Off the ball: Boxing bigger than calls for its demise

Those well-intentioned people seeking to prohibit the noble art of boxing are ignoring the lessons of history, writes RICHARD BOOCK.

Subscribers to the theory that the human race is evolving may not have found their cause greatly advanced by the latest calls for a ban on boxing.

If history has shown anything, it is that people - given half a chance, a superiority complex, and enough sheep-like disciples to follow them in their moral crusade - will try to ban almost anything.

Never mind the colossal failure of prohibition, and the scarcely-believable attempts to ban things such as homosexuality and the Maori language.

It seems some of us haven't learned from our errors and are hell-bent on heading down the same dead-end street.

It seems that every time a boxer sustains a serious injury, a clamour erupts from various medical associations and other well-intentioned individuals wanting to ban the sport once and for all.

The most recent incident concerned Australian women's boxer Tricia Devellerez, who last weekend was knocked out in the third round of a fight against New Zealander Agnes Tuitama in Christchurch.

Devellerez reportedly suffered serious concussion and was taken to hospital, where doctors placed her in a drug-induced coma.

Inevitably, her case has led to calls for a ban on boxing from the Australian Medical Association, which appears to spend half its time trying to outlaw the sport.

They were echoed by the strong chauvinistic fraternity, who just want to ban "ladies" boxing.

These are the guys who reckon the noble art is being given a bad name by the inclusion of women who, they say, are not as tough as men, and that it's not ladylike to fight.

This is, of course, complete tosh.

As long as it's all right for men to smash the living daylights out each other, it must also be okay for women - and, for that matter, paraplegics ... if they so wish.

On the other hand, medical associations around the world tend to abhor boxing generally and morally. They point out that it is the only sport which requires its participants to knock off their opponents' swede in order to win.

They, at least, have a point in terms of liability and within the environment of blame in which we now live.

Today, some poor person must always be held accountable for an accidental death or injury, something British rugby referees have recently found out to their cost.

But ban it? No one will ever ban boxing.

Send it underground? Certainly. Increase the number of dodgy promoters? Without doubt. Throw away the gloves and go bare-knuckle? Every chance. But ban it? Never.

You wouldn't need to be a history graduate to realise that in its raw form, boxing was being practised long before the advent of the wheel, and that as long we have two legs and two arms, it will continue to be practised - with or without the sanction of the law.

It is far better, surely, to have the sport out in the public arena, where controls, protection and grading will at least ensure the risks are kept to a minimum, than having it staged in some seedy, corrupt backwater, where safety is a far lower priority than the promoter's purse.

Whatever the answer, the idea that a ban will put an end to boxing and boxing injuries is just a dream for those who are seriously deluded.

Like the people who want dogs banned because they fight with cats. Or the ones who want Sunday trading banned so we can all go to church.

Hell, in 1659, Massachusetts even tried to ban Christmas.