# Es el boxeo un deporte cruel y sadistico?



## tmoore

Pueden darme su opinion sobre el boxeo? Me parece barbarico que dos hombres se den de puñetazos , hasta que uno cae inconsciente o semi-inconsciente, con ojos y nariz hinchadas y sangre corriendoles por la cara.Cuantos boxeadores han muerto en el ring y cuantos han acabado mal de la cabeza?


----------



## Fernando

Pues a mí tampoco me gusta. Reconozco que es bonito, que conlleva esfuerzo, que es un deporte extremo (eso de bailar mientras un tío te está pegando puñetazos y persiguiéndote durante tres minutos sin parar me parece tremendo). Pero en última instancia es ver a dos personas agrediéndose.

En cuanto a los boxeadores muertos o tontos no te creas que hay tantos. Son lances del juego.

Perdona por la corrección, pero es "bárbaro" y "sádico".


----------



## grumpus

Fernando said:
			
		

> Pues a mí tampoco me gusta. Reconozco que es bonito, que conlleva esfuerzo, que es un deporte extremo (eso de bailar mientras un tío te está pegando puñetazos y persiguiéndote durante tres minutos sin parar me parece tremendo). Pero en última instancia es ver a dos personas agrediéndose.
> 
> En cuanto a los boxeadores muertos o tontos no te creas que hay tantos. Son lances del juego.
> 
> Perdona por la corrección, pero es "bárbaro" y "sádico".




Hi fellows,
I agree, I don't like it.  I think it just glorifies violence (as do a lot of sports).

saludos,
Grumpus


----------



## GenJen54

I don't know you can call it cruel and sadistic if two people are consentually agreeing to go into a 16' x 16' foot ring and punch each others' lights out. As humans, we have been given the ability to think for ourselves. Some of us exercise that privilige better than do others.

It's not like they are harming an unwitting victim. They get what they ask for. 

Barbaric? Yes. 
Cruel? Not if they willingly participate.
Sadistic? Depends on who you ask.

_*Tmoore*, you might also consider asking about the *cultural* traditions of boxing in each country.  This is a *cultural* discussions thread, afterall. In some places, such blood sports are honorable._


----------



## grumpus

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> I don't know you can call it cruel and sadistic if two people are consentually agreeing to go into a 16' x 16' foot ring and punch each others' lights out. As humans, we have been given the ability to think for ourselves. Some of us exercise that privilige better than do others.
> 
> It's not like they are harming an unwitting victim. They get what they ask for.
> 
> Barbaric? Yes.
> Cruel? Not if they willingly participate.
> Sadistic? Depends on who you ask.
> 
> _*Tmoore*, you might also consider asking about the *cultural* traditions of boxing in each country.  This is a *cultural* discussions thread, afterall. In some places, such blood sports are honorable._



Hi Gens,  (this is not off-topic,ehhh)
So by your logic you believe in "dueling", no one else gets hurt, right?

saludos,
Grumpus


----------



## GenJen54

grumpus said:
			
		

> So by your logic you believe in "dueling", no one else gets hurt, right?


 
I believe we each have the right to make stupid choices for ourselves.  If it includes boxing, duelling and/or bungee jumping off a half-broken tree limb with a partially-frayed cord over a rock bed, then so be it.  The only people who are getting hurt (physically) are the *willing *participants.  

It's not like dog-fighting, or gamecock fighting, where humans are subjecting their will on animals.  *THAT* is cruel and sadistic (and subject of another thread.)


----------



## cuchuflete

Well Grumpus,
as the accounting professors say in answer to every question,
"It all depends."

If by dueling you mean with epee, rapier, sword, and protective masks and body armor....it's a sport and a fair question.

If you are talking about six-shooters at twenty paces, I'd call it population control, or euthanasia, or improving human bloodlines. Anyone who participates in such a thing in this day and age is a little whacked-out.

Culturally, boxing has two er.....um.....threads:

1. a true "sport" practiced in collegiate competition, to learn and compete in something athletic.
2.Prize-fighting. This one is about money, of course. For the boxers, almost always from poor backgrounds, it's a chance to get some money. For the spectators, it's a chance to spend a lot (though for some of them, relatively little) of it to watch two poor people beat the s___ out of one another. For the gambling establishments, it's a chance to take some money from all comers, and who wins the match is of little interest, in terms of athletics, sport or culture.


----------



## grumpus

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> I believe we each have the right to make stupid choices for ourselves.  If it includes boxing, duelling and/or bungee jumping off a half-broken tree limb with a partially-frayed cord over a rock bed, then so be it.  The only people who are getting hurt (physically) are the *willing *participants.
> 
> It's not like dog-fighting, or gamecock fighting, where humans are subjecting their will on animals.  *THAT* is cruel and sadistic (and subject of another thread.)




HI Gen,
Boxing and willingness is very debatible. Look at the people in Latin America who are boxers.  They come from the poorest classes of people, with possibly no other choice (to make a lot of money, drugs may be one).  So you're saying that they choose to do it is very "cruel" in itself. (all what I said is applicable to the U.S. too)

Saludos,
Grumpus


----------



## tmoore

Gracias por la correccion Fernando, creo que llevo viviendo deamasiados en USA y al no tener oportunidad de practicar mucho el castellano, en el estado en que vivo , voy dando patinazos de vez en cuando y trato de traducir del ingles al español. Espero que sigas corrigiendome cuando me equivoque


----------



## Fernando

I think we are missing the point (or at least there are two issues): the problem is for the watchers, not for the boxers!

As an example, I see no problem in two guys beating each other a little bit. The problem to me is the 2,000 guys who watch (paying or not, that is not neither the problem) the match with pleasure.

Of course the problem are related. It is not very probable that two friends beat each other to death if there is no money in the pocket.



			
				tmoore said:
			
		

> Gracias por la correccion Fernando, creo que llevo viviendo deamasiados en USA y al no tener oportunidad de practicar mucho el castellano, en el estado en que vivo , voy dando patinazos de vez en cuando y trato de traducir del ingles al español. Espero que sigas corrigiendome cuando me equivoque



Only if you correct me.


----------



## GenJen54

grupus said:
			
		

> Boxing and willingness is very debatible. Look at the people in Latin America who are boxers. They come from the poorest classes of people, with possibly no other choice (to make a lot of money, drugs may be one).


 In this regard, when a young, impoverished boxer becomes "victim" of the system, then yes, perhaps this can be viewed in the least as exploitative.  Regardless, he (or she, in today's society) trains for this sport.  He/she understands the risks and assumes them.  If a young boxer signs a contract from which he cannot withdraw and is then set up "to lose" in order to make a manager money, then yes, perhaps that is certainly "cruel" behavior on the part of the manager/trainer.   Nonetheless, he who steps into the ring assumes the risk.



			
				fernando said:
			
		

> The problem to me is the 2,000 guys who watch (paying or not, that is not neither the problem) the match with pleasure.


 
I agree with this.  The problem really lies in the people who actually take pleasure in watching these types of sports.  It is the modern-day version of the Roman gladiator games.


----------



## grumpus

Fernando said:
			
		

> I think we are missing the point (or at least there are two issues): the problem is for the watchers, not for the boxers!
> 
> As an example, I see no problem in two guys beating each other a little bit. The problem to me is the 2,000 guys who watch (paying or not, that is not neither the problem) the match with pleasure.
> 
> Of course the problem are related. It is not very probable that two friends beat each other to death if there is no money in the pocket.
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you correct me.




Hola Fernando,
de acuerdo.  I will correct you here.

Of course, the problemS are related. It is not very probable that two friends WOULD beat each other to death if there WERE no money INVOLVED.


saludos,
Grumpus


----------



## grumpus

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> In this regard, when a young, impoverished boxer becomes "victim" of the system, then yes, perhaps this can be viewed in the least as exploitative.  Regardless, he (or she, in today's society) trains for this sport.  He/she understands the risks and assumes them.  If a young boxer signs a contract from which he cannot withdraw and is then set up "to lose" in order to make a manager money, then yes, perhaps that is certainly "cruel" behavior on the part of the manager/trainer.   Nonetheless, he who steps into the ring assumes the risk.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with this.  The problem really lies in the people who actually take pleasure in watching these types of sports.  It is the modern-day version of the Roman gladiator games.




Hi Gen et al.
I think we all agree on this point. But you could probably already imagine what I would say
about "people taking pleasure" in this.  I am very predictable.  ha ha.

Saludos,
Grumpus


----------



## Brioche

Boxing should not be considered a sport.

The intention of boxing is to _injure _your opponent.
A knock-out, which injures the brain, is the best way to win.

In other "fighting sports" such as wrestling, karate, judo, and the like, the intention is to _over-power_ your opponent with a combination of strength and skill.


----------



## luis masci

Que es cruel, no hay duda que lo es. Tampoco tengo ninguna duda de que quienes van a ver este tipo de “espectáculos” son sádicos y morbosos. Supongo que es la misma clase de gente que gusta de las corridas de toros cuyos espectadores poseen estas mismas “cualidades”.


----------



## BasedowLives

I like UFC fighting more than boxing. UFC = ultimate fighting championship.

No gloves, and since it's mixed martial arts (MMA) they can do a lot more.

I think it's great to see 2 well trained fighters go at it and put their skills to the test.  I know a UFC fighter and he's no victim to anything.


----------



## GenJen54

Please review the topic of this thread.  The topic of this thread is whether you believe *boxing* to be a sport that is cruel and sadistic.  It is not to cite a preference of another sport, no matter how similar to boxing.


----------



## Viriato

Yo no sé si lo calificaría como cruel y sádico, pero desde luego para mi es un espectáculo desagradable y violento. Ahora bien, son dos personas que lo hacen voluntariamente y están preparados físicamente para ello y, normalmente, no se acaba tan mal como se ha dicho. Recordemos que en el boxeo olímpico se pelea con casco protector y es a tres asaltos, muy semejante a las peleas de artes marciales. ¿Lo podríamos asemejar con un combate de kárate o taekwondo, por ejemplo? En éstos también se puede acabar con la nariz, dedo, pierna o brazo rotos y sangrando por la nariz.
¿Qué opináis?


----------



## srsh

Si yo tomara un martillo y lo utilizo para golpear mi mano, ¿es cruel? la respuesta obvia es no, ya que nadie me está obligando a hacerlo. Lo mismo sucede en el box, ambos peleadores estan ahí porque así lo decidieron ellos mismos.


----------



## tigger_uhuhu

srsh said:
			
		

> Si yo tomara un martillo y lo utilizo para golpear mi mano, ¿es cruel? la respuesta obvia es no, ya que nadie me está obligando a hacerlo. Lo mismo sucede en el box, ambos peleadores estan ahí porque así lo decidieron ellos mismos.



Claro que es cruel y sádico...
Es tu decisión, claro, pero social y culturalmente es un acto de sadismo y es cruel en el momento que atenta contra tu integridad, son cosas totalmente distintas, mi buen amigo Srsh, no confundamos la gimnasia con la magnesia


----------



## Dandee

Nos preguntamos el por que de ciertas actividades o hechos violentos que el hombre realiza. Yo creo que el hombre es violento por naturaleza, es decir la violencia está en nuestra genética. El hombre en su necesidad de perpetuarse o prevalecer ante sus congéneres, como cualquier otro depredador, utiliza la violencia como medio. El boxeo por excelencia, el fútbol, la caza, la pesca, la guerra, las corridas de toros y otros deportes o actividades que incluyen la muerte o no como elemento intrínseco delata que en nuestra genética la violencia existe y seguirá existiendo siendo contenida solamente por la educación. 
El boxeo es tan cruel y sádico como lo es el hombre y es vestigio de las luchas de gladiadores y otros anacronismos que dicen como somos.

Saludos.
Dandee.


----------



## Papalote

Hi, y’all 

Many, many years ago, when I was travelling by bus from my parent’s home to my dorm in another town, I met a boxer. Our bus had had a flat in the middle of nowhere and as the sky turned a darker shade of grey, the guy sitting next to me started fidgeting and asking me if I could see what they were doing. _They_ being the driver and every other available male travelling in that bus, who was giving his opinion on what to do and how to fix the tire. After the fifth time he asked, I probably answered in an exasperated tone of voice because he apologized and started talking his anxiety away. He was lucky, he said, to have a job in a factory. He had finished his shift at 3 p.m. and was now travelling to defend his amateur boxing title. I had to understand, he said, that boxing was his passion. He lived in a very poor barrio, like many others like him, with his wife and three children. That’s why he was lucky to have a job, because many others didn’t. But, although many envied his job, all of them admired his status as a boxer. Boxing gave him prestige. Boxing made his children proud of him. Boxing gave his wife an enviable status in the community. That’s why he worked 6 days a week from 5 a.m. to 3 p.m., and then he travelled Saturday nights to wherever he had to go to defend his title. The money was welcome, but that’s not why he did it. Como boxeador, èl era alguien importante.  He was *someone*, not just a factory worker, or someone to forget or ignore. One day, he would become a professional boxer, and then his family would lack nothing.

When I asked him if it didn’t hurt a lot when he got hit, he smiled, said yes, and proceeded to show me every single scar on his face and arms. An unforgettable trip.

Unforgettable, because every time I think I’m having a hard time following my dreams, I think of this nameless man who taught me so much about sacrifice, perseverance and hope. 

I still do not like boxing.

P


----------



## BasedowLives

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> Please review the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread is whether you believe *boxing* to be a sport that is cruel and sadistic. It is not to cite a preference of another sport, no matter how similar to boxing.


 
Would you have me start another thread for Ultimate Fighting?  It would seem terribly redundant.


----------



## Roi Marphille

Mi respuesta es: 
Definitívamente NO!!!
No es cruel ni mucho menos sádico. Será muchos otros adjetivos pero no estos dos!
Es un deporte de superación a un adversario. Los dos están de acuerdo en realizar ésta actividad y está regulada. Si hablamos de boxeo profesional claro. Yo no lo haría nunca ni soy aficionado a ello pero, por favor, ¿cruel y sádico? 
Creo (que la mayoría de veces) es un deporte muy noble.


----------



## zebedee

BasedowLives said:
			
		

> Would you have me start another thread for Ultimate Fighting?  It would seem terribly redundant.


Yes, you're right, it would have been terribly redundant. Here's an idea: instead of concentrating on Ultimate Fighting in your post, you could have linked your ideas back to boxing and in that way your post would have been more on-topic and would have advanced the debate. I've put some possible examples below in red so you can see what we mean...



			
				BasedowLives said:
			
		

> I like UFC fighting more than boxing (UFC = ultimate fighting championship) because boxing is ...
> 
> No gloves, and since it's mixed martial arts (MMA) they can do a lot more than in boxing because...
> 
> I think it's great to see 2 well trained fighters go at it and put their skills to the test. I know a UFC fighter and he's no victim to anything. Similarly boxers.../Whereas boxers.../However, boxers...


----------



## danielfranco

El boxeo es un espectáculo deplorable no por la violencia del mismo sino por la larga y triste historia de su corrupción, que parece ser sistémica y que contamina en todos sus niveles a esa empresa. Es, en comparación, de un grado minúsculo menos falsedad que la lucha libre. Como deporte, parece sobrevivir tan solo a nivel amateur. Y peor aun: Si es tan solo un espectáculo para lucro de los que manipulan el aspecto promocional, ¿cómo es posible que todavía haya muertes en el ring? No serán de todos los días, pero a otros participantes de espectáculos de entretenimiento no los mata su profesión... ¿Cuándo fue la última vez que un galán de televisión murió por grabar una telenovela?
Pero divago, perdón. El boxeo profesional no es deporte. Y es una pena realmente, porque los boxeadores sí son atletas verdaderos que deberían atraer nuestra admiración en lugar de nuestra lástima.
Mis respetos a esos atletas. Ojalá hubiera más activistas como Teddy Atlas a favor de ellos.
Saludos al foro.
Dan F


----------

