BBC Sports Personality of the Year

[monnet]

Hatton will win, so long as he puts up a good show against Mayweather (regardless of whether or not he wins). If he beats Mayweather then itwill obviously be a well deserved win.

If, as is more likely, he loses to MAyweather but wins 'Sports Personality' tehn it will leave Calzaghe to rue the fact that Britain rewards its losers rather than its winners, as he did last year.

 

[mondobongo]

A Cyclist did make the last 10 of the Young Sports Personality but alas did not make the final 3. More here

 

[NickM]

...Calzaghe for me by quite some distance.

You consider boxing to be a sport? I'm astonished.

 

[rich p]

Of course boxing is a sport - one of the original pure sports like running and throwing.
Motor racing is clearly not a sport though involving, as it does, an internal combustion engine of differing qualities when the best man can never win if he's in the wrong car. If I want to watch tyre changes and fuel filling I'll pop down to the local Kwikfit

My vote if I was to vote (which I won't) would be Calzaghe or Hatton

 

[NickM]

Oh yes, just like running and throwing... except that they don't result in anybody getting brain damage.

 

[rich p]

Oh yes, just like running and throwing... except that they don't result in anybody getting brain damage.

I didn't say that boxing was 'like' running - I said that it was a pure sport like running. Did you deliberately misunderstand me?

 

[NickM]

You're not arguing that boxers don't get brain damage, then?

 

[gavintc]

You're not arguing that boxers don't get brain damage, then?

When did 'brain damage' become a factor in whether an activity is a sport or not? It is a non-secuitor, like saying running must be excluded because runners are prone to knee injuries.

 

[rich p]

When did 'brain damage' become a factor in whether an activity is a sport or not? It is a non-secuitor, like saying running must be excluded because runners are prone to knee injuries.

Quite so!

 

[NickM]

So there wouldn't be any harm in bringing back gladiatorial combat, then? That would be a sport?

 

[Ghost Donkey]

So there wouldn't be any harm in bringing back gladiatorial combat, then? That would be a sport?

Boxing is a legally governed sport. Boxers usually train as amateurs first and generally do it for the love of the sport. No one makes them do it. Boxers do get brain damage. Others die. This is not common or no one would participate. The only two people at risk are the ones in the ring. They may make it to the top and earn big money but like most sports people generally take up boxing for fun. Pro cyclists occasionally die or suffer massive injuries after a big crash in organised races, thankfully very rarely, but should we ban those? Boxers are at the peak of physical fitness, have massive skill and train very hard to get where they are. I've never boxed but I've done kickboxing and then thai boxing, as do a few others on here by the looks of things. I payed good money to do it and trained hard. If I had more time (kids and stuff) I'd still be thai boxing and giving shoot fighting a go too. I intend to get back into thai boxing when our youngest one starts sleeping through.

 

[NickM]

...Pro cyclists occasionally die or suffer massive injuries after a big crash in organised races...

Is it the objective of any professional cyclist to incapacitate the people he is competing against?

If boxing is OK, then so must gladiatorial combat be, as long as the gladiators do it voluntarily.

 

[Ghost Donkey]

If boxing is OK, then so must gladiatorial combat be, as long as the gladiators do it voluntarily.

If you insist
At the end of the day the object of boxing is to win by knockout or winning rounds by hitting people. Your point about incapacitating people stands as far as I'm concerned but I still love the sport. Gladiatorial combat won't be back as it was more a product of the society it was created in and was used for political reasons as well as entertainment.

Boxing is still a legal and popular sport in this country and looks to be for at least the near future. We won't be agreeing on this subject soon so can I suggest we agree to disagree on this one.

 

[NickM]

Certainly we can agree to disagree. But boxing is a legal and popular activity, not a sport.

 

[Ghost Donkey]

Certainly we can agree to disagree. But boxing is a legal and popular activity, not a sport.

As it's pantomime season "Oh yes it is"

I'll agree to disagree with you on that one too. It requires fitness, skill, there are predetermined winning criteria, there are judges, a referee, governing bodies etc. As far as I'm aware there's no fixed criteria to judge what a is and isn't a sport but boxing also has one of the pre-requisits it seems is needed in any modern sport, egos and a vested financial interest.