Talk:Boxing

Defence?

I amwondering wondering whether this article is more popular for the British or for Americans. Is there a way to check? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.92.191 (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Poor Structure

Wow, huge article but poor on structure, and sometimes inconsistent. This is not my area of expertise, but I have some suggestions nonetheless:

• Amateur boxing is often called olympic boxing by practicioners, since in modern usage, "amateur" carries connotations of low skill.
• The noblemen who used fist-fights as a form of duelling can be seen as inspiration for the amateur boxing tradition, as opposed to the prize fights which were the origins of professional boxing. Actually, the differences between the two styles are so big it might be worth separating them into different articles.
• Damages and controvercies should be separated under a heading of its own. A factoid that may be interesting is that professional boxing is illegal in many countries, because of the prevalence of 'chronic concussion' and the long-term effects of boxing. Other things that should be mentioned is "punch-drunk syndrome", and that all knockouts are in fact severe concussions.
• head protectors give some protection against cuts, but relatively little against concussion, since wrapping an egg in cotton won't protect the yolk if you give it a shake, so to say.
• The protective nature of gloves, and that different types are used in olympic vs. professional. I've read that the introduction of gloves into pugilism actually brutalized the sport because participants could now strike to the head with less risk of hand injury. If this can be verified it might be worth a mention.
• In olympic boxing, 1 - 4 % of all fights end in knockouts, according to an article by McCunney & Russo, 1984. I don't have verified numbers for professional boxing, but I've read that it's about one third. (People who watch boxing could perhaps verify or refute this figure). Bear in mind that knockouts are defined rather differently in the two sports, although we are probably still talking about concussion even in O.B.

---

Boxing champ.

Removed the British view of boxing

Well I was shocked to read the sub heading on personalities. It was nothing but a British view. Some Northern Irish guy and a Scottish fellow and English chaps winning in some obscure fights are mentioned like they were the "Rumble in the Jungle". And there was no mention of Rocky Marciano, Joe Louis, Sugar Ray Leonard, Mike Tyson. There was only a passing reference to Mohd. Ali which says "Other countries have their fighters too" and talks in just one paragraph about him and the rest of the world.

naturally being the wikipedian i've i changed it to better reflect the actual world. this isnt' the British encycopedia on British boxing. I wonder how it's been missed by many people. Or is it that many reading encyclopedias don't read articles on boxing. it was glaringly obvious that the previous versions were basically saying that Britain was and si the only place boxing is going on. ridiculous. Anyway, it's done and dusted.

---

Some NPOV issues under "Personalities" (e.g., the Tyson paragraph). This is Wikipedia, not an pay-per-view ad. blahpers 02:15, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

---

Actually there was a HUMUNGOUS bias towards the British boxers before I edited it, and the POV of the entire article needs a little toning down since its obvious the previous version was culled from a book on british boxing. Well I've tried to improve the NPOV in personalities a bit. Generally you give a bit more time to the latest fighters, especially if that person happens to really be one of the all time nasty figures in boxing. Mike Tyson has done all criminal/illegal acts like rape, assault and battery, biting an opponent's ear, talking the trashiest pre box talk ever, being jailed twice, barred from boxing, earning the highest paycheck and going bankrupt to conversion to islam. All this while he was rated in a survey as the one possessing the deadliest right hand punch of the century while being one of the shortest contemporary boxers. I suppose some personalities hog a little more sentences that others. Maybe the tone could be different without losing his "acts". Someone can do a better job here, please do so. That's the spirit of Wikipedia. :)--Idleguy 05:50, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Injuries

Like pointed out back in October by Vinterman this article lacks any information about the injuries often sustained in professional boxing. Can anyone make a brief summary of what the most common injuries are, how they're handled and what impact it's had on the sport? It's about the only thing missing from this article at the moment.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:35, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I have put the cleanup flag since the personalities sections appears twice, and there is some repetition of content. PatGallacher 02:21, 2005 July 29 (UTC)

A number of deaths have been caused by boxing since 1945. A doctors' organisation is opposed to the alleged sport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.233.241 (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"Impact of Boxing on the English Language"

I don't think "Going down swinging" is from boxing, but rather from baseball as the batter can "go down swinging" or "get caught looking" at the ball. Meaning he strikes out swinging or strikes out looking at a strike but thinking it's a ball. In boxing if you're going down you're typically not swinging, it's the other guy doing the swinging at your head and that's why you're going down.

"ring down the curtain" - a boxing phrase ? I've heard 'bring down the curtain' - an obvious theatrical phrase for the end of a performance.

The OED supports this by defining an entry for dropping/falling cutains maning the ending of a performance or action.

Because of this I'm deleting the wiki entry for 'ring down the curtain' as I believe it is a corruption of 'bring down the curtain' and not a boxing term

"down for the count" - the OED defines this as being defeated, so I'll amend the entry in the entry in this section to reflect this

Do you think "show you the ropes" is derived from boxing? Someone teaching you a technique is said to be showing you the ropes. Perhaps that's a boating term, but ropes on boats are called "lines" so that leaves me thinking it's from boxing.

I always heard "show you the ropes" was derived from theatre. Curtains, scenery, and backdrops are often moved on and off stage by pulling on ropes behind and off stage. Schoop 19:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fuck...

Boxing Gloves

These gloves' purpose is to protect the knuckles.

The stated purpose of boxing gloves is to protect the fighters' knuckles, but in various competitions the padding requirements vary wildly. The ~8oz. open-fingered gloves used in UFC and Pride are very lightly padded, whereas boxing and K-1 use heavily padded gloves. I haven't heard of many more knuckle injuries in MMA than in boxing -- and it seems a lot easier to achieve a knockout in UFC or Pride than in K-1 or boxing. Mightn't the "gloves of fair size" rule actually exist foremost to protect the opponent from easy KO (and thereby force some extra strategy above and beyond brute force) rather than to (just) protect the fighter's knuckles?

The boxers wore "mufflers" (padded gloves)

The fact that gloves were previously called mufflers (muffle means to stifle or repress) pretty much supports this.

Gloves Don't Diminish # of KOs

The fact is, boxing gloves, especially the small professional 8 or 10 gloves, make it easier to hit harder. Oates discusses this in 'On Boxing' and Anasi in 'The Gloves.' One of the main reasons the fights could go on for so long in the bare-knuckle days is that fighters couldn't hit with full strength without breaking their hands. A simple experiment: Try punching a wall with ten ounce gloves, then try doing it with your fist alone. Guess which hurts your hand more. The note in the gloves section connects to an article that makes no comment on gloves preventing KOs.Mumblio 04:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that wearing no gloves would result in more KOs (if you include TKOs) because a lot of fights would be getting stopped on cuts or severe swelling. You can get beat up in boxing without recieving much marking to the face. How often have you seen a guy get cuts or bruises to the face in a real fight, yet not get badly hurt? Now how often have you seen a boxer get KOed and recieve nothing much more than a bit of swelling. I think it's more likely that bare knuckle boxing was made illegal mainly due to head and facial injuries, not hand injuries (read: I'm sure of it). Also, are you aware of the rules of bear-knuckle boxing? A round ended when a fighter was downed, giving him time to recover. The fighter would have to get up to the scratch line after 30 second break between rounds. This explains why matches went for more rounds. Holymolytree2 07:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

sorry large gloves = WAY less KOs. apart from the 0 padding, and MUCH slower punching from the increased weight, they also mean the opponent has a much smaller 'shield' to protect himself with, as well as the attacker having a much easier time getting his 'smaller' hands through that 'shield'. this is the reason you fight in 8/10 oz and you spar in 14/16 oz so you don't hurt eachother in sparring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.90.127 (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

An idea

If you look at a film's page (take Goldfinger for example) you will see at the end that it contains the text Goldfinger (1964) at the Internet Movie Database,. This is created from the syntax {{imdb title|id=0058150|title=Goldfinger (1964)}}.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, Boxrec is the Internet Movie Database (IMBD) of the boxing world. Could we have a similar bit of syntax (if that is the right word) for individual boxers' pages, linking to their profile? Any suggestions?

Ahkayah cuarenta y siete 22:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

1867? I'm being pedantic. but ...

"'Boxing' as distinct from any other form of fist fighting can be dated from 1867, when John Chambers drafted new rules."

Codified rules of boxing aside, people were referring to organised fist-fights (formal or infomal) before then. Consider "Tom Brown's Schooldays" by Thomas Hughes, Chapter 5, published in 1857:

" Learn to box then, as you learn to play cricket and football. Not one of you will be the worse, but very much the better for learning to box well."

The chapter describes a fight between Tom Brown and "Slogger" Williams, both attended by seconds. Tom's second, Harry East, is armed with a wet sponge to refresh Tom in between rounds. Although there is a discussion about whether wrestling throws are legal, the fight sounds very much like an organised boxing match, with references to a "timekeeper" and a "ring", suggesting that there was some notion of boxing as a codified sport or martial art, or at the very least, that there was some sporting basis to what is, in essence, a playground scrap.

Boxing Historian as a Hobby

I am a writing teacher at a small university in Northern MN as well as an Boxing History Hobbiest. I think that this article has a great amount of information to start, but there is barely any structure aside from the headings. I think it would be fun to totally overhaul this article, beginning at the ground and working my way up. I'll take into account all the things that have been mentioned here, including some of the information that I have uncovered in my own readings about the sport and see what happens. This is only a fraction of the work that I intend to do with this article and others in this wikipedia.

I'm no expert but a boxing enthusiast with a masochistic streak for textual accuracy. I will edit this article in bits starting with its structure and basic facts like history and techniques. So that our work does not interfere, let's keep the communication alive. Tarkovsky

It would be a good idea to allow someone else, such as this writing teacher to rework the article. There is some basic information worth saving but it is not very scholarly. As a USA Boxing coach I also want to add that some of the sections are not really accurate such as styles, which seems quite redundant ie.listing swarmers,brawlers, and infighters which in reality are all the same thing but with slight variations, Mickey Ward being an example, as well as Arturo Gatti. The skill, natural talent and versatility of the fighter is the decisive factor. Most coaches train for a variety of conditions. But at any rate this is a noble first run but should be rewritten toward a more academic bent. JWPhilo

Training?

Why not include a section about the lengthy training regime a boxer will undertake which includes using the jump rope, punch bag, weights, sparring etc...

I agree. and also..... people who do boxing training just for fitness

Time Periods - History of the Legends

I have added time periods to the Boxing Legends section (previously Great Personalities of Boxing) in single decade intervals. My hope is that the 'Legends of British Boxing' section as well as the legends from other parts of the world will be absorbed into this section. That way, we can view boxing personalities in terms of their place in boxing history rather than belonging to the British history of boxing or the American one, etc. What do you think?

Tarkovsky

I will when I get the time, I'm actually in training at the moment for the english amatuer season (got 2-3 more bouts) after than I may have the time to. baddlydrummedboy@gmail.com

Techniques

Boxing coaches train a wide variety of different ways to throw a punch or stop a punch, so the techniques section will be extremely varied. I understand this problem, but there are absolutely incorrect bits of info that I have found in the techniques section. For example, it is not entirely correct to say that the jab "does not leave the boxer open to attack." It is easily counterable with a slip and a jab or a slip and a lead hook. I wonder how many people contributing to the article actually have boxed? How many know the sport from just watching it? I would like to get a conversation going with people who regularly practice the sport so that we can really clean up the techniques + regulations. Boneheadmx 13:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I am a boxer. "Open" here refers to the exposure of the body the moment a punch is thrown. What I meant was: you do not need to lower your defenses to throw a jab, not that a jab negates counter-punching. Even so, the evasive examples you describe (slip & jab, lead hook) involve moving around the jab ie. there are no 'holes' readily available to exploit in the static structure of the jab itself (roughly speaking). This is unlike the cross which bobs your head forward and exposes the right flank or the hook which tends to opens the torso. Anyone who has boxed before will feel structurally vulnerable on those last two punches I described; the jab is a far 'safer' punch in terms of body alignment , commitment, weight distribution and positioning. Saying that the jab "does not leave the boxer open to attack" is not entirely correct in the wholistic fighting context of the sport but I am not discussing the complete strategic consequences of techniques in this section, simply describing the punches in terms of their structure. Perhaps we could re-word this sentence or delete it completely Tarkovsky

Is the cross the biggest knockout punch?

'The cross is the most powerful punch and is responsible for the majority of knockouts'

My trainer insists that it is in fact the hook that claims the most knockouts. What's everyone else's opinion on this? Tarkovsky

Yeah, it seems to be hooks, at least for me. I've gotten my share of getting hit in the chin with all sorts of punches, but what really hurts is the hook. I've almost been knocked out in sparring by an uppercut, but that was my fault since I was tired, had my chin up and mouth open. I guess it depends. Some coaches seem to teach left hooks and right crosses only, stating that a right cross is kind of like a faster hook because of the rotation of the lower body and that right hooks are a bit slow. I've always learned to do body combos with left hooks and right crosses, for example. So I guess in that context, a right cross is like a hook anyway. For the article, I think it would be best to omit that bit for right now since we have no evidence other than anecdotal to support the claim that crosses cause the most KOs. I personally would agree with hooks/uppercuts, but I think I'm just going to take out that sentence. By the way, thanks for cleaning up the techniques section, Tarkovsky. Things are looking way better.

PS: Perhaps we can talk about the possible reasons why there is a higher rate of KOs in pro boxing? 10 rounds or so is really tough, and it is clear by even watching the fighters that they get tired. Tiredness = lowering the guard and/or panting (not biting down on the mouthpiece) and/or not tucking the chin in, which = a higher chance of getting a concussion.

PPS: I was thinking also that someone should take some pictures of boxers throwing some clean punches as examples for the techniques.

Boneheadmx 11:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks mate, just doing my bit! I think another factor for the higher KO rate in Professional boxing is that they wear lighter gloves. The heavier gloves of Amateur boxing slow the punches down and make hard, KO-worthy hits difficult to achieve. It is more economical, under these conditions, to conserve energy for winning points. So an Amateur game plan is structured around winning points under equipment restrictions while the Professional fighter goes for the KO. That's my take on it.

As for the hook, I was at a bar watching a feature called "100 Greatest Knockouts of All Time" and to my amazement, 90% of the KOs were from body shots, rips to the stomach. My explanation is: while the head is a prized target, it is encased in bone. The stomach, however, has no such protection. Also, the hook and the uppercut approach from outside the eye's main field of vision which might make it harder to detect.

Yeah, pictures for the punches would be great, perhaps someone could work on this.

Tarkovsky

My explanation is that the people who made the feature liked to see guys get knocked out on body shots. There are a lot of boxing KOs resulting from body shots, but there are more KOs resulting from headshots BY FAR. Possibly the reason they showed so many KOs from body shots is that most people are used to seeing KOs from headshots, so it makes the compilation more interesting. I think you might be exaggerating with the 90% figure you quoted, though. In every knockout compilation I've ever seen, the vast majority of the KOs are from headshots, not to mention in all the boxing I've seen. When I used to spar, people would get winded but hardly ever wobbled with a headshot, but that was just because of the headgear and the fact that we deliberately didn't used to throw as hard to head in sparring. Holymolytree2 02:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe some of the reasons for the higher knockout rate in professional versus amateur is 1. the maturity of the boxer, both physically and mentally; 2. the head gear and gloves; 3. the duration of the bout, there is just not enough time to cause the damage needed; 4. the lower ranks of pro fighting are not as good technically as amateurs both offensively and defensively, at least this is my observation as a coach.JWPhilo

The strongest punch differs from person to person. With Tyson it was the uppercuts, Cooney the left hooks, Hearns the right hand. Its the way the person throws it also has a factor. Its not like a weak cross cannot rival a devastating uppercut. Maya Levy 13:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: HOOKS I was always of the opinion that the old boxing maxim, 'It's the one that you don't see that hurts you' was silly. However...As a southpaw the power punch that hit me the most was the right cross or straight right hand. I almost never got hit with hooks, mostly because it's easy for a southpaw to tuck his chin and take hooks on the shoulder. Yet the few hooks that did catch me flush were easily the most devastating and memorable I felt. I think this is in large part due to the fact that I never saw those hooks and wasn't able to roll with them; out of nowhere, the side of my head would explode. These hooks were thrown from close range and actually spent most of their trajectory outside my peripheral vision. I think that's the reason why the hook is such a devastating KO punch - even though it's not thrown in most cases with a fighter's dominant hand.Mumblio 03:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Photos of Boxing

Boxing has a rich photographic history from the past century and there are so many photos floating around on the internet; it would be shame if they went to waste. I am currently trawling around for photos to put into the article (properly referenced of course), preferably high-quality, artfully-framed shots that portray the unique, brutal character of the sport. I'm avoiding too many photos which show boxers from the same country or photos which show a boxer dominating or badly pummelling the other (for NPOV purposes).

Well, this should be real fun :) Tarkovsky

Ok, there are now seven photos in the article. I have tried very hard not to over-present American boxers and have included other nationalities: Britain, Cuba, Australia, Jamaica, Phillippines, Mexico, Thailand. All photos are fairly recent (past two years) and, hopefully, do the sport justice.

I chose Louis vs Marciano 1951 as the header photograph because of the legendary status of both boxers and the smouldering, contrasting nature of the shot which captures boxing perfectly.

Tarkovsky

Vote to merge section Boxing Legends/British Boxing Legends with category "History of Boxing"

I noticed that there is a separate category History of Boxing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:History_of_boxing). Perhaps we should merge the information in section Boxing Legends and also British Boxing Legends with this? This way the Boxing article can be about the origins/techniques of the sport with the history in a separate article.

I'm new to Wikipedia, I don't know how this is done! Someone please step in now and do the good stuff :) Tarkovsky

Maybe we should give a brief paragraph about each part of the history and have a link like for the main article click... Andman8

What does everyone think of this? It's a good idea since it reduces the number of sub-categories and there are far too many. Tarkovsky

We need more refernces

This entire huge article only has one reference! We need to site our information to add credibility. Andman8

Medical Concerns

I think the medical concerns section as it stood was POV. You can't just have a one sided opinion saying that boxing should be illegal because of medical concerns. You should atleast have some arguments in there for why boxing shouldn't be banned.- Dec 21 05

• Source your comments and I'll leave them in. As it is, the text you entered (which I have deleted again) is original research and does not belong. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

"Many who support the ban proposal consider its main reason is not the fact that boxing is a dangerous sport, but the fact that the goal of the sport is to cause injury to the opponent." There's no source to this statement, why isn't this removed? Obvious double standard. I will look for sources, but until then I'm marking that section POV. -Dec 21 05

• The sentence that perturbed you has now been sourced, and the pov tag is gone. Unlike the text you're adding, the sentence in question was not original reseach. Furthermore, please sign your posts on talk pages. | Klaw ¡digame! 03:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Should the red herring really be in this section. I don't think anyone seriously claims boxing causes lots of deaths. Boxing causes lots of brain injury, which in turn causes mental retardation and other problems. Look at Riddick Bowe, or more importantly listen to him. He talks so slowly and slurred. So many older boxers are like this. I think the medical community is more concerned with these destructive aspects, the permanent damage caused, not the fact that the boxers are causing pain upon each other. (Though I am sure some people have problems with that as well) The whole section comes off rather slanted to me. If the red herring has to stay, it certainly shouldn't be first, that kind of biases things to have a red herring counter claim before the actual claim (CHF 09:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC))

There's a line in the article saying that one medical study found a "high risk of brain damage" from amateur boxing. It is sourced, but the study it links to doesn't quite seem to justify the claim. What the study does indicates is that amateur boxers show signs of damaged neurons for about a month after a fight - but that's all it says. And the signs in question are chemical, not behavioral. To be sure, this is evidence that damage has been done to the brain, but it's not the kind of thing that we usually mean when we say "brain damage." To my mind, the current phrasing is tendentious - perhaps "neurological trauma" would be better? I'll admit that the study itself uses the words brain damage, but I think that people reading a medical journal are more likely to grasp the difference between "brain damage" and "permanent brain damage" than people reading a general interest encyclopedia. - Footnote Dude, 10:49, 26 May 2007

For an example of probable brain damage from boxing, we need only look as far as Mohammed Ali f/k/a Cassius Clay. His slurred speech and other mannerisms suggest that something is wrong. According to his biographical article, he has been diagnosed with pugilistic Parkinson's syndrome. 130.13.4.81 (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)John Paul Parks130.13.4.81 (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Notable Fights by Year

are there wikipedia articles on the best or most noteworthy fights by year? Streamless 19:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC) okjgjrpa

Amatuer/Olympic amount of rounds

I edited slightly, The Olympics and Commonwealth games do 4 rounds. A normal sanctioned amatuer fight will only have 3 rounds. I gotta admit despite having an amatuer card I don't know the specific body its for (I say ABA but that may only be the national championships) regardless xlub fights and regional and national tornys are all 3 minutes.

Am I the only one who finds it a bit odd that this page claims that boxing has been an Olympic sport since 688 B.C.? I mean, the Olympic games were only invented in 1894 A.D.. Yes, they were based on the Ancient Greek games, but given the 2000+ year gap since the last Greek games I think we should look at they year the IOC or other relevant authority approved boxing for the modern Summer Olympics rather than some approximate date of Boxing's commencement in a completely different sporting event to the one referred to in this article 203.220.56.197 (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Scoring System Spin-Off

A spin-off page for the "10-point must" scoring system perhaps? Would be usable in the UFC article as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFC 208.197.234.251 20:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is Boxing labled as a

European Martial art? --Vehgah 04:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Presumably because it is a Martial Art which originated in Europe. -- Synapse 04:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

But they said it orginated in Egypt --Vehgah 04:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where it is labeled as a European martial art. It is included in the list of European Martial Arts, which means it is 'associated' with Europe, whatever that means. I don't really see a problem with that, since boxing is indeed widely practiced in Europe. I suppose, you can also add it to the list of international martial arts, if you feel like it. :) --CasualFighter 20:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

question

um...can anyone explain why boxers hug eachother during the game - it looks very strange to someone not familiar with the sport —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.131.244 (talk • contribs)

Boxers typically "clinch" when they're tired, to hold up their opponent and give themselves a rest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing#Defense

-- Gleemonex

To put it more clearly, a boxer holds his opponed to prevent his opponent from punching him. This can be to allow time to recover from fatigue or injury, or it can also be or to prevent the opponent's attack from a position which favours the opponent. Eg: A taller and longer armed boxer may employ a strategy in which he attacks at distance and holds whenever his shorter-armed opponent comes close to return punches. Holymolytree2 20:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Corruption

Are there any places where the rampant corruption in pro boxing is discussed? It doesn't seem appropriate in this article, but belongs somewhere.

Corbett first gloved Champion?

I believe Sullivan fought under the Queesbury rules and was named the first gloved champ, and Corbett won the title from him, making him the second gloved champ.

tomato can

my dad used this term about about boxer with no shot of winning a fight, does anyone know if this originated in boxing and where it came from...if its a boxing term it should be added to effects in american language--Norton112200 04:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomato Can is a term used for a boxer who is a trial horse or a journeyman. These fighters are used to pad higher level fighters' records. The term is used in reference to bleeding: a tomato can is filled with a substance with the consistency and appearance of blood, and journeymen often bleed a lot in fights.

confusing intro

The intro says that the legal area is on the front of the body, above the waistline. it also says that the head and torso are especially valuable....Where could you punch above the waistline that would not be part of the head or torso? I mean, you cant punch someone in the neck can you? I dont know anything about boxing, so please lemme know whats up...--Atticus2020 01:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You could punch in the stomach.

Torso denotes upper chest in this context, I think. 203.10.77.190

Atticus is right, it doesn't make sense. In answer to your other question, you are allowed to punch an opponent anywhere in the front half of his body above the belly button, including neck, but the vulnerable front of the neck is inaccessible with gloves on. An opponent would have to lift his chin up to get hit in the throat. Holymolytree2 21:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

nice job

---

wow 18 pages...pretty detailed...must be longest subject on wikipedia

Boxer-punchers = hybrid fighters?

Fighters like Thomas Hearns, Alexis Arguello are power punchers with precision and skill. If they face a person with a good chin and body, they resort to box the opponent. Maya Levy 13:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

weight classes

i didn't catch any weight class division explanations or breakdowns. i think it'd be a welcome addition.

Theseus

I just changed the Theseus bit in the article. For one thing, he was a mythical figure. I have no idea where the original author got that 900 B.C. date either. And Theseus couldn't have invented boxing if it had previously been done in North Africa and Crete.Mumblio 00:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad Idea

is it just me, or is removing a lot of content and moving it to this Professional Boxing article a VERY bad idea!!! --Too Cool 08:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Failing

Firstly lots of things still need citation, thats the major one. Also the popular culture section is enormous and contains entries that don't have articles, it's the greatest sport in the world, of course there's gonna be tons of pop culture appearances; stick to major ones (Rocky, When we were Kings) or fold the whole thing back into the article.

(The Bread 06:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC))

Gloves and Knockouts

The article suggests that gloves make knockouts more difficult. Nothing is further from the truth. Gloves protect hands not heads, since the bones in the hands are much more delicate than skulls, and mean fighters can hit harder without fear of breaking their hands. There are plenty of sources to back this up. Unless I get some feedback to the contrary I'm going to delete that.Mumblio 06:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

big gloves = slower punches. less padding = greater force (well impulse for all you physics geeks).

its harder to hit an opponent through a guard with big gloves as well as get YOUR own big gloves past his.

it is these reasons that bigger gloves = less KOs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.90.127 (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Way too many external links

There are way too many external links at the bottom of this article. I don't know which ones to remove, as I know nothing about boxing. Someone who does should prune out about half of these. Wikipedia is not google, we don't list links to every boxing webpage in existence. --Xyzzyplugh 20:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

well, by the looks of this article ill be looking after it and improving it as much as possible for next days, until everything is perfect and okay! i stopped checking this article for only a few couple of days and now it seems to me like a disaster --Too Cool 09:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Too many external links?

hmm, i see a lot of people are complaining on why there are so many external links on the article. well, its cuz boxing aint like all other fight sports, cuz they each have a company and organization controlling the (majority of the) industrty, for pro-wrestling theres WWE, for kickboxing therse K-1, for MMA theres PRIDE FC, etc, but boxing it aint like that, cuz there arent any boxing promotions that control the industry, there are different sanctioning organizations who just have some championship titles and are willing to put boxers names in their title histories, thats all, thney dont hold their own fights and events, and almost any person on earth can hold a sanctioned title fight, if one can pay the required sabctioning fee he may hold a fight, and there are hundreds-and-thousands of promoters out there, and if you search for boxing on google we get like 74,500,000 hits. but no ones puttin that much websites on the article, only the most important websites should be there. boxing is on all corners of the earth, and we should put the most notable websites that cover different regions on the article, so the the links that are already there are pretty much ok, i would say. --Too Cool 15:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have removed them and restored the previous links to boxing associations (which a spammer had removed with a comment: "Every boxing website on one page NO others needed !"). - Mike Rosoft 22:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting that you consider the WWE to be a governing body of a fight sport. It's an entertainment organisation. It doesn't govern any professional wrestling, it IS professional wrestling. The whole thing, the "competitors", the referees, the TV rights, etc, are work for or are run by the WWE. It's fake and has no relevance here, get it? Holymolytree2 22:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Referees?

Maybe list some of boxing more notable referees such as Mills Lane or Jay Nady? Also get this on to the Sports portal. Just an idea or two.Creightn

Two and three pro rounds

There are not many, but man, there are some and that would be cool to collect them all and simply create new link just for them. I received some emails from some boxing historians, they gave me some links, i found some, but there are more, i know there are many 3 rounders and sometimes there are 3 rounds boxed today, but i wonder how many 2 rounds are there?

One round pro bout

I did not believe my own eyes, as long as a round is 3 minutes, it's pro, that's what I know, I received an email today, wow, indicating there are 1 pro rounds AND THIS ONE WAS WELL INTO 20TH CENTURY... PRETTY AMAZING!
http://boxrec.com/show_display.php?show_id=186311

Concerning the styles and general content and swarmers

I would like to point out that I've recently made some constant edits and additions to the "styles" section. Im concerned with some of the terms and the content that existed before it and continues to replace the new information after edits.

Much of the information is opinion rather then widely accepted concepts and has references to "notable" boxers to whom I've never heard of before (which in turn fails as a good reference, if the said reference is generally unknown)

Regarding the term "Swarmer", Being a coach for several years and coached all over the United States, I've never heard this term used either in TV broadcasts, gyms, or tournaments. The only time I've ever seen it is in internet articles. Not to mention nearly the entire original entry on "Swarmers" is completely opinion. Im not sure if this a local jargon, or a term used widely in another country, but I believe more widely accepted terms need to be used, considering Boxing is a international sport.

Also note that the rest of the article makes references to "Brawlers" not "Swarmers" which I assume recently replaced it. This tends to be confusing since the header for "Boxing Styles" lists out-boxer, in-boxer, knock out artist, and Brawler...and then has Brawler completed missing altogether. Brawler is also mentioned in several other locations in the article, with no original mention of it in the Boxing styles section other than a nearly complete opinion article on "Swarmers".

I would also like to note that the term "Hybrid" is not a boxing term. Boxers, commentators, experts, and the like do not refer to a "hybrid" style boxers as a "Hybrid" or "Hybrid-Boxer". The term "boxer" or even "techinician" are more popularly used and widely accepted.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.171.106.178 (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Styles the style descriptions are insane. Knock-out artist is NOT a style. as anyone from the actual 4 styles ( boxer, slugger, swarmer, and boxer-puncher) can become a knockout artist. This page is a laughing stock in the boxing community. In-boxer and out-boxer are terms that are NEVER used, as they come a anime tv-show. However, i try to make an edit describing actual styles and its gets removed. This is page is a disgrace to boxing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.225.67.245 (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

I beg to differ. Whether you believe they are actual "styles" or not is debatable. I have heard the terms very often in real life, commentators during boxing matches, as well as trainers and coaches alike using the term "fighting on the outside" and "fighting on the inside" as common phrases. Swarmers on the other hand, as previously stated, is a term I've never heard except in internet articles such as this one.

I have no clue what TV show you're referring to, but to make a sweeping generalization and claim that "outfighter" and "infighter" are "NEVER" used by boxers is a fallacy and ill conceived. In personal experience the stylistic jargon Ive encountered (including written literature and by professionals themselves) and consider "common and widely used" are as follows: Puncher, Brawler, Boxer, Slugger. Descriptive terms include, out-fighter, in fighter, knock-out artist, and awkward.

He said "in-boxer" and "out-boxer" are never used, not "in-fighter" and "out-fighter". And in my experience, that's true, because boxers are out-fighters. Here you are talking about classification of styles, but how much do you actually know about boxing? The terms 'puncher' and 'knock-out artist' are not stylistic descriptions. They simply refer to a boxer having a lot of power. In the lower echelons, there are brawlers who don't have much power. Brawlers need power to become successful because of their relative lack of skill, so brawlers we hear about are always powerful. However, there are boxers who aren't punchers but nonetheless come out with loaded up, winging punches. I can think of so many examples of fighters which contradict this section. Look at Roy Jones Junior. He never brawled, but was still considered as being a puncher at middleweight. I've tried to correct this section a little, but really it's unredeemable and needs a complete rewrite. Holymolytree2 08:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe the 2 styles "Boxer" and "boxer-puncher" are terribly redundant, as they are essentially the same thing. The actual distinction between these two "styles" are not great enough to warrant them as two seperate and unique styles, but rather as a subclass of one another.

Again, I find "Brawler" and "Swarmer" equivalent as far as description goes, but have never with an exception of this wikipedia article heard of "Swarmer". As previously stated, I believe this is either local jargon or vernacular commonly used in a particular country, but not world wide. Evidence is seen in commentary from country to country. As far as I know, "swarmers" is not original to America, nor is it commonly recognized.

I would also like to point out that the new current entries under the "styles" section is riddled with unnecessary opinions and baseless personal thoughts on the individual styles. If I had faith that the originating editor of the current descriptions wouldn't simply replace any new edits with the current one, I would change it myself. Editors need to use more than personal thoughts or opinion to write in this article. Do some research before hand on widely accepted terms and facts.

The styles section is garbage and inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. I propose it be deleted but, as usual, the nerds will have their way.203.10.77.190

Exactly. Most of the people editing this are geeks and therefore would crap their pants if they ever stepped foot in a boxing gym. That's why they know nothing about the sport. They've got a puncher listed as the same thing as a brawler. A puncher is a hard hitter, regardless of style. They go on and state that some boxers are labelled boxer-punchers "since they may resort to slugging or brawling at certain parts of a fight." What the hell? A boxer-puncher is just a boxer who has a lot of power. I didn't see Lewis resort to brawling when he KOed Rahman with one shot in their rematch. I didn't see Hearns resort to brawling when he KOed Duran.

What's even worse is that other online reference sites have now reproduced this article, so the bullshit spreads. Holymolytree2 08:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

guys..most bob and weavers are also swarmers and infighters..its all kind of connected..but dempsey should be in bob and weave too..and probley also infight...and maybe even out..lol.thats how fluid it is..and like whitker is definitly a boxer..but he often used bobbing and weaving... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.52.167 (talk) 09:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I second the motion to remove the "styles section" in its entirety from this article. It is just wrong in so many ways. These ludicrous styles that I've never heard of are compared by completely different dimensions. The first and last compare fighters by their preferred distance, the second just rates their punching power and the third assumes a general skill level. So I will try to remove this section and will call to anyone, who wants to include it back, to at least give some credible sources. I won't even care what it is, an old HBO Highlight Reel, some boxer's auto-biography, a "learn to box in 7 days" self-help-book ... just anything, that isn't the author's opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.184.164.133 (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

need to add info about scoring and definition of a draw

need to add info about scoring and definition of a draw —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.121.76.229 (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Archive this?

Few weeks ago, I unarchived this talk page, there were many unanswered questions, if somebody wants to archive it back, be my guest, i think it should be done. Too much mess. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Indianawisdom (talk • contribs) 21:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Class B

This article is still Class B.

It needs rewriting, some information needs to be cleaned, we do not need some things. Keep it simple.

Reverting edit

On May 3rd between 18:11 and 18:13, User 204.185.201.253 edited the page several times, removing large portions of text about the "out-fighters" and the origins of boxing. The act of vandalism ended when he completely blanked the page. That last change was reverted, but the others were not. I tried several times to revert those edits, but I was not able as it conflicted with the newest version. Can someone with the Know-how put them back ? there is definitely valid information in these sections (most notably the "out-boxers" part which is refered to right after, which makes the text rather inconsistent).

thanks

Chuck80 00:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

There has been a wave of vandalism against this page, and the recent reverts did not catch all of it. I reverted back to the last version by 69.122.3.26 on 22 May. When reverting vandalism, please check the history for sudden drops in file size, as that's a clue that something was inappropriately deleted.

Also, when editing, please be sure you are working on the most recent version, so work is not inadvertently reverted.Djcastel 13:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverts by Delmas alain

I advised Delmas alain to stop editing from older versions of this article, as he has already twice undone a lot of work, and has made a similar mistake elsewhere on Wikipedia. I restored his recent contributions to the "Stance" section, while preserving the most recent versions of all other sections. Djcastel 17:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

He just did another revert, which I fixed. I posted a message on his talk page in French, since he has never posted a comment anywhere. Djcastel 18:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Brain Cells

Although brain damage can occur from a serious injury, do actual brain cells die when getting punched in the head in boxing? Zachorious 11:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Article --Creightn 19:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting measurements

Scientific study in the works to verify current measurements of 'Hitman' Hatton and others. [1] Brian Pearson 00:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Title too vague/general

The term "boxing" can refer to a wide number of combat styles throughout the world. The "Sport" portrayed in this article is more accurately described as "Western Boxing". How does one go about changing the title of an article.RealBigFlipsbrain 00:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That seems like an extremely controversion change. Even if you did have an article on boxing in general to take its place, I would argue that the term applies to western boxing most of the time.  east.718 at 07:23, August 31, 2007 

Boxing Schedule FightNights.com

Someone removed the boxing schedule link. I put it back on.

Currently there is no official pro boxing schedule. FightNights.com is ranked in the top five on google for boxing schedule. Its been on the boxing wiki page for almost 6 months. All of a sudden the link was removed. This Website is a great resourse for boxing fans looking for all the schedules in one place. The site is already ranked in the top 5 on most search engines and since wiki has the no follow the only reason i would like to put the link is for boxing fans and users looking for an all round schedule. FightNights is also trying to become an boxing assoication and the official world boxing schedule. This is not some spam boxing news site looking for rankings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quitano (talk • contribs) 23:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I accidentally killed it while reverting vandalism. Feel free to add it back in.  east.718 at 01:23, September 3, 2007 

Added the link back on the page, thanks.

BoxSch.com is now FightNights.com, updating the link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quitano (talk • contribs) 18:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hatton listed under out fighters?

Why is this?

Hatton has always been an inside fighter. Dan the man1983 (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Style example listings

There's too much overlap between these listings - almost half of the first two lists are identical. StaticElectric (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Boxing Category Weight - Men Weight - Women Strawweight up to 105 lbs up to 102 lbs (46.36 kilos) Mini Flyweight - up to 105 lbs (47.627 kilos) Junior Flyweight 105 to 108 lbs 105 to 108 lbs (48.988 kilos) Flyweight 108 to 112 lbs 108 to 112 lbs (50.802 kilos) Super Flyweight / Junior Bantam Weight 112 to 115 lbs 112 to 115 lbs (52.163 kilos) Bantamweight 115 to 118 lbs 115 to 118 lbs (53.524 kilos) Super Bantamweight / Junior Featherweight 118 to 122 lbs 118 to 122 lbs (55.338 kilos) Featherweight 122 to 126 lbs 122 to 126 lbs (57.153 kilos) Super Featherweight / Junior Lightweight 126 to 130 lbs 126 to 130 lbs (58.967 kilos) Lightweight 130 to 135 lbs 130 to 135 lbs (61.235 kilos) Super Lightweight / Junior Welterweight 135 to 140 lbs 135 to 140 lbs (63.503 kilos) Welterweight 140 to 147 lbs 140 to 147 lbs (66.678 kilos) Super Welterweight 147 to 154 lbs - (69.853 kilos) Junior Middleweight - 147 to 154 lbs (69.853 kilos) Middleweight 154 to 160 lbs 154 to 160 lbs (72.575 kilos) Super Middleweight 160 to 168 lbs 160 to 168 lbs (76.204 kilos) Light Heavyweight 168 to 175 lbs 168 to 175 lbs (79.379 kilos) Cruiserweight 175 to 200 lbs - (90.719 kilos) Heavyweight over 200 lbs Over 175 lbs -

Good pot, so, are you talking about olympic or professional boxing, it seems it's provessional...

Usually promoters, organizers will not play around with one lb, if you are 201 it's still ok, here's recent CLASSIC EXAMPLE: www.boxrec.com/media/index.php?title=Fight:1310479 Adamek fight, thus, 91.3kg is used in metric system, 450 grams is just non-sense, i would never argue over 500mgms, you'll gain in back the next day, some boxers gained 5 kilos!

It used to be 190lbs, do you know exact date of change?

{{{ BoxingWear - BWear - Miranda }}} (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC) 19:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Light Heavyweight limit

It's 175lbs for a long time, that's 78kg, 178 would be around 80kg, it's more appropriate because it's a round number, i think that is the limit all boxing organizations should look into (as it's with amateurs), there is a big disparity hole between 175 and 201lbs!{{{ BoxingWear - BWear - Miranda }}} (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is the section about medical problems and long-term injuries?

It seems appropriate where a desirable goal in a sport is to 'knock someone out'. Was it removed?Ykral (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

And add to this: the Legal section. Is it true that prize fighting is unlawful in many places?Ykral (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

List of boxers

East718, you claim that those lists are "original search". However the main articles related to these boxers simply describe what style they had. I checked many of them myself. Why not recheck them and improve the lists instead of deleting everything ? Who can argue that Tunney or Ali were not stylists? or Sam Langford not a puncher ? This is simply common knowledge! Following your way of thinking, we should delete everything that is not sourced in the main articles of each boxer... --Flying tiger (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This article needs a section "Legality of boxing"

I think this article needs to explain how come boxing is legal in the first place.

• If I punch somebody, that's assault.
• If I injure them in doing so, that's grievous bodily harm.
• If I encourage anybody else to do this (organise a fight), that's conspiracy to commit one of the above offences.

So how come the police don't arrest them? Are there special laws in place to exempt boxing? There is a reference to a book "Gunn M, Ormerod D. The legality of boxing. Legal Studies. 1995;15:181", under "General references, but no mention in the text. Also, I understand boxing is illegal in some countries (Norway I think), this should be mentioned. TiffaF (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it would make more sense if you were to start a separate entry called "Boxing Law" or something like that. I say this because readers whose chief interest is debating a fantasy match between Ali and Jack Johnson probably aren't going to be thrilled by lengthy discussions of case law. That said, regarding your specific inquiry, UK precedent in this matter starts with Regina v. Young, (1866) 10 Cox 371, which established the legal precedent that death "caused by an injury received in a friendly sparring match, which is not a thing likely to cause death... is not manslaughter, unless the parties fight on until the sport becomes dangerous." (Henry Roscoe, Roscoe's Digest of the Law of Evidence in Criminal Cases, Eighth American Edition, volume II, Philadelphia, 1888, p. 912.) Joseph Svinth (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the difference would be the lack of consent in all three of your examples. If all your examples applied, the practice of any martial art, or at least sparring-type practice would be illegal. However, because both participants in a boxing, MMA, judo, wrestling, etc. match consent to the match, the governing rules, the choice of referee to monitor the match, and that it is a competition, it does not fall under assault, batter, grievous bodily harm, or conspiracy to commit any of the above. -Darryl Hamlin 04:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Pugilistic Prognosticator (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

bad citation, no real evidence of the fact cited

"and on Sardinia, if we consider the boxing statues of Prama mountains (c. 2000-1000 BC)"

I cannot find ANY reference to these statues at E.Brit (where the statues are "referred to") or in any other website aside from the EXACT same sentence (Google the phrase and see what I mean). Unless someone can show me a decent cite I think it needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedoggedtruth (talk • contribs) 12:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

scratch that, found a reference, but I'm having some trouble doing it right. Will work on it until I figure it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedoggedtruth (talk • contribs) 13:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

External Link Recommendation

I am thinking adding an external link (at the bottom of the page) to FightInsight.com would be helpful reference content on this page. It gives informative definitions related to boxing betting, odds, predictions and more. Let me know what you think. Thanks

Pugilistic Prognosticator (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

kickboxingandboxing

Boxing isn't about hearting evenyone ko or fight boys and girl fight and match and kickboxing like kick,hit,and grab.MMA is the same thing but you slam oppent down and tapout.WWE is the same but you got to jump from a rope in all the matches like cage match.All kid can choose what they like and sport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deandre Garrison (talk • contribs) 01:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC) I am of the opinion that if everybody in the crowd at a boxing game was allowed to vote on who they thought won the bout they had seen that it might be more far than if just three people get to dicide who wins a boxing match.Lets saw 40,000 people attended a bout and the vote came up 22,142 to 17,858 then the person with the 22,142 votes would win the bout.There could still be KOs and TKOs if the bout didn,t go the distance.Some people might say that it would be hard to count that many votes but they do it in presidentual elections every four years in the United States.Some might saw that if one person was more popular than thje other they would unfaily get the bout,but I think that if a person has clearly outboxed the other one the odenence would give the right person the victory.Of course theirs always the possibilty of some kind of trouble,but I think that the same would be true for the three man judging system that is in place now.What do you think. July 5,2009 Frosty87