+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Do gloves make boxing more dangerous?

  1. #1
    Senior Member Machete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Cocytus
    Posts
    663

    Default Do gloves make boxing more dangerous?

    I have always discussed this popular subject, and the myth of MMA gloves being more dangerous than boxing gloves. I finally found an article about it.

    Promotional posters for boxing matches in the 19th century followed a formula: the two adversaries would be depicted squaring up to each other, with heads tilted slightly backwards and their fists held low, the knuckles pointing out and upwards. The pose looks comical nowadays, as if they are actors in a silent movie rather than pugilists.

    The stance and guard were low because bare-knuckle boxing consisted largely of striking the opponent's body. The skull is an extremely hard object, and a full-force punch to an opponent's head could easily result in a broken hand. This is why so many bar-room brawls end after one punch. The "boxer's fracture" a break behind the knuckle of the little finger is regularly seen in hospital casualty departments at weekends.

    The Marquess of Queensberry rules took off not because society viewed the new sport as more civilized than the old, but because fights conducted under the new guidelines attracted more spectators. Audiences wanted to see repeated blows to the head and dramatic knockouts.

    By contrast, the last bare-knuckle heavyweight contest in the US in 1897 dragged on into the 75th round. Since gloves spread the impact of a blow, the recipient of a punch is less likely to be blinded, have their teeth knocked out or their jaw broken. However, gloves do not lessen the force applied to the brain as it rattles inside the skull from a heavy blow. In fact, they make matters worse by adding 10oz to the weight of the fist.

    A full-force punch to the head is comparable to being hit with a 12lb padded wooden mallet traveling at 20mph. Gerald McClellan took around 40 such blows over the course of his world title fight against Nigel Benn in 1995. Even the most hardened spectators were shocked by its brutality.

    Neither fighter made any great attempts to defend himself. Instead, the two stood toe to toe, trading punches. As a result, McClellan suffered brain damage that left him blind, 80 percent deaf and paralyzed.

    As the bare-knuckle campaigner Dr. Alan J. Ryan pointed out: "In 100 years of bare-knuckle fighting in the United States, which terminated around 1897 with a John L. Sullivan heavyweight championship fight, there wasn't a single ring fatality." Today, there are three or four every year in the US, and around 15 per cent of professional fighters suffer some form of permanent brain damage during their career. Worldwide, there have been over 400 boxing deaths in the last 50 years alone. The total would be far higher were it not for the advances in medical care that saved the lives of fighters such as McClellan and Michael Watson. A return to bare knuckles would be bloodier and less acceptable to mass television audiences, but one has to ask whether wheelchairs and life-support machines are any easier on one's conscience.
    Last edited by Machete; 07-02-2010 at 09:42 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member legshot420's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Sa pagitan ng dilim at liwanag
    Posts
    708

    Default

    I don't know if the gloves make boxing more dangerous or not, but what I do know is any sport that involves repeated blows to the head is dangerous. God, I love fighting. Hahaha!

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    243

    Default

    I personally think that there were two rules in the Marquis of Queensbury Rules that made boxing more deadly than the London Prize Ring rules. The padded gloves was definitely the main change. Damage became internal and focused on the brain instead of the superficial damage done to the face and mouth with bare knuckle fights. The other area that made it more deadly was the switch to 3 minute timed rounds instead of the old system when the round ended whenever one fighter took a knee or got knocked down. Boxers are forced to endure damage for a specific amount of time now, as opposed to taking a knee and stopping the beating they were taking. You'll read about fights going on for 75 or even hundreds of rounds. Most the the time, the total length of the fight wasn't any more than the old 15 round fights of 1 hour. Most of the time, they would fight for less than a minute or maybe even just a few seconds and as soon as one got hurt, they would take a knee and the round ended. Not only did this give them time to recover, but it took the momentum away from their opponent. So they didn't get continuous punishment. In a 3 minute timed round, if you get hurt, you keep getting hurt until the referee stops the fight or you're able to turn the tide.

    On a side note, there's more and more evidence that you don't even have to suffer a concussion to suffer brain damage. Research being done at the Brain Injury Research Institute in West Virginia shows that any sudden stop can cause the brain to bounce around inside the skull and damage it. Imagine how much more damaged is caused by being hit by someone actually trying to concuss you. I love boxing. Actually, a lot more and a lot longer than mma. But there's been movement from various international medical associations to have it banned. Is it worth it to have a human being become brain damaged just to entertain other people? I would miss it if it were banned, but I'd understand.
    Last edited by Thread_Killer; 07-02-2010 at 10:19 PM. Reason: bad grammar

  4. #4
    Senior Member Machete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Cocytus
    Posts
    663

    Default

    I think I would have to concur with you on that one. When you got hurt or rocked, you could recover for like 60 seconds or something. That match between Wesley Snipes and Ving Rhames in Undisputed (the first) was under London Prize Rules.

    The factors I personally consider that make boxing more deadly than MMA:

    > continued bashing even after getting knocked down in boxing, as supposed to a referee stoppage in MMA
    > well protected hands that minimize boxers' reluctance to punch full force (in case you hit the skull)
    > the main goal of boxing being to PUNCH SOMEONE IN THE FACE, as opposed to MMA's goal of winning in multiple possible ways

  5. #5
    Senior Member burungkol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    682

    Default

    i find that all that's been posted is true. very well said.
    continuous impact to the head is the main reason why boxers suffer from brain damage.

    let's not even mention the use of head gears. those things permit longer and more hits to the head.

  6. #6
    Member KudO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    165

    Default

    Actually Ive been hearing it many times that boxing is the most damaging contact sports. Hitting simultaneous in the head for 12 round, being rocked and getting counted for 10 sec and be able to fight and fight again. Thats just ridiculous. Also boxers are prone to brain diseases and sickness after retirement. Just think what happen to Z Gorres. What a waste of talent

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts