Well, seems like we’ve got a heated debate in here.
For convenience’s sake I’ll only go back about ten hours or so.[quote=“Krelikan, post:23, topic:50603”]
I would consider just about all violence to be savage as it is uncivil. Even if it takes a lot of mental understanding on how to beat someone up it’s still very unrefined.
[/quote]
It’s not always on the boxer’s part, but there is a fair amount of actual strategy put into this that cannot be denied as simply nonexistent. Jack Dempsey utilized a ducking maneuver he would play repeatedly to get under his much bulkier opponents, and Mike Tyson implemented this “Dempsey Roll” to very quickly get under people’s guard. In this sport if you are quick and resilient you get very far, and whether you’re short or tall really depends on how you fight. Or vice versa.[quote=“Krelikan, post:23, topic:50603”]
I’ve never seen a humble athlete.
[/quote]
Then I suggest you learn your history. There have been scores of humble athletes in the world, and while they’re not always easy to find, they do exist.[quote=“Traykar, post:24, topic:50603”]
Listen man, it’s a free country.
[/quote]
That’s a poor argument.
If your defense for boxing existing is that people can do what they want, why not even more violent and possibly morally bankrupt sports?[quote=“Krelikan, post:25, topic:50603”]
This is one of the worst arguments and one of the worst quotes I have ever heard.
[/quote]
Laying it on thick tonight, are we?
As blunt as Krelikan was with this, he has a legitimate point. Logic like this only leads to anarchy.[quote=“Krelikan, post:25, topic:50603”]
Why does anyone get to tell people how to run their lives?
[/quote]
Neither statement relates to the conversation at all. The first one is just a jab and the second is a red herring.[quote=“Jcton, post:27, topic:50603, full:true”]
One thing I will note is that being cocky in a sport like Boxing is a huge detriment and would most likely lead to that boxer being floored. It’s not that all boxers aren’t cocky, but with this specific sport a lot of them learn how detrimental it is to be cocky and do what they can to humble themselves and learn what they can to improve.
[/quote]
Nice defense, but… That almost never happens. Mike Tyson is a really good example of that, with a nearly flawless record against hundreds of opponents and his arrogance and pride only grew until his world began falling apart, and he resorted to nibbling on the ear of some random guy, I think he was heavyweight champion at one point idk.
This is a joke I know who Evander Holyfield is
Also, it was both ears, at different points during the match, at which point the feds were brought into the ring and he began slugging cops in retaliation. Mike “Humbled” Tyson for ya.
The only notable example where that has occurred is George Foreman, and according to his own multiple testimonies that was a result of religion, not boxing.[quote=“ProfSrlojohn, post:28, topic:50603”]
That is the basis of america. You can do whatever makes you happy, as long as it doesn’t affect someone else’s happiness.
[/quote]
No, I think that was the basis of the hierarchy of Rome. They were certainly a civil bunch.
Have you watched Rocky?
[/quote]
Rocky is a really cool movie, but from my understanding it has next to nothing to do with the actual Rocky Marciano. Also, Rocky was strong enough to get a reputation for breaking people’s bones, and he also never lost a fight, nor had a tie. Thirteen of his opponents retired after fighting him.[quote=“TBT_Emerald, post:30, topic:50603”]
You might as well say 100% of football players are involved in violence, or rugby players.
[/quote]
Well, they are. If you don’t think American Football is a violent sport, talk to anyone who’s retired from the profession. Same goes with Rugby; both sports are incredible rough-and-tumble sports which can have serious consequences.[quote=“TBT_Emerald, post:30, topic:50603”]
That’s a good use of the straw-man fallacy. We all know he wasn’t defending slavery, so there was no need to bring that up.
[/quote]
That’s actually not a straw man. Krelikan was pointing out that Traykar’s statement was so non-specific and held so many implications it could be seamlessly translated to a much more touchy subject, such as slavery, and hold the exact same application. He was addressing Traykar’s reasoning, if a bit earnestly.
There’s a lot of points that I didn’t cover in here, mostly because they were either correct or weren’t worth contesting. But the ultimate takeaway from this is that you’re all extremely defensive about your morals on the subject of boxing. Which is good! Nothing wrong with defending what you believe to be right or wrong. However, I feel like this topic is… A bit irrelevant. [quote=“Krelikan, post:1, topic:50603, full:true”]
I’m a little surprised that boxing is still around today. Probably one of the weakest sports. It’s just people beating each other up. Not sure how something like this is still legal. It feels like a game played by savages more then an organized sport.
[/quote]
Krelikan’s original point in the topic is that boxing is stupid and shouldn’t exist for being barbaric. Why he chose to target this instead of UFC or looking to history as to why barbaric, violent sports are uncivil and unjustifiable I’m not really sure.
This topic was never really to discuss boxing, but to argue about its existence. And if you’re really upset about boxing, is the right course of action to go on an internet forum and battle bitterly about the subject? I don’t think so. If you want boxing to stay, go away, change fundamentally, or any other number of things, do it by living the way you think should be exercised. Telling people what to do is not inherently wrong, but it’s far more important to be setting an example.
Now I’d actually like to discuss boxing, honestly. I don’t want to take the sport up anytime soon, but I like looking into the specifics and techniques behind it. It’s an interesting case study, if nothing else.
