On the *surface * of it this seems like the silliest sport ever. Let’s watch two men get in a ring and kick the shit out of each other. Let’s put them in silly gloves, and watch the blood fly.
But there must be more to it, or is it just the violence? Here’s what I know.
You have to wear those gloves.
You use the backs of your forearms to defend yourself. Doesn’t that hurt like the devil?
There are all kinds of punches, jabs, and uppercuts which are legal. What are they? Are there any illegal?
You can’t hit below the belt.
Um…scraping the bottom here, you have to knock them out? Or is it like wrestling, put them down for the count?
I really want to learn about it. Maybe I’ll even like it! Can you guys tell me what you know?
Hmm, sport, so Cafe Society? But question, so GQ? But poll, so IMHO? Whatever…this is my favorite forum, so here it goes. Mods can move if they so desire!
I used to love watching boxing with my dad. He’s been a big fan all his life and used to see some great fights when he was young. But now you have to go to Vegas or Atlantic City to see any of the big fights, and they’re so mismatched and/or crooked anymore that I’ve basically lost interest. I do enjoy watching boxers who haven’t been sucked into the ugly underbelly that the sport has turned into.
The best I can do is suggest you start watching ESPN2’s Friday Night Fights. Teddy Atlas is good at covering the basics, the why’s and why not’s, and in providing insightful commentary during the course of the fight. HBO’s team is usually good, too. I don’t get Showtime so I can’t comment there.
The most well known illegal punch is one to the back of the head, this is known as a “rabbit punch” due to it being a method for killing rabbits. See the Wikipedia article on Boxing for punches, jabs, and uppercuts.
I’ll take a shot, although I’m not a boxer, nor even that big of a fan.
Gloves. Yes they’re required and even the weight is very tightly controlled. The gloves obviously prevent bone-to-bone type damage.
Forearms to block/deflect. Doesn’t hurt as much as it may appear. The padding of the gloves makes a huge difference here.
Different kinds of punches. What is more important is what you hit, and with what, than “how” you do it. That is, you are only allowed to make striking contact with the gloves - primarily the front (knuckle) of the glove (not sure if a backhand is legal). And you’re limited to the torso and up as a target. No below the belt. No head butts. No ear chewing
A knock out or standing knock out (ref calls the fight) are certainly ways to win. But not necessarily. Each round is scored by a number of judges, and points are awarded throughout each round. At the end, if both are still standing, the points are tallied and the highest score wins.
Movies are as good a place to start as any, but keep in mind they are much more dynamic than real fights. If you get ESPN classic, watching “classic” fights might be a better way to learn about fights (and see some really good fighters).
As someone that does SCA combat and engaged in ‘roughhousing’ in general, a lot of the appeal of these things is seeing
a) how badly you can hurt someone (or, if not hurt, then ‘score’ on them)
b) how much punishment you can take before succumbing (your will overriding the body’s weakness)
usually, the latter is more important than the other. I’ve always cared more about how a boxer takes a shot than his skill in landing one. Of course, the emphasis on human endurance puts it right up there with other ‘iron-man’ type sports.
And yes, modern boxing is almost hopelessly corrupt, so the fun of watching is gone.
They call it the Sweet Science because it’s sweet and is a science. It’s hard to explain, but there’s something very compelling about watching a boxing match between two men who are well matched. The violence is part of it, I suppose, but that’s not really why it’s exciting.
As to one of your questions; no, you don’t have to win by knock-out. When you knock someone out, you don’t necessary knock them unconscious (although often you do, briefly), but just punish them so much that, once down, they cannot stand up by a count of 10.
More often (when Mike Tyson, etc., isn’t in the ring), the fight ends after a specified number of rounds and it goes to a panel of judges. Threee judges score each round as it ends, giving the boxer who appeared to dominate the round (in the most common scoring system) 10 points and the other boxer some smaller number of points. The more competitive the loser was through the round, the more points he gets in theory, although the scoring is generally pretty wild. The judges then announce which boxer won. If it’s 2-1, the boxer who garnered two votes wins in a “split decision.”
This is why boxing is so easy to fix. Judging is very subjective and the scoring system is pretty dopey. You slip a judge or two a few bucks and as long as your fighter survives 'til the end of the last round, they can find a way to give him the belt. If you ever watch a fight on TV, esp. the pre-fight coverage, you’ll probably hear an announcer discuss a recent bout where the judges rendered a decision with which most observers strongly disagree. Some of this is probably due to corruption, some, again, due to subjectivity of the process.
“Boxing” as we know it is a somewhat gentrified :eek: version of a far older form of fighting known as “Prize Fighting.” Try Googling “Queensbury Rules” for some history of how the Sport of Boxing became organized and codified.
As for the why… people (especially men) have been fighting one-on-one forever, for a whole variety of reasons. Including but not limited to mano-a-mano on the battlefields of yore. So, basicly, like most popular sports, it’s a war-surrogate (think of American Football. Those guys are definitely having a war out there!)
As for the actual tactics used by boxers… I’ll leave that to someone more knowledgeable
Anaamika, while I agree that a super heavyweight boxing match amounts to little more than two massive guys beating the hell out of each other, watching fly weight or light weight fights is almost like watching a choreographed dance. There’s much more technique involved, and a lot less brute force. Watching two people moving that fast without tripping over their own feet is impressive.
Granted, I box, so I probably have a higher than average interest in the sport, but the bloody head pounding that many people associate with boxing tends to be only at the higher weight classes.
I will try some of those movies, but are they all those kind of “triumphs against all odds” types of movies? I hate those. Any that really follow a boxer’s career?
Indeed I do. While it confers no particular benefit other than fitness, I occasionally like to delude myself that if some fella decided to get smart, he’d be surprised enough for me to run like hell after I popped him in the face.
Thanks, Lute Skywatcher, I plan to see it as soon as the DVD is available (and I can remember to put it in my Netflix queue).
Some noteworthy boxers whose technique and ability one should observe in the process of looking for the finer points of boxing:
Muhammad Ali
Sugar Ray Leonard
Manny Pacquiao
Larry Holmes
George Foreman
Roy Jones, Jr.
Evander Holyfield
Oscar de la Hoya
Floyd Maywether
Thomas Hearns
(dozens more)
I think it was American Experience on PBS that had an episode on James Braddock, it was an extremely good show.
Also, try to find “When We Were Kings”, a documentary on the Ali-Foreman fight in Zaire. While the fight was supposedly the story, the real scoop was the backstory surrounding the fight.
I would recommend boxing documentaries instead of movies.
HBO has a great series that looks at legendary fights and analyzes them very well for non-fans. (The name escapes me)
When We Were Kings: A great documentary about the Rumble in the Jungle. George Foreman who is the gregarious Chocolate Stay Puff Marshmallow pitch man, used to be a quiet and sullen boxer who would destroy his opponents. The mind game that Ali does to him is incredible.
Ring of Fire: The Emile Griffith story. A documentary about a boxer who ended up killing his opponent in the ring. Really hard to watch, because they show the fight and you see him take something like 15 power shots to the head. A lot of people talk about the bloodlust in boxing, but it’s not that simple. Emile Griffith was very influenced by the death. Same thing with Ray Mancini. He was never the same.
If anything, boxers seem very emotional to me. I have seen quite of few of these very macho guys bawling their eyes out.
Most fights will be uneven. In most instances one boxer will clearly outclass the other, but you still end up with great fights.
Sometimes a less skilled boxer with guts will beat a better boxer.
The evenly matched ones end up in unbelievable wars. Marco Antonio Barrera and Erik Morales had three matches where they slugged away at each other for round after round.
Style plays a big role. Naseem Hamed was a cocky boxer who destoyed most of his opponents. He ended up being clowned by Marco Antonio Barrera. Barrera ends up being destroyed handily by Pacquiao
