by peterh » Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:26 am
by Goliath » Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:38 am
by peterh » Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:44 am
by Goliath » Thu Apr 29, 2010 2:00 am
by cnpeters » Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:45 am
by Dan » Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:48 am
cnpeters wrote:I think you're missing it a bit... it's not so much using boxing as a grand allegory... I don't think he's using it as anything like that at all.
I think he's using boxing as an exact metaphor for so many things in civilization or culture or war...
Unlike other solo sports like Tennis or Golf - boxing has this exact progression that is repeated over and over. There's no tools or anything either, so there's like this naked exposure of self involved. It's people starting from nothing, dedicating themselves to this craft that most likely won't pay off at all, and has such a terrible terrible consequence to failure... And trying to make something out of whatever talents they can muster. Aside from the actual fights themselves, there's so much to a boxer that isn't like other sports in terms of preparation, and then there's so few ACTUAL battles. Much like ancient warfare. You're only in actual danger 36 minutes twice a year.
And the process of a boxing match is very much like this high stakes game of chess, where you've got this requirement to maintain focus and concentration and planning and skill, with this sort of ultimate consequence of pain or violence as a consequence of failing in an area. There's trade-offs like "how much violence are you willing to acquiesce to to inflict the same on your opponent.."
I'm with Dan - the violence, eh, it's hard to watch sometimes. It's not the violence that makes it so engrossing - but it's a necessary component. Without the violence, there is no drama because there's no consequence for failure in an area. The violence is a necessary component within the context of the affair to give the sport its significance.
Although, when Dan was making the point about two equal boxers with equal trainers, before I though "heart or determination" is the component that separates then, I was thinking, "How is Dan gonna build a podcast around getting hometown judges to award you a decision?"
If you see boxing as a high stakes strategic chess match, then it's not quite the violence that does it for you, it's the intellectual chess that is the draw.
by yicheng » Thu Apr 29, 2010 10:10 am
by cnpeters » Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:43 pm
Dan wrote: You are exactly right cnpeters. You explained it better than I could. Boxing (and the passion for it) is hard to understand if you aren't into it (but so is American Football..)
And your line about rigged judges was funny. I had sportscaster Charlie Steiner tell me once that I was crazy for wanting to see boxing cleaned up. He said: "...and ruin the last true vestige of capitalism in sports?!?!?!"
But your points about the attraction of boxing apart from violence, I think, are right on. The violence is what sets up (and off) the dramatic tension that has built up over time for all sorts of reasons. In addition, the strategy and tactics of boxing is as fascinating for me to get into as the strategy and tactics of armies is. I don't like killing in war either (which is violence as well of course), but I love strategy and tactics (the moves that allow the violence to occur).
Boxing has been a sport for a VERY long time, and many cultured people (and even philosophers at times!) have been drawn to it. They aren't all there for the blood and pain, I assure you.
by Carlus Magnus » Fri Apr 30, 2010 2:40 am
by peterh » Sat May 01, 2010 7:11 pm
by Kazon Nystrøm » Sun May 02, 2010 5:19 am
by davehag5 » Sun May 02, 2010 6:14 am
by Kazon Nystrøm » Sun May 02, 2010 10:19 am
davehag5 wrote:From an otherwise forgettable teacher, for what it is worth, I've never forgotten what he said.
by Dan » Mon May 03, 2010 2:07 pm
Kazon Nystrøm wrote:davehag5 wrote:From an otherwise forgettable teacher, for what it is worth, I've never forgotten what he said.
I'm a lil' drunk so I'll be brief. If you liked that teacher, you'll love Victor Davis Hanson. I wen't to his site and I don't think I can get on board with his politics at all (I'd say the same about his post 9/11 comments in Carnage and Culture) but his historical anylisis, I thought was very good from a sociological standpoint.
Maybe that discrepancy says more about me than him, I don't know, but I'd check him out.
by Dr. Strangelove » Sat May 15, 2010 2:28 am