On 29 Mar 2016 at 3:22pm Tipex wrote:
Having seen the images of Nick Blackwell just before his fight with Chris Eubank Jr was stopped and he was put in a coma with suspected brain damage and blindness, isn't it time this macho caveman "sport" was put out of its misery? I like to think civilisation has moved on.
On 29 Mar 2016 at 3:40pm Lewes man wrote:
why it down to the ref
On 29 Mar 2016 at 5:03pm lewes born and bred wrote:
No one holds a gun to their heads Tipex. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean other shouldn't
On 29 Mar 2016 at 5:35pm Hyena wrote:
Yes , let's also ban racing as Jockeys frequently receive concussions or worse, Rugby again plenty of concussions and occasional paralysis, football ,someone might have an undiagnosed heart condition, cycling ,again concussions, dislocations, death , Marathons people frequently drop dead.
In fact let's ban all sport far to dangerous. Can I suggest scrabble , chess, pin the tail on the donkey. From a physical standpoint all safe enough but then you have to consider the emotional wellbeing of the people who lose.
It's all a bit of a dilemma isn't it?
On 29 Mar 2016 at 5:49pm Mavis wrote:
Heavens ! Pin the tail on the Donkey !! Murderous game, blindfolded and sharp objects, oh the poor dharlings !!
On 29 Mar 2016 at 6:00pm Lewes Fella wrote:
Tipex - where did you get your prognosis from? Yes, he suffered a small bleed on the brain, but it was identified promptly - I haven't heard of any such "facts" yet from the official sources.
On 29 Mar 2016 at 6:24pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Hindsight is a splendid thing, but seeing the size of the swelling on Nick Blackwell's forehead, I'm astonished that the fight wasn't stopped sooner.
I wouldn't support a ban. I'd far rather see better intervention during matches to prevent head injuries, and possibly a requirement to wear protective headgear.
Hyena's right - a lot of sports are dangerous (I think eventing causes several deaths a year in the UK alone), and it seems a bit extreme to ban boxing but to allow many others to continue.
On 29 Mar 2016 at 6:39pm Richard wrote:
Yes, let's ban everything and stay tucked up and mollycoddled by the nanny state.
On 29 Mar 2016 at 7:47pm Tipex wrote:
Lewes Fella - it wasn't a prognosis (he's not terminally ill) but the diagnosis is correct. His injury was spotted when he said he'd lost vision in one eye. He was taken to hospital where he was put in a coma. I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me but rather not be misquoted.
On 29 Mar 2016 at 9:31pm Lewes Fella wrote:
Tipex - before you get all high and mighty about my post, a common dictionary definition of prognosis is "a forecast of the likely outcome of a situation". No necessity for a terminal illness.
But back to my post, where did you get your information from? Every account I've read - including from Mick Hennessy - makes no mention of what you mention about loss of vision. Some people on twitter have incorrectly linked loss of vision from his eye injury - which caused the DR to stop the fight - to his hospitalisation, but genuine accounts appear to put that step down to him collapsing after the result was announced.
On 29 Mar 2016 at 9:40pm Mr Bannit wrote:
The difference between boxing and rugby etc is that causing brain damage isn't the actual goal of other sports; it's an occasional, accidental and unfortunate outcome. Although I don't think banning is necessarily the answer. I just hope eventually we evolve away from watching people punch each other as a form of entertainment.
On 29 Mar 2016 at 10:01pm Hyena wrote:
I thought in the main a large element of boxing was to avoid getting punched , and to be honest Mr Bannit I don't think causing brain damage is the goal of boxing.
On 29 Mar 2016 at 10:19pm Mr Bannit wrote:
Generally one side is less successful at avoiding getting punched. Wouldn't you say?
On 29 Mar 2016 at 10:45pm Eric C wrote:
Why not ban it? Sweden and Norway did. I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over the loss of it or any of these other "sports" that cause serious injury.
On 29 Mar 2016 at 10:55pm A Person wrote:
Surely the whole point of boxing is to achieve a knock-out? That, in anyone's language, is brain damage. Grotesque.
On 29 Mar 2016 at 10:56pm Lewes Fella wrote:
And Swedes and Norwegians went abroad to box. Many more continued in their home countries, but in warehouses and garages.
On 29 Mar 2016 at 11:18pm Tipex wrote:
Lewes Fella - I stand by my observation that, according to the BBC (admittedly not always correct but a commonly trusted source) his "small brain bleed" (don't know about you but I'd say that's pretty bad news for anyone) was initially spotted based on him losing sight in 1 eye during the fight. Regardless, there's a huge difference between injury being an occupational hazard of an activity and injury being the main objective.
On 29 Mar 2016 at 11:46pm Lewes Fella wrote:
Tipex - I would wholeheartedly agree that any brain injury is bad news. No debate there. I was just interested to know if you had new, different information about the poor guy.
It is now perfectly clear that not only do you not, you have made incorrect assumptions about what happened. The BBC have never said what you claim, not even on the Ten O'Clock news item just passed. Neither have his family, Mick the Promoter, nor his trainer Gary - who had at least one similarly hideously swollen eye during his own career.
I am interested in this event as a) a boxing fan who watched the fight on TV, and b) as someone who has had the misfortune to be present live for two similar / worse boxing aftermaths.
On 30 Mar 2016 at 3:01pm Mr Bannit wrote:
The man is in a medically induced coma due to being intentionally punched for spectators' entertainment. What more needs to be known?
On 30 Mar 2016 at 3:32pm Hyena wrote:
Mr Bannit , I suspect he boxes for himself rather than others entertainment and that is his choice. He also punched back.
A Person, the aim of boxing is to beat your opponent whether on points etc. It's not to achieve a knockout. That's why we have regulated boxing with a limited number of rounds and gloves .Not as in Victorian times and earlier where there were bare knuckle prize fights that went on for hours until someone couldn't continue.
On 30 Mar 2016 at 4:38pm Tipex wrote:
Hyena - so we've progressed since victorian times? Good to know. "The aim of boxing is to beat your opponent"? I think we know that. Beat them senseless while people cheer. Doesn't that make you feel even slightly uneasy?
On 30 Mar 2016 at 4:57pm Hyena wrote:
Oh Tipex your so boringly predictable . In answer to your question , no.
On 30 Mar 2016 at 9:25pm Mr Bannit wrote:
Is it true that around 90% of boxers end up with some degree of brain damage? I've twice heard that figure used in recent media discussions.
On 30 Mar 2016 at 9:41pm Mr Gannet wrote:
Is it true that around 90% of Lewes forum posters have brain damage?And 10% are illiterate.
On 30 Mar 2016 at 10:14pm Hyena wrote:
Lobby your MP or start a petition if you feel so strongly about it.
On 30 Mar 2016 at 10:20pm Rolling pin wrote:
I love your comment Mr Gannet.And I also love how people on here cannot spot a wind up post if you hit them over the head with it.
On 30 Mar 2016 at 10:22pm Rolling pin wrote:
I love your comment Mr Gannet.And I also love how people on here cannot spot a wind up post if you hit them over the head with it.
On 31 Mar 2016 at 7:22pm Mr Bannit wrote:
I'll take that as a yes. I have no wish to lobby anyone. I was under the impression this was a discussion.
On 31 Mar 2016 at 8:16pm Hyena wrote:
Mr Bannit, yes according to some studies . Brain damage meaning early onset dementia , Parkinsons. However studies have also shown this also applies to forwards in Rugby Union , American football players, Rugby League players , Jockeys etc.
I would assume that as you name yourself Bannit ( very droll ) you would like boxing banned, so start a petition or lobby Maria.
On 1 Apr 2016 at 8:27pm Mr Bannit wrote:
My name has nothing to do with the boxing issue. I said in my first comment that I didn't necessarily think banning was the solution. Whilst other sports do obviously carry risk of damage, I'd be very surprised if it was anywhere near 90% of participants. However, the discussion seems to be irksome to you so I shall leave it here.