all posts post new thread

Other/Mixed Boxing and Brain Damage

Other strength modalities (e.g., Clubs), mixed strength modalities (e.g., combined kettlebell and barbell), other goals (flexibility)
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Yeah, combat sports can involve trauma to multiples parts of the body.

You know every time you see an MMA fighter / Boxer fall down and "spread his arms out"? It's a very distinct motion. Like someone is scaring a child during "peek a boo". That's the body's reaction to brain damage. Happens all the time too. Just watch for it next time you are watching a fight. Sometimes they lay their hands at their sides parallel with their waist.

Basically if someone is at the top or bottom position of a snow angel, with their arms slightly raised off the floor. Brain damage.

You know when a boxer or MMA fighter gets hit so hard that they don't know what happened? Brain damage. losing consciousness during a trauma is an indication that the trauma is rather serious in nature and requires immediate transport to a hospital setting.

Yeah, I can't watch combat sports anymore. Especially MMA or Boxing. Straight up barbaric if you ask me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BKB

Oh my gosh. This is just wrong.

But I think you mean bare knuckle boxing?

Yes, bare knuckle. The fights tend not to run as long, and power shots to the head are far less frequent - tho in general a lot more bloody.

I suspect American football might also experience fewer head trauma if the players went back to a leather open-face helmet and mouth guard or no padding at save for a cup. The padding isn't defensive in most cases, its offensive and greatly increases impact forces. You cannot engineer it out of the game with the way it is currently played.
 
Yes, bare knuckle. The fights tend not to run as long, and power shots to the head are far less frequent - tho in general a lot more bloody.
True, with padding you can throw hay makers with no thought to hand health/bone breaks. Bare knuckle boxing looks bloodier but is actually safer.

There's a whole host of former NFL players suing the NFL over brain injuries.
 
There are a few people who argue that giving up the hard protective gear in favor of soft padding would change the injury potential. I agree, you can’t go flying in to experience the kind of hits we see without the armor. Unfortunately, the NFL is a big business and the customer base wants to see and hear heads crack.

My problem is with the kids. It’s really hard to regulate out what is essentially a big part of the game. I read recently that Thailandis wrestling with this same issue since Muay Thai is such a big part of the culture that it’s very common to start kids training hard at a young age.
 
Those of us from rugby playing countries tend to look at the NFL in horror, as an example of what not to do, as equipment designed to keep players safe actually becomes weaponised in the tackle to the opposite effect.

In risk management it is referred to as moral hazard when a person is free to behave in a way that endangers others because they are protected from the consequences of their own actions. For example studies have shown drivers wearing seat belts drive faster and with less care because they are protected in the event of an accident, shifting the risk of their unsafe driving to other road users including unprotected pedestrians.

The equipment in NFL means players can tackle in ways and with impacts that would be unthinkable if, like in rugby, where players are unarmoured, their primary focus in the tackle had to be to protect themselves. Of course rugby has other player safety rules too, penalising contacts above the shoulder, shoulder charges, lifting etc.

On a related issue headgear is being eliminated in male amateur boxing as studies have shown it increases the incidence of concussion.
 
@ LukeV,
I used to think there would be a big difference, but plenty of studies show no shortage of concussion among rugby players. Also have a lot more spinal injuries.

Honestly I think one of the bigger factors is $. Once you're being paid better to win, you're going to take a lot more risks to do so.
 
Yes, bare knuckle. The fights tend not to run as long, and power shots to the head are far less frequent - tho in general a lot more bloody.

Interestingly in the bare knuckle era fights often went for a very long time indeed (50+ rounds) because headshots were so infrequent due to the disparity between the hardness of the bones of the hand versus the skull. Boxers would slug it out in a bruising war of attrition based on body shots, primarily targeting the heart, with the head shot strictly reserved for the finish of a boxer on his 'last legs', due to the serious risk of a broken hand.
 
I've seen a couple go for quite a few - cannot recall specifics but believe one of Kimbo's fights was pretty long - no rounds though. Yeah, the old time bkb could go insane distances by today's standards.

Many of the ones I've seen on YT end with the first couple of clean shots to the face, usually opening the skin around the eyes.
 
Interestingly in the bare knuckle era fights often went for a very long time indeed (50+ rounds) because headshots were so infrequent due to the disparity between the hardness of the bones of the hand versus the skull. Boxers would slug it out in a bruising war of attrition based on body shots, primarily targeting the heart, with the head shot strictly reserved for the finish of a boxer on his 'last legs', due to the serious risk of a broken hand.

Those stats are a little misleading

Under older rules, a round ended when someone fell down. Considering that those rules also permitted a much wider range of throws and trips...falling down was much easier to achieve

Which isn’t to say there weren’t some long, hard fights, but they weren’t doing 50 modern boxing rounds either
 
I was hearing the other day talk about brain damage on rugby players. We play a lot of rugby here in Argentina.

About NFL, I never fully understood why they use so much gear and play on hard court (right?), being the nature of the sport so similar to rugby. Of course in rugby you cannot collide another player, while in NFL you can, and many impacts come from these collisions I guess.

Contact sports are dangerous and you get hurt. Every Sunday after my Saturday football match I have a new pain that interferes with my life.
 
Those stats are a little misleading. Under older rules, a round ended when someone fell down. Considering that those rules also permitted a much wider range of throws and trips...falling down was much easier to achieve. Which isn’t to say there weren’t some long, hard fights, but they weren’t doing 50 modern boxing rounds either

Yes, sorry, I didn't mean to attribute modern three minute rounds to the bare knuckle boxing era but many bouts went the equivalent of 50 modern rounds in time (2-3+ hours, with the world record reported as 6 hours). With the support of the crowd the fighters could have breaks for food and drink (often beer). It really must have been quite a spectacle
 
Those of us from rugby playing countries tend to look at the NFL in horror, as an example of what not to do, as equipment designed to keep players safe actually becomes weaponised in the tackle to the opposite effect.

In risk management it is referred to as moral hazard when a person is free to behave in a way that endangers others because they are protected from the consequences of their own actions. For example studies have shown drivers wearing seat belts drive faster and with less care because they are protected in the event of an accident, shifting the risk of their unsafe driving to other road users including unprotected pedestrians.

The equipment in NFL means players can tackle in ways and with impacts that would be unthinkable if, like in rugby, where players are unarmoured, their primary focus in the tackle had to be to protect themselves. Of course rugby has other player safety rules too, penalising contacts above the shoulder, shoulder charges, lifting etc.

On a related issue headgear is being eliminated in male amateur boxing as studies have shown it increases the incidence of concussion.
Also you have to look at the origins of Rugby - at it's inception it wasn't played by full time athletes with bodyweights of 200-300lbs who strength training daily/weekly and eat a family's worth of food.

No data to back up but I think overtime the professionalising of rugby in particular has made it a far more brutal and brain 'expensive' sport than it's original creators intended.
 
Rugby went through a stage at the turn of the professional era in the 90s where the point of the game seemed to run over the opposition, players became huge and looked for contact. From what I watch that's changing, players are still big, but rugby has gone back to its roots of trying to avoid contact (most of the time) with ball in hand and looking for space. The tackling is also becoming more technical (as it used to be) rather than just smashing the opponent. Players are still big, but finding space and being technically proficient requires mobility and stamina, rather the lumps of meat slabbed on the frame. NFL I see differently the tacklers are lethal going head and shoulder first, I agree the padding allows players to throw themselves in without concern, like in boxing with huge gloves allowing for more punishment with out the pain of inflicting.
 
Don’t know anything about rugby, but American football changed quite a bit over time. If you watch really old film, you’ll see the blocking and tackling was quite different. With hard protective gear the game has changed. Now the NFL is trying to change the rules for player safety, making an already complicated game worse. I’m not sure they can get that genie back in its bottle. Plus, the gladiatorial violence is what the fan base is paying to see.

Also once read an interesting article on the evolution of an NFL player. As professionalization grew, so did the players. In the older, semi-pro days, you couldn’t really tell players apart by position. They also weren’t that different from average Joes. Now, there is a huge range from lineman to defensive backs.
 
Don’t know anything about rugby, but American football changed quite a bit over time. If you watch really old film, you’ll see the blocking and tackling was quite different. With hard protective gear the game has changed. Now the NFL is trying to change the rules for player safety, making an already complicated game worse. I’m not sure they can get that genie back in its bottle. Plus, the gladiatorial violence is what the fan base is paying to see.

It sounds like old time football is somewhat similar to current (or old time) rugby. Not that much protection, not much size difference between positions.

IMO, one of the most significant differences that makes NFL more violent than rugby, is that in rugby you are not allowed to collide the other player, you always have to have the intention of tackling with your arms. Those strong collisions in NFL are the dangerous ones in my opinion.
 
I like watching American football. I like its turn based pacing, like a chess match. Those pauses between plays make it a little different. I grew up watching it because my dad loves it. But I grew playing “real” football (soccer) since he wouldn’t let me play it.

Those big hits are what people are paying for. I’m fine with adults deciding to take those risks, but it’s hard justify putting kids through that.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom