|
 |   |
|
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Video Plus Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities 
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE
|  |
Same song and dance Boxing is a risky sport, but the athletes already know that
It's as predictable as Christmas coming on December 25th. If a boxer is seriously injured in the ring, some politician or medical expert will be drafted in by media outlets all over the globe to say that boxing should be banned. Such has been the case following the recent injury to British boxer, Paul Ingle , who suffered a blood clot on the brain during his featherweight world title loss to South Africa's Mbulelo Botile . No sooner had Ingle hit the canvas, after what I was told was a savage 12-round beating, than the detractors were on their soapboxes spouting knee-jerk reactions to what every boxer knows is an occupational hazard. Before I continue, let me say for the record that I am not playing down the tragedy of what happened to Ingle, or the agonies his family and friends will have gone through watching their loved one fight for his life. I know a little of what that must feel like, albeit indirectly, as my brother was an acquaintance of the former British boxer, Michael Watson , who's just been awarded a million pounds in compensation after being maimed for life in a world title fight nine years ago with Chris Eubank . Ingle is also a fighter with whom I've been up close and personal, having interviewed him twice, as an amateur at the ABA Championships in Birmingham England, and then at a training camp in the American Poconos, ahead of his gutsy but unsuccessful world title fight against Prince Naseem Hamed . On both occasions he was friendly, accommodating, and focused. "A sound lad" as they might say in his homeland. To see him so badly hurt is therefore all the more disturbing because I can put a personality to the name. That said, he was knowingly and enthusiastically in a sport where the rewards, to the few, are great, and the risks, to the many, are even greater. To paraphrase Mike Tyson , "boxers are in the hurt business." It's what they do. And if you make your living dishing out pain, then you obviously expect the other guy will be doing likewise, with all the risk that entails. That's why referees instruct fighters to "protect themselves at all times." Of course, no one goes into the ring expecting to end the night in intensive care or the morgue. They're not Christians being thrown to the lions. And certainly, boxers should expect protection from the referee, their corner men and the doctor on hand at ringside, if, for no other reason, than to save them from themselves at times when their courage outweighs their judgement.
But ultimately the responsibility is the boxer's own, as is their decision to be in the ring in the first place. So, given the fact that they are operating under their own freewill, why should anyone cry foul on their behalf when reality bites? The basis of the call for the ban is that boxing is too dangerous. But what does that mean? Is there an optimum level of danger beyond which we tip the scale? Is one death or severe injury OK, but two over the top? And if that's a judgement that's possible to make, who makes it? Of course, those who want to outlaw boxing will point to statistics to quantify the level of excessive danger. But for every statistic used to highlight boxing's risks you can find another one to show it may not be as hazardous as motor racing, horse racing, downhill skiing or a host of other activities that might be categorized as "dangerous." In other words, stats don't necessarily amount to facts. And if boxing was outlawed wouldn't it simply go underground? Man to man combat is as old civilization itself. People through the ages have loved to watch it. It's part of who we are. So to assume that legislation would stop it happening is naive. Unlicensed professional boxing goes on even now. If you force the sport per se into a situation where it operates in a completely unregulated environment, aren't you increasing the risks? The fact is, it's doubtful any court in the free world could ultimately sanction a ban on boxing. The implications in terms of civil liberty would be too great. You couldn't police it. And, let's be honest, at the top level, it's a financial gold mine for fighters, promoters and the taxman. Yes, there will be casualties. But for every Paul Ingle, Michael Watson or Gerald McClellan , there are thousands of young fit men, amateurs and professionals, who either have their fun or make their money in the ring and emerge unscathed. So let's stop giving these pontificators a platform on the few occasions a fighter does get badly hurt, because as far as a ban is concerned, it ain't gonna happen. Terry Baddoo is co-host of World Sport, the international sports show that airs live on CNN/Sports Illustrated and CNN International.
| ||||||||||||||||||
