounds and ended up being pulled out by her trainer later in the fight. Given the very poor quality of her performance and the sadness of her demeanour from early on, I had to wonder how he thought it was wise to encourage this girl into the profession in the first place (assuming she turned over with him).

This is a glass ceiling that won't authentically be broken, I feel. It's a social experiment that is doomed to fail. Hearn's been using women because they're cheap, and I don't believe we will ever see a time where female boxers aren't cheap. As I said previously, Shields and Marshall may get paid as a result of this attempt to brute-force womens' boxing into marquee status, but I doubt the economic return for the network and the hoped-for boost in public interest in womens' boxing will be handsome enough to continue doling out good money to female principles.

We complain about unworthy PPV all the time here. Of the guys in this thread who have an issue with my posts about womens' boxing, these fellow who consider me 'backwards' or 'regressive', are you suddenly cool with an unworthy PPV because it fits some progressive agenda you're on board with?

I believe I've come at this from a few angles. Mine is a multi-faceted argument. If anybody is repeating a glib mantra, it's the pro-womens' boxing contingent here. I'm regressive, I'm backwards, give them a chance, etc.

It's pleasing to note that you've accepted my right to express my views, at least, even if you're not willing to think very hard about what I'm saying.

Katie Taylor did not have to pretend to be a boy in order to enter a boxing gym. Katie Taylor had to pretend to be a boy in order to box boys in competitions [url]"once or twice"[/url], or so the story goes (sounds like some romantic promotional narrative she's had to go along with when questioned, but I'll accept it at face value for the sake of this discussion).

So, let me get this straight, you think girls should be boxing boys in competitions? That wouldn't harm anybody, i.e. society, in any way? Come on, man. Sparring, where the boys/men can pull punches and go easy, is one thing, but competitive boxing? What savagery are you even arguing in favor of here? The absence of other females to compete with is no excuse for pitting a female against a male in a competitive boxing match, even at schoolboy/schoolgirl age.

Katie Taylor wasn't allowed to box boys in competition, she had to deceive organizers in order to do so, and that's social engineering by your lights? You're trying to teach me that basic social responsibility is backwards and that examples of natural law in action are actually examples of social engineering? Up is down? Black is white? Right is left? Wow, those Frankfurt School sons of bitches really did a great job.

Rather than dismissing you as some kind of scumbag, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you just didn't think your point through very thoroughly.

Jesus H. Christ.

 

Biology, moog. It's a thing.

 

Really looking forward to this, I have the Queen by stoppage..

 

When did Savannah Marshall become a Gypsy? Shields will do whatever it takes to win.

 

Two Big Mac Meals for Andy Ruiz in double quick time please Ole

 

The only Gypsy Queen I know is Paris Fury.

 

Thanks for not dismissing me as a scumbag mate I really appreciate that .

We’re did I say I want women to box against men? What are you talking about? No I don’t want see men and women fight each other for the record, though I never said otherwise tbh.

I was talking about the spar you were watching, why were you watching it if you find it all so abhorrent? Was it making you angry/upset when they were punching each other? Is it just pro women’s boxing you disapprove of? What abar amateur?

Katie Taylor did have to pretend to be a boy to box, she started in 98. Sanctioned amateur bouts for females weren’t allowed in Ireland till 2001 as far as I understand. She was 15 at this point. It was “social engineering” in your words, to not let women box until this point.

You don’t have to tell me about the role of most amateur boxing gyms and how they are run e.g. not for profit, a community service etc. Our own gym is run entirely by volunteers,as is every gym I’ve ever been involved in. And most of the kids who train in our gym don’t actually box, they come for confidence, self defence, guidance etc. But yes if a young woman came to the gym who wanted to box competively and the coaches were all of the same views as yourself, no I don’t believe we would be giving her the time of day or at the very least be taking her seriously. You can’t have feelings as strong as yourself on a subject and not let them inform your attitudes/actions somehow.

Thing is this thread just started as a chat abar 2 girls fighting that people were genuinely interested in, and that’s hard for you to take for some reason.

 

Jim, you cited the example of Katie Taylor pretending to be a boy in order to compete against boys in support of this idea of yours that womens' boxing has been unfairly held back by social engineering (as opposed to natural law and the historical lack of female interest in fighting each other for a living, which would account for any paucity of female competition KT might've faced at any stage of her competitive journey).

It's therefore logical for someone reading to conclude that 1.) you think Katie Taylor should have been able to box against boys without having to deceive officials, which is utterly tantamount to legitimizing matches between males and females, or 2.) you didn't think your example through very well at all.

If you can not even comprehend this much, what would be the sense in me continuing in breaking down your posts point for point and twisting you in ever tighter knots?

You're entitled to die on that hill, chum, just as I am entitled to hold these views you've failed to deconstruct. I don't feel a need to change your mind.

And what would you suggest I do? Clutch my pearls? Cover my eyes? Flinch and turn away?

This is some elementary line of debate you're pursuing, free of nuance.

I don't think you read my post very thoroughly at all. Leastways, you certainly didn't comprehend it very well.

 

No mate I was suggesting that Katie Taylor shouldn’t have had to do that and should have been able to box other girls in competition. And that it was a piece of social engineering to not allow her to box other girls who wanted to box.

Regards the spar you saying you watching I just didn’t get the point you were making. Yeh if you find something so offensive you could have just not watched.

It’s getting a bit boring now this mate. You hold your views, the majority in this thread at least don’t hold them. You can just not watch it can’t you.

 

I counter that your suggestion is misguided, and I'll explain why.

Firstly, Taylor was never forbidden to compete with other girls who wanted to box. The issue, according to Taylor herself, was a lack of girls who wanted to box, hence a lack of competition to test herself against. That's natural law and biological predisposition in full effect, for which social engineering and patriarchal repression cannot be held accountable.

Secondly, social engineering is formally defined as "the use of centralized planning in an attempt to manage social change and regulate the future development and behaviour of a society", "the manipulation of social beliefs and behaviors by public or private entities through legislation, policy, and investment", "the artificial controlling or changing of how a society develops" — in other words, a contrived program of public conditioning, enacted through various means of social messaging and dictate, whose aim is to subvert society's organically established desires and behaviors to benefit the particular interests of influential bodies. See the distinction?

I can't be any clearer. I know you're not too dumb to understand this. Rather, I think you just don't want to have to acknowledge that I might have any kind of valid point. And that's fine. Given your stated role in coaching girls, I appreciate that the concession might cause you some cognitive dissonance, though I would argue that coaching a girl to box and encouraging her into a prize ring are different matters.

By the way, re. KT's story;
I previously chose not to mention that at least some of the officials were aware she was female and that her pretence was a formality that all parties were observing. That's how she tells it, anyway. If true, it would mean that grown men were allowing a girl to box competitively against boys — aside from the ethical alarm that should raise, it would also prove that Taylor was not being held back by patriarchal forces.

My point was that there is a distinction between girls learning to box, even sparring one another, and society's child-rearers and nurturers being encouraged to go out and sustain damage for scant reward by people who are supposed to be guiding them. I don't think the risk/reward ratio is ever going to add up for female boxers, because I expect there will never be a strong enough public interest nor a deep/strong enough talent pool to make it pay. And that will come down to biological predisposition again.

If womens' boxing were segregated, i.e. given its own shows, it would be a lot easier for me to just not watch it.

Oddly, though, those invested in the attempted mainstreaming of womens' boxing are the same people who seem to be terrified by the idea of womens' boxing having a platform of its own. I can't think why...


Anyway, I can agree to disagree if that's how you wish to wrap this exchange up.

 

Shields will lose. Savannah is too powerful for her and has already beat her ass.

 

Brilliant AJ with a name like yours I am inclined to like you but sorry Savannah will lose. There is a reason Shields won 2 Olympic Gold medals as well as being a 3 divisions unified world champion including being undisputed. Don’t be shocked when they fight and Shields is proven to be not only the better boxer but also the physicality stronger girl. People in Britain have started blowing gas up Marshall’s ass which is only going to get her into trouble.