Low blows. Why are they bad?

[THE THIRD MAN]

It appears that Mares has over stepped the line with these low blows, i also believe that officals and fans alike underestimate the damge that can occur during a fight due to repeated low blows. ( I am convinced it cost Tszyu against Hatton) and i have no doubt Agbeko sufferred greatly last week. I rewatched Mares V Vic and it certainly slowed Vic down by the later rounds. (Remember Golotta? the referee took no shit that night, what has happened since?)
We need some tough referees who just say enough is enough and DQ someone mid fight, but i fear promoters, HBO or Showtime don't want that result? They want a decision (controversial or not) or preferably a sensational knockout.
Being hit in the balls hurts like hell, my English forum members will tell you what it's like to be hit in the balls by a cricket ball at close to 100mph! Your down for sometime and the wife ain't touching the family jewels for a week! Boxing has rules and being hit in the balls is the big no no, it can affect you for several rounds or have you writhing in agony (see Mayweather V Judah) I want to see a clean fight and the best man win according to the rules. Without rules, you have chaos, with chaos comes disorder. I don't want to see boxing sink to the level of a Ric Flair sucker punch to the nuts!

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

(sorry, it's a reflex)

Good post.

Ric Flair is the man when it comes to low blows!

[Cruiser]

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?

Hi there, ok, getting punched below the belt really hurts... Ive had many boxers do that to me to slow me down and take the fight out of me...it's a dirty boxing punch just like a hip punch, but when your hit with a low blow it screws up your breathing and your stomach starts shaking, and then you have alot of pain in your lower belly(belt buckle area/waist band area)...so if you ask me I rather take a hard punch to the belly than take a low blow to the nuts... and I have never heard of anyone wearing a steel cup? I have a groin protector and I believe there is a hard plastic cup under all the foam padding... to be honest I usually can withstand the low blows unless its done with pin point accuracy under the cup, which would be an uppercut to the nuts.