Thread: Low blows. Why are they bad?

Ok this might sound like a dumb question but bear with me.

I've always assumed that low blows were illegal because you aren't allowed to hit fights in their testicles, and that injury to their tackle is why they are outlawed.

But lately it seems to me a lot of fights have had low blows which clearly didn't hit in the balls but were still controverisal, Khan against Judah, Miranda being DQ'd and last night's debacle.

Although Mares shot in the 11th was clearly a balls shot many of the other low blows seemed to me to be below the belt but above where his bollocks would be so I'm wondering why you aren't allowed to hit there?

Also, as Tarver kept pointing out, low blows to the body really sap your energy and weaken your legs, which I can agree with, but is the point that they wouldn't hurt so much if they were on or above the line?

I just wonder, I guess, that seeing as boxers wear a protective cup made of metal would it not be possible that punces low actually don't hurt as much?

I mean if I'm wearing metal pants and have a choice of being punched in the stomach or punched in my metal protector, I kind of think I might take a shot to the pants, the same way I might rather be shot in the chest if I'm wearing a bullet proof vest rather than be shot in the leg if I'm wearing shorts?

But it seems the universal consenus is that low blows incapacitate a fighter more than anything else...

Anybody have any experience of this? Is a shot below the belt line really more painful than a perfect delivered shot to the solar plexus?

So. Who else apart from me is volunteering to punch bilbo in the nuts to put this theory to the test?

Boxers are like premiere league footballer and fake the injury to get the opponent deducted a point or even disqualified. It is simply cheating, they feel nothing and should not be allowed to get away with it. Remember Bernard Hopkins against Galzaghe, embarrassing.

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Ok this might sound like a dumb question but bear with me.

I've always assumed that low blows were illegal because you aren't allowed to hit fights in their testicles, and that injury to their tackle is why they are outlawed.

But lately it seems to me a lot of fights have had low blows which clearly didn't hit in the balls but were still controverisal, Khan against Judah, Miranda being DQ'd and last night's debacle.

Although Mares shot in the 11th was clearly a balls shot many of the other low blows seemed to me to be below the belt but above where his bollocks would be so I'm wondering why you aren't allowed to hit there?

Also, as Tarver kept pointing out, low blows to the body really sap your energy and weaken your legs, which I can agree with, but is the point that they wouldn't hurt so much if they were on or above the line?

I just wonder, I guess, that seeing as boxers wear a protective cup made of metal would it not be possible that punces low actually don't hurt as much?

I mean if I'm wearing metal pants and have a choice of being punched in the stomach or punched in my metal protector, I kind of think I might take a shot to the pants, the same way I might rather be shot in the chest if I'm wearing a bullet proof vest rather than be shot in the leg if I'm wearing shorts?

But it seems the universal consenus is that low blows incapacitate a fighter more than anything else...

Anybody have any experience of this? Is a shot below the belt line really more painful than a perfect delivered shot to the solar plexus?

Personally if Abner Mares would of hit me with that many low blows, i would of ended up kicking him in the balls. Why is it bad ? well can't you suffer long term injuries getting hit there too many times ? and isn't it just plain cheap ? and dirty ?

And isn't this boxing and not a street fight ? that's why you have rules. You might aswell say why not allow rabbit punches, headbutts, ETC.

Not allowing low blows is simply a convention created to make the sport more palatable to fans, fighters, lawmakers back in the day etc. It was one of many ways boxing tried to create distance between frowned upon, anything goes street fighting and the sport of boxing.

There is nothing magic about it.

I haven't seen last night's fight, but let me comment in general.
Have you ever seen a fighter, in the heat of a fight that he is winning, complain about a low blow? I think that, generally, it is a guy looking to get out of a fight, and steal a win or, at least, justify a loss, that complains about low blows.
You know what I think is far more troublesome? In a clinch, when he raps on your kidneys.

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Not allowing low blows is simply a convention created to make the sport more palatable to fans, fighters, lawmakers back in the day etc. It was one of many ways boxing tried to create distance between frowned upon, anything goes street fighting and the sport of boxing.

There is nothing magic about it.

Yeah I see this. But it's an interesting cultural reason rather than a real physical reason. It's the same in MMA as well, the UFC only became accepted when it did away with their 'no rules anything goes' brawls and outlawed lowblows, headbutts, biting etc.

But from a pure combat point of view you'd think targeting the mos vulnerable areas would be strategically the optimum plan.

But back on point, do you think a low blow is physically more incapacitating than a legitimate bodyshot?

I guess the question I am explicitly asking is this:

'If a fighter lands a body punch below the belt line does it do more physical damage than and harm than a body punch above the belt line? Had Mares bodypunches for example hit Agbeko on or above the belt, would Agbeko been less affected and able to fight better?'

Or are low blow punches, outlawed, as you seem to suggest more as a result of cultural custom than to do with any real physiological reasons?

As someone who has never fought I have no idea, I'm just interestd to know what people who have fought think.

Tarver's insistence that they were weakening Agbeko's legs might be true, but that implies that had they landed higher that they wouldn't have weakned him as much, which I'm not sure is the case...?

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Not allowing low blows is simply a convention created to make the sport more palatable to fans, fighters, lawmakers back in the day etc. It was one of many ways boxing tried to create distance between frowned upon, anything goes street fighting and the sport of boxing.

There is nothing magic about it.

Yeah I see this. But it's an interesting cultural reason rather than a real physical reason. It's the same in MMA as well, the UFC only became accepted when it did away with their 'no rules anything goes' brawls and outlawed lowblows, headbutts, biting etc.

But from a pure combat point of view you'd think targeting the mos vulnerable areas would be strategically the optimum plan.

But back on point, do you think a low blow is physically more incapacitating than a legitimate bodyshot?

I guess the question I am explicitly asking is this:

'If a fighter lands a body punch below the belt line does it do more physical damage than and harm than a body punch above the belt line? Had Mares bodypunches for example hit Agbeko on or above the belt, would Agbeko been less affected and able to fight better?'

Or are low blow punches, outlawed, as you seem to suggest more as a result of cultural custom than to do with any real physiological reasons?

As someone who has never fought I have no idea, I'm just interestd to know what people who have fought think.

Tarver's insistence that they were weakening Agbeko's legs might be true, but that implies that had they landed higher that they wouldn't have weakned him as much, which I'm not sure is the case...?

I don't think ANYTHING other than an unconsciousness causing blow to the head or a shot to the kneecap is as incapacitating as a shot to the nads. A solar plexus shot one recovers from in minutes. A good shot to the balls? Makes one nauseous for an hour.

But I don't beieve that really has anything to do with it. The Broughton Rules, which first introduced the no low blows approach were implemented at a time when in streetfights combatants would agree to either "stand-up" or "dog eat dog." In the latter anything went. The former were viewed as more friendly disputes designed to assuage points of honor rather than cause permanent damage.

The former were seen as civilized because hair wasn't pulled, kicks weren't allowed, no nad shots etc. The latter was seen as savagry.

Originally Posted by :::PSL:::

Thanks, cool video and how ironic Abner Mares was the guy doing the experiment!

It answered some questions but not really though. I can understand how a shot to the balls could be clearly awful but how many low blows actually hit the balls thoguh? 1 in 5? It seems to me that most 'low Blows' are just below the belt line but still well above that area, I mean the belt line seems to be at the belly button whereas most peoples balls are a good 8 inches or so below that I'd imagine, yet fighters routinely throw themselves to the ground when they get hit on at hip level or even slightly above.

To Agbeko's credit though, he didn't complain at all during the fight and just kept working. Judah by contrast was a complete bitch.

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Not allowing low blows is simply a convention created to make the sport more palatable to fans, fighters, lawmakers back in the day etc. It was one of many ways boxing tried to create distance between frowned upon, anything goes street fighting and the sport of boxing.

There is nothing magic about it.

Exactly. Its part of the evolution of the sport from its grappling days in places like Greece. I mean why have a protective cup? Has anyone here ever taken a clean shot to the junk outside the ring? You are done and I don't care how big and tough you are. You take one clean to the bags and you are toast.

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Originally Posted by :::PSL:::

Thanks, cool video and how ironic Abner Mares was the guy doing the experiment!

It answered some questions but not really though. I can understand how a shot to the balls could be clearly awful but how many low blows actually hit the balls thoguh? 1 in 5? It seems to me that most 'low Blows' are just below the belt line but still well above that area, I mean the belt line seems to be at the belly button whereas most peoples balls are a good 8 inches or so below that I'd imagine, yet fighters routinely throw themselves to the ground when they get hit on at hip level or even slightly above.

To Agbeko's credit though, he didn't complain at all during the fight and just kept working. Judah by contrast was a complete bitch.

Maybe it hurt so much because there's not a lot of fat and muscles in pelvic area.

I really dont get the whole low blow thing. I been hit low many times, while wearing the standard metal foul protector, and have never really felt a thing.

However, a punch to upper leg or hip can be effective.

I'm liable to agree with the convention that low blows shouldn't be allowed, although I think anyone bringing in high-waisted shorts to take advantage of this should get a kick down there to try and teach them a lesson.

With the protector in play, I think the effect on mobility from the hip or leg shots can be just as bad as the shots to the nuts. And after all, it is what has helped to make boxing the sport of kings it is today, fought by entirely honourable and gentlemanly pugilists.

they are low and the hurt, simple.