I have been a fan of boxing and football for many years. But, I recognize the dangers ,think it should be made safer and believe it should be made clear how dangerous they are. Kids should know. I also know they will ignore it. I would have, but telling meets a small measure o
responsibility .
I think you mean well, Gomax, but it’s a rough and tumble world out there. The least of our worries as a society should be banning a game that millions of people play without injury, to prevent some intelligent adults from themselves. Life is about risk. And adults manage or accept the day-to-day risks inherent in life.
If one wants to live in a cocoon and live a timid life, so be it. If you don’t want to play football, don’t. If you don’t want to box, don’t. But trying to manage life for others is nonsense.
And the latter is worthy of being banned because…>please fill in the blank<
…it debases the society that condones it. Numerous activities (low-wage employment, prostitution, sale of body parts) are banned for this very reason regardless of the consensual nature of the relationship. Even if–based on the consent of all involved–no one is forcibly harmed by the activity, it is still legitimate to wonder if condoning a practice leads to an overall damage to society. I should stipulate right away that this is an argument that is very easy to abuse–witness the history of Jim Crow laws and current anti-homosexual legislation. However, in its proper place, I don’t think it’s utterly illegitimate to consider social factors in deciding whether or not to ban an activity.
History shows that gladiatorial contests produce at least one clear, detrimental effect on society: They require and sustain a severely-oppressed class to provide the gladiators, a fact proven by history (please spare me the stories of “voluntary” gladiators in the Coliseum; these were rarities–the stuff of cheap novels–and Roman writers usually considered such individuals were as “naturally” of an inferior class). And in studying the development of such contests in Rome, we see a secondary effect: The increasing tolerance for bloodlust in all classes, a fact writers in the empire noted frequently. Of course, if you want to easily militarize your citizenry, you may consider this a positive effect, but I’m not sure we universally support that goal in the United States.
It is to football’s credit that it works to avoid these two effects: Dangerous as it is, football players are paid high enough that it mitigates the danger of a permanent lower class becoming their sole source. On the other hand, the high percentage of minority football players–a crude determinant of socio-economic status in America–says there is some social force at work. As for militarizing the population, well, how often does our media use football analogies (and other sports’ metaphors) in discussing foreign policy, political struggles, and the like?
These are certainly not strong enough reasons to ban football, but they are something to think about.
There’s something to be said for drawing false parallels between history and contemporary times. Gladiators were slaves. We don’t have slaves in our society so comparisons between gladiators in Rome circa 50 CE and potential gladiators in the United States in 2007 would be somewhat tenuous.
The Romans were pretty damned bloodthirsty long before the gladiatorial games become the spectacles that we’re all familiar with. You might want to argue that the rise of gladiatorial games shortly before the first Punic War led to a more bloodthirsty Roman who was just gnashing his teeth to sink his blade into the enemy but you’d have a tough row to hoe.
If we played soccer we’d just use soccer metaphors instead. There are also non military applications of football metaphors. “You gotta take that ball and run with it” can be used in a wide variety of situations.
Marc
The question of should football be banned was a question in 1904. I ran across a reference to a bill that was being sponsored to ban the sport on microfiche. I looked for bills and references to it but found nothing about the bill. I did later find a reference to Theodore Roosevelt and his part in the banning. The article I first read was sponsored by three states, and I don’t remember the exact ones. One was Wisconsin. The sponsors would have banned it’s playing in these three states, and guaranteed that non of these states would take advantage to gain by it. The reason of the three state bill was a student had been severely injured or died playing.
http://www.northwestern.edu/about/history/timeline1949/index.html
When my son was 16, he collapsed during football practice from heat stroke. After he had been to the emergency room and the IV fluids, it turned out that instead of running one set of drills and then coming off the field for two sets (what the coaches told the players to do) he was running all three sets and not taking any breaks.
You can ban football, but you can’t ban stupid.
This is not business as usual. Players get hurt for our enjoyment. Baseball players get hurt but it is not a normal thing . There are injury reports for every football game. They very rarely empty. Players get carted off regularly.
It is by far the most dangerous of our games. Huge hits are part of the fans interest. We reward a player who can regularly cream another player.
I have a friend who is about 50. He played football for Purdue all through college. He has had multiple surgeries on both knees. He needs new knees, actually, as they have deteriorated to the point he has this weird, rolling limp of a staggering walk. He has other, long-standing injuries and debilities from his college football. Maybe “millions” of men have played football without lasting injury, but clearly there is a sub-set suffering long-lasting and serious problems. Apparently, the higher up the ladder you go from high school to college to pro the larger that sub-group becomes.
If getting hurt were the point of the game, I might agree with you. But since this is merely incidental to the type of game it is, I don’t see it that way. A game where no players are hurt is going to be just as entertaining as one where a ton of them do. As far as I’m concerned, they’re grown men making their own decisions about their lives, so I’m not one to tell them how to live.
And while baseball players may not get hurt in the game, I can assure you that it also does a number on many players’ bodies as they get older. It’s just a fact of life when you continue straining your body almost to the breaking point throughout adulthood. Eventually, parts of it will break.
I think that “should we allow children to play football” is a completely different question than “should we allow adults to play football” and people are conflating the two hear and arguing at cross purposes.
I have no knowledge or opinion about pro sports, but I will say that IME as a high school teacher, if football is the worst offender, it’s not by a wide margin. I have 2-3 students in a boot or on crutches at any given time, and I swear Ultimate Frisbee is the worst offender (possibly because they play it in the dark), followed by volleyball and soccer. You can blow your knee out playing anything. At least the football and hockey kids wear pads and helmets.
No you are missing the point entirely.
Players play for THEIR enjoyment. Frankly, the spectators enjoyment is neither her nor their for the players. They are playing for either their love of the game, or in order to make a living.
And stop with the hyperbole. There are many, many games in which players do not get injured. Have you actually been to a game? Players do not get carted off regularly. In fact, I’d argue it’s rare to see the cart go out onto the field. And on the rare occasions when it does, how often do you hear later on that the player is fine, but it was a precaution to take him and get him checked out? Frequently.
Huge hits are a part of fan interest. We reward hard hits OK. So what? If this game is too physical and tough for your sensibilities than turn it off. Don’t watch it. Speed and crashes are a part of fan interest in auto racing. Is that next on your list?
Football players and their families understand the risk, and accept it. Understand that fact. Those men that freely and of their own accord make the conscious choice to play this great game do so with the knowledge that injury is a possible outcome. They feel that the camaraderie, the desire to get in better shape to play better, the life long relationships built from the game, the enjoyment of competition and the ability to give some these young men something to focus on in lieu of potentially harmful activities such as gangs and drugs outweighs the potential for injury. There are many positive factors of this game which you refuse to accept.
What part of the fact that football is not being forced on any of these players don’t you understand?
OK.
My father was a bricklayer all his life. He has a bad back. Should we outlaw the construction business? Life isn’t easy, the while collar crowd’s viewpoint not withstanding.
I understand that a portion of the players suffer injuries. My shoulder will never be the same from division I football. But that was my choice to play. I presume a guy smart enough to attend Purdue was smart enough to know that footwall wasn’t volleyball.
My apologizes Broomstick. Now that I re-read my last post to you, it reads quite snarky - which was not my intent.
I endeavored to state that in the continuum of life in the our country right now (not to mention the world at large), many, many people use up their bodies in blue collar work to support their families. I think our collective energizes are better spent mitigating that, than attacking a sport which is forced upon no one.
Please point to where in that post I suggested anything of the sort. Because I didn’t. Please do not read more into my posts than is actually there.
Oh, certainly.
What I want to make sure of is
- everyone playing really is informed of the long-term risks and consequences of that choice.
- that steps are taken to eliminate the worst risks (this is why they have helmets and jock straps, right?)
- proper provision is made for those who are permanently injured due to the inherent risks of the game. Industry, after all, is held accountable for on-the-job injuries and deaths, since football is an industry as well it should be held to at least the same standard.
Nowhere is that “outlaw the game”. I understand that injuries are a real risk in sports - I screwed up my knee playing high school soccer and it still gives my issues from time to time, I have a permanent knot on one leg due to a horse kicking me across a corral, and scars from wiping out on my bicycle - but using people up to the point they are completely disabled by 30 and then tossing them aside is not right. If it can be determined that a certain percentage of people will emerge from the game that bad off then, to my mind, the NFL has to make provision for at least their medical care and stop whining about the cost - the money is there, it’s greed that gets in the way.
Well, no one forced your father to be a bricklayer, did they?
ANY job that carries an inherent risk of injury, debility, or death should make provision for those it harms (according to me). Businesses pay worker’s comp for that very reason, yes? My former employer had insurance for those who had to travel for their job specifically to cover injuries arising from that. The heavy industry near where I live - steel mills, chemical plants, etc. - spend a LOT of money on workers injured on the job. Why should professional football - which is also an employer and an industry - not do the same?
Perhaps, given the high rate of injury inherent to the game (permanent or not) players should receive medical coverage from the NFL for life. Of course, many players will leave the game relatively intact - some bad knees or back, but not that much different from some other workers. That’s fine. Some will leave really messed up, but will be cared for - that’s fine, too. And if the NFL is held responsible for those left crippled then I would expect to see some changes that could prevent unnecessary injuries of that sort and will give the NFL and coaches more incentive to hold back those players who really do need some time to heal up before returning to the game they love.
I would not allow my son to play tackle football in high school. He was 140 lber and could run well. I would not sign. There are better sports with a much less chance of injury.
There is no other sport that has injuries as a clear and obvious part of the game as football. You can get hurt playing any sport. Baseball players die or get severely hurt every year. It is rare and not a clear and obvious part of the game.
Getting carted off ,is not just the wooden back brace. The special device they have for driving players to the locker room is called the injury cart.Football is the only sport that needs to haul the injured off as part of the game.
I’ve taken hits that made my nose snotty, and I’m proud that I got back up and went back to take more (I wasn’t big enough in high school to deliver hits like that, but I could take 'em all day.) So I understand blocking. But I also understand aiming a shoulder at a taped-up knee in the hope that said knee can be seriously damaged enough to take the player out of the game, maybe out for the season. That’s what I’m talking about. My objection is to the win-at-all-costs attitude that condones deliberately injuring opponents. I watched it happen in high school and college, and you can’t regulate against it. It comes from an attitude from the team’s coaching staff and leadership.
I understand that boxing is “fun to watch” for some people. People still enjoy cock fighting, dog fighting and all manner of blood sport. People will pack a stadium to watch a garishly-dressed man torture a large, frightened dumb animal to death. Were it still legal, I’m sure a promoter could pack a stadium with people screaming at the tops of their lungs while men slashed at each other with knives until one of them was dead. The fact that blood sport is “fun to watch” for some people doesn’t make it right, and it certainly isn’t a sign of a durable civilization.
What about NASCAR?
Yes, gladiators were slaves. Where, exactly, did they get these gladiatorial slaves? Was the society designed to have slavery as an institution? Did gladiatorial contests (not exclusively, but in part) perpetuate the slave system? These are the questions which are relevant to determining the social forces raised by gladiatorial spectacles, and if similar social forces can be caused by the professionalization of American football.
There is no direct comparison between the class of Roman gladiators and current-day professional football player. But that doesn’t mean the same forces aren’t at work, albeit to a lesser degree now than then.
Not really. Republican gladiatorial games were definitely brutal, but they served two main purposes: (1) advertisment for political families/candidates, and (2) allowing spectators to “come to terms with” mortality and death; this, in fact, is why they were typically stagted as funeral games.
With the empire, the first of these purposes is gone. As for the second, there was great expansion of gladiatorial games during the Empire; the mere fact that there was no permanent facility at Rome for staging such games until the construction of the Coliseum is evidence of that. Also, Augustus allowed gladiatorial games to be put on outside of the funereal context, and removed restrictions on time of year. Evidence of Roman-style gladiatorial contests can be found in every corner of the empire, and there is no doubt they were used to Romanize newly-conquered areas, which were usually the source of new recruits to guard the frontiers.
This is true. But to put it glibly, there are times when we select the metaphor, and times when it selects us. Football is a game that rewards action and direct physical confrontation. It’s popular use as a metaphor for life can be fairly said to bias judgement in favor of these goals.
Again, this is not at all a reason to ban football. Just something to think about.