Richard Boock: Boxing's injury toll a disgrace

YOU HAVE to laugh sometimes. Or maybe not. Among the news stories circulating after Manny Pacquiao anaesthetised Ricky Hatton in Las Vegas last weekend were those that paused to ask, yet again, whether boxing deserved any sort of future. It was, after all, the same week that heralded the deaths of fellow pugilists Benjamin Flores, Andras Nagy and Greg Page. All died from brain injuries or associated complications.

As usual, the apologists have been quick to jump to boxing's defence. One online reader of an English broadsheet, appalled at the notion of boxing being consigned to history, reminded us the sport was an excellent vehicle for leading kids away from drugs, gangs and street violence. Outstanding point, you have to say; trading drugs and street violence for corrupt promoters and an increased chance of being manually lobotomised.

Then there were the old chestnuts. You know, the ones about boxing not incurring as many deaths as other sports (such as parachuting); about the need to preserve the right to consensually kill with our fists, and how the prime objective of boxing was to "out-point" an opponent rather than to beat him unconscious. Apparently, throwing a knockout punch, as Pacquiao managed in Las Vegas, remains nothing more than an option.

Quite an effective option, though, by all accounts. This is how Britain's sports journalist of the year, Matthew Syed, described it: "Hatton's body surrendered instantly at that dreadful moment of impact, his legs sagging, his arms lolloping and the back of his head hitting the canvas with such abandon as to suggest temporary coma. His eyelids opened an instant later, but behind them was a glassy void that will have chilled the blood of his army of supporters ... and, indeed, any other viewer possessed of human feeling."

Enough of the charade, then. It might be stretching things to suggest boxers aren't stupid, but they certainly have enough clues to understand the most effective manner of gaining a win: by knocking their opponent unconscious. And by definition, that means inflicting a concussion, which is another way of describing a brain injury. It might mean temporary impairment if the recipient is lucky. It might mean they end up like Page or Flores if they're not.

Boxing advocates like to argue the code is becoming progressively safer through improved medical supervision and tighter regulation. What they're not so keen to acknowledge is that the capacity of boxers is increasing, through the application of the same science that has made sprinters faster, lifters stronger, and footballers more dynamic. No surprises then that, on average, about 10 or 11 boxers die each year from brain injuries.

The medical profession, without whose support the sport would never be allowed to operate, have nevertheless been staunch opponents. Medical associations worldwide have called for boxing's abolition. A former editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr George D Lundberg, once described boxing an "obscenity [that] should not be sanctioned by civilised society".

The NZMA's stance is that, because the intention of boxing is to physically hurt someone and render them incapable, it is not acceptable. It notes that victory in boxing often relies on one fighter inflicting on another physical injury so severe that they are unable to continue. It warns of the potential for serious health consequences such as permanent brain injury. Revealingly, boxing supporters prefer to measure the code's attrition rate in deaths, rather than impairment.

That, however, doesn't stop us reading the nightmarish stories about the poor blighters who receive life sentences. Young men such as American welterweight Oscar Diaz, who was released from hospital earlier this year, seven months after being beaten into a coma during a nationally televised fight. According to doctors, the 26-year-old can now sit up in a chair, respond to commands and smile at jokes. They're hopeful that, some day, he'll walk and talk again.

The most perverse aspect? That innocent, young people are being maimed and killed, not because they're falling victim to reckless or accidental behaviour (as you might see in rugby or league) but because they're succumbing to the inevitable consequences of a sport that encourages one person to violently attack the head of another. Some sports suffer tragedy, certainly; but only when things go wrong. Boxing would have us accept it even when things go right.

It's bizarre too (but possibly quite predictable given the macho mindset) that one of boxing's most disgraceful fouls is the act of striking an opponent below the waist. Which is to say, a fighter's testicles are regarded as sacrosanct and well beyond the bounds of decent competition. On the other hand, striking a bloke in the brain is not only condoned but actively encouraged. Tells us something about the mentality of all involved.

Yes, yes; we know there's more safety concessions made in amateur boxing than professional, and it might seem unfair to lump the two categories together. But that didn't stop, earlier this year, a group of 11 national medical associations (including the NZMA) from calling for a total ban on all versions of the sport, on the grounds that its very essence was inextricably linked to chronic brain injury.

"As long as it is legal to hit an opponent above the neck," said the group, "there are no safety precautions which can be taken to prevent this damage." In the circumstances they could have been forgiven for adding, "And as long as boxing is run by men who consider their balls more important than their brains, we should probably steel ourselves for the worst."

rboock@xtra.co.nz