"I want to make this sport legal."
March 16, 2016 2:36 PM   Subscribe

Just when you think you've heard all the grizzled-fighter-taking-one-last-swing-at-redemption stories, along comes Gunn — the first bare-knuckle boxing champion the U.S. has seen in more than 120 years. Undefeated in 71 fights, Gunn rules the circuit, a nationwide underground network of pro boxers, mixed martial arts fighters, and accomplished street brawlers who enter the ring without gloves for as much as $50,000 cash. It's dangerous and bloody and illegal almost everywhere. And if things go Gunn's way — for once in his life — it just could be the next major fight sport. Bobby Gunn: Champion of the Underworld
posted by Rustic Etruscan (58 comments total) 9 users marked this as a favorite
 
Don't half-ass it. Give him a spear and a net and let's see some real action.
posted by Brocktoon at 2:49 PM on March 16, 2016 [7 favorites]


Darwin Awards for all, spectators as well as participants!
posted by Carol Anne at 2:51 PM on March 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


I've found my calling. 6 feet, 155 pounds, three degrees in Art History, 0-0 record in 0 lifetime bouts. I can do this.
posted by crazylegs at 2:54 PM on March 16, 2016 [11 favorites]


He wouldn't last one round against Charles Mulligan.
posted by bondcliff at 3:00 PM on March 16, 2016


You've gotta ask, are you doing this because your name is Bobby Gunn?
posted by Navelgazer at 3:06 PM on March 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


Don't half-ass it. Give him a spear and a net and let's see some real action.

I was gonna say, might as well bring back gladiatorial combat and get it over with. You find brutality entertaining? Here ya go. Try not to let the viscera hit you in the face.
posted by Thorzdad at 3:11 PM on March 16, 2016 [3 favorites]


I was gonna say, might as well bring back gladiatorial combat and get it over with.

Like the bulk of the opening salvos in this thread, there's not a lot of merit here...

It's been well established that gloves and head-gear in boxing do little to provide additional safety. They placate the viewers and, in the case of gloves and tape, turn a hand into a bludgeon that can be used without consequence.

Gunn explains this in the article, which I'm sure all the sneering folks read dutifully.

If you don't enjoy combat sports, and cannot appreciate the nuance being expressed here, perhaps find another thread. I don't piss in your pool (threads about obscure literature and art), please return the courtesy.
posted by Dark Messiah at 3:36 PM on March 16, 2016 [70 favorites]


I remember watching the Vice documentary about the previous US-in-Ireland events. All these people should join forces.
posted by rhizome at 3:41 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


The claims that it's safer than gloved boxing seem pretty specious, relying on the idea that people hit each other less hard because they can hurt their hands more. And the claim of no deaths inside the ring is demonstrably false, and the general lower rate seems influenced by a lack of record keeping and a smaller number of matches and participants.
posted by klangklangston at 4:16 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


Klang, you can hit not just harder but exponentially harder with gloves than without, and you can do it repeatedly. It does make a difference.
posted by doctor_negative at 4:39 PM on March 16, 2016 [8 favorites]


Why is he talking about it?
posted by davebush at 4:43 PM on March 16, 2016 [6 favorites]


"Klang, you can hit not just harder but exponentially harder with gloves than without, and you can do it repeatedly. It does make a difference."

That in and of itself doesn't make bare-knuckle boxing less dangerous, given that the gloves also spread the force out over a greater area, and that even a softer punch to some parts of the head can be fatal — as can punches to other parts of the body.
posted by klangklangston at 5:05 PM on March 16, 2016


Gloves add a ton of weight to the hands and soften the "direct" impact while still transferring the force to the brain.
posted by Ferreous at 5:25 PM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


I just looked, they weight from 12-16 oz per glove depending on weight class. Adding a pound to your fist each time you hit someone is turning your hands into cudgels.
posted by Ferreous at 5:27 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


You know, my initial internal response was dismissal and thinking it's absurd, but you know...

If I'm willing to advocate that drugs should be decriminalized/legalized and allow adults to make their own decisions about their health in respect to what they do with/put inside their body, it would be really hypocritical of me to say that these men shouldn't be allowed to do what they want to their body, either. Realistically, we should be able to assume they are educated enough about the risks to make their own decisions (which, obviously, is the case Mr. Gunn is making, that they absolutely know what they are doing, and that's okay.).

However, the caveat, as it always has been with me in terms of sports which lead to short careers due to long-lasting health repercussions, is that my worry is most are very young when they get into these sports, and they aren't planning long-term, and while those big wins might be great for the winners, there's plenty whose health is falling apart and they can't get the healthcare they need, despite their meager winnings.

I mean, like everything in the US, if we could fix healthcare, the majority of the problems I have with this would really be non-issues. I mean, it's really not my cup of tea, but who am I to try to control what other humans choose to do to themselves.

Another argument that is also used in respect to the drug war: Making it illegal just creates an black market for it. This much is true, considering Mr. Gunn is the champion of underworld bare knuckle boxing, which is absolutely illegal (at least where I am, assuredly.). So, giving a legal avenue for the business to operate could not only raise tax revenue through say a tax on tickets or somesuch, and would also allow for much more structured and safe bare knuckle boxing.

I mean, not much safer, but let's be real, we've all been reading about how much damage NFL players go through and how fucked it often leaves them. It's not like we don't allow young men to do this in other kinds of sports, just ones that happen to have some absurd pretense that the equipment protects them (which seems to be a theme in American sports). There's a lot of violence in the world. We can't stop it. Maybe it's okay to let these guys use that aggression constructively instead of just trying to make it completely illegal.

Just, you know, maybe make sure they get good healthcare, if nothing else.
posted by deadaluspark at 5:39 PM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


Good idea/bad idea; the thought that this discussion is going on at the same time that a computer is currently wrecking a world-class Go player is, at least: interesting.
posted by alex_skazat at 5:48 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


I could beat a Lenovo ThinkPad in a bare knuckle brawl, easy.
posted by turbid dahlia at 6:01 PM on March 16, 2016 [14 favorites]


Ultimate Fighting Championship superstar Kimbo Slice tweeted to the world that he would fight Gunn in a sanctioned bare-knuckle bout later this year

Surely Kimbo will legitimize the sport.
posted by benzenedream at 6:05 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


the thought that this discussion is going on at the same time that a computer is currently wrecking a world-class Go player is, at least: interesting.

I, too, look forward to the first human vs. robot boxing match.
posted by foobaz at 6:52 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


I have also never been defeat, and maintain my perfect record.

If I ever get in a fight I'm sure that will change real fast.
posted by blue_beetle at 6:58 PM on March 16, 2016


If this reduces the number of swiss-cheesed brains, I'm all for it.
posted by pan at 7:00 PM on March 16, 2016


It's been well established that gloves and head-gear in boxing do little to provide additional safety. They placate the viewers and, in the case of gloves and tape, turn a hand into a bludgeon that can be used without consequence.

So: ban boxing with gloves, too.
posted by oliverburkeman at 7:01 PM on March 16, 2016 [4 favorites]


How does this guy reconcile his argument that this is a great sport which deserves to be legal with his hard line rule that his son will never do it?
posted by the agents of KAOS at 7:07 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


I, too, look forward to the first human vs. robot boxing match.
posted by foobaz


Lee Marvin already did that.
posted by k5.user at 7:08 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


"Sure, the force is spread. That allows you to land orders of magnitude more power punches than you could without gloves."

No, the mass is what allows you to land more powerful blows. That the force is spread means that there would be less pressure than an equivalent force landed in a smaller area. The greater mass is certainly a consideration, but things like location (bareknuckle allows more legal places to hit, even if they may be inadvisably hard), the speed of the punches (more important than the mass in delivering kinetic energy — mv2), and the ability to concentrate force on the knuckles, means that a claim that bareknuckle is safer should be treated with some scrutiny, especially when coupled with the same authority claiming something that's, again, demonstrably false — that there were no bareknuckle boxing deaths in the ring.
posted by klangklangston at 7:11 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


I can't fight worth shit or even follow the action properly but I'm in awe of people who will step into a ring, beyond whatever of protections and safeguards our society tries to provide. The fans look like a nasty, miserable bunch though.
posted by bonobothegreat at 7:14 PM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


ban boxing with gloves, too.

Lots of people die or are injured while climbing mountains, should we ban that as well?
posted by foobaz at 7:21 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


"It's a different beast from boxing," says Danny Batchelder, a pro who also fights in the underground. "It's more pure. The politics ain't in it, the crooked promoters and managers ain't in it, there's no corruption. It's just who's the better fighter that day."

I am sure the money keeps it pure
posted by benzenedream at 7:25 PM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


It's OK dude, whatever makes you feel good about your love of gladiatorial combat without actually referring to it as such. We could give them armor and helmets and shields to placate the audience.
posted by Brocktoon at 7:35 PM on March 16, 2016


Let's just ban any physically rough endeavor that might result in injury. After all, fans of overtly physical sports are "nasty sorts" - they probably cling to their guns and religion, ugh! And they don't count.

Plus, even though fighting sports have been enjoyed by all cultures everywhere in the world at all times, across all social strata, it's those people, not me, who have some kind of psychological problem (they're nasty).

Also, if you think it's possible to hit someone in the face harder with your bare fist than with a 16oz glove then you've obviously done neither.
posted by mrbigmuscles at 7:37 PM on March 16, 2016 [10 favorites]


I say let anyone over twenty-one do whatever the fuck they want, and concentrate on banning high school football. Seriously, there is no end to the stupid and/or dangerous shit people are willing to do, most of it far more ubiquitous than bare-knuckle fighting. The real crime is the fact that we let children kill or cripple themselves before they reach college age.
posted by AdamCSnider at 7:49 PM on March 16, 2016 [7 favorites]


Prize fighting was a step forward from dueling. (Which is why in MA, the same law bans both).

Regulated boxing was thought to be a step forward from prize fighting, but as the comments above indicate, there's a need for more science on that.

This really is a similar issue to drugs, alcohol, and prostitution: it's going to happen. The question is how to regulate it to minimize harm, suffering, and the degradation of our civilization, and the answer will change as circumstances change.
posted by ocschwar at 7:50 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


How about we first segregate the "endeavors" that aren't designed to excplicitly cause injury from those that aren't? We can meet up at Buffalo Wild Wings to discuss.
posted by Brocktoon at 7:50 PM on March 16, 2016


Plus, even though fighting sports have been enjoyed by all cultures everywhere in the world at all times, across all social strata, it's those people, not me, who have some kind of psychological problem (they're nasty).

The fact that certain things have been prevalent or popular across cultures and times is hardly a validating argument. How about slavery? Very popular most everywhere until, you know, we civilized ourselves out of it. And it's still a problem despite national governments' efforts to ban it.

To argue from prevalence or popularity is not the high-percentage shot here. And fighting sports, irrespective of whether individuals enjoy or profit from them, are still brutal reductions of humanity to its basest. So, not a lot of rationale that I can see beyond "I like what I like."
posted by the sobsister at 8:05 PM on March 16, 2016


Fighting can be one of the most exhilarating experiences possible, it's certainly base, but so is fucking.
posted by Ferreous at 8:23 PM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


Brocktoon: "It's OK dude, whatever makes you feel good about your love of gladiatorial combat without actually referring to it as such."

Are you actually responding to something someone said, or are you addressing a hypothetical "dude"?
posted by Bugbread at 8:43 PM on March 16, 2016


If I remember correctly, bare-knuckle boxing was replaced with modern boxing for a reason; you didn't have as much CTE (which they didn't know about) but you have a whole lot of fractured bones and disfiguring-type injuries, and people did die fairly commonly. I'm pretty sure you can fracture someone's skull with a punch, and there's a lot of the facial bones where pretty bad things can happen if they break.

I would lean toward keeping it banned, at least as a official sanctioned sport.
posted by Mitrovarr at 8:44 PM on March 16, 2016


To all you folks who are against boxing, how do you feel about other martial arts that involve sparring? For example, kung fu, fencing, kickboxing, and wrestling.

I grew up participating in such sports, and sparring with my friends, and saw it as a fun and friendly competitive activity. I'm too old for such shenanigans these days but I enjoy watching fights and experiencing it vicariously. These bare-knuckle guys are certainly taking it to an extreme, and I wouldn't want to participate in something like that myself, but I don't see it as qualitatively different.

I guess my question is, are you happy with the law as it is right now, banning bare-knuckle boxing? This guy is asking for something dangerous to be legalized, and if you are simply arguing to keep the status quo, I can understand that position.

Or do you want to take it farther, and ban other sports as well? If so, where do you draw the line? Would you ban children's karate, college wrestling, and women's self-defense classes? What separates "good" sparring from "bad" sparring to you?
posted by foobaz at 8:59 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


What separates "good" sparring from "bad" sparring to you?

CTE and long term brain injury/disability that can't be prevented.

I'd probably have them all examined, and only get rid of the really bad ones (or limit them somehow to make them less dangerous). I simply haven't heard of the kind of long term brain damage you hear about happening to professional boxers routinely happening to fighters in those other fields. Some of them are obviously better (I don't see how that can possibly happen in fencing or wrestling, for example) and you'd have to look into the others.

Even in the worst ones, like regular boxing, you'd probably only have to eliminate the pro circuit and maybe establish some rules for the upper end of the amateur one to eliminate much of the problem.
posted by Mitrovarr at 9:08 PM on March 16, 2016


Gunn rules the circuit, a nationwide underground network of pro boxers, mixed martial arts fighters, and accomplished street brawlers...

I dunno, I liked the sport a lot more before the fight management was taken over by Shadaloo.
posted by happyroach at 9:32 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


you'd probably only have to eliminate the pro circuit and maybe establish some rules for the upper end of the amateur one

If you want to focus on the top end of the sport, perhaps the fighting itself is not what you object to, but the commercialization of it. We have a lot of laws on the books to protect workers, like OSHA. It is legal for me to stand on the top rung of a ladder while cleaning my gutters. Stupid perhaps, but not criminal. But it is not legal for me to pay someone to stand on the top rung of the ladder.

Does it make sense to think of this as a workers' rights issue? That would explain why people in this thread are comparing boxing to gladiator games. They are focusing on the spectacle, as if the problem is not the fight itself, but rather using a fight for entertainment.
posted by foobaz at 9:49 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


foobaz: "They are focusing on the spectacle, as if the problem is not the fight itself, but rather using a fight for entertainment."

I think you have something there. I am mildly opposed to boxing, and yet I do full-contact karate. I've considered the inconsistency there to be largely due to the fact that you can punch people in the head in boxing but not in the full-contact karate I do, but that doesn't stand up to close examination because you are allowed to kick people in the head in full-contact. So I've largely been confused about my own opinions on the subject. But thinking about it from your angle: sure, I do karate and I have karate done unto me. But there's little to zero spectatorship. Even at tournaments, the audience are all family members and people from the same dojo and the like -- in other words, supporters with personal connections, not fans. That may be why the tournaments I've seen haven't given me the same ick factor that boxing matches do. Gotta think about it a bit more.
posted by Bugbread at 10:01 PM on March 16, 2016 [2 favorites]


If you want to focus on the top end of the sport, perhaps the fighting itself is not what you object to, but the commercialization of it. We have a lot of laws on the books to protect workers, like OSHA. It is legal for me to stand on the top rung of a ladder while cleaning my gutters. Stupid perhaps, but not criminal. But it is not legal for me to pay someone to stand on the top rung of the ladder.

Does it make sense to think of this as a workers' rights issue? That would explain why people in this thread are comparing boxing to gladiator games. They are focusing on the spectacle, as if the problem is not the fight itself, but rather using a fight for entertainment.


Commercialization happens both ways, though. The existence of these sports as highly commercialized and profitable events promotes "getting concussions" as a career, causing massive irreversible injury both to the people who make it to the big leagues and those who try and fail. They're not fighting and taking acceptable risks for fun, they're fighting and taking necessary risks to get paid.
posted by kafziel at 10:40 PM on March 16, 2016


That's exactly what foobaz is saying, isn't it?
posted by Bugbread at 11:05 PM on March 16, 2016


If you want to focus on the top end of the sport, perhaps the fighting itself is not what you object to, but the commercialization of it.

You know, it's not the commercialization of it, it's just that some things are ok to do a little bit, but not to the extreme. I have a co-worker who boxes. He just goes to a local gym, trains, and spars some other locals. He really likes it, and I don't think he's in danger of long-term brain damage or CTE. I wouldn't want to take that away from him. But on the other hand, a professional boxer is virtually guaranteed to have CTE occur. So, I do want to stop that.
posted by Mitrovarr at 11:21 PM on March 16, 2016


Needs more orangutan.
posted by biffa at 11:59 PM on March 16, 2016 [1 favorite]


You know, it's not the commercialization of it, it's just that some things are ok to do a little bit, but not to the extreme.

Well the commercialization is a big part of what makes people do it a whole lot, especially people who do it past the point where they even really want to be doing it. I mean the obvious answer to this:

So, not a lot of rationale that I can see beyond "I like what I like."

is - no, the rationale is that people have a right to participate in dangerous recreational activities if they want to. But professional fighting sports complicate that. On the other hand there's maybe a harm reduction argument to be made that this is a preferable state of affairs to unlicensed professional fighting. Or maybe the problem is, you know, capitalism as a whole.

Honestly though I generally tend to defend fighting sports the people I know who actually participate are mostly doing stuff like BJJ or other grappling which is not on same level for damage done to participants. Boxing sounds fun in concept - except for the part where you get punched in the face a thousand times, which is to say boxing doesn't really sound that fun to me.
posted by atoxyl at 12:49 AM on March 17, 2016


Mitrovarr, a professional boxer is not "virtually guaranteed" to have CTE, and your friend, like judo players and karate fighters, is in danger of long-term brain damage. Risks are not so easily calculable.

I'm in favor of limits to fighting sports, but the more I hear from this crowd, the more I'm sure I don't want people unfamiliar with fighting to make the regulations.

The parallels that are interesting to me are the ones that put the athlete in the same socio-economic grouping as the critics. It's easy to ban a sport you have no interest in and that none of your friends do, like football or MMA. But what of rock climbing—should your friends be allowed to risk losing fingers to frostbite? concussion? death? just to get on top of some mountain? Am I, a computer programmer, allowed to risk my knee ligaments for judo? Do you ski?

When I think about regulating a sport that people want to do but that is risky, I try to keep in mind the chapter On Laws of Khalil Gibran's The Prophet.
[What of those] to whom life is a rock, and the law a chisel with which they would carve in it their own likeness?
What of the cripple who hates dancers?
What shall I say of these save that they too stand in the sunlight, but with their backs to the sun? They see only their shadows, and their shadows are their laws.
Please, even if we're going to regulate these things, try to keep present in your mind that other people are not you. I do not want to bareknuckle box. It is too dangerous for me. But other people are okay with that danger, and their body is theirs. Should we keep an eye on it to prevent exploitation, and a stern regulatory hand to minimize injury and death? Yes. But to cavalierly ban it because you don't want to do it yourself is nothing but disgusting.
posted by daveliepmann at 12:51 AM on March 17, 2016 [5 favorites]


"I don't know if bareknuckle boxing is safer, so I didn't say it was, but I do know that the intention of the Queensberry rules and gloves were to make fights more exciting, i.e. more knockouts. Gloves and vaseline allow the head to be targeted with fewer cut stoppages and broken hands."

You "know it" because that's what was stated in the article.

But if you know very much about the history of boxing, it doesn't make a ton of sense.

First off, the Queensberry rules didn't make fights more exciting — they made them longer and more defensive, because you could use the gloves to block punches more easily. Contemporary sources describe the matches as taking longer, which isn't what you'd expect from a claim of more knockouts.

Second, the claim of more knockouts being a result of the gloves is dubious since one of the bigger changes the Queensberry rules made was by allowing a real count. Previous to that, it was that a boxer who was knocked down got 30 seconds to recover and would resume the match if they could return to a square in the center of the ring. Which means that the "knock out" post-Queensberry was easier to achieve — instead of a 30-second count, the downed boxer got 10.

Third, it ignores the stated purpose and social context of gloves. Gloves ("mufflers" at first) were introduced as part of a move to make the sport more aristocratic — the stated intention was to avoid injuries to the faces of gentlemen whose character would be thought vulgar if they appeared in public with black eyes or broken jaws. One of the other shifts it correlated with was an ongoing effort to differentiate from "rough-and-tumble" fighting, which was known primarily for its emphasis on eye-gouging. Gloves make that harder. Queensberry rules were primarily to enshrine boxing as a sport, rather than as a human cockfight for gamblers.

There are claims — most vocally from James Cagney — that gloves are what's responsible for "punch-drunk" and CTE, under the same reasoning voiced in the article, but basically the author didn't do that great a job of fact-checking the assertions and so you have a pro-bareknuckle article from a guy who is heavily invested in bareknuckle fighting.
posted by klangklangston at 1:57 AM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


For some context as to how gloved boxing allows one to hit harder, try watching this video of someone getting their hands wrapped for MMA. The proper take-away is to be amazed at just how differently one is able to punch with all that protection.

To think of it as just a glove is a mistake. This massive wrapping process braces the knuckle and wrist joints in place and covers them with hide before we even get into the additional padding and surface area. Boxing and MMA gloves are a way to turn the hands into solid cudgels. This opens up targets and striking angles (most obviously the full-power overhand to the solid skull) that would reliably mean a shattered hand in bareknuckle.

Trying to reason about how this works armed only with high-school physics equations that apply to freely moving inanimate bodies is thoroughly misguided. Boxing is dangerous, bareknuckle and gloved both! But let's understand the dangers rather than relying on intuition.
posted by daveliepmann at 2:04 AM on March 17, 2016 [2 favorites]


First off, the Queensberry rules didn't make fights more exciting — they made them longer and more defensive, because you could use the gloves to block punches more easily.
This is true, but the fact that you can swing way, way harder with gloves is also true, and so is the fact that big swings are more likely to knock someone out.

MoQ rules mean we're also talking about removing wrestling so that it's harder to tie up and avoid punches. And the introduction of a limited number of rounds rather than on-to-infinity "meet the bell" matches is a major change too, tipping the balance away from marathon-like slugfests. These confounding factors mean that particular historical transition is of limited relevance.
posted by daveliepmann at 2:17 AM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


Arguing about the intent of the MoQ rules, from either side, is beside the point; what matters in the context of this discussion is the result.
posted by Bugbread at 7:57 AM on March 17, 2016


Relatedly:
Bare Knuckle Fighting plans to hold a sanctioned bout in May, at an Indian reservation...for safety reasons, fighters will wrap their wrists and hands with tape while still leaving the knuckles exposed
I can't tell if this is moronic or brilliant. The wraps will protect the hands from breaks to a degree, but remain a danger, and I imagine cuts will still be prolific. They get the bloody cachet of "bareknuckle" with some limited allowances for hard swinging. Most damaging of both worlds?
posted by daveliepmann at 8:30 AM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


"I'm a hugger," he'll say, nearly crushing your torso in a full embrace.

ban this kind of hugging imo

same for the dudes who try to crush your hand in a handshake
posted by vibratory manner of working at 10:46 AM on March 17, 2016 [1 favorite]


I've worked out in 16 oz gloves. That was hard work, my punches were definitely slower and had less power behind them. Pro's fighting in 8 oz gloves probably aren't hitting much slower, or with less power than they would be bare knuckle. The gloves do allow them to target the head with shots that they would never throw ungloved and, as a result, boxers getting hit experience more acceleration / deceleration of their head and brain, for longer periods than they would in a bare knuckle fight.
posted by IanMorr at 12:19 PM on March 17, 2016


Make the events legal, ban prize money, put the all fighters of similar ability on the same salary instead. Same with boxing, MMA, etc. The employer must provide amazing health insurance including lifetime cover for brain injury, every fighter must get a full medial check-up after every fight.

If it's purely about the beauty of the sport, the prizes shouldn't matter. If there aren't financial consequences to losing, more bouts would probably end before serious injury occurs. If it's never a way to become rich, it only attracts people who like the fighting, not those who fight only for the money.

There's still a competition, there are still winners, there's still a champion, people would still pay to watch.
posted by foolfilment at 2:20 AM on March 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


Sure, the force is spread. That allows you to land orders of magnitude more power punches than you could without gloves.

And these power punches provide much greater internal damage (most prominently concussions) because they are repeated over and over, shaking the skull and brain. With bare knuckle fighting, the potential risk to the hand is much greater and "full power" is capped at a lower level. Of course, the likelihood of ugly, but less dangerous, superficial injuries is higher - cuts, bruises, lacerations, etc.
posted by theorique at 7:16 AM on March 18, 2016


It's OK dude, whatever makes you feel good about your love of gladiatorial combat without actually referring to it as such. We could give them armor and helmets and shields to placate the audience.

Could we avoid the Nth iteration of "$THING_THAT_YOU_LIKE is bad, and liking it makes you a bad person." Some people think fighting sports are barbaric. We get it. There are other threads for people who don't like fighting sports.
posted by theorique at 7:20 AM on March 18, 2016 [2 favorites]


« Older Cryptowall being served by ads on major sites like...   |   Unproblematica Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments