I was watching boxing the other day and two women were in the main event and one of the women was called for hitting “below the belt” against her opponent. Now I always thought this call (with men) was to protect them from getting catching one in the testicles.
I admit as a typical man, I am rather ignorant of a woman’s physical construction. But is there something down there that needs the rule?
Wouldn’t getting punched in the crotch still hurt a lot for a woman, even if it’s not quite as sensitive to pain as the testicles?
I don’t think so (I’m a woman). The tips of the pelvic bones are kind of sensitive…but you’d have to have a pretty specific punch in a pretty specific place to make it hurt. It would hurt more if you got a woman-sized foot with an outstretched toe right up in your (female) crotch.
I’ve never been hit as such, but I’d imagine it’d be as painful or even less painful than a well-placed punch to the collarbone.
HOWEVER…in a woman you’ve got a lot of unprotected organs down below your waistline. Small intestines, uterus and various woman-parts, etc. Perhaps that is what they’re protecting?
Maybe it’s just to keep the rules uniform.
I’m sure there are other considerations as well, but scoring and refereeing should be equal across genders so that the pool of officials is cross-compatible or doesn’t have to be re-trained.
I think it’s for the reason that Happy Scrappy Hero Pup mentioned and to keep boxing about hitting and protecting only certain areas. If it didn’t hurt women as much as men to get kicked in the leg, they still wouldn’t allow it because that ain’t boxing.
While protecting injuries to the testes is a big part of the rule, it’s also because it’s a “cheap shot.” If you’re a good boxer, most of the time you can get a glove up to protect your face or body (depending one where the punches are heading.) You can also duck and move.
Boxing rules are both designed for safety reasons and also to regulate it so it is a “boxing match” and not a “street fight.” If you open up below-the-belt as a legal area to hit, it would make boxing more like a street fight, because in general it’s totally cheesy and easy to hit someone below the belt versus scoring a legitimate hit on the head (it’s easier to protect yourself with your gloves when you only need to guard the belt and up, add in the area below the belt and boxers who actually are good at protecting themselves no longer have an advantage over punch-happy brawlers.)
It’s the same reason holding and clinching isn’t allowed to go on very long, it’s easy to wail on someone if you’re allowed to grab on of their arms and hold on to it.
Yet, the rules are adjusted by shorter rounds and the like for women.
I suspect the judges and referees are smart enough that they can handle a change in the duration of a round without undergoing specific training… :rolleyes:
In case you were wondering (and it seems you were), the shortening of women’s matches is *not *a sexist gesture.
What’s the reason for it then?
It’s simply an adjustment made in the best interest of the sport, otherwise the last couple of rounds would be boring as hell most of the time. Is it discriminatory and degrading that “amateur” men’s boxing, such as in the Olympics, is 4 rounds x 2 minutes each? Obviously not; it’s simply done to make the matches appeal to a wider audience.
FYI, professional women’s boxing is 10 rounds x 2 minutes. Professional men’s, obviously, 12 x 3.
How about the bladder? Same with men.
It most certainly is sexists, the concept that most people don’t seem to realize is discrimination is not, in and of itself, evil or bad and can be good, but it’s still discrimination.
What also needs protection in men and women are the kidneys. That’s why the boxing trunks are worn so high.
zombie or no
other sporting shows pressured (behind the scenes) the boxing association to have this rule because they didn’t want to loose their tv market.