Boxers facing jailtime for fighting eachother

[Bad Lieutenant]

British boxers David Haye and Dereck Chisora are suspected of committing offences that could carry prison sentences following their Munich brawl, German prosecutors told BBC Sport.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/boxing/17088619

It was mentioned in another thread that the authorities turn a blind eye to bare knuckle boxing in the traveller community (straighteners). Now these two heavyweight worldchampion contenders have gone and had an apparantly consensual fight and are facing GBH charges.

Not that boxing endorses violence or that these fighters are interested to the tone of 1,000,000s of bucks in being the number 1 tough-guy or anything.

I don't see how this incedent can be resolved without the whole sport of boxing looking very stupid indeed...not that that didn't happen already when Mike Tyson said he wanted to eat Evander Holyfield's babies. It would be comical if it wasn't so, erm, visceral. Alpha psychology is largely inescapable but boxing positively revels in its most primative manifestation. THERE CAN BE ONLY 1!!!

 

[lane99]

Btw

Even Mike Tyson is not glutton enough to make it through Evander Holyfield's children*.

Tyson's comment was directed at Lennox Lewis. The last British heavyweight, incidentally, who wasn't a lunatic (see D. Chisora)) or a poser (see D. Haye and T. Fury).


*Holyfield's got about a large barrel full of 'em

 

[crimresearch]

Fights outside the ring aren't insulated from criminal charges they way they are in a licensed and regulated arena fight.

A little chest butting during a press conference is technically battery, but no one is going to get charged for that in the context of generating publicity. It is understood to be part of the show.

Actually swinging much less connecting, takes it to a whole new level.

 

[sadhatter]

To me the rules in regards to combat sports are a point of fascination.

In my opinion as long as we have 2 ( or more) gents of sound mind who agree to take whatever consequences could happen, let them fight in whatever manner, with whatever equipment ( or lack thereof) they want to.

 

[Bad Lieutenant]

Even Mike Tyson is not glutton enough to make it through Evander Holyfield's children*.

Tyson's comment was directed at Lennox Lewis. The last British heavyweight, incidentally, who wasn't a lunatic (see D. Chisora)) or a poser (see D. Haye and T. Fury).


*Holyfield's got about a large barrel full of 'em

Ah, thanks for correcting that. I think I got it twisted with M Tyson biting Holyfield's ear.

I can believe Haye is a poser, what with the complicated haircut and designer facial hair (and press conference heckling ) but out of interest what has Tyson Fury done to deserve the "poser" moniker?

 

[KingMerv00]

To me the rules in regards to combat sports are a point of fascination.

In my opinion as long as we have 2 ( or more) gents of sound mind who agree to take whatever consequences could happen, let them fight in whatever manner, with whatever equipment ( or lack thereof) they want to.

Even pistols at dawn?

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Why he was drinking a Corona at the presser...?

Bottle looked like he tried to hit his chin with it but the pic I saw, the punch landed flush to the chest. He even hit his own trainer with a camera tripod.

Idiot.

 

[lane99]

...out of interest what has Tyson Fury done to deserve the "poser" moniker?

Well, he's got a bit of a big mouth. Which he shut pretty quick when asked if he was willing to fight a Klitschko. But, certainly, by no means is he as rank as David "The Toe-breaker" Haye.

Actually, I don't mind Fury. He might not be the most talented fighter around. But he gives it a go.

 

[RobDegraves]

Even pistols at dawn?

It's a good question but in general I would say yes.

I believe everyone should have the right to dispose of his own life however he/she sees fit, but not anyone else's.

As long as there was no coercion, anyone should have the right to get themselves killed if they want to. We already sell cigarettes, race cars very fast, gamble, etc.

Where I draw the line is when actions negatively affect someone else without their informed consent. However, if two adults want to fight each other willingly... I say let them. My answer would tend to be the same in most of that type of situation. I have been in ring fights a number of times and, despite the fact that there are rules, doctors and refs, I don't really see the intrinsic difference between that and an arranged fight outside of a ring. Heck, a lot of our sparring is close enough to a real fight some of the time to qualify.

That said, if someone challenged me to a duel using real swords... I would be sorely tempted as well. I would not do it of course, knowing that it is illegal... but it still sounds like fun. Yep... I'm not that sane.

 

[KingMerv00]

It's a good question but in general I would say yes.

I believe everyone should have the right to dispose of his own life however he/she sees fit, but not anyone else's.

As long as there was no coercion, anyone should have the right to get themselves killed if they want to. We already sell cigarettes, race cars very fast, gamble, etc.

Where I draw the line is when actions negatively affect someone else without their informed consent. However, if two adults want to fight each other willingly... I say let them. My answer would tend to be the same in most of that type of situation. I have been in ring fights a number of times and, despite the fact that there are rules, doctors and refs, I don't really see the intrinsic difference between that and an arranged fight outside of a ring. Heck, a lot of our sparring is close enough to a real fight some of the time to qualify.

That said, if someone challenged me to a duel using real swords... I would be sorely tempted as well. I would not do it of course, knowing that it is illegal... but it still sounds like fun. Yep... I'm not that sane.

What if a duelist is merely injured but has no money? Should the public pay for his medical care?

What what if the Crips and Bloods schedule a 50 person knife fight in a privately owned warehouse?

Not trying to be a dick. Just trying to figure out how far you are willing to stretch your rule.

 

[Roboramma]

What if a duelist is merely injured but has no money? Should the public pay for his medical care?

Is that much different from someone free climbing falling from a rock face and being injured but not killed in the process? Or mountaineers being rescued by search and rescue personel?

It seems our society already has an answer to this sort of question, though I don't entirely agree with it. Personally I'd prefer if people could simply give up any chance of such aid if they so desire.

The issue of duels, though, is a complicated one. Philosophically I agree with RobDegraves. If someone wants to take a risk, however great, let them. It's their life, property, health, etc.

Practically I think that there are other issues that may come to the fore. For instance, a person may actually not want to engage in such a duel, but be socially (or monetarily, or whatever) pressured into it. By simply banning it entirely we help to avoid those sorts of situations which are much harder to separate in the real world from the type that I would personally like to allow.

 

[sadhatter]

Even pistols at dawn?

That actually makes me think. I had to give it a mull over to come up with an opinion, but.

Assuming the following conditions are followed , i'd agree with pistols at dawn ( or swords at noon, maces at tea time, etc.).

1. It is set up in a situation in which no bystanders can be hurt.
2. Both people are of sound mind.
3. Both people agree to all aspects of the fight ( weapons, models, paces away, or any other variable.) .
4. All of this is documented by some form of legal authority, Lawyer possibly, maybe judge, or police officer.

Now, i have an issue with the old school dueling laws, so much so that i make stupid niche jokes no one gets about them from time to time. But if two people are willing to go at it in a manner that could result in death or dismemberment, and they are in a state of mind that would be sound for other legal decisions, let them have at it. I think the crux of the matter is that both ( or all, if there would be more than 2.) men agree to all aspects of the conflict, and without this, it would indeed be illegal.

Now for a situation such as "We draw on ten, one, two, ten!", then it would cross the line from sport to murder, as the person may have agreed to be killed after the count of ten, but not before.

Now truth be told , i would see this , more realistically, be modified into sports with little chance of death, but much of permanent injury, versus almost guaranteed death. But if people want to have a go at a coin toss for their lives, not my business to step in.

 

[sadhatter]

What if a duelist is merely injured but has no money? Should the public pay for his medical care?

What what if the Crips and Bloods schedule a 50 person knife fight in a privately owned warehouse?

Not trying to be a dick. Just trying to figure out how far you are willing to stretch your rule.

To the first question, i am not sure of how it works with amateur sports, but the same basic rules should apply. A sport is a sport, if someone can play backyard football and get disability because of a broken spine, that same basic person should be able to get the same basic care for doing it in a manner they like more. Hell, how many skateboarders have sucked how many dollars from the health care system?

Amount of folks shouldn't matter, but that would necessitate quite a few more rules to be agreed to, and as such, more coin for the lawyer that goes through everything to make sure its fair, or at least understood by the combatants.

To clarify, there would be issues between groups that would not come up in a single combat. Is it fair play if more than one person attacks someone? What do we do when the numbers get uneven? What constitutes a 'knife' ( Something about the size of a bowie knife, is not a knife, that is a short sword, but they may allow blades of that size.) ? What models of knives are taboo? Can people use 2? What if a person decides to harm a member of their own faction? And these are just the tip of the iceberg, but once the pages of rules for this particular combat are sorted, and agreed to or not, let them go at it.

And i don't think anyone thinks your being a dick , we are just kinda ******* in the wind, no one is going to let something like this happen ever ( legally , in north america.), so this is all academic.

 

[sadhatter]

Is that much different from someone free climbing falling from a rock face and being injured but not killed in the process? Or mountaineers being rescued by search and rescue personel?

It seems our society already has an answer to this sort of question, though I don't entirely agree with it. Personally I'd prefer if people could simply give up any chance of such aid if they so desire.

The issue of duels, though, is a complicated one. Philosophically I agree with RobDegraves. If someone wants to take a risk, however great, let them. It's their life, property, health, etc.

Practically I think that there are other issues that may come to the fore. For instance, a person may actually not want to engage in such a duel, but be socially (or monetarily, or whatever) pressured into it. By simply banning it entirely we help to avoid those sorts of situations which are much harder to separate in the real world from the type that I would personally like to allow.

The problem of someone being forced is a problem of "Why" for me.

If someone wants this person killed, it would be a lot easier to set a house fire ( or something similar.) versus blackmail them into fighting.

If it is monetary, we already have all kinds of dangerous careers that people take because they want lots of cash for a big risk. I mean how many guys have joined the military for just that reason, low cash, lots of responsibility, and an indifference to taking risks?

I have heard the objections before, but it seems to me we already have plenty of ways to take huge risks to get money, and people are enticed to them already, if we can say someone can make a career out of crab fishing in icy hell, why not fighting with possibly lethal consequences?

 

[crimresearch]

What if a duelist is merely injured but has no money? Should the public pay for his medical care?

What what if the Crips and Bloods schedule a 50 person knife fight in a privately owned warehouse?

Not trying to be a dick. Just trying to figure out how far you are willing to stretch your rule.

Is this too far?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTKqYkvmdkU

 

[sadhatter]

As some clarification, personally i would have no desire to do something of this nature ( would probably watch, if some moderate precautions were in place to mitigate the risk of random death. Leather collars, goggles, steel cups, maybe a spine guard.) , being a hand to hand weapon nut, i know of the random and final nature of a fight with any weapon. But if someone wants to give it a go, by all means let them

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

What if a duelist is merely injured but has no money? Should the public pay for his medical care?

What what if the Crips and Bloods schedule a 50 person knife fight in a privately owned warehouse?

Not trying to be a dick. Just trying to figure out how far you are willing to stretch your rule.

Is this "not trying to be a dick" thing a new meme? I'd swear I've seen at least two different people posting structurally identical questions in response to someone making a claim that could be interpreted over-broadly if one was trying to be a dick.

 

[KingMerv00]

Is this "not trying to be a dick" thing a new meme? I'd swear I've seen at least two different people posting structurally identical questions in response to someone making a claim that could be interpreted over-broadly if one was trying to be a dick.

I think that was me in both cases. I just said pretty much the same thing in the "rape joke" thread.

 

[Marduk]

Even pistols at dawn?

its more fun with tanks

 

[Stomatopoda]

The funny thing is that bare-knuckle boxing is safer than boxing with gloves. Gloves only protect the hands, which encourages hard shots to the skull that would break the striker's knuckles if unprotected. Lower apprehension + added weight = more brain injuries.