I was arguing with my wife that figure skating (amongst others) was not a sport. It may be difficult, it may require athleticism, but it is not a sport. Mostly because judges decide who wins. There is no scoreboard. The winner is subjective. Two intelligent people can watch the same skaters and disagree who is the best. So then she says "Then boxing is not a sport" I was stumped. Sure on KO and TKO, it is easy to tell who won. But when the 3 judges decide, all hell can break loose. Help me out. In those cases where the judges decide the boxing winner, how is that any different than figure skating? I can not lose this argument. I am not much of a boxing fan, but I know its a sport, right?
I consider things I can do while drinking beer to be "not a sport" (golf, bowling, hunting, sailing, etc.). I cannot figure skate sober, let alone drunk, and would certainly never box drunk (although most of the fistfights I've been in have been while I was totally inebriated, of course ). I say they're both sports, and that the judgment issue is moot. If you dismiss all sports with judges, you're also throwing out boxing, figure skating, gymnastics, diving, among others. Some other sports, such as wrestling and certain martial arts, go to judges in the case of ties after OT (because they have point scoring).
It is a sport. An extremely boring sport. Ever see a second-rate boxing match on ESPN2? Two guys flailing at each other while a bored crowd looks on with a few drunks yelling. You see better fights at NHL games. And you get some hockey thrown in, to boot.
Theoretically, judges use an objective point-scoring system. The boxer with the most punches landed wins the round. In essence, judges are only scorekeepers. Of course, the reality is somewhat different.
Re: Re: Is Boxing a Sport? That's the thing, how is a "landed punch" defined? No doubt, the interpretation varies. Does a head shot count as much as a body shot? The beer drinking cut-off line is a good one, and I have used that argument myself. And boxing is as boring as hell - unless Tyson is in the ring. I'm not sure why - but I would consider gymnastics and diving a sport but not figure skating, even though the winner is selcted in much the same way. But all that doesn't help me. Boxing is a sport but no one can convince me that figure skating is. Its Ice Dancing. When the music and costumes are nearly as important as the routine, its not a sport. But again, I'm left with judges deciding the winner. Maybe that's it. If it has pretty costumes and music playing at the same time, it's not a sport.
Boxing might be a little better if those big, tough roided up monsters had to wear figure skating outfits in the ring. NR, the scoring in pro boxing is simply punches landed, in two categories, "jabs" and "punches". No extra points for head/body shots. However, it's subjective, because the judges also take into account who's on the offense most of the round, not always just who does the most damage. In Olympic boxing, you have colored regions of your glove and get different points for landing with them. I'm not sure if you get different points in the Olympics for hitting different areas. But, as we all know, Olympic boxing judging is as flawed as the pros (see Jones, Roy).
I just have to quote George Carlin here. Boxing is not a sport, merely 2 people beating the sh!t out of each other
You should really check out the fights that come out on HBO or PPV. That will show you that boxing truly is a beautiful sport. But you're probably too poor to order PPV. Are you trying to say that the CyberRays are more exciting than Mexican soccer? LMAO!
See the official ruling on the subject. Points 1 to 3. http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=sport And still don't come to any clear conclusions.
I can afford it, but why would I want to waste 50 bucks like that? The attorneys that filed the class-action lawsuit on behalf of PPV viewers after the Holyfield-Tyson debacle were from my city. IIRC, the lawsuit died after pretty much everyone who ordered that fight didn't want to admit to it publicly. Yep. I don't give a crap del vuelo for Mexican soccer.
More Carlin: "Ping Pong isn't a sport, because the name is stupid. Tennis isn't a sport because it's just Ping Pong, but you're standing on the table. Volleyball isn't a sport because it's Ping Pong, standing on the table with a raised net and no paddles. Gymnastics aren't a sport, because Romanians are good at it. I had to think for a while on that one, but these are my rules..."
Am I the only one that finds a "sport" in which the goal is to hit your opponent in the head until he suffers enough brain damage that he can't stand up for 10 seconds slightly barbaric?
My definition of sport excludes anything which evaluates its decisions on artistic merit. I.E. Diving, Gymnastics, Figure skating etc. All not sports. Boxing is a sport because in theory there is no judges just glorified scorekeepers as mentioned above and they are only used as a last resort. With regards to barbaric, the NFL is barbaric, boxing is barbaric, UFC is barbaric, who gives a ************?
I'd say not only that boxing is a sport, but it's one of the purest sports -- a pure mix of an individual's physical and mental ability. It's on par with running, swimming and wrestling. It has lasted as long as any other sport in human history, and it will likely last much longer than anything that people play now. Keep in mind that boxing's rules are arbitrary and based on current trends. For most of its thousands of years of history and up until only about 80 years ago, boxing had no gloves and no time limit. You fought another man until one of you could fight no more. What is a better embodiment of sport than that? The outcome does not make a sport a sport.
Boxing, and sprinting, are the two pure sports. In most sports, you beat the crap out of someone, or you are faster.
Boxing in itself is a sport. Professional boxing (especially when Don King is involved) is a crime. See, the basis for boxing is from the nasty human element which leads to the question...is "beating the crap out of someone" a sport? Seriously, I thought punch stats only were used in Olympic boxing. In professional boxing, they have compu-punch stats for entertainment reasons. Let's not forget that trends do follow where the more efficient and effective your jab, counter punches and certain combinations and the percentage landed usually show to represent how the better boxer is in the round. Then again, judges also consider the power punches that have more affect and style points. The human element in judging is no different from a football game where the ref makes a call or no call on pass interference, for example. Both cases require the ref/judge to base the call/non-call on set, prescribed rules. Both boxing and skating have tried to eliminate that human factor from too much influence with more standard scoring systems. Boxing has the "10 point must" system where no matter how dominated one round was by one guy, the worst one could lose the round is 10 to 9. Take that combined with the -1 for a knockdown, and whatever warnings a ref can call, and the point system is rather set. It takes imparcial judges with zero interest who can see substance over style. Skating has the automatic point deduction system where you miss a jump, a certain amount can be taken from the perfect score and you work from there. Where boxing is a sport and skating is not comes from the "artistic" factor. Sure, artsy fartsy, romance novel reading types (as most women try to be) have to factor the artistic point scores into the technical point scores...where in it is clear to see that skating is a presentation with athletic and artistic value. There is no artistic point system in boxing. Boxing may be a barbarian event for a casual viewer and while looking at the goal, but it is all sport. Can a football player socre a touchdown without high-stepping into the endzone? Yes. Only six points is awarded regardless of style. Can a boxer bring his lunch pail and ride his bike all night, work with style, dance, work the jab and wear the foe down in a late TKO? Yes, and the Mike Tyson 91 second KO will also count as only one win. Try these arguments. Now, if anyone could tell me how convince my wife to "do it in the butt" I will be a happy camper. Or is that happy humper?
Its a sport. Boxing and American Football are LEGAL violence. You can beat and maim the other person. Its o.k. and you will not get in trouble. If you beat someone up in public, the cops will put you in jail. Its not o.k. Same violence, but just different ending. Funny society.
OK, folks, since this thread is back on the front page of Other Sports, let me revisit the issue with an open mind, especially since a) I'm not 100 percent happy with what I wrote and b) I was just leafing through The Power of One in my book collection, which got me thinking about some of the great fights of the past, from the Ali-Frazier matchups back through Louis-Schmeling all the way to, heck, even Dempsey-Gibbons in Shelby, Montana back in 1923. Convince me that it's worth plunking down $50 for a championship fight. I'm not talking the midheavywelterlightweight championship of the NICATSBA (Noosatuck Indian Casino and Truck Stop Boxing Association), but the big fights. I can see it for 10 guys plunking down five bucks each and sitting in for an evening of beer, pizza and shooting the breeze. (Heck, I delivered pizza to two such parties during the last big bout.) Convince me that it's worth watching despite the 55 different organizations or whatever that claim to sanction boxing champions. Convince me that it's worth watching despite the tedious contrived drama of setting up the fight. I mean, really, people, we're talking the Marquess of Queensbury, not drama queens, OK? Book the arena, sell the tickets, get Michael Buffer to growl "Let's get readddy to rrrrumble!" tell them to come out fighting and then ring the bell. All the extraneous crap just makes me roll my eyes and look for something else to do. Again, the big fights I can see. But why should I watch the little fights? Please feel free to draw your own comparisons between my view of boxing and the American media's view of soccer, and feel free to say "Hey, this is worth watching, and this is why."
Small fights are worth watching. I've seen plenty of entertaining fights that were not "big". Sometimes "small" fights are better than "big" fights. Has anybody seen the first fight between Arutro Gatti and Mickey Ward? It's not exactly what mainstream would call a big fight, although it was pretty big for the hardcore fans. Anyway, that fight is one of the best fights I've ever seen. That was a fight filled with excitement and drama. It kinda irritates me when people look at boxing and say that it requires no skill. They think the fighters are just kicking eachothers ass with no gameplan or strategy. That couldn't be farther from the truth. To the person that said the object of this sport is to punch the person until they suffer brain damage and can't get up for 10 seconds. You're wrong. That is not the object of the sport. There is a set amount of rounds for a fight. It varies from 4,6,8,10 for non-championship fights. All championship fights are 12 rounds. It's not like a fight goes on until somebody gets knocked out. I think people that say "they're just beating the crap out of eachother" are as stupid as soccer haters that say "soccer is stupid, all you do is kick a ball around". And as soccer fans we've surely heard that dozens of times from soccer haters. I can't convince anybody to be a boxing fan in writing. I'd only be able to do it by showing them some tapes of some fights. Or recommend some fights. Arturo Gatti vs Mickey Ward I Watch that fight and you'll become a boxing fan. Boxing IMO is a beautiful sport and sometimes I can't decide which I like better, boxing or soccer.