People often complain about Boxing being a barbaric sport, and wonder how it can be still considered a form of entertainment in this day and age to watch two men essentially try and kill each other. Aren't we supposed to be beyond that, as a species? There are many counter arguments to be made, such as Boxers being about as fine athletes as you can find, and the skills required being immense, and that it is perfectly possible to enjoy boxing on a tactical, skill level. There's some truth to this, but as last night showed, violence is a such massive part of Boxing's fabric that its absence becomes more upsetting than its presence.
The fact of the matter is that when people watch Boxing, they do want to see someone get hurt. As much as one plays up the tactical elements of the sport, or the appreciation of the skills and strategy on offer, it requires that bloodlust to fuel it. In many respects, combat sports are as pure as sport gets - just two men pitting their physical and mental selves against each other in a controlled environment (the controlled conditions of Boxing being the fine line that truly separates it from a street fight). Whilst it is perfectly possible to appreciate Boxing on a tactical, intellectual level, what makes it so compelling is that this chess match of the fists has to be played on the board of primal bloodthirst with the high-stakes currency of human well-being. It's what makes the sport such a high-pressure spectacle. It's no coincidence that at the highest level Boxers receive such insane paydays - they are effectively putting their lives on the line to deliver a spectacle for the masses. As a spectator sport, Boxing relies both on the human urge to see violence and also on the human fear of receiving violence. There's definitely an unedifying, morbid cloud that hangs over the sport of Boxing, but it is this very real sense of danger that makes it so compelling, and removing it takes away the element of fear and worry that it is intrinsically reliant on.
The fact of the matter is that when people watch Boxing, they do want to see someone get hurt. As much as one plays up the tactical elements of the sport, or the appreciation of the skills and strategy on offer, it requires that bloodlust to fuel it. In many respects, combat sports are as pure as sport gets - just two men pitting their physical and mental selves against each other in a controlled environment (the controlled conditions of Boxing being the fine line that truly separates it from a street fight). Whilst it is perfectly possible to appreciate Boxing on a tactical, intellectual level, what makes it so compelling is that this chess match of the fists has to be played on the board of primal bloodthirst with the high-stakes currency of human well-being. It's what makes the sport such a high-pressure spectacle. It's no coincidence that at the highest level Boxers receive such insane paydays - they are effectively putting their lives on the line to deliver a spectacle for the masses. As a spectator sport, Boxing relies both on the human urge to see violence and also on the human fear of receiving violence. There's definitely an unedifying, morbid cloud that hangs over the sport of Boxing, but it is this very real sense of danger that makes it so compelling, and removing it takes away the element of fear and worry that it is intrinsically reliant on.
What makes combat sports so fascinating is that there are often two rulesets operating at once. There's what we shall call the 'sport' ruleset, defined by the rulebook - this is the method of point-scoring through tactical hitting, control of the proceedings, basically all of the things that the judges are supposed to look out for and that you are supposed to do to curry their favour. Then there's what I would call the 'real' ruleset, the parameters of which are defined by human physiology - in which you try to impair the opponent's bodily functions before they can do the same to you (usually by knocking someone out). 'Sport' fighting is generally a defensive way of fighting, a means of tagging the opponent with scoring blows whilst simultaneously avoiding damage yourself. It's an effective method because history of organized sport has taught us that if equally talented opponents of attacking and defensive mindsets meet, the defensive side will more often win. It's for the simple reason that good offense is reliant on perfect execution, whilst good defense is reliant on spoiling exection, and by-and-large it's easier to prevent perfection than it is to achieve it. Whilst these two rulesets are operating at the same time, the 'real' ruleset is the overriding one - after all, it's harder to use the 'sport' mindset when your 'real' mindset is damaged, and if you're knocked out in the 12th round despite clearly being ahead on the scorecards, you've still lost - just ask Jermain Taylor.
Because it is the more 'objective' way of winning a fight, people prefer to watch Boxing matches and fighters that play by the 'real' ruleset than they do with the 'sport' ruleset. It's the reason why Mike Tyson was so awe-inspiring, and yet Klitschko is considered boring even though their reigns at the top have been similar in length and their quality of opponent not really that dissimilar. Tyson tried to kill, Klitschko tried to win. It's the reason that people love Manny Pacquiao in a way that they will never love Floyd Mayweather - Pacman is a force of nature who whirlwinds his opponents into submission (not recently though, sigh) and Mayweather is a master tactician who picks his spots and is basically impossible to hit. To put it another way, those who operate by the 'real' ruleset are fighters, going for the kill, whilst those who operate under the 'sport' ruleset are boxers, using skill to play the rules to their advantage. People prefer fighters to boxers, but boxers should really beat fighters. Of course, what's actually best is when both rulesets operate at once, when fighters become boxers, having to use their skill to inflict damage and to avoid taking it on, having to use their skills to survive the uncompromising nature of battle.
Both men went into last night's fight talking about knocking the other guy out, and whilst this is completely standard practice within combat sports, it felt like they both meant it and that it was a real possibility that this would be determined under the 'real' ruleset, especially since there was a lot of talk about the combination of deadly power and weak chins that both fighters seemed to possess. Neither fighter wanted to get involved in that on a consistent basis - both were far too aware of both their opponent's strengths and their own weaknesses. Instead, it quickly devolved into both fighters trying to hit-and-run, with Haye in particular becoming far too reliant on an unlikely theoretical super-shot. People came hoping to see a fight, and they saw a (one-sided) boxing match instead.
For Boxing to truly hit the heights it can as a spectacle, it needs that very real threat of violence to make itself apparent. It requires someone to at least try to get the match going in the 'fighting' paradigm as well as the 'boxing' one. For example, last week Felix Sturm and Matthew Macklin took part in a Middleweight world title fight, and although it went to a decision, and although no-one had to get off the canvas, it was a much more compelling bout because it turned into a complete war of attrition as the two men went tete-a-tete and basically tried to uppercut each other into next week. It was a far less tactical affair, but both fighters were clearly willing to lay it all on the line. They came to fight as well as to box. Last night, though both fighters talked a good game, they ended up in a slow boxing match. They held back from fighting for the most part. Going to fight instead of to box often leaves you vulnerable to counter-hitting, and with both men wary of their opponent's power, both decided that the binary nature of going out to fight was a low-percentage strategy for success - either they got the knockout or they got knocked out. Both decided that they would take their chances in the 'sport' paradigm, pretty much turning their back on the 'fight' paradigm, which made it so much more irritating when they did have their few periods of engagement. It is this that upset people so much - it's perfectly acceptable to choose to 'box' as long as you at least try to 'fight'. Sturm and Macklin did, Haye and Klitcshko didn't.
The 'spor't ruleset is there in case the 'real' ruleset doesn't work. The judges are essentially there as a backup method of determining a winner. I'm not a fan of any sport that involves judges because I prefer to see objective measures of victory, but there are times that they simply are necessary. The fact of the matter is that the 'real' ruleset is very much a binary concept - either it works, or it doesn't. This is what made last night's fight so frustrating. Haye must have known there was little way he was going to win via the judges - Wlad has too good a jab, too much of a reach advantage, and was fighting on his turf. Haye must've known he needed to go for the knockout, or at the very least drag Wlad into a slugfest. It never happened. Instead, he tried a counter-punching gameplan that could not work because Wlad threw jabs at an alarming rate, repeatedly forcing Haye out of range and meaning he had to resort to superman punches that Wlad saw coming a mile off and avoided accordingly, resulting in Haye slipping and hitting the canvas a farcical number of times. Instead of trading bombs, it felt more like watching Scrappy Doo being held off at arms length by the Monster of the Week. In 'real' terms the fight was probably even, and it's possible that Haye even did more damage, but it was nowhere near enough to force the bout into the 'real' paradigm. Haye failed in that regard, and he certainly failed in the 'sport' paradigm. Had Haye managed to force the 'sport' to become 'real' then we may not be feeling so angry with him right now, but the real upsetting thing is that he didn't really even try even though it was his most likely path to victory.
It's completely disingenuous to claim that the violence isn't a massive part of Boxing's appeal. It's this threat of violence, and perhaps more importantly the fact that Boxers have the guts to try and perform with the threat of violence hanging over them, that makes Boxing such a compelling sport. Seeing someone come back from the adversity of violence to record victory is one of the most thrilling things you can see in the sporting arena, and it is because it is coloured with the very real notion of violence that everyone can relate to. If last night had ended in a stoppage, I doubt so many people would be feeling soured by the whole experience today. Boxing works as a sport because it is governed by the very real ruleset of human frailty. Two men last night, after talking up and stirring up the primal urgings of the 'real' ruleset, quickly settled into only obeying the 'sport' ruleset. After promising to inflict violence, both fighters quickly resorted to avoiding it instead, and in the process forgo the need to create it. That's why everyone's so pissed off this morning - because nobody got hurt.
Because it is the more 'objective' way of winning a fight, people prefer to watch Boxing matches and fighters that play by the 'real' ruleset than they do with the 'sport' ruleset. It's the reason why Mike Tyson was so awe-inspiring, and yet Klitschko is considered boring even though their reigns at the top have been similar in length and their quality of opponent not really that dissimilar. Tyson tried to kill, Klitschko tried to win. It's the reason that people love Manny Pacquiao in a way that they will never love Floyd Mayweather - Pacman is a force of nature who whirlwinds his opponents into submission (not recently though, sigh) and Mayweather is a master tactician who picks his spots and is basically impossible to hit. To put it another way, those who operate by the 'real' ruleset are fighters, going for the kill, whilst those who operate under the 'sport' ruleset are boxers, using skill to play the rules to their advantage. People prefer fighters to boxers, but boxers should really beat fighters. Of course, what's actually best is when both rulesets operate at once, when fighters become boxers, having to use their skill to inflict damage and to avoid taking it on, having to use their skills to survive the uncompromising nature of battle.
Both men went into last night's fight talking about knocking the other guy out, and whilst this is completely standard practice within combat sports, it felt like they both meant it and that it was a real possibility that this would be determined under the 'real' ruleset, especially since there was a lot of talk about the combination of deadly power and weak chins that both fighters seemed to possess. Neither fighter wanted to get involved in that on a consistent basis - both were far too aware of both their opponent's strengths and their own weaknesses. Instead, it quickly devolved into both fighters trying to hit-and-run, with Haye in particular becoming far too reliant on an unlikely theoretical super-shot. People came hoping to see a fight, and they saw a (one-sided) boxing match instead.
For Boxing to truly hit the heights it can as a spectacle, it needs that very real threat of violence to make itself apparent. It requires someone to at least try to get the match going in the 'fighting' paradigm as well as the 'boxing' one. For example, last week Felix Sturm and Matthew Macklin took part in a Middleweight world title fight, and although it went to a decision, and although no-one had to get off the canvas, it was a much more compelling bout because it turned into a complete war of attrition as the two men went tete-a-tete and basically tried to uppercut each other into next week. It was a far less tactical affair, but both fighters were clearly willing to lay it all on the line. They came to fight as well as to box. Last night, though both fighters talked a good game, they ended up in a slow boxing match. They held back from fighting for the most part. Going to fight instead of to box often leaves you vulnerable to counter-hitting, and with both men wary of their opponent's power, both decided that the binary nature of going out to fight was a low-percentage strategy for success - either they got the knockout or they got knocked out. Both decided that they would take their chances in the 'sport' paradigm, pretty much turning their back on the 'fight' paradigm, which made it so much more irritating when they did have their few periods of engagement. It is this that upset people so much - it's perfectly acceptable to choose to 'box' as long as you at least try to 'fight'. Sturm and Macklin did, Haye and Klitcshko didn't.
The 'spor't ruleset is there in case the 'real' ruleset doesn't work. The judges are essentially there as a backup method of determining a winner. I'm not a fan of any sport that involves judges because I prefer to see objective measures of victory, but there are times that they simply are necessary. The fact of the matter is that the 'real' ruleset is very much a binary concept - either it works, or it doesn't. This is what made last night's fight so frustrating. Haye must have known there was little way he was going to win via the judges - Wlad has too good a jab, too much of a reach advantage, and was fighting on his turf. Haye must've known he needed to go for the knockout, or at the very least drag Wlad into a slugfest. It never happened. Instead, he tried a counter-punching gameplan that could not work because Wlad threw jabs at an alarming rate, repeatedly forcing Haye out of range and meaning he had to resort to superman punches that Wlad saw coming a mile off and avoided accordingly, resulting in Haye slipping and hitting the canvas a farcical number of times. Instead of trading bombs, it felt more like watching Scrappy Doo being held off at arms length by the Monster of the Week. In 'real' terms the fight was probably even, and it's possible that Haye even did more damage, but it was nowhere near enough to force the bout into the 'real' paradigm. Haye failed in that regard, and he certainly failed in the 'sport' paradigm. Had Haye managed to force the 'sport' to become 'real' then we may not be feeling so angry with him right now, but the real upsetting thing is that he didn't really even try even though it was his most likely path to victory.
It's completely disingenuous to claim that the violence isn't a massive part of Boxing's appeal. It's this threat of violence, and perhaps more importantly the fact that Boxers have the guts to try and perform with the threat of violence hanging over them, that makes Boxing such a compelling sport. Seeing someone come back from the adversity of violence to record victory is one of the most thrilling things you can see in the sporting arena, and it is because it is coloured with the very real notion of violence that everyone can relate to. If last night had ended in a stoppage, I doubt so many people would be feeling soured by the whole experience today. Boxing works as a sport because it is governed by the very real ruleset of human frailty. Two men last night, after talking up and stirring up the primal urgings of the 'real' ruleset, quickly settled into only obeying the 'sport' ruleset. After promising to inflict violence, both fighters quickly resorted to avoiding it instead, and in the process forgo the need to create it. That's why everyone's so pissed off this morning - because nobody got hurt.
No comments:
Post a Comment