Abolitionist Connolly's ring piece stupidity by Kerry Duffy Apr 28th 2008

Although the case against boxing is always aggressive, erroneous and full of holes, I am still always shocked and dismayed at these attacks. Daily Mail columnist, Ray Connolly delivered such an attack in the wake of Joe Calzaghe's victory against Bernard Hopkins in Las Vegas during the early hours of Sunday morning. Underneath a photo of the Hollywood stars that were congregated ringside was the accompanying title; “As two young men try to batter each other unconscious, the rich, beautiful and famous roar their approval.” I just knew what I would find amidst the printed words I didn't want to read, my blood boiled at my supposition of his views. I balked at the idea of reading it, but overcoming my misgivings I read it anyway and of course I was proved correct in my reservations and I read his article in between laughing and heaving. Hackles raised by the presence of so many celebrities, Connolly ripped into the sport with such uneducated venom that his own sense of control could quite rightly be called into question. Not wishing to mince his words, Connolly chose not to exercise his normally skilful way with words, instead using his chosen vocabulary with as much subtlety as a sledgehammer. Starting as he meant to go on, he castigates us for our 'moral vacuity' in watching 'two young men try to batter each other into unconsciousness' whilst clearly betraying the fact he paid as much attention to the fight as he did in his research into the history of boxing, if he watched it at all. Neither Hopkins nor Calzaghe were relatively young - though he can be forgiven that slight on account of their supreme fitness- nor were they 'pummelling every kind of hell out of each other'. We can only hope he never catches sight of a Michael Katsidis or Miguel Cotto fight. In choosing to ignore the many attributes of the sport meant he proposed less of an argument and more of an uneducated, vicious attack. As with most knee-jerk reactions the ignorance was palpable, leaping off the pages with unabashed vigour. Beating down the counter argument that boxing gives working class boys the chance to earn fortunes and escape their upbringing, by suggesting football as a more suitable alternative is a hollow compromise. Suggesting boxing is poorly paid until you reach the upper echelons can just as well be said about football: how many footballers actually earn on a par with Rooney, Lampard and Beckham? If I were to offer up a role model to any future sons I may have, it would most certainly not be Premiership footballers. As Connolly fiercely chose Joe Calzaghe to launch his attack, I would just as strenuously offer Joe as a great role model; humble, unassuming, and not a mark on his 'battered' face, Joe could not be a more suitable example for kids. If anything, perhaps his lack of arrogance is why he has only become a sporting A-lister in his 11th year as champion but he is most certainly not an example of what is wrong with boxing. Should I waste my energy extolling the virtues of the sport between two consenting adults to a man so ingrained with abhorrence for the sport? Of course I should! The myriad of benefits it offers cannot be adequately expressed in a few words. I know I'm preaching to the converted on this website and we all know the distinct advantages a young kid can gain in the gym. It promotes physical wellbeing, teaches discipline, control and respect and it does offer disadvantaged kids an opportunity, Ray Connolly. Yes it may do this the hard way, no-one can claim boxing is easy but that is why it is such a successful means of progression for the participant. It is hard to imagine Connolly has watched a boxing match, the nature of his attack suggest a loose grip on the realities of the sport at best. The employment of such ludicrously extreme words and phrases as 'thuggery' and accusing the fighters of 'wanting to wreck the others life' is so hurtful and damaging to a sport grossly misunderstood by the majority. 'Thuggery' would suggest the lawless youths who increasingly grace the pages of our newspapers, not two professional athletes at the pinnacle of their career. Boxing has always attracted the rich and famous, the psychology of which could be telling but simplistically put by Connolly that it 'feeds their bestial bloodlust by proxy' is a little hard to swallow. By suggesting the celebrities wanted, yes wanted to see one fighter 'inflict brain damage' on the other was so ridiculous as to be humorous. What absolute over the top scaremongering, this by the way is 'what boxers do for a living, they inflict brain damage'. Said with all the conviction of someone in on a great secret. It was probably all he could do to not print FACT after his full stop. Connolly's vocabulary certainly evokes visions of battle, and if a little simple you could probably be taken in by his grand declamation of boxing as nothing but a violent spectacle for the rich and famous. Ultimately, though the argument is lazy to the point of ridiculous and Ray Connolly will never change his mind. He fails to see past the punching and blood which although is part of the game it is only a portion of a much greater, nobler, and thrilling sport than he suggests.

Go back Comment on this article | Send to a friend | Print

Excellent Article Apr 29th 2008, 12:36:45 by neckodeemus Hello, If you are going to highlight the brutality of boxing Hopkins-Calzaghe is not the fight to use as your impetus, as you rightly point out. Yet another badly put together attack on boxing limps into the national press. If footballers are role models then it is no wonder society is having so many problems. Boxing requires discipline, football lacks this trait. Cheers, Terry