Boxers facing jailtime for fighting eachother

[Bad Lieutenant]

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.

True that. Less cuts to the face though...and maybe less broken ribs too. Those are less serious injuries than brain damage though. I think what's going on with the gloves is to try and state "this is not like normal fighting! Don't try it at home!". Haye and Chisora probably knew this so thought they'd just have a fight like any other.

 

[sadhatter]

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.

I think it is the disfigurement aspect in the case of bare knuckles. We don't mind someone having their brain turned to pudding, but we don't want our sports starts to look like ground beef.

Awesome priorities we have here.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

I've broken my fist twice using the 4oz gloves.

Garn.

 

[KingMerv00]

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?

There's a difference between tolerating risky behavior that might end in injury and tolerating bahavior where injury is the specific goal.

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.

If you allowed organized killing, especially in large groups, you basically turn the government into the referee of a gladiator blood sport. That sort of thing costs all kinds of financial, human, and technical resources. Not to mention it opens up a whole new opportunity for people to get away with murder by cheating.

Freedom of choice is lovely and all but the moment the government starts helping us find legal ways to kill each other, I raise an eyebrow. They should be discouraging that sort of violent, immature behavior rather than opening the door to deadly games of dudebro.

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.

Never said it wasn't academic. I don't see that as a bad thing.

 

[RobDegraves]

There's a difference between tolerating risky behavior that might end in injury and tolerating bahavior where injury is the specific goal.

What is the difference?

The end result is the same... and again, it's voluntary.

Also... would not the military be an occupation where injury is the specific goal?

If you allowed organized killing, especially in large groups, you basically turn the government into the referee of a gladiator blood sport.

I still don't see the problem. It's not much different than what wrestling is pretending to be... and it would be a heck of a lot more interesting.

Freedom of choice is lovely and all but the moment the government starts helping us find legal ways to kill each other, I raise an eyebrow.

So... not like cigarettes, booze and McDonalds?

 

[KingMerv00]

What is the difference?

The end result is the same... and again, it's voluntary.

Also... would not the military be an occupation where injury is the specific goal?

I still don't see the problem. It's not much different than what wrestling is pretending to be... and it would be a heck of a lot more interesting.

So... not like cigarettes, booze and McDonalds?

Honestly, I'm not sure there is a point in continuing the conversation. We are arguing over subjective values. In this particular case, you value personal autonomy more than the cost it can have on society. I respect that POV but simply disagree . Everyone has their lines to draw.

We could keep going back and forth but ultimately we will just be restating what we personally consider important.

 

[lane99]

I think it is the disfigurement aspect in the case of bare knuckles. We don't mind someone having their brain turned to pudding, but we don't want our sports starts to look like ground beef.

Awesome priorities we have here.

Not disfigurement. Dexterity. If you break your hand, you probably won't ever be as nimble with it again, even after it's healed. Regretfully, I know this from personal experience.

BTW, Haye's punch wasn't genuinely "bare knuckled" since he loaded his fist with a beer bottle. The hoser can't even through a sucker punch fairly.

 

[George 152]

Treat them as the wild insane animals they are.
Cage them at least 10 meters apart with tunnels to the boxing ring and marksmen with tranquilizer darts to protect the audience

 

[Roboramma]

We are arguing over subjective values. In this particular case, you value personal autonomy more than the cost it can have on society.

Is he? There's a clear cost to the individuals engaging the fighting (or dueling if you take your extreme example). A cost that they're also wiling to bear.

Is there necessarily a net cost to society from this sort of activity? That's not so obvious.

Moreover if there is, it's not clear that it's greater than the cost of extreme sports like free climbing or base jumping.

I can accept that the costs to society associated with dueling are likely greater than the benefits (to society). For instance fathers killed in duels can no longer support their families. And the benefit of settling disputes is likely overcome by the problem of the cycle of escalating retaliatory violence.

But that may only be a good reason to treat dueling as different from a fist-fight in which both participants agree to participate beforehand.

My mind is not made up, and I agree that the cost to society should be taken into account, but I don't think it's so obvious as not to warrant further discussion that that cost is as high as you imply.

ETA: at least with respect to the OP, rather than the side issues like dueling and large gang style melees that came up later.

 

[Roboramma]

What is the difference?

The end result is the same... and again, it's voluntary.

The end result of a successful climb of a mountain without ropes is attaining the peak and getting back down again completely healthy.

The end result of a successful duel to the death is a dead body.

The end result to society of allowing free climbing is some percentage of climbers don't make it back alive, while others come back with inspiring stories and new perspectives of nature, mountaineering and human skill and endurance.

The end result to society of allowing dueling is that some percentage (likely more than 50%) of duelists don't make it out of the duel alive, while others come back victorious, only to face the vengeance of friends and relatives of the deceived, leading to a potentially endless cycle of violence.

The friends and relatives of dead climbers may take action to support search and rescue, or to try to stop others from undertaking such risky activities, but they don't go out and try challenge mountains to a duel.

(I choose free climbing because it seems like a riskier behavior than most other sports you can engage in)

 

[RobDegraves]

@KingMerv00

Honestly, I'm not sure there is a point in continuing the conversation. We are arguing over subjective values. In this particular case, you value personal autonomy more than the cost it can have on society. I respect that POV but simply disagree . Everyone has their lines to draw.

I would tend to agree with you there.

Let me illustrate by answering some of the other posts. I don't really need to answer yours more than this since we agree and you stated it fairly clearly.

Treat them as the wild insane animals they are.

So.. boxers are wild insane animals?
Martial artists?
Base jumpers?

I can accept that the costs to society associated with dueling are likely greater than the benefits (to society). For instance fathers killed in duels can no longer support their families. And the benefit of settling disputes is likely overcome by the problem of the cycle of escalating retaliatory violence.

There is a cost to society for most risky behavior. Eating fatty foods for example, or smoking.

Currently, obesity and smoking related diseases are the top causes of death in North America. Not only are people dying, but the associated costs to society, families and the economy are huge.

Do we ban butter?

As far as the escalating retaliatory violence... I don't really see that happening. Considering that we are talking about legal and professional duels, I can't see where people would have a real basis for it.

 

[crimresearch]

Honestly, I'm not sure there is a point in continuing the conversation. We are arguing over subjective values. In this particular case, you value personal autonomy more than the cost it can have on society. I respect that POV but simply disagree . Everyone has their lines to draw.

We could keep going back and forth but ultimately we will just be restating what we personally consider important.

So on which side of the line would you put the Dog Brothers?

 

[Roboramma]

There is a cost to society for most risky behavior. Eating fatty foods for example, or smoking.

Sure, and you'll note that I wasn't arguing that a thing that entails a cost to society should be banned, I was simply arguing that before we even take that consideration into account, we need to show that there is a cost to society.

But, to address your point above: the costs to society of one activity are greater or less than another. For instance, eating fatty foods can sometimes lead to a premature death, but generally after a person's most productive years, and before retirement. Which can lead to a net gain (monetarily).

Furthermore, if we are weighing personal freedoms versus social impact, there's no need to suggest that we treat one or the other as an all important consideration. Instead we can say that something that has a relatively minor cost to society is not worth banning because the value we place on personal freedom is worth more than that cost. However, something else that entails a greater social cost may be worth treating differently.