Why the Klitschkos should fight each other or quit boxing -- an ethical perspective

Yes i can see the argument for that, it's a hard one to answer and i wrote an essay on the exact same topic when i was at school and i still found it hard to come to a definite answer, but one thing i did get from it was that boxing is a much safer sport than some others that are out there (i cant remember the figures or which sports now, it was a long time ago) but in that sense you could argue that why should these other sports be allowed but boxing cannot?

Another good point - in my view i don't see how you could approach this sport without some sort of intention of inflicting physical dangers on your opponent, no matter what Calzaghe thinks if your aim is too punch someone in the face then you're going to hurt them no matter whether you mean to or not - that's just the logic, and like you said they are the rules of the game and you accept them when you agree to fight someone. So i can definitely see your point and what you are saying regarding how the Klitschko's should be willing to fight anyone no matter who they are. But my argument would be that when you agree to fight someone, you are both agreeing to play within the rules of the game and do whatever you can to become victorious, and for me that includes physically harming the other person (not seriously i just want to add) so both fighters are going into the ring agreeing and knowing that they may get injured, and the ethical phrase "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you" is being followed by both men. Now with the Brothers situation, neither of them are willing, or want to inflict physical harm on each other, so they don't want to fight, and therefore they have both agreed in essence that 'i don't want to harm you, and i wouldn't want you to harm me' -or - "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself" as it states in the golden rule. So you could say that the phrase "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you" is still being followed by the brothers here, but just between themselves, but still they are ethically in the right.

 

I would just like to sum up this thread really quickly. I'm assuming the majority of pro-Klitchsko sibling fight fans don't have brothers. I do have a brother, and I am the youngest of the two. Brothers can fight with each other, and spar with each other, but when it comes down to it, if you are close it is almost physically impossible to throw your entire power into the punch and to aim to badly damage each other. These guys are like brothers and best friends. If they were to fight, they'd be on the tip tap ****, which Jean Claude's brother in Kickboxer told us is not the way to go. They can't go and rip into each other as the love and bond they have wont let their bodies go and wreck each other. I could go and KO my brother and my brother has faught me lots of times and says as many times as we have, he always has to hold back, he has no choice. Close brothers should have no place fighting with each other. Their family is more important than the entire history and future of boxing, as is mine and yours.

Imagine their poor mother watching buy as her sons aim to knock each other out, powerless to stop it.

 

I wonder what the Klitschko borthers would have done if there was only one title?

 

I wonder what they would have done if Superman challenged them to a fight?

Jesus I remember why I don't come into this forum anymore. Some of the stuff is mongtastic. Playing monoply is just like trying to hit someone so hard they lose the proper function of their brain and cannot co-ordinate themself to stand before the count of ten.

Of course it is. And plugging in a ps3 is just like running around a warzone getting the arse shot off you.

Would you **** off out of that.

 

This sums up everything i think about this. I have 3 brothers and i couldn't fight them seriously. I hate when people suggest this as family should come first.

 

The thought of two brothers fighting in the ring is pretty sickening tbh.
Family is far more important than any sport.

 

I don't talk to most of my family and would gladly get paid to bash one of them up.

Bring it on :yep

 

:rofl

 

Boxing is a sport. Not a game.

Boxing is grounded in reality. Games aren't.

The fact people do condone two grown men hitting each other until one cannot physically continue, says more about what people consider entertainment than any morality issue.
And im one of them. I enjoy the spectacle and marvel at the skill used in the fight.

Regardless, one Klitschko in the ring is tedious enough. Imagine how dull two would be!

I don't care if they never fight each other. I can quite understand one man not wanting to beat up his own brother.

What I don't like is the fact this means they come as a two headed package who want to approach the heavyweight division as a tag team. They rely on each other to unify the belts while everyone else would have to accomplish this feat on their own.

IMO, if they want to unify the titles with double the manpower, they only deserve half the credit.

 

Youre all looking at this wrongly. If they fight one will lose .

They make more money going it alone, they will be killing their own product

 

I do remember the Lewis fight. I watched it live. But judging from your post you're probably too young to have stayed up that late.

I like your optimism but one fight seven years ago (which Vitali lost) is not enough evidence to base your theory on.

Emmanual Stewart talks **** about whatever fighter he's currently working with and always has done. He gets paid a lot of money by the Klitschkos. He's not going to say they would be boring is he?

 

Correct.