I was searching the forums just now for threads on the old topic of brain damage from hard contact striking arts. Boxing is the obvious example, and perhaps I should have posted in that subforum, but I am also keen to hear data and authoritative opinions from practitioners of similar arts, such as Muay Thai. I think it's a given that repeated head trauma is not good for your brain and I'm not going to try to argue otherwise. Plenty of studies have shown this, if common sense is not enough. However, I think this is an issue of context. Here is my understanding of the debate: 1) The British Medical Association say they want boxing banned because of the head injuries it causes. 2) Defenders of boxing respond by pointing out that other sports, including rugby and football, have rates of head injury that are just as high, if not higher. 3) The BMA respond by saying that those sports are different because those head injuries happen by accident, and the only reason boxing doesn't cause more is because boxers fight less often - but surely that's a moral argument, not a medical one? From a strictly medical standpoint, I don't see how intentionality is relevant. It sounds to me like they may be exceeding their remit by passing a moral judgment under the guise of an authoritative medical opinion. So, approaching the issue of head injuries from a purely medical standpoint, how bad is boxing (and other striking arts) really, in comparison to other sports?