WAMT....what annoyed me today!

[JohnC6]

Our society is based on market forces. They are paid what the market determines. That's it.

Bread, circuses and the market.

God has nothing to do with it.

Yes..I know all about market forces and renumeration but it doesn't make it ethical. That was my point

By the way. Have you not seen my posts regarding religion ? No need to point out or reassure me that a god has nothing to do with it...

Wail till baloo and a few others of a like mind see that comment...

 

[simon ess]

What is ethics and who decides what is ethical?

I may have seen your posts about religion but, as I've said before, I'm not interested in wading through lengthy essays on an internet forum so may have missed your point.

Perhaps you think a forum like this is like some sort of soap opera where people are interested in what a character has said in previous episodes.

It's not.

I don't understand your comments about baloo and others.

My views are my views.

 

[Nod]

I blame boxing gloves. If bare knuckles were brought back in, people wouldn't get hit so hard.

 

[Cobra]

WAMT?
I've seen a few adverts recently, with that fat little Tenor, advertising car insurance,
and how its likely to be cheaper this year.
Lying little sod!

I've just had my renewal through its gone up 50% !
Nothing has changed at all for years....
Last year it went up 3 quid, so I didn't bother, but this year,
I guess its time to go speak to the Meerkat.

 

[cambsno]

I wasn't sure whether to post this here or in WBMT. I've opted for this thread.

On Saturday there was a high profile boxing match between the reigning heavy-weight champion Tyson 'Gypsy King' Fury..an apt name..and Dillian Whyte . The fight was stopped by the referee in the 6th round as he considered that Whyte, having suffered a very powerful uppercut knocking him down to the canvas and rendering him semi-conscious, was unfit to continue the fight because when he got up (just about) he was left staggering around. Fury was declared the winner to rapturous cheering and clapping by his supporters amongst the 94,000 spectators. I had to remind myself that it's the UK in 2022 not the Colosseum in Rome 80AD.

Each round lasted 3 minutes so the combatants boxed for 17 minutes. For that Fury collected £26.2 million. Whyte collected £5.8 million. My opinion is that there's something wrong with the values of society when these levels of renumeration (prize money) can be achieved for spending 17 minutes attempting to hit an opponent so hard it causes brain trauma.

By the way, I'm sure that Jesus, a gentle, compassionate man, by all accounts, who concerned himself with the welfare of others, would not have taken too kindly to Fury's comments after his declared victory.

“I came, I saw and I conquered"

“Thank you Wembley, We Made History!

“God Bless You All, My Family and My Team. All Glory Be To My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.”

He obviously did have his god on his side. Prior to the fight he'd said:

"I will be leaving every ounce of strength and energy I have in my body in the ring on Saturday night. The rest of it is God’s will"

No, its just that you have no interest in these things - like many people cant believe i would spend over 1k on a lens, let alone those that spend 5k plus on a Leica body and the same again on a lens. Each to their own, its entertainment, if you like it watch it, if you dont then do something else.

You assumption is also like Karen on FB who cant understand why someone would charge over 2k for a few hours wedding photography. Yes, you may be there for just 4 hours, but you have the planning, PP, delivery, not to mention initial training and kit etc... These guys train for months on end, employ a whole team of medical experts and dieticians, coaches etc... so no different to the likes of Lewis Hamilton burning a few hundred litres of unleaded!

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

No, its just that you have no interest in these things

Which doesn't mean he can't hold an opinion based on his general viewpoint.

 

[woof woof]

The local doctors surgery.

My mother takes a lot of medication and they've changed procedures and of course they kept it all a big secret. No consultation, no notification, just implementation and of course when questioned there are no answers to obvious (to me) questions that need answers.

Deep sigh. I can't say I'm surprised as my/our recent dealings with the good old health service have tended to be... disappointing.

They could say they're hard pressed with staffing and covid but it takes a lot to explain and a lot of accepting. No email, no phone call, no letter, no notice in the surgery. Nothing. They found the time to have meetings and come up with a new procedure and implement it though.

A written complaint will go in but I expect to be stonewalled or perhaps banned as I've heard that can happen if you dare to complain.

They seemed shocked when I refused to complain by email and said I'd be complaining in writing. Why? Because when I've sent you an email in the past you've said that you haven't seen it. The wording tells me this is their standard and prepared reply, note they don't say they never got it, only that they haven't seen it. They could just bin the letter I suppose. Grrrrr.

I have zero expectations of getting anywhere with this.

 

[Nod]

CC complaint e-mails to ascending levels rather than just the surgery.

 

[JohnC6]

No, its just that you have no interest in these things - like many people cant believe i would spend over 1k on a lens, let alone those that spend 5k plus on a Leica body and the same again on a lens. Each to their own, its entertainment, if you like it watch it, if you dont then do something else.

You assumption is also like Karen on FB who cant understand why someone would charge over 2k for a few hours wedding photography. Yes, you may be there for just 4 hours, but you have the planning, PP, delivery, not to mention initial training and kit etc... These guys train for months on end, employ a whole team of medical experts and dieticians, coaches etc... so no different to the likes of Lewis Hamilton burning a few hundred litres of unleaded!

I've now had time to respond to your post after checking on the so-called prize money for competitors in other sports that involve individual participants rather than teams because your justification of Tyson Fury's £28.2 million payout was on the grounds of his rigorous training regime and expenses. I'm more inclined to think it's the revenue from spectators at the venue and TV rights worldwide including pay per view.

Professional tennis players at the top of their game like Federer and Djokovich.

Prize money for the likes of an Open is £2-3million. They also train hard, the expenses are pretty much the same as for boxers like Fury.


Golf: 2021 renumeration rates.

Masters $11.5 million
PGA Championships $12 million/ $2.16 milli
US Open $12.5 million/ $2.25 Million.

The winner of the Tour Championship gets $15million

Professional photographer..you compared your own profession.

Professional photographers almost certainly hold academic qualifications in photography. They need to buy quality camera/lenses have a studio with specialist lighting and other equipment for portraits You mentioned paying £1000 for a lens. The requirement for a decent computer and software..some specialist software,too, I assume.

Weddings..you mentioned that aspect of your work. Time spent with clients prior to an event.Time putting together a portfolio to show them your previous work..Preparation time on the day. Attendance at the church/registry office and reception and maybe an evening event,too. Time spent processing it all which might include video and producing an album. Liasing with the couple. Many hours of concentrated work. In addition, I assume the cost of insurance should something go wrong because there’s no going back if wedding photos go wrong.It’s a massive responsibility. You quoted £2000. Judging by the quality of your work as set out on your website a not unreasonable fee in my opinion. Re the insurance. Fury and his ilk can cause serious or even permanent brain damage to an opponent and there’s no personal come back. Any claim is made against the organisers or even ,as I've read, in the US..a State.

Tyson Fury’s outlay..Coach...promotor ,medical staff..dieticians which you mentioned ,venue fees and time/effort train ing. Time in ring 17 minutes fighting plus the one minute rest between each of the 5 rounds they went.. Prize money £28.2 million. From what I've read he could pay out 40%-50% of it on those various costs still leaving him with £14 million. Even this pales into insignificance compared to the purse Floyd Mayweather (winner) received after his 2015 victory over Manny Pacquiao . Mayweather $180 million and Pacquiao $120 million. 2017...Mayweather V Conor McGregor. Mayweather (winner) $280 million and McGregor $130 million. So for two major fights Mayweather was paid..$460million.

So, unlike this 'Karen on FB' you disparagingly compared me to as having no insight re the aforementioned I can tell you that I do have a sense of value and looking at the prize money relating to these other categories I've set out, apart from the pro photographer where it's a fee, there's a massive discrepancy.

Can you now see my point ? The reason I posted my original views ? What Tyson Fury and his fellow top flight boxers receive is grossly disproportionate not only for the time spent in competition but in comparison with other sports where a tough training regime is also key to success. I’d go as far as calling those kind of sums obscene especially considering the nature of the sport.

By the way..As AndrewF pointed out to you, not having an interest in a particular matter, sport or otherwise, doesn’t preclude someone from holding an opinion relating to it. I don’t watch boxing because of the views I hold on it which align with the views of the World Medical Association which has called for it to be banned.

No point in taking this any further as we're clearly not going to see eye to eye on it but at least I've set out the reasons for the position I take.

 

[woof woof]

Can you now see my point ? The reason I posted my original views ? What Tyson Fury and his fellow top flight boxers receive is grossly disproportionate not only for the time spent in competition but in comparison with other sports where a tough training regime is also key to success. I’d go as far as calling those kind of sums obscene especially considering the nature of the sport.

I may be wrong but I don't think boxing is actually the most dangerous sport but I suppose what can single it out for criticism is that along with some other sports it involves physical violence, controlled and regulated but still violence rather than something like kicking a ball.

Ignoring the morals and dangers of boxing or any other contact sport I suppose it's a question of supply and demand. People are willing to pay so I suppose the boxers deserve a good percentage.

Earnings per minute wise someone could earn millions by singing a song that lasts 3 minutes or from the sale of an unmade bed. I looked it up, someone paid $3.77M for an unmade bed. Looking at Tracey Emin's bed I can't begrudge Tyson Fury a penny of his earnings no matter how short the bout.

PS.
I just Googled dangerous sports and mountaineering came first followed by boxing and MMA. Fair enough. I was amazed to see cheerleading come in at No.14. Who'd have thought it?

 

[cambsno]

I may be wrong but I don't think boxing is actually the most dangerous sport but I suppose what can single it out for criticism is that along with some other sports it involves physical violence, controlled and regulated but still violence rather than something like kicking a ball.

Ignoring the morals and dangers of boxing or any other contact sport I suppose it's a question of supply and demand. People are willing to pay so I suppose the boxers deserve a good percentage.

Earnings per minute wise someone could earn millions by singing a song that lasts 3 minutes or from the sale of an unmade bed. I looked it up, someone paid $3.77M for an unmade bed. Looking at Tracey Emin's bed I can't begrudge Tyson Fury a penny of his earnings no matter how short the bout.

PS.
I just Googled dangerous sports and mountaineering came first followed by boxing and MMA. Fair enough. I was amazed to see cheerleading come in at No.14. Who'd have thought it?

Exactly - Noddy Holder earns 500k a year for a certain song recorded some 50 years ago. Now while that amount probably grows each year, so does what it can buy. Fag packet maths, but 500k x 50 years is 25m. Not bad for a few days work!

 

[cambsno]

Bloody County Council!!!

Off our local busway (there is a great cycle / pedestrian path that runs alongside) there is a track to a village over a mile away. Cant remember what it was like before (think just old grass) so they put tarmac style stuff down so it was great to bike on.

Recently they have changed this to gravel, due to a few horse riders complaining it was bad for the horses. In the reasoning, they apparently consulted some horse authority so while its now better for horses it now not usable for people with mobility issues or cyclists (especially kids). Some of this was down to it being a comprimise (?), really, so you alienate the majority on bikes for a minority on horse) and that fact that tarmac can be slippy in the winter (and gravel is slippy all year round)!!!

Cant decide if corrupt or just stupid!!

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

so you alienate the majority on bikes for a minority on horse)

...both groups being a tiny minority next to pedestrians and, when on the roads, drivers.
But, hey ho! We mustn't disadvantage the minority so we disadvantage everyone else!

 

[Jannyfox]

Bloody County Council!!!

Off our local busway (there is a great cycle / pedestrian path that runs alongside) there is a track to a village over a mile away. Cant remember what it was like before (think just old grass) so they put tarmac style stuff down so it was great to bike on.

Recently they have changed this to gravel, due to a few horse riders complaining it was bad for the horses. In the reasoning, they apparently consulted some horse authority so while its now better for horses it now not usable for people with mobility issues or cyclists (especially kids). Some of this was down to it being a comprimise (?), really, so you alienate the majority on bikes for a minority on horse) and that fact that tarmac can be slippy in the winter (and gravel is slippy all year round)!!!

Cant decide if corrupt or just stupid!!

From my long-ago experience of riding horses and stones in their hooves I wouldn't have thought gravel the best choice?

 

[cambsno]

...both groups being a tiny minority next to pedestrians and, when on the roads, drivers.
But, hey ho! We mustn't disadvantage the minority so we disadvantage everyone else!

Motorised (tractors aside) vehicles are not allowed to use it, and there is little difference for pedestrians between tarmac and gravel (unless you happen to be a wheelchair user, or a runner). So basically its been adapted for horses (minority) at the expense of cyclists.

 

[JohnC6]

I may be wrong but I don't think boxing is actually the most dangerous sport but I suppose what can single it out for criticism is that along with some other sports it involves physical violence, controlled and regulated but still violence rather than something like kicking a ball.

Ignoring the morals and dangers of boxing or any other contact sport I suppose it's a question of supply and demand. People are willing to pay so I suppose the boxers deserve a good percentage.

Earnings per minute wise someone could earn millions by singing a song that lasts 3 minutes or from the sale of an unmade bed. I looked it up, someone paid $3.77M for an unmade bed. Looking at Tracey Emin's bed I can't begrudge Tyson Fury a penny of his earnings no matter how short the bout.

PS.
I just Googled dangerous sports and mountaineering came first followed by boxing and MMA. Fair enough. I was amazed to see cheerleading come in at No.14. Who'd have thought it?

Alan..You've missed the point when you're looking for the most dangerous sports.

Boxing is the only sport that I'm aware of where the aim is to deliberately land blows..the harder the better... on your opponent and the ultimate aim is to land a knockout blow which is a euphemism for 'to render unconscious'. Footballers have suffered concussion, so have rugby players but that's not the essence of the sport. They are contact sports so injuries are going to happen. Infact, there's a lot of concern about persistent heading of the ball in football. One solution put forward to is drastically reduce heading during training.

Re your point regarding winnings. Top flight boxers negotiate a percentage of overall takings and from what I've read the promotor gets 45%. Tv/cable 10%.Obviously the best position to be in is promotor.... 45% of takings and no injuries.

 

[JohnC6]

Exactly - Noddy Holder earns 500k a year for a certain song recorded some 50 years ago. Now while that amount probably grows each year, so does what it can buy. Fag packet maths, but 500k x 50 years is 25m. Not bad for a few days work!

Can't let you get away with that one.

Noddy Holder £25 million over 50 years ?? Tyson Fury got £28.2 million in 17 minutes.

 

[cambsno]

Can't let you get away with that one.

Noddy Holder £25 million over 50 years ?? Tyson Fury got £28.2 million in 17 minutes.

Not to fight at the top level, you need years of training. Any of us (with luck) could write a song worth millions in 30 mins. To be the best boxer in the world takes years of training, fights and fitness. Just like a wedding tog doesn't get paid for 1 hour of formals. Fury has probably boxed for say 10 years to get to this moment.

 

[Nod]

Bloody County Council!!!

Off our local busway (there is a great cycle / pedestrian path that runs alongside) there is a track to a village over a mile away. Cant remember what it was like before (think just old grass) so they put tarmac style stuff down so it was great to bike on.

Recently they have changed this to gravel, due to a few horse riders complaining it was bad for the horses. In the reasoning, they apparently consulted some horse authority so while its now better for horses it now not usable for people with mobility issues or cyclists (especially kids). Some of this was down to it being a comprimise (?), really, so you alienate the majority on bikes for a minority on horse) and that fact that tarmac can be slippy in the winter (and gravel is slippy all year round)!!!

Cant decide if corrupt or just stupid!!

Might be worth checking the definitive map to see if it's a footpath or a bridleway. However, if it's a footpath, there shouldn't be bicycles on it either!

 

[JohnC6]

Not to fight at the top level, you need years of training. Any of us (with luck) could write a song worth millions in 30 mins. To be the best boxer in the world takes years of training, fights and fitness. Just like a wedding tog doesn't get paid for 1 hour of formals. Fury has probably boxed for say 10 years to get to this moment.

This is like tennis talking of which, it takes a tennis player years to get to the top, unless it's Emma Radukanu albeit in one competition so far.Same for golfers, swimmers, athletes etc but the prize money, when they reach the top, is nowhere near that for boxers. This is the point I'm making. Alan (WW) said he doesn't begrudge Fury that £28.2 million. I don't begrudge the man his purse money either I just criticise the system that allows it albeit a commercial issue. Top footballers attract spectators and viewers and help clubs win trophies which attract huge sums from the FA and FIFA consequently they get what many see as extortionate amounts of money for..quote.."kicking a ball around" Gareth Bail gets £600,000-650,000 a week,depending on the source of the information and, as you know, has been out of favour at Real Madrid for quite a while so spends most time on the bench. Ronaldo..£510,000... Messi at Barca was on £500,000 a week De Bruyne..£400,000..David De Gea £375,000. So..Ronaldo would get £26 million a year. Fury could make that again..probably more next time in one match.As I mentioned..it's disproportionate.

Do we have any common ground on this ?

 

[The Duke of Bork]

I think you're missing out or discounting quite a few factors here.

First, Fury has to meet all the expenses of his training camps and support staff from his purse.

Second, a top heavyweight can fight only two, perhaps three at a push, times a year. A tennis player can play a tournament every two weeks, so the potential overall annual income is not that different.

Third, the shelf life of a boxer is potentially very limited. He is only ever one punch away from the end of his career. Contrast this with the footballer who will be paid his weekly wage for the duration of his contract - whether he is playing, injured or suspended. There is much more security of income for the footballer.

I'm not a big fan of boxing, or of Fury, but I don't think your arguments hold water.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

As I mentioned..it's disproportionate.

That's the nub of it. There's something utterly obscene about anyone receiving such a large amount when people such as nurses and care workers struggle to feed their children. It seems to me that any argument in favour of these huge incomes comes down to "because we really don't care".

 

[woof woof]

Alan..You've missed the point when you're looking for the most dangerous sports.

Boxing is the only sport that I'm aware of where the aim is to deliberately land blows..the harder the better... on your opponent and the ultimate aim is to land a knockout blow which is a euphemism for 'to render unconscious'. Footballers have suffered concussion, so have rugby players but that's not the essence of the sport. They are contact sports so injuries are going to happen. Infact, there's a lot of concern about persistent heading of the ball in football. One solution put forward to is drastically reduce heading during training.

Re your point regarding winnings. Top flight boxers negotiate a percentage of overall takings and from what I've read the promotor gets 45%. Tv/cable 10%.Obviously the best position to be in is promotor.... 45% of takings and no injuries.

If you read my post you must have missed the bit where I made a specific mention of physical violence. In that respect things like boxing and MMA do stand out from the crowd as in other sports injuries are perhaps more of a by-product rather than being a more or less predictable turn of events. I made that very clear.

From googling I saw that boxing is No.2 on the danger list but curiously linked to MMA. I'm sure I read something similar a while back and boxing was further down the list but I may be wrong or linking it to MMA which wasn't such a thing years ago might have moved the two combined up the list. I don't know. Also, some could disagree with you on the ultimate aim being to knock out an opponent out but this is I suppose hair splitting.

Boxing is a legal thing and there are boxing clubs everywhere. You or I may not like that but for now at least boxing is legal. As to the money, I really don't see your point. As I pointed out above some make huge amounts of money from other sport and non sport activities and yes if we look hard enough we can possibly find reason to criticise and even condemn all sorts of activity and obscene amounts of money but today it comes down to legality and market forces. Boxing is a legal activity which for some boxers includes "earning" a lot of money because people are willing to pay and those market forces count for all involved. ie. Ditto promoters. I assume it's a job not everyone can do and thus market forces take effect and they earn a lot. Such are legal activities and market forces.

 

[JohnC6]

If you read my post you must have missed the bit where I made a specific mention of physical violence. In that respect things like boxing and MMA do stand out from the crowd as in other sports injuries are perhaps more of a by-product rather than being a more or less predictable turn of events. I made that very clear.

From googling I saw that boxing is No.2 on the danger list but curiously linked to MMA. I'm sure I read something similar a while back and boxing was further down the list but I may be wrong or linking it to MMA which wasn't such a thing years ago might have moved the two combined up the list. I don't know. Also, some could disagree with you on the ultimate aim being to knock out an opponent out but this is I suppose hair splitting.

Boxing is a legal thing and there are boxing clubs everywhere. You or I may not like that but for now at least boxing is legal. As to the money, I really don't see your point. As I pointed out above some make huge amounts of money from other sport and non sport activities and yes if we look hard enough we can possibly find reason to criticise and even condemn all sorts of activity and obscene amounts of money but today it comes down to legality and market forces. Boxing is a legal activity which for some boxers includes "earning" a lot of money because people are willing to pay and those market forces count for all involved. ie. Ditto promoters. I assume it's a job not everyone can do and thus market forces take effect and they earn a lot. Such are legal activities and market forces.

Have to shoot off be back later. Newcastle v Liverpool just starting which I can watch on TV via my iPad BT Sport.

 

[JohnC6]

That's the nub of it. There's something utterly obscene about anyone receiving such a large amount when people such as nurses and care workers struggle to feed their children. It seems to me that any argument in favour of these huge incomes comes down to "because we really don't care".

Absolutely. I've been trying to get that across to Cambsno without success. Maybe after reading your post he might reconsider. Probably not ,though.

 

[JohnC6]

If you read my post you must have missed the bit where I made a specific mention of physical violence. In that respect things like boxing and MMA do stand out from the crowd as in other sports injuries are perhaps more of a by-product rather than being a more or less predictable turn of events. I made that very clear.

From googling I saw that boxing is No.2 on the danger list but curiously linked to MMA. I'm sure I read something similar a while back and boxing was further down the list but I may be wrong or linking it to MMA which wasn't such a thing years ago might have moved the two combined up the list. I don't know. Also, some could disagree with you on the ultimate aim being to knock out an opponent out but this is I suppose hair splitting.

Boxing is a legal thing and there are boxing clubs everywhere. You or I may not like that but for now at least boxing is legal. As to the money, I really don't see your point. As I pointed out above some make huge amounts of money from other sport and non sport activities and yes if we look hard enough we can possibly find reason to criticise and even condemn all sorts of activity and obscene amounts of money but today it comes down to legality and market forces. Boxing is a legal activity which for some boxers includes "earning" a lot of money because people are willing to pay and those market forces count for all involved. ie. Ditto promoters. I assume it's a job not everyone can do and thus market forces take effect and they earn a lot. Such are legal activities and market forces.

No,I didn't miss your reference to violence. We've just got our wires crossed here. You first reference was to dangerous sports then you mentioned violent sport.

Re MMA..(mixed martial arts) Yes, you are right to link it to MMA, aka cage fighting, which is an extreme form of boxing which should be banned,it has no place in a civilised society but it's still boxing in which violence is perpetrated against a competitor bearing in mind the definition of violence is "The gratuitous use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy."

As you've found, boxing is positioned in different places in a table of dangerous sport. I saw a list of ten where it didn't even feature. At the top was scuba diving- bull fighting/riding-skiing-sky diving-free diving.. etc. Did you know that, on average, 13 boxers die each year as a consequence of injuries suffered in the ring ? Re your point about some disagreeing that a knockout is the prime aim. The two objectives of boxing are to knock out the opponent, before he knocks you out or winning by scoring points.

You say that you don't see the point of my criticism re the money involved. AndrewF has pointed it out. Yes, other sportsmen/women do make a lot of money from their sport but over time not for one event. To ensure I'm on solid ground I've done a lot of checking and a Formula One race can attract a $75million prize but it's for the team. Others include sponsorship deals. You mention the payment (prize money) which is termed by some,including myself as 'obscene amounts of money' and then you say it's justified ..not using that term,I appreciate...on the grounds that it's legal and at the behest of market forces. By the way, I'm not suggesting you agree. That's true but it doesn't mean such massive payments aren't grossly disproportionate or as described by some, including myself, obscene in the greater scheme of things. Fox hunting used to be legal but it didn't make it right. I appreciate there are caveats that still need closing down. Infact, the MMA you mentioned is legal, doesn't make it right.

 

[JohnC6]

I think you're missing out or discounting quite a few factors here.

First, Fury has to meet all the expenses of his training camps and support staff from his purse.

Second, a top heavyweight can fight only two, perhaps three at a push, times a year. A tennis player can play a tournament every two weeks, so the potential overall annual income is not that different.

Third, the shelf life of a boxer is potentially very limited. He is only ever one punch away from the end of his career. Contrast this with the footballer who will be paid his weekly wage for the duration of his contract - whether he is playing, injured or suspended. There is much more security of income for the footballer.

I'm not a big fan of boxing, or of Fury, but I don't think your arguments hold water.

"I think you're missing out or discounting quite a few factors here. First, Fury has to meet all the expenses of his training camps and support staff from his purse.

Would you please read my post 11,809.

Second, a top heavyweight can fight only two, perhaps three at a push, times a year.

The prize money isn't based on that but as I stated in the same post, ticket sales, tv rights and pay per view.

Third, the shelf life of a boxer is potentially very limited. He is only ever one punch away from the end of his career.

Again. Not the reason for the size of the prize money.

Taking all that into consideration my position looks solid enough to me.

 

[The Duke of Bork]

Still don't see your point as to why this particular example is more egregious than many other examples of vastly skewed wealth acquisition that we see in the world around us?

 

[woof woof]

No,I didn't miss your reference to violence. We've just got our wires crossed here. You first reference was to dangerous sports then you mentioned violent sport.

Re MMA..(mixed martial arts) Yes, you are right to link it to MMA, aka cage fighting, which is an extreme form of boxing which should be banned,it has no place in a civilised society but it's still boxing in which violence is perpetrated against a competitor bearing in mind the definition of violence is "The gratuitous use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy."

As you've found, boxing is positioned in different places in a table of dangerous sport. I saw a list of ten where it didn't even feature. At the top was scuba diving- bull fighting/riding-skiing-sky diving-free diving.. etc. Did you know that, on average, 13 boxers die each year as a consequence of injuries suffered in the ring ? Re your point about some disagreeing that a knockout is the prime aim. The two objectives of boxing are to knock out the opponent, before he knocks you out or winning by scoring points.

You say that you don't see the point of my criticism re the money involved. AndrewF has pointed it out. Yes, other sportsmen/women do make a lot of money from their sport but over time not for one event. To ensure I'm on solid ground I've done a lot of checking and a Formula One race can attract a $75million prize but it's for the team. Others include sponsorship deals. You mention the payment (prize money) which is termed by some,including myself as 'obscene amounts of money' and then you say it's justified ..not using that term,I appreciate...on the grounds that it's legal and at the behest of market forces. By the way, I'm not suggesting you agree. That's true but it doesn't mean such massive payments aren't grossly disproportionate or as described by some, including myself, obscene in the greater scheme of things. Fox hunting used to be legal but it didn't make it right. I appreciate there are caveats that still need closing down. Infact, the MMA you mentioned is legal, doesn't make it right.

Yes. But it's market forces. Who are we to say that someone earns too much for too little effort? Who are we to say that grown adults can't indulge in dangerous sports and even direct contact sports because we find it and the money they "earn" morally reprehensible?

I think humans, and I include women in this too as they box and do MMA, have the urge to compete in these contact and even violent sports so what can be done? Ban it and it'll go underground so maybe regulation is the least worst option here.

I'll give an example which always make me wonder.... Man/women gets leg bitten off by shark and declares it wont stop them going back into shark infested waters... I suppose the same applies to boxing and other sports such as rugby when the persons need, or feels a compulsion even, to compete over rides the dangers that they will know exist.

And another thing. I spend years fixing stuff and in those days solder contained rosin and I ended up with sensitivity and a cough. I coughed for decades, I woke up in the night coughing, I didn't get a good nights sleep for years. My father was a steel and then a chemical worker, one plant he worked at was rumoured to be a cancer plant and was later buried and concreted over. What do these things tell us? Maybe that if we're lucky enough to be well informed we can pick our risks and gambles.

 

[JohnC6]

Alan..I've said a couple of times it's market forces. I don't care what the reason is, it's the sum. As AndrewF said when Cambsno said my criticism was because I had no interest in boxing.

"Which doesn't mean he can't hold an opinion based on his general viewpoint"

Of course we have a right to ban an activity if there's good reason.

"Who are we to say that grown adults can't indulge in dangerous sports and even direct contact sports because we find it and the money they "earn" morally reprehensible?"

I didnt suggest we ban boxing because of the money those at the top earn. You've conflated two issues.. the issue of boxing and the sums of money involved.

MMA should definitely be banned . It even markets itself as a brutal .When the objective is to render opponents senseless by kicking and punching them in the head then it's no surprise when someone is seriously hurt and sustains fatal neurological damage as happens in that sport.

 

[Dale.]

7 quid for 4, 440 cans of beer.

 

[woof woof]

Alan..I've said a couple of times it's market forces. I don't care what the reason is, it's the sum. As AndrewF said when Cambsno said my criticism was because I had no interest in boxing.

"Which doesn't mean he can't hold an opinion based on his general viewpoint"

Of course we have a right to ban an activity if there's good reason.

"Who are we to say that grown adults can't indulge in dangerous sports and even direct contact sports because we find it and the money they "earn" morally reprehensible?"

I didnt suggest we ban boxing because of the money those at the top earn. You've conflated two issues.. the issue of boxing and the sums of money involved.

MMA should definitely be banned . It even markets itself as a brutal .When the objective is to render opponents senseless by kicking and punching them in the head then it's no surprise when someone is seriously hurt and sustains fatal neurological damage as happens in that sport.

John, I'm not conflating anything. I think I've been very clear.

Your views are fair enough but what's the alternative to allowing regulated "skilful contests" at best or "fights" at worst to take place? If we ban them they'll still take place but they'll very likely be worse. IMO. Allowing them but with control and regulation seems to me to be the least worst option.

One thing I would ban is someone who was born a man and who has gone through puberty and has near enough to make no odds the body and strength of a man but who identifies as a woman who states openly that he/she likes fracturing womens skulls. That to me is offensive. It may be PC but it's offensive to me. We should at least try and make sure as a part of a regulated sport that the contestants are pretty equally matched as this in itself could lessen the likelihood of serious injury and as men are generally stronger than women and generally hit considerably harder (and the figures and stats can be found if anyone is interested) it all seems a bit like it shouldn't be allowed to me. To put it mildly.

This takes me back to the days when one of the things I was paid for was doing risk assessments. We need to assess the likelihood of an injury occurring and the possible severity of that injury and we must take steps to eliminate or minimise both. In the case of boxing there are systems and rules in place and that seems a better option to me than banning as it's something that's taken place for centuries and if we ban it it'll very likely just take place underground as I'm certain it does to some extent anyway. MMR, I just don't know... it seems a step too far to me beyond what I'd expect from the more traditional martial arts, Taikwando apart.

 

[Bobsyeruncle]

7 quid for 4, 440 cans of beer.

That's cheap for over 4,000 cans

 

[Topsy]

Well yesterday really but I was annoyed for 2 reasons.

Whilst walking out of the Village me and Mrs T were on the pavement when behind us we heard a bycicle bell, we are used to hearing on a cycle/footpath that re regularly walk them so out of habit we stepped off the pavement to allow a young woman to cycle past us on the pavement while we stood in the road like idiots. I'm annoyed first because Ithe young woman was cycling on the pavement instead of the road and wanted us to move so she didn't have to go around us and I'm more annoyed with myself for moving onto the road which is where she should have been in the first place. Too many byciclists using pavements these days, there's no good reason to in a small village and the pavements are not designated cycle paths. Pavements are for feet, wheels belong on roads unless they are on pushchairs carrying children pushed by their parent.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

so out of habit we stepped off the pavement to allow a young woman to cycle past us on the pavement

Always a bad habit to get into.

Unless you're walking on the road where there is a pavement for you to step on to, my opinion is that you should make the cyclist go around you. I cycled to work for several years and only used my bell from a distance to warn of my presence. I never used it to "make people shift over".

It's worth remembering that sections 28 (dangerous cycling) and 29 (Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 still apply. As does Schedule 3 and Section 51 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, which mandates an on the spot fine - in the unlikely event of a policeman seeing the offence being committed and his boss not having decided that his officers shouldn't apply the law: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38688256

Most cyclists are decent, considerate people but I think the minority who aren't shouldn't be given an even break!

 

[Topsy]

Always a bad habit to get into.

I agree Andrew which is why I am so annoyed with myself, I even ramarked to the young woman who cycled past thanking us, "I can't believe I just stepped off the pavement into the road so you could use the pavement instead of the road" :banghead:

 

[Tringa]

Following on from Paul's post about a cyclist on a pavement.

In the last couple of weeks I've seen one cyclist on the road but cycling outside the cycle lane. I wouldn't mind if the lane was in poor condition, as it was a few years ago - bad surface and marking and with weeds going in it - but the local council have sorted and it is now wider, clear of all debris and well marked, but the cyclist was still avoiding it.

The other cyclist was on the footpath of a road which has only a just been marked with a cycle lane. That was annoying enough but this was about 5:45am and there wasn't a vehicle in sight.

Dave

 

[JohnC6]

John, I'm not conflating anything. I think I've been very clear.

Your views are fair enough but what's the alternative to allowing regulated "skilful contests" at best or "fights" at worst to take place? If we ban them they'll still take place but they'll very likely be worse. IMO. Allowing them but with control and regulation seems to me to be the least worst option.

One thing I would ban is someone who was born a man and who has gone through puberty and has near enough to make no odds the body and strength of a man but who identifies as a woman who states openly that he/she likes fracturing womens skulls. That to me is offensive. It may be PC but it's offensive to me. We should at least try and make sure as a part of a regulated sport that the contestants are pretty equally matched as this in itself could lessen the likelihood of serious injury and as men are generally stronger than women and generally hit considerably harder (and the figures and stats can be found if anyone is interested) it all seems a bit like it shouldn't be allowed to me. To put it mildly.

This takes me back to the days when one of the things I was paid for was doing risk assessments. We need to assess the likelihood of an injury occurring and the possible severity of that injury and we must take steps to eliminate or minimise both. In the case of boxing there are systems and rules in place and that seems a better option to me than banning as it's something that's taken place for centuries and if we ban it it'll very likely just take place underground as I'm certain it does to some extent anyway. MMR, I just don't know... it seems a step too far to me beyond what I'd expect from the more traditional martial arts, Taikwando apart.

Agree re risk of driving something underground .Research shows that 60-80% of boxers eventually fall victim to brain damage so one avenue to explore, as you've suggested, is tightening up the rules .

A copy/paste from New Scientist.

'The condition they fear is chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), previously called punch drunk syndrome, boxer’s dementia or dementia pugilistica. This causes progressive memory problems, personality change and slowness of movement. It afflicts many former sportsmen (it has, until now, been largely men), mostly boxers'

'Boxing, however, is a special case. No other sport has the express goal of causing injury to the brain. That is certainly the aim of professional boxing. Even in amateur boxing blows to the head are crucial, and protective headgear may not stop injury from rotational acceleration'

Full article . You'll find this 2 minute read interesting.. https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ng-its-demeaning-and-dangerous/#ixzz7S1zeHcmF

This started with me criticising the level of prize money and..my fault for adding "it should be banned'

Now..I'm definitely not getting into trans-males in sport .........as that's been discussed in another thread.

 

[Nod]

Well yesterday really but I was annoyed for 2 reasons.

Whilst walking out of the Village me and Mrs T were on the pavement when behind us we heard a bycicle bell, we are used to hearing on a cycle/footpath that re regularly walk them so out of habit we stepped off the pavement to allow a young woman to cycle past us on the pavement while we stood in the road like idiots. I'm annoyed first because Ithe young woman was cycling on the pavement instead of the road and wanted us to move so she didn't have to go around us and I'm more annoyed with myself for moving onto the road which is where she should have been in the first place. Too many byciclists using pavements these days, there's no good reason to in a small village and the pavements are not designated cycle paths. Pavements are for feet, wheels belong on roads unless they are on pushchairs carrying children pushed by their parent.

On Friday, we were walking with some friends up the Otter FOOTPATH which is well signed at all entrances as NO CYCLING. Sure enough, there was a dingding from behind so we told the bloke about the signs and carried on walking up the path to the next road crossing, pointed out the signs and watched him pedal off up the road. He claimed to be local and to have never seen the signs so we recommended a trip to specsavers.

 

[cambsno]

Well yesterday really but I was annoyed for 2 reasons.

Whilst walking out of the Village me and Mrs T were on the pavement when behind us we heard a bycicle bell, we are used to hearing on a cycle/footpath that re regularly walk them so out of habit we stepped off the pavement to allow a young woman to cycle past us on the pavement while we stood in the road like idiots. I'm annoyed first because Ithe young woman was cycling on the pavement instead of the road and wanted us to move so she didn't have to go around us and I'm more annoyed with myself for moving onto the road which is where she should have been in the first place. Too many byciclists using pavements these days, there's no good reason to in a small village and the pavements are not designated cycle paths. Pavements are for feet, wheels belong on roads unless they are on pushchairs carrying children pushed by their parent.

I think that the rules changed a while back,. cyclists are allowed to bike on pavements, I was about to shout at someone for that but a mate said he thought it was ok for them to.