Wed 22nd Oct 2014 | Last updated: Tue 21st Oct 2014 at 16:13pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

Am I the only person unhappy about women boxing?

Sports like wrestling and boxing are training women to be as aggressive as men

By on Monday, 27 August 2012

London Olympic Games - Day 13

I know this question is the most politically incorrect one could raise in these exultant, post-Olympic days and that I’ll be met with shouts of derision or sheer disbelief, but I’ll ask it anyway: should women engage in the sport of boxing? When I saw the photographs of Olympians Katie Taylor and Nicola Adams fighting in the ring I felt aghast – and I still feel that way. It might seem a victory in the on-going feminist struggle for women’s complete equality with men, but it strikes me as a hollow victory; a blow against the nature of womankind; indeed, a step backwards for civilisation.

I had better state here that I have absolutely nothing against the two young women who won their boxing gold medals. I understand that Katie Taylor, aged 26, who won Ireland’s first gold medal as a lightweight, and who already has won four world and five European titles, is an evangelical Christian who regularly attends a Pentecostal church and who prays before her fights. In almost any other sport she would make an excellent role model. She is now wondering whether to turn professional. Nicola Adams, aged 29 and from Leeds, a flyweight, who has struggled for years to get sponsorship, sounds equally talented, dedicated, modest and charming. She has commented that “It’s great to think girls might take up the sport because of me. It’s a great sport and it’s an honour that people are looking up to me in that way.”

Scouring the newspapers for a smidgeon of support for my own position, I have not been able to find one dissenting voice in the accolades Katie and Nicola have been receiving. Jonathan McEvoy in The Mail On-Line enthuses, “You have to remind yourself the two slight figures in the ring, hidden behind their head guards, are not blokes.” He reflects, “At the acute risk of being called a chauvinist, I had…some misgivings. I am not sure my concerns amounted to a reasoned objection. If women want to box, who are we men, or indeed their fellow women, to say they shouldn’t? Nor is it a logical misgiving when you consider that women take part in rugby, taekwondo and wrestling. They can all be more injurious than amateur boxing with its protective gear…” Watching Nicola Adams in the ring he is quite won over: she “even had this sceptic’s support, 100%.”

Amir Khan, the 2004 Olympic boxing silver medallist, is on record as having once said, “Deep down I think women shouldn’t fight. When you get hit it hurts. It can be very painful”. It appears he has now changed his mind. He wants to promote Nicola Adams, declaring “I’m happy to take Nicola under my wing. I will make her a world champion.” Sir Clive Woodward of the British Olympic Association is also a champion of women’s boxing, stating exultantly that “We have arrived at true equality.”

I am sorry to sound a curmudgeon in all this. I am just wondering if everyone is too punch-drunk at the sight of our gleaming gold medal table to ask if it is appropriate for women to punch each other hard on the head and face in several bouts, with a view to knocking each other down (or out?) Women are not the same as men so why do we have this need to prove ourselves “equal” to them in every way? The sexes are different in personality and character as well as in physique; they are complementary, not interchangeable. Men are physically stronger, more aggressive; they are the sex who traditionally went into battle to protect the hearth and home. Women were supposedly the gentler sex in the best sense so it was thought, with gifts of compassion, caring, sympathy and intuition; the sex that civilised men by creating a home for them and their children (or in these days, creating a kinder, more humane atmosphere in the office). Why is it “chauvinistic” to say this, or to feel you have to apologise for acknowledging, as Jonathan McEvoy has admitted, that you have “misgivings”? Why are Amir Khan’s instincts “deep down” now seen as wrong?

The age of women’s rights began with a noble cause: the right to vote. But this endless battle for literal “equality” has ended by making fools of us all. Personally, I think we are all pretending we enjoy watching women, looking at a distance “like blokes” in their protective head guards, attacking other women in a deliberately aggressive, close contact sport that has been traditionally and rightly a male preserve. Either people are afraid to say the sight makes them uneasy or everyone has become more decadent in their tastes. For the record, and as McEvoy raised it, I also don’t like the thought of women doing taekwondo, wrestling or rugby, other masculine-type contact sports. It’s not that they are “unladylike”, a word with class connotations of “gentility”. It’s that they are unwomanly in its deepest sense. They are training women to be aggressive – and men are already aggressive enough.

I am not trying to stereotype women as shrinking violets. Catholics have the person of Our Lady as a model and guide. She was amazingly strong, steadfast and courageous – but also intrinsically feminine, not a pagan warrior queen. If we want women to behave like the fabled Amazons we are embracing neo-paganism. Judaeo-Christianity once gave us a more truly civilised sense of the particular genius of women – and it did not include participating in essentially male sports. Perhaps in countries where a Catholic culture is still alive or in a faith where women can identify with strong role models like Edith Stein or Blessed Gianna Molla, there is less of a craving to imitate men?

I think I’ll need protective head gear for saying all this.

  • James

    I also feel very uneasy about women’s boxing. Not something I’d ever watch.

  • teigitur

    There certainly is something unsettling about the ladies battering each other.

  • JessicaHof

    I am with you Francis. Boxing itself makes me uneasy, feels too much like the old Roman Coliseum watching people hurt each other for our entertainment. I know some men, like my husband, think that is a typical woman’s reaction, and they may be right – which is why I am even more, as a woman, uneasy about seeing other women thump each other’

    I don’t want to imitate men, and I certainly don’t feel that my rights a a woman are in any way enhanced by this ‘sport’. But then I didn’t exactly feel that the women’s volleyball helped us either. 

  • Jonathan West

    I would pose a slightly different question. Whether they are men or women, is it right to make a sport out of two people trying to hurt each other to the point that one knocks the other down?

    Why is your queasiness restricted to the sight of women doing this? Is it because men’s boxing is so familiar you have been inured to the brutality of it? Or is there a bit of gender stereotyping going on and this is regarded as appropriate behaviour for men – that they are naturally aggressive in a way that women are not?

  • americanusnovus

     Boxing is an ancient sport mimicking the aggressive and tactical aspects of combat in a controlled pugilistic art.  However, being a sport, of course the point is not to deliberately injure your opponent for the sake of injury itself.  While injury is intrinsically tied to victory, a pugilist with the correct attitude should be able to separate his desire for victory from any unsportsmanlike desire to injure or maim his opponent.  After literally thousands of years, boxing as an organized sport has developed certain measures of control and regulation to channel aggression and violence in a sportsmanlike manner.  Not to say there isn’t a certain ‘brutality’ in boxing, but the violence is not the point.

    The intricacy of movement, speed, strength, and tactics of a good pugilist reflect a sort of universal martial valor intrinsic to human beings.  This disposition towards martial action seems to be more obvious, just given the physical aspects, in the human male given his average greater muscle mass, height, and weight.  While many like to raise a contradiction based on species where the female is the physically dominant sex, this is clearly not the case with human beings, for the most part.  It makes sense that the more physically dominant half of the species should have a corresponding aggression and violent tendency, otherwise these physical attributes would be pointless.  If these tendencies are RATIONALLY controlled within the confines of sport (or just war, self-defense,etc.), there doesn’t appear to be anything intrinsically wrong with exercising them.  Since the human male is more predisposed given his average physical characteristics and the common corresponding attitude, its seems most fitting that he should participate in sports requiring physical strength and aggression.  Of course there are always exceptions to everything in art and nature.  But the point being that it seems most appropriate for boxing to be a male dominated sport and that there is something slightly unsettling about females stepping out of the ‘gender stereotype’… because maybe this stereotype has some sort of grounding in our nature, both physically and mentally.    

    Just speculation of course.  And I heartily admire the skill and dedication displayed by female pugilists. 

  • Elizabeth Essex

    Two thoughts occur. These young women enjoy their sport, so why shouldn’t they compete? And I think, like no atheists in foxholes, a woman being attacked would be better served by quick footwork & a strong blow rather than a prayer. Why stop there? Why not ban women from fencing too? Your opinion obviously, but mine is that your opinion is daft.

  • Isaac

    Although posted as a reply to americanusnovus it appears that you’ve in fact responded to the article. If so:

    Francis was not saying that this sport should be banned, but rather was reflecting on the existence of such a sport. So your question “These young women enjoy their sport, so why shouldn’t they compete?” is not an engagement with the article.

    Now as to Francis’ objections to this sport, she has explained why. What is it about her reasoning that you find “daft”? 

  • Meena

    “Am I the only person unhappy about women boxing?”

    That’s an easy question, this being a rather moralising Catholic website. The clear, 100% for sure answer is NO (you are far from being the only such person among those who will read your article; the place will be thick with co-finger-wagers).

    I suppose Ms Phillips might be considered as simply yet another Christian moralising sports thinker or commentator, going back to the grand old days of around 393 CE (Common Era) when the Christians banned the Olympic Games – many gymnasts were naked (“gymnos” means naked), and the Christians of the day (like Fr Alex L-S of today, who doesn’t like nude pictures in newspapers – see Prince Harry comments) didn’t like it at all (they were then busy in the process of inventing pornography).

    But Ms Phillips is very wrong on another score. Boxing does not cause aggression. On the contrary boxing has traditionally been introduced into boys’ clubs, prisons and the forces, for example, to provide an outlet for physical energy and so prevent aggression that might otherwise occur. I do not see any reason to believe that boxing is “training women to be aggressive”.
    Chess, which has the aim of placing the King in a position where he will be captured, has not been blamed for any increase in kidnappings, so far as I know.

    People can be hurt in all sports, but it is not the aim of any of them to cause injury, boxing included. Gone are the days when boxers were permitted to deliver blows to the brain-case, for such can cause damage to the brain – not previously realised. 

    But most of all by far, the very best reason for women to take up boxing would be their wish to do so. 

  • Meena

    There’s no need to consider the greater physical strength, on average, of men over women.
    The women are boxing other women. And not only that for, as with men boxing, the opponents are matched as far as possible for similar basic physical strength – the heavyweight does not box the featherweight.

  • JabbaPapa

    “thank you” for your atheist-feminist moralising.

  • Meena

    These young women enjoy their sport, so why shouldn’t they compete? ”

    Yes they want to do it and they enjoy it – and harm nobody.
    As for self-defence, it’s excellent training.

  • Parasum

    You are not alone – but is this really the case: ” If we want women to behave like the fabled Amazons we are embracing neo-paganism.”

    The Amazons were deprived of one half of their mammary superstructure, so that they could draw the bow – I wonder whether the Parthians were mistaken for women ? – and that has not happened.

    “Catholics have the person of Our Lady as a model and guide. She was
    amazingly strong, steadfast and courageous – but also intrinsically
    feminine, not a pagan warrior queen.”

    ## She was also an unmarried mother with a “difficult” son. And if the Church is to be believed, she did not do much to propagate the species. Not *quite* the Ideal Catholic Family. A Real Catholic Mother would have countless offspring, keep them from wandering off unnoticed (so unlike the Mary & Joseph !), not listen to or tolerate any sass from them (unlike Mary), and make plain to them that their betters had already considered what this son was saying, and had shown why it was a non-starter. If Jesus had been a decent Catholic boy, he would have known his place, & accepted what He was told, rather than attacking the religious authorities. It is quite obvious He was very badly brought up.

    Looked at realistically – IOW, without the distortion caused by viewing the members of the Holy Family through the medium of their haloes & nimbuses – the HF did a lot of things that the Church authorities won’t tolerate from any of us. Jesus was no representative of “family values” – He went around breaking families up. Very much like some cultists, in fact.

  • Meena

    They are not “battering each other”. There are strict rules.
    If you feel “unsettled” then that’s something about YOU – not the boxers.

  • Meena

    As with teigitur, that says something about you.

  • Meena

    My posting is 100% factual – save the very last sentence, which is my opinion.

  • americanusnovus

    I don’t think you quite got what I was trying to argue. I brought up physical strength to argue for a corresponding natural aggression or inclination to violent action in males.  Physical attributes would be worthless without a disposition to use them.  So what I was trying to say is that b/c the average male has more bulk, it is more natural for him to have the sort of aggression to use it, and since the average female has less bulk, her natural aggressiveness does not manifest itself in the same way. Thus, I would like to say that violent sports ARE MORE FITTING for males.  Note the ‘more fitting’.  I have no problem with female contact sports, but I think contact sports come more naturally to and are more appealing to males for the reasons I stated above.

  • Meena


  • awkwardcustomer

    And your replies to teigitur and James say something about you. 

    Of course, a person’s responses to things say something about that person.  Why point out something so obvious, unless to give voice to that standard response of our times – if my behaviour upsets you, then that’s YOUR problem.

  • andHarry

    Surely Mary exhibited Amazonian qualities when, accompanied by her other sons, she went to arrest Jesus because she thought that He was out of his mind? Presumably they were frustrated in their mission by the number of followers they found around Him, and amazed by His words. Nor was there protective head gear available then.

  • Honeybadger

    I see where you are coming from, Francis, but only for a moment…

    Women, by instinct, are hunters and fighters. God-given instinct kicks in when their children are threatened.

    Talking of saintly female role models, have you forgotten about Saint Joan of Arc? Or women in the Armed Forces or the Police or the Fire Brigade?

    Saint Margaret of Antioch, Saint Catherine of Alexandria and Saint Michael the Archangel were sent by Almighty God to Saint Joan, a young French girl – God could have chosen a bloke. He didn’t. He chose a girl.

    Saint Joan was no pushover. She NEEDED to cut her hair and wear men’s clothes to prevent being taken advantage of by female-deprived men and, most important of all, preserve her purity! She had a sword, she helped work out military strategies etc. etc.

    I don’t suppose you have ever heard of Mulan, Boudicca or Grace O’Malley (Granuaille) either! Women fighters!

    In this crazy, sinful, immoral, dangerous world, women need to defend themselves against sexual assault.

    Saint Maria Goretti did not submit to the man who wanted to rape her. She fought like a good ‘un, though, in the end, she was stabbed several times by her would-be rapist and died in hospital.

    Saint Gianna Molla was a medical doctor. Did you know that, for many, many years, the idea of a woman becoming a doctor or surgeon was as unthinkable and outrageous as – you guessed it – a woman boxer!

    A few years ago, A friend of my sister was attacked and the swine attempted to rape her. He did not expect her to fight back until she gave a scary cry of ‘keeeeaaaiiii!!!!!’ which sent him packing!

    She was a Black Belt 1st Dan in Karate!

    My own sister wasn’t far behind, belt-wise. They went to the same Karate class. She saved a cleaning woman from being attacked by yobs with her karate skills – which did not involve chopping their bones up with her bare hands!

    I don’t think it is a case of women wanting to be like men at all, Francis. It’s just that some sports that men play are far more interesting and challenging than synchronised sewing!

    Whether it is boxing, fencing, karate, wrestling, shooting, archery, soccer, rugby, cricket - sport has rules, licenses, discipline, ethics. I have no problem with women doing sport. At least they are dressed modestly!

    I’d rather women do these sports than beach volleyball (skimpy costumes) any day of the week!

  • Meena


  • Claudia

    Both men and women of traditional character must stand against the efforts to eliminate cultural gender differences. Those difference are biologically based but can superficially be made to seem environmentally based by gender bending social engineers, through television and film propaganda. About 15% of women are indeed born more masculine than average women but they should not be allowed to force upon the other 85% their perverse ideology of eliminating femininity. 

  • Sue TL Fox

    You need protective head gear because you know nothing about the sport, and you are writing from an angle of total ignorance.

  • Jill

    Newsflash: Women inherently have aggression.   Women can enjoy healthy competition.  Some women even enjoy sex.  (I know, hard to believe)

    No one is trying to imitate anyone.  Women are expressing themselves in a sport that helps them overcome the adversity in their lives:  adversity caused by abuse, trauma, and archaic beliefs about what they should or should not be doing by out of touch people.

    You can’t “train” someone to be aggressive or to be a fighter.  You either have it in you or you don’t.  It’s not male or female or forced on anyone.  It’s just who you are and boxing is a way to express it.

  • Lewispbuckingham

     ‘Boxing does not cause aggression’ Interesting idea, after all aggression is defined as ‘unprovoked attack, hostile act..’but then boxing does involve attack and hostile acts, like thumping someone up.
     Boxing may well cause a decline in aggression between those who box.Repeated blows to the head face and jaw leads to brain bleeds and brain swelling. The resulting mental and physical disability with dementia may well ensure the peacefulness of long term nursing care.

  • Meena

    As mentioned above, blows to the head that could cause damage are now not permitted. These go back to former times when these risks were not understood.

    There is no hostility between participants in boxing any more than in any other competitive sport. 
    Boxing between opponents is not an “attack” of one on another. 

  • teigitur

    There are many things we could say about you, none of them edifying. But charity restrains us.

  • teigitur

    Ah it was a blow to the head then. That makes everything clear.

  • Dara

    Thank you for sharing your viewpoint.  It is safe to say that you are not alone in your stance against women’s boxing.  However, you are part of a movement and thought process that prevents women as a gender from progressing to reach equality.

    Yes, there are fundamental biological differences between men and women.  And those differences are reinforced socially.  But to what extent?  In the U.S., women make $0.77 to the man’s $1.  We don’t receive equal pay for doing the same jobs and same amount of work.  Why?  Because we are women.

    Boxing is similar.  Do you think those women that competed at the Olympics, and other elite level boxers, put in any less work than the men?  I can tell you first hand, no.  As women we work twice as hard for not even half the recognition.  We not only fight our opponents in the ring, but we fight against social norms, and against the conservative thought process behind this article.  Before you see a woman in the ring, know that she has already fought through all the stereotypes and swam through miles of opposition before reaching that point.

    It’s important to address the underlying social issues behind women’s boxing.  Truthfully, there is still much improvement to be made not only in this sport, but in women’s sports period.  Do you think the WNBA was created without a struggle?  Women’s soccer?  They have all had to fight to establish their leagues.  Women’s boxing will soon be among those.  

    It’s not about training a woman to be aggressive.  It’s about training a woman to tap into her athletic potential, and to break all barriers — physical, mental, emotional, and social.

    You may feel differently, but know that thousands of people, if not millions, around the world support our sport.  They don’t do it because they think women are trying to be like “blokes”.  They support women’s boxing because they know it’s a highly exciting and passionate sport.  I encourage you to take a look into a few documentaries on the lives of female boxers before continuing down your path against women’s boxing.

  • Oconnord

    “unprovoked attack, hostile act”
    How is it unprovoked?
    By any meaning of the word?  These are highly organised competitive matches, with two willing competitors who are fully aware of what will happen.


    After the bout is over the boxers are normally seen embracing and congratulating each other. There is rarely any rancour shown, maybe a little “trash talk” before hand. But nothing that would show actual hostility.

  • Oconnord

    I know where you are coming from, because in a way there’s something unsettling about blokes battering each other also….if you are not a fan of the sport.

    I do like the sport though. I don’t even see the gender, at that level, I see the skill. I wouldn’t object to a male/female match if it were fair. So I don’t see how females boxing can be any more objectional than male boxing.

    I don’t like F1.,  to me it’s just cars going in circles. So how silly would I be if I objected to female F1 drivers? Would a female F1 champion make women more likely to speed in their cars?

  • Oconnord

    When I was a kid the saying in our gym was..

    “fighters are born, boxers are trained”

  • Oconnord

    Relating boxing and aggression, well it’s just so uninformed as to be stupid. The first thing you learn is to control aggression. Never dismiss it, it might be a useful tactic, but nothing more. One of the best tactics in the ring is to make the other person fight! 

    It generally means you are in control. It doesn’t mean an amazing Ali way, it’s about energy conservation. It’s about patience.. when adversity is a fist in the face.

    WOW this article was so ill-informed… it got me nostalgic… about being punched in the head.

  • Acleron

    I also feel ‘unsettled’ by women fighting. Fortunately I realise that the feeling is from my upbringing and doesn’t signify to anyone except me. I’m also sure that if I watched it for a long enough period then I would feel less ‘unsettled’, but I know little about the finer points of boxing and it interests me not.

    But who should care about my feelings or even my opinions. These women are harming nobody else, and from the informed comments above, not even themselves. They have brought a tremendous success for themselves and a great deal of joy to many people. There’s not many who can claim that!

    So they have the freedom of choice to do as they wish and in this modern age when busybodies are less able to interfere they have the power to do it. I salute them.

  • paulsays

    ‘perverse ideology of eliminating femininity’

    For all you know both of the female boxers enjoy shopping and getting their hair done! They enjoy boxing – that much is true, but you can hardly say that you know there motivations for doing so.

    Has either boxer come out and said that they despise femininity? Or that women should be more masculine? 

    Claudia you cannot simply spout your unsubstantiated guesswork of the (supposed) psychology and (supposed) ideology of these two female boxers. If you don’t use the facts then an honest critique cannot occur.

  • paulsays

    The volleyball I think is a very separate issue. No men likely derived sexual pleasure from the boxing match.

    Although the women’s boxing did make me wince a bit initially, this does not mean that women’s boxing is objectively wrong. We can’t really on instinctive human reactions in order to find what is most moral – if we did so then we’d hang a great deal of our prison population – which could hardly be said to be ethical.

    Equally your reaction of ‘unease’ and discomfort in watching the women’s boxing is no more of an argument to have it removed, then my initial wincing as the first punch was thrown.

    Women needn’t participate in women’s boxing, nor squeamish viewers of either gender watch the bouts. I’m sure there are genuine objections that could be discussed, why women’s boxing might be an issue – but it can’t be on subjective feelings such as we experienced.


  • paulsays

    Just switch over channel  -easy!

  • paulsays

    Rather then tar people with the brush of ‘atheist’ or ‘feminist’ why not make the effort to put together a cogent counter-argument?

    Its very easy to mud-sling, but much harder to string together an argument.

  • paulsays

    We might have been ‘moralising’ Christians that doesn’t mean many people today would feel any less happy watching, or letting there children watch atheletes perform naked! 

    Although it can be amusing to drag up the past, I think that going back over a thousand years ago to drag up Christian opposition to the Olympics is a little pointless! Christians may have banned the games, but they also influnced the Roman culture enough to stop gladitorial combat in around the same period, which truely was immoral.

    As a Christian I see no issue with woman’s boxing per say, although whether boxing (both male and female) is a moral or immoral endevour I am not sure one way or the other. I see the pros and cons to society. I am undecided, but that is truely another question entirely.

  • paulsays

    ‘Unprovoked attack’ Well hardly! Its not unprovoked, as both women decided to start boxing, which means accepting that you are going to get hit.In terms of risk in boxing, I don’t know the ins and outs. However, the question posed by the article is not about boxing safety. It is about whether women should be allowed to box.

  • paulsays

    In fact, compared to the ridiculous bravado, and sometimes true nastiness before a male on male fight, the respect the women had for each other was very refreshing.

    Respect likely gained, from the hardships and stigma that they realize all women boxers face in order to have got there.

  • paulsays

    Perhaps, we are allowed our personal misgivings. But of course our squeamishness, does not translate into something being immoral. 

  • paulsays

    I am a Catholic, but please speak for yourself – not all of ‘us’ other Catholics. I have a different opinion to you, and am not looking to insult non-christians for the pleasure of it.

  • Nadine Salim

    This is an extraordinarily foolish article.  The author clearly knows nothing about the sport.    Added to that are some ridiculous notions about womanhood as it is allegedly presented in the Bible.   The other comments about saints who fought are well taken.  Incidentally, our “Judeo-Christian” values regarding femininity may owe more to Graeco/Roman household codes than to Bible, but that’s a separate topic.   Boxing requires skill and self-control   I boxed.  I did not box because I wanted to imitate men.  I boxed because I loved boxing.   The author’s tastes may not run towards combat sports.  That is her option.  She may, however, want to inform herself before spouting off in future.

  • teigitur

    I would never presume to speak for you. God forbid your thoughts would be my thoughts.

  • teigitur

    I Never said it was immoral, just makes me a bit uneasy. Hardly a crime.

  • Lewispbuckingham

     I hope you are right that ‘blows to the head that could cause damage are not permitted’ .I tried to verify this myself before blogging because in all the pictures boxers have head gear but blows to the face and jaws are permitted.Not only that but the ‘rules’ may vary.You are more describing amateur boxing than professional boxing, where a knockout blow or flooring to the canvas is welcomed by the paying onlookers and the TV channels, as long as it is in the final round so the ads can be shown and the bets put.
     The problem with any blow to the head is that it always rattles the braincase, and the brain within.And when the player is floored then the head is hit again.
     As far as the use of the word ‘attack’ I sought to work out what you meant by the phrase ‘Boxing does not cause aggression’.
     When you define the English word ‘aggression’ as in the OED, you will find that it contains three elements viz provocation, attack and hostility.
     I pointed out that boxing contains hostility and attack, OC below thought I meant it were provoked.
     By saying that ‘there is no hostility between participants in boxing’ then qualifying this by saying ‘than any more than in any other competitive sport’ could lead the casual reader to believe you think boxing is like a game of tennis or bowls, both involving assesment of strength and weakness of the opponent and the execution of planning.And of course both games involve attack.
     The clear difference is that in boxing harm is the certain outcome in a high proportion of those that compete.
     I would ask you to reflect on Jonathan West’s question above
     ‘Is it right to make a sport out of two people trying to hurt each other to the point that one knocks the other down?’

  • paulsays

    Fair point.

  • paulsays

    I really feel made a meaningful connection. :P

  • teigitur