The Legendary History of Boxing - Essay Example

Boxing/Pg The history of boxing is a storied one that counts its beginnings back to ancient Greece and Rome. During that era, there were no boxing gloves (of course), instead the participants would fight with leather taped to their hands. Many times the taped leather would cause more damage than bare knuckles would. According to legend, during the centuries that followed many such fights would take place in coliseums around Europe, but the first fight to be documented was in Great Britain. "The first documented 'boxing match' took place in 1681 in Britain when the Duke of Albemarle engineered a bout between his butler and his butcher" (Boxing Today, 2004). The traditional 'good old English method of deciding a quarrel' had always been to punch one another with bareknuckles, and the English despised the French method of using the feet for kicking, considering it to be unmanly, foreign and cowardly (Savate, 2005). This loathing for kickboxing, or savate, helped boxing to maintain its stronghold in Europe. The individual known as "the Father of Boxing" Jack Boughton, assisted in that growth by developing the first set of rules for the sport. He published those rules in 1743. His rules held sway until 1865 when the Queensbury Rules were written publicized. The Queensbury Rules were created by John Douglass who was the Eighth Marques of Queensbury. He was the person who introduced the three-minute round and the use of regulated boxing gloves. Boxing/pg 2 The complete set of rules known as "The Queensbury Rules" are as follows: 1. To be a fair fight in a twenty-four foot ring or as near to that size as possible. 2. No wrestling or hugging allowed. 3. The rounds are to be three minutes with one minute between them. 4. If either participant falls, he must get up unassisted, and is given ten seconds to do so. The other participant must return to his corner while the fallen man attempts to rise. When the fallen man is on his legs, the round is to be resumed until the three minutes has lapsed. If the man does not rise in the ten seconds allowed, the referee awards the win to the other man. 5. A man hanging on the ropes with his toes off the ground is considered down. 6. No seconds in the ring during the round. 7. Should the contest be stopped by any unavoidable interference, the referee names the time and place to finish as soon as possible, so that the match can be won or lost, unless the backers agree to a draw. 8. The gloves are to be fair-sized, new and of the best quality. 9. Should a glove burst or come off, it must be replaced to the referee's satisfaction. 10. A man on one knee is considered down, and if struck is entitled to the stakes. 11. No shoes or boots with springs allowed. 12. The contest is to be governed in all other respects by the revised rules of the London Prize Ring. (Queensbury Rules, 2003) Most experts agree that these rules came into existence primarily due to the 'rough' nature of the sport and the 'fight to the death' mentality. Boxing/pg 3 Joyce Carol Oates, author of On Boxing says; "How can you enjoy so brutal a sport, people sometimes ask me" (Oates, 1987, pg 4). This question has been asked since the sport's beginning and is a question asked many times by those opponents of boxing who advocate a ban on the sport. Oates continues by answering the question in the following manner; "Life is like boxing in many unsettling respects. But boxing is only like boxing" (Oates, 1987, pg 4). Is that the answer to this sport's popularity or is it just part of the complexity of the sport, its participants and its fans There are just as many individuals who advocate continuing the sport as there are opponents to the sport. Each side of a boxing ban espouses good points and each side seems to be ardent in making those points known. This fervency makes for an interesting debate in the matter of a boxing ban. Two such prominent individuals are Dr Adrian Whiteson and Vivienne Nathanson. Dr Whiteson is the Chief Medical Officer for the British Boxing Board of Control, and Vivienne is with the British Medical Association. Whiteson is a proponent of the sport while Nathanson would like to see a ban on all boxing. In an interview between the two, Nathanson argued that "the thing that separates boxing from all other sports is the chronic and continuing damage to the brain that is inflicted on almost every participant in the sport". Whiteson countered with the following; "Considering the hours of participation from boxers, there are very few injuries. Boxing, in my opinion, is one of the safest sports" (Spent Force, 2000). Boxing/pg 4 The differences in opinion are especially diverse and strong in the medical community, with many of the doctors, physicians and nurses either strongly opposed to, or just as strong in their support of a boxing ban. Official medical organizations have the responsibility to represent not only what is right, but what is also the consensus opinion of the members that the organization represents. In 1995 Patrick bird wrote that organizations such as the American Medical Association (AMA) have presented statements such as; When a professional fighter steps into the ring, there is little question that he is risking serious and perhaps fatal injury. This has been apparent for a long time. Since 1940, for example, at least 300 professional boxers have died as a result of injuries sustained in the ring, and scores more have suffered permanent brain damage (Bird 1995). In 1984, after an intensive investigation into the dangers of boxing, the AMA called for a total and complete ban of all boxing. In comparison to that is the International Olympic Committee's Medical Commission stand to continue to support the inclusion of the sport in the Olympic Games. That stance could be changing according to a recent online article. It states that the IOC is threatening to ban boxing in the 2008 Olympic Games unless reforms, including how the matches are scored and how judges and referees are selected, is changed (IOC Threat 2006). Boxing/pg 5 Other organizations are not threatening to initiate a ban on boxing, instead, they are threatening to do away with bans that are already in place. Sweden's Ministry of Justice is one of those organizations according to The Local. The Local states; the Swedish ban on professional boxing could be lifted within two years, if a proposal from the Ministry of Justice is approved (Sweden's Boxing Ban, 2005). With the same line of thinking as the Swedes, are the Chinese. According to the Sun Times, "China is considering abandoning its long-time ban on professional boxing as interest in the sport grows. Once regarded as a 'dangerous sport' and outlawed by the communists soon after they took power in 1949, national professional matches may again be hosted" (China 2004). The British Medical Association continues to call for a total ban on boxing and argues that "it is a waste of time to try to improve safety measures at boxing matches" (BMA 1998). Dr Bill O'Neill as the BMA's boxing spokesman in 1998 told BBC News, "For as long as the head is a valid target in boxing, these injuries are going to occur" (BMA 1998). He was referring to a head injury in 1998 to Spencer Oliver who was seriously injured in a title fight. Individuals and organizations alike are going to have opinions and will continue to tout those opinions until a settlement or compromise is agreed to. Should boxing be banned Boxing/pg 6 Should boxing be legalized everywhere, with the understanding that certain standards and regulations will be established that all participants worldwide will be required to adhere to Should organizations be concerned with individuals who choose to step into the boxing ring, fully aware of the risks involved Does not their acceptance of that risk, their 'consent' to accept that risk by lifting the ropes and climbing through them, alleviate all organizing bodies of any responsibilities for what happens in that ring "There have been few, if any, meaningful actions taken by the promoters of boxing to correct the conditions under which boxers are subjected to physical abuse and recommendations regarding the creation of a National Board of Boxing to supervise this 'sport' have not been heeded" (Ross, 1987). If promoters and managers are not going to assume responsibility for the health and safety of their fighters, then perhaps these individuals should either be fined or have their licenses revoked until they do so. Still, that's only part of the problem, and would only provide a partial solution to this conundrum. The main question that begs to be asked is should anything be done to stop these boxers from boxing, after all, are they not responsible adults that assume the risk of stepping into the ring, and fully cognizant of the risks involved Haven't they given either implied or explicit consent by doing so "Although there are calls elsewhere to ban boxing, the Australian Medical Association advocates a less restrictive rule. Professional boxers would submit to brain scans and MRI's" (Herrera 2004). Boxing/pg 7 In Herrera's report he says that "Boxers and healthcare workers alike should be able to exercise their rights" (Herrera 2004). By making this statement, Herrera is implying that boxers have rights. He also says that boxers are the least listened to group out of all the groups involved. "They take the risks," he says, " but are listened to least" (Herrera 2004). If, however, the boxers themselves are the least listened to group of individuals, would that mean that the health care professionals at least have more of a voice than the boxers do If that were so, then a consensus amongst the health care officials would do much to promote a ban, but there is just as much diversity in the health care industry concerning boxing than everywhere else. None of the groups or individuals involved in boxing that are emphatically stating their opinions have a legal standing according to the law. As we sift through the numerous lawsuits that have been filed for and against the boxing industry we find a few that are relevant to this paper. "A recent case shows that organizers of sporting events must take proper steps to ensure the safety of the participants. The logic of such a duty is that participants, while consenting to some risks, have not consented to referees or promoters disregarding their safety" (Leung 1998). Leung, by stating that the boxers have not consented to a disregarding of their safety by others is agreeing with others that boxers consent to some risks. Therefore, boxers who step into the ring, consent to the risks associated with doing so. Boxing/pg 8 If an individual consents to the risk, then they also accept the responsibility when something goes wrong in the ring, unless it has to do with the behavior of others who are disregarding their safety. In R v Coney, is another example of a judge that agrees with the consent defense when used in regards to organized sports. Mr. Justice Stephens has this to say in this case, "I think that consent is a defence to a charge of assault,,,,in cases of wrestling, single-stick, sparring with gloves and the like" (R v Coney 1892). Another judge in the same case, Mr. Justice Cave said, "A blow struck in anger or which is likely or intended to do corporal hurt is an assault,,,,a blow struck in sport, and not likely to cause bodily harm, is not an assault" (R v Coney 1892). Of course, some would argue that his statement was qualified with the words "not likely to cause bodily harm", especially with the dearth of studies currently available that prove the participants in professional boxing are trying to cause bodily harm just by being in the ring. In Attorney General's reference No 6 of 1980, two men were at first acquitted because they had consented to assault each other. The Court of Appeal ruled that the fight was a crime if the intention was to inflict injury. Concerning this case, Lord Lane said this, "Most fights will be unlawful regardless of consent. Nothing which I have said is intended to cast doubt on the accepted legality of properly conducted games and sports" (Attorney General 1980). While he never once mentioned the sport or the word 'boxing' many experts believe that is exactly what he meant. Boxing/pg 9 In R v Brown and others, the defendants engaged in sadomasochistic activities such as piercing each other's genitals. The House of Lords ruled that consent was irrelevant because the activities were contrary to public policy. Lord Templeton when commenting on the case said that injurious activities are lawful if the injured person consents and the activity itself is lawful. Even where violence it intentionally inflicted and results in actual bodily harm, wounding, or serious bodily harm the accused is entitled to be acquitted if the injury was a foreseeable incident of a lawful activity in which the injured person was participating" (R v Brown 1993). These cases seemingly point to the fact that consent is generally accepted in lawful conducted events such as sparring, properly conducted games and boxing, but that consent is not generally accepted in cases where the intent is to harm or mutilate or injure another individual in circumstances not considered lawful activities. In most cases the boxer(s) involved know of and consent to the risk factors in their chosen field of endeavor. Andrew D McLean in an article titled "Freedom of Risk" says that a whole variety of high risk activities including other pugilistic sports, contact sports (team and individual), motor sports, military training (and games), aerial sports and outdoor activities are approved of, participated in, and frankly encouraged by the medical profession. Many more people die and suffer injury as a result of such activities than do by boxing" (McLean 1998). Boxing/pg 10 McLean alludes to the biggest problem for the legal profession and a quiet ray of hope for a boxing industry that has taken many hits throughout the centuries but has always remained strong. While many judges, solicitors, attorneys, government agencies and entities, and individuals will state that they have no abhorrence to the thought of a worldwide boxing ban, they also privately concede that such a ban will probably never take place. One of the reasons that it will never take place is the chaos that would ensue from such an action. "Judges sometimes make new law when their old decisions are overtaken by changes in public opinion or where there is a gap in the law. It was the judges, not parliament, who overturned the old rule that a man could not be convicted of raping his wife" (R v R, 1992). That is the crux of the problem. The judges know and understand that the relation in law between assault and contact sports is a matter of consent and policy. Public policy, as declared in case law, is that "properly conducted games and sports are needed in the public interest" (R v Brown 1993). As long as boxing is as popular with the masses as it continues to be it will be extremely difficult for the elitists to affect a ban on the sport. There is plenty of evidence that the popularity is not waning but is instead gaining in strength. Boxing has been around since ancient times, and it doesn't look like it's going anywhere soon. Boxing/pg 11 References Attorney-General's Reference (no 6) of 1980[1981] 1QB 71, retrieved Feb 19, 2006 BMA Renews Call for Boxing Ban (1998), http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/87267.stm, retrieved Feb 17, 2006 Boxing Today (2003), http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spring03/Bueneventura/history.htm, retrieved Feb 17, 2006 Bird, Patrick, J. (1995), Health Related Issues Concerning Boxing, http://www.hhp.ufl.edu/faculty/pbird/keepingfit/ARTICLE/Boxing.HTM, retrieved Feb 17, 2006 China May Ditch Boxing Ban (2004), http://www.suntimes.com.za/zones/sundaytimesNEW/sportst/sportst1103536832.aspx, retrieved Feb 18, 2006 Herrera, C.D., (2004) The Search for Meaningful Comparisons in Boxing and Medical Ethics, http://jme.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/30/5/514, retrieved Feb 20, 2006 IOC Threat: Boxing Ban Possible (2006), http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/sports/articles/0204sptbriefs0204.html, retrieved Feb 20, 2006. Is Boxing a Spent Force (2000), http://www.news.bbc/uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/1076689.stm, retrieved Feb 17, 2006. Boxing/pg 12 Leung, Wai-Ching, (1998), Legislations Remains the only Practical Means of Banning Boxing, http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/3167147/1813, retrieved Feb 17, 2006 McLean, A. D. (1998), Freedom of Risk, http://bmj,bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/316/7147/1813#248, retrieved Feb 17, 2006 Oates, J.C., (1987) On Boxing, Garden City, NY, Doubleday Queensbury Rules (2003), http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spring03/Bueneventura/rules.htm, retrieved Feb 18, 2006 R v Brown and Others [1993] 2All ER 116, retrieved Feb 18, 2006 R v Coney (1892), 8 QBD 534, retrieved Feb 19, 2006 R v R [1992] AC 599, retrieved Feb 19, 2006 Ross, R.J., Casson, I.R., Siegel, O., Cole, M, (1987), Boxing Injuries: Neurologic, Radiologic, Neuropsychologic Evaluation, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fegicmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3334025&dopt=Citation, retrieved Feb 20, 2006 Savate (2005), http://www.srcf.ucam.org/cukbs/savate.htm, retrieved Feb 19, 2005 Sweden's Boxing Ban on the Ropes (2005),http://www.thelocal.se/article.phpID=2035&date=20050906, retrieved Feb17, 2006 Read More