Low blows. Why are they bad?

[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.