Settling the brain damage debate

Perhaps a different slant on this...

A friend of mine was involved in research that showed that professional footballers face brain damage as a result of practising headers. The effect may not be huge but it is measurable. This is clearly a cumulative effect. So if heading a ball repeatedly causes brain damage over the long term any decent amount of boxing is surely going to do the same or worse.

But, more importantly to me, it comes down to personal choice. If people want to risk their health in any sport that's up to them IMO. Compare boxing to fell-walking. People go out on the hills in Wales and Scotland and get surprised by the weather. Then rescue teams have to go and find them, placing their own lives in danger. So (the small proportion of) irresponsible fell-walkers not only risk their own lives but those of kind-hearted samaritans too. Let's ban fell-walking before we even begin to think about boxing!

Mike

 

In the old BKB days there was a bigger focus on body shots, since breaking one's hand on the opponent's skull is not so good for the career. I think the power delivered to the head would have been more like you see in Nate Diaz do today in the UFC. And they also allowed trips and throws. Matches could last a long time since a KO was much more unlikely. Probably easier on the thinkmeat too.

I know folks who've had their hands broken on skulls more than once and switched to open hands to the head as a result, eliminating the problem. At our club we do open hands to the head and fists to the body.

-Mark

 

Late for dinner, this surprises me because I read this: http://www.bmj.com/content/335/7624/809. Here are some interesting extracts:

"Severe acute injuries in boxing (including those resulting in fatality), however, are relatively rare compared with other sports, even when professional and amateur boxing are grouped together."

"In this systematic review we found no evidence for a strong association between amateur boxing and chronic traumatic brain injury. In boxing the head might get hit repeatedly with resultant concussion, though less than in several more popular sports—such as rugby union and equestrian activities3 4 5 19—which may harm cerebral function."

EDIT: having gone back and looked at the article on which you based your post, i think we should note the following paragraph:

"This Manuel Velazquez Collection discusses deaths in bare-knuckle pugilism, amateur and professional boxing, and Toughman-style boxing. The dates covered are 1732 to the present. This article analyzes the information presented in the various by-name and by-date tabulations. The tabulations are presented in a separate file."

You're comparing casualty rates using a much, much longer timespan for boxing, during which the sport underwent a variety of rule changes. I don't think that's really a fair comparison.

In professional boxing as we know it today, there have been 923 deaths in the *entire world* since 1890, and this figure goes down to 175 for amateurs.

 

I can see your point TB but as a counter let me point to this - in 110 years of rugby union (with the variety of rule changes etc to improve safety etc) with 71 deaths recorded. Considering that boxing, with much lower player numbers has 923 deaths (more than 10x the world total for rugby) I would still hold that boxing , under any circumstances, is more dangerous as a sport (with respect to potential fatality) than rugby. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_deaths_have_there_been_playing_rugby

What do you think??

LFD

 

I'm concerned that this is a wiki answers link with no citations against a British Medical Journal article with several. Were this not the case then I don't see why the BMA would have to rely on the moral argument.

 

Sorry, I haven't had time to go and look up a more refined journal and you are correct that this would provide better support for my assertation that rugby is safer than boxing.
It's been a hard week and I just back after drinking too much after playing rugby this afternoon (2nd win in 2 outings!!)

Can you clarify what you are saying re the BMA? It seemed that your first sentence was incomplete. The second sentence is dependent on the first so I am sort of lost to your point.

Personally I haven't commented on the BMA and their stance on boxing. I only meant to show that historically boxers seem to have a greater percentage of deaths per X number of participants (as people were suggesting that if boxing needed banning then surely sports like rugby were equally dangerous and should also be banned). I might add that there is also a policy in Rugby Union (and many other sports) that a player must be removed from the field of play once there is any evidence that the player has sufferred a suspected concussive injury.

(http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediaz...tml#a+positive+approach+concussion+management).

Interested to hear what you intended to say.

LFD

 

The first sentence was a reference to the British Medical Journal article I linked earlier, which posited that rugby and equestrian sports were worse than boxing for head injuries.

My point is that this assertion seems to fly in the face of what the British Medical Journal found in its review of the available evidence. Your argument, with respect, appears to be based on speculation and unreliable statistics, which in fairness is something you have conceded.

You say you're not commenting on the BMA's stance but this is what the thread is about. When the governing body of British doctors calls for something to be banned, I presume they are doing so for reasons of medical science. However, the BMA stance on boxing, as far as I can see, is more moral than medical because it does not even attempt to refute the assertion that other sports are actually worse for head injuries; instead, it focuses on the fact that, in boxing, you injure your opponent deliberately, which is medically irrelevant. It seems to me that if they could support their position with medical science rather than moralising then they would do so.

I also anticipate that there is probably a big difference in injury rates between amateur and pro boxing, but AFAIK the BMA wants to ban both.

Nicely done on your rugby win, a couple of blokes down the pub last night were trying to draft me into the second row...

 

I think that you are, at least to a degree, correct. I am sure that people (the BMA for one as a group) look at boxing and think it is morally repugnant because one is trying to purposefully head injure one's opponent.

Is boxing less/more dangerous than other contact sports? Well as in all things it depends what your frame of reference is with respect to ''dangerous''. The International Rugby Board did a comprehensive, well researched evidence based review of catastrophic injuries sufferred in rugby and compared the findings to other sports. http://www.irb.com/mm/document/trai...iesinrugbyunionanassessmentoftherisk_6744.pdf This very well referenced article does not specifically address death but includes death within the context of ''catastrophic'' injury.

''No activity is risk free and the process of risk management is not intended to reduce levels of risk to zero; however, it is generally regarded that in most aspects of life, there are some levels of risk that are acceptable and others that are unacceptable.

In this context, the Health and Safety Executive in the UK has defined norms for what can be regarded as negligible, acceptable, tolerable and unacceptable levels of risk. An acceptable level of risk generally relates to the risk of a serious adverse consequence, such as a fatality or a spinal cord injury resulting in permanent neurological deficit, occurring on average
between 0.1 and 2 times/100,000 people per year. The aims of this project were to assess the level of risk associated with catastrophic injuries in rugby union, to reach a conclusion about whether the level of risk is acceptable and to review current guidance on coaching and refereeing.''....

''The results indicated that for rugby union players in England, the risk of sustaining a catastrophic
injury (0.84/100,000 per year) came within the Health and Safety Executive’s ‘acceptable region’
of risk (0.1 to 2/100,000 per year), whilst the average risk of catastrophic injury experienced by
rugby players in other countries (4.6/100,000 per year) fell within the ‘tolerable region’ of risk (2 to
100/100,000 per year). The risk of sustaining a catastrophic injury in rugby union in England was
generally lower than that experienced in a wide range of other collision sports, such as ice hockey
(4/100,000 per year), rugby league (2/100,000 per year) and American Football (1/100,000 per
year). The risk of catastrophic injury in rugby union was comparable with that experienced by most
people in UK work-related situations (0.8/100,000 per year) but less than that experienced by
motorcyclists (190/100,000 per year), pedestrians (3.7/100,000 per year) and car occupants
(2.9/100,000 per year).''

On the other hand, Health and Safety reviews for boxing - According to Cantu, Boxing and Medicine, Human Kinetics Illinois, 1995, amateur boxing's fatality rate is 1.3 fatalities per 100,000 participants. http://www.maroonclimb.com/evansvilleboxingclub/id7.html . These guys make some really good points about , at least for amateur boxing, it appears that the sport is safer than a number of others. I also found their argument that purposeful violence against opponents in other sports is ignored appealing.

This guy (http://www.pathguy.com/boxing.htm) makes some really good arguments about the lack of reasonable evidence for injuries/damage from boxing. Your reference to the BMJ article
( http://www.bmj.com/content/335/7624/809) is similar. Amateur boxing does not appear to have a great number of injuries/disability compared to it's professional cousin.

I went and looked at the articles referenced in the BMJ article to see how they came to the conclusion that you got hit in the head more in rugby than in amateur boxing but it wasn't really clear how they came to that conclusion (other than perhaps the same sort of speculation that has been used to support arguments against boxing in the past). I think that it's easy to see that there are far fewer head shots for amateur boxers than the pros. The comparison between boxing and ''other sports'' included equestrian sports which I dare say have both the highest death and concussion rates of any sports. Any boxing is safer than this!

Now, just to throw a spanner in the works... TB can you reference where you have seen a mention by the BMA that they have recently called for all boxing to be banned? I couldn't see anything on their website wrt to banning boxing.

2nd row eh?! Tall meaty and evil loooking are we? ;' )

LFD

 

People might find this recent article by Stephan Kesting to be of interest.

http://www.grapplearts.com/Blog/2013/09/does-mma-make-you-stupid/

 

I boxed for a while. I think, yes it does at least help to compound or advance those predisposed to conditions like dementia or alzheimers. Still, it shouldn't be any board or medical authority to ban it. That's silly. The boxers willingly fight. Inform them of the research and risks and let them fight if they want to. Shouldn't an adult be the one to determine what risks he or she is willing to take? I don't understand the mentality of trying to babysit adults....it's victimless when both know the risks and choose to fight anyway.

If I want to skydive I accept the risk of dying due to malfunction or what not. It should be my choice, and mine alone. Who are these boards and governing bodies to tell me no? I'm not risking their lives.

 

Makes perfect sense (open hand to head, fist to body) Sure some of the open hand Traditional MA striking developed for the same reason.

I never hit anyone in sparring hard enough to do more than make 'em sneeze but I know how easy it is to break a bone there - having to have pins when I was in early teens.

The hands are full of small, fragile bones (like the foot) - Except for the reach, the elbow makes for a more dependable club.

 

I don't disagree but interestingly people start to box quite young and it's not clear who will have problems or how quickly. I remember just how aggressive/stupid I was at 16! That being said there have been instances of brain tissue changes in high school American foot ball players. Boxing might not be any different than other sports other than people are effectively trying to concuss you...

LFD