19th Hole: The Readers Take Over

PROTECTING BOXERS (CONT.)
Sir:
I was uplifted and saddened by the excellent special report on boxing in your April 11 issue (Too Many Punches, Too Little Concern, and An Encounter to Last an Eternity). The last prize fight I watched was in 1981, when Larry Holmes beat Leon Spinks into submission. At the time I was struck by the pure savagery of the sport, the only intent of which is to render another human being either unconscious or unable to defend himself. I wondered, how can the skull protect the brain for any length of time from such a barrage as Holmes administered to Spinks that night? However, until I read your articles, the terrible long-term toll to the brain of punching had escaped me.

I have a bachelor of science degree in zoology and have examined and dissected the brains of both cats and humans. The brain is an extremely fragile organ, sensitive to abuse in any form. Why then should we in the U.S. continue to endorse an activity that deliberately exposes human beings to the real possibility of permanent brain damage? Or, as my wife, who spent one summer in a trauma intensive-care unit caring for patients with brain injuries, says, "Why should you pay money to see done in a ring what you would get arrested for doing in a bar?"

As I was finishing the articles, a representative of the local PAL called to ask me if I would like to buy tickets to see some youngsters box. I thought of Louis and Benjie and politely told him no thank you.
JOHN E. HOCKMAN
Springfield, Ohio

Sir:
I'm not a particularly avid boxing enthusiast. In fact, for years I've questioned how individuals could take the kind of punishment that is dealt out in the ring. Your report causes me to ponder this matter even more.

It seems only too obvious that repeated blows to the head would cause damage such as that documented by Dr. Ira Casson, and it amazes me that it has taken so long for anyone to seriously analyze the problem. I only hope that further research and greater concern in the future will result from these studies.
W. MONTY HITCHNER
Greenville, S.C.

Sir:
Boxing would be a much better sport if punches above the neck were simply banned.
NEIL BESSE
Cataumet, Mass.

Sir:
As a neuropsychologist, I am alarmed by a sport whose purpose is to beat an opponent senseless. As you point out, for every kid who fights his way out of poverty through boxing, there are too many others who fight their way into serious physical injury. Boxing should be banned!
LAURENCE M. BINDER, PH.D.
Portland, Ore.

Sir:
Your special report on boxing was worthwhile and provocative. However, it was not journalism. It was pure advocacy, using such techniques as highly selective presentation of data, shock headlines and appeals to emotion. The overall result is a distorted picture of a sport that has long been universally accepted and is a main event of the Olympic Games.

You cite the Jan. 14, 1983 issue of JAMA, the journal of the American Medical Association, but fail to mention that the conclusion of the report by the AMA Council on Scientific Affairs, "Brain Injury in Boxing," which appeared in that issue, was that boxing "does not seem any more dangerous than other sports presently accepted by society."

You also ignore the fact that the AMA Council Report notes statistics showing that the risk of fatality is substantially greater among college football players, motorcycle racers, jockeys and athletes in several other sports than it is among boxers.