The Politics of Risk - Professional Boxing

[Youngblood]

That was a really good read. Interesting timing too considering we've had a lot of ring related deaths lately, and to professional boxers in general.

I think it boils down to ignorance with preconceived notions of danger, in relation to other sports and %'s of brain injuries, vs risk of reward and life prolonging benefits which you've also covered nicely.

I'm going to read it again shortly, as I'm guessing when you posted it all the paragraphs got pushed together by accident, makin it a bit of a tougher go.

Overall a great read and nice job.

[ryanman]

That was a really good read. Interesting timing too considering we've had a lot of ring related deaths lately, and to professional boxers in general.

I think it boils down to ignorance with preconceived notions of danger, in relation to other sports and %'s of brain injuries, vs risk of reward and life prolonging benefits which you've also covered nicely.

I'm going to read it again shortly, as I'm guessing when you posted it all the paragraphs got pushed together by accident, makin it a bit of a tougher go.

Overall a great read and nice job.

Thanks Youngblood. Yea, i obviously had to be neutral to an extent, but my pro-boxing stance does shine through somewhat! Something which my Prof noticed. And yea it was all pushed together when i posted, when i saw it up i thought 'oh crap!' as it does make it heavy going. Thanks for reading.

[Zelley]

You may like to read my topic Commonwealth Games "Counterpunch For Boxing".

For a PHD or Masters, it is important to consider the topic from all angles.
At some point you need to take a position that you can support.

For actual title bouts - the Griffith vs Paret and Ramos vs Moore bouts of the Sixties are important talking points with significant differences in the causes.
You should consider tragic boxing stories and articles about lost warriors
as points to support various issues.

[Gandalf]

An interesting read, though the layout gave me dizzy spells and I think I might need to lay down for a bit.

There are obviously risks involved with boxing. Sometimes tragedies happen, but I think todays boxing is so much safer than it has been in the past. I would never want to see boxing banned, the risks fighters take are their own and they choose to do it. And I see it as an incredibly brave thing to do and to dedicate oneself to the trade is a means of minimising risks further. Boxing has done a whole lot of good and involving people who just want to fight. I look at people like Barrera, Calzaghe and even Wlad Klit. who have sharp minds and faculties well and truly intact over a career of boxing. I look at someone like James Toney who probably wants to do nothing else with his life ever given the chance. It's a brutal sport, but I don't hear about tragedies day in day out. It's awful when they happen and getting hit in the head cannot be good for you. But it's a way some people choose to live and I can see nothing wrong with that. It's up to them to try and get out before they take too much punishment and I think most fighters know that point eventually. Not my most most coherent post and just a collection of thoughts more than anything.

[CGM]

Cool I havaen't had time to read it yet, but I'll bookmark it for future reference.

What's your take on shortening world title fights from fifteen to twelve rounds. I'm interested in two aspects. Did your research cover that? I'm particularly interested in...

1. Whether or not historical statistics supported the contention that rds 12-15 of title fights were a significant risk factor in overall boxing deaths and injuries in the first place.

2. Whether or not reducing the length of title fights actually brought about a significant reduction in overall deaths and injury.

I scanned your thesis and din't see anything on this. I'm aware of the arguments, I'm more interested in evidence.

[jokaleras]

that's an alright article.

[ryanman]

Cool I havaen't had time to read it yet, but I'll bookmark it for future reference.

What's your take on shortening world title fights from fifteen to twelve rounds. I'm interested in two aspects. Did your research cover that? I'm particularly interested in...

1. Whether or not historical statistics supported the contention that rds 12-15 of title fights were a significant risk factor in overall boxing deaths and injuries in the first place.

2. Whether or not reducing the length of title fights actually brought about a significant reduction in overall deaths and injury.

I scanned your thesis and din't see anything on this. I'm aware of the arguments, I'm more interested in evidence.

Interesting points and you're right, they werent covered in the piece, due to the fact i focused more on communication of Risk rather than mangement. What i did notice during research was that there didn't seem to be any evidence that the last three rounds were proportionaly any more dangerous than any others. The dropping down to 12 rounds was made largely as a concession to organisations such as the BMA. Obviously as the BMA wish to see a complete ban on boxing they would welcome any reduction in a person's exposure to punches, however the reduction to 12 rounds wasn't based on evidence that said '12 rounds is safer'. For the BMA, if they can't reduce the number of bouts then reducing the length of those bouts is of some use. Its a chipping away approach, from 15 rounds to 12, then no doubt there will be calls for 10, 8 and so on.
Its an intersting topic and something which i will look into more.
To be honest the piece i've put up here was rushed somewhat, hence it is far from a complete picture and is sloppy at times.