There is finanly a womens division in boxing in the olympics in 2012!!!
That is great news but apparently not everyone is happy about it? Who is for and against it and why not?
I would most like to hear some negative views against it , controversy always sells.

About bloody time too! :D

Only introducing 3 weight categories leaves a lot to be desired though. That's the only complaint I have.

Should give Ireland a great chance of a gold via Katie Taylor.

I believe glorifying the skill in being able to leave your opponent brain damaged and beaten into a bloody pulp - whether male or female is wrong. Any other sport, and the worst you'll get is maybe a broken bone or torn ligament, which can heal, but I can't agree with putting it in the Olympics for either sex.

Any other sport? Such as the Olympic sport of Taekwando where you are allowed to kick your opponent's head? Or three day eventing where there have been several fatalaties among top competitors in the last few years? Or motorcycle road racing with its high fatality rate?

I believe glorifying the skill in being able to leave your opponent brain damaged and beaten into a bloody pulp - whether male or female is wrong. Any other sport, and the worst you'll get is maybe a broken bone or torn ligament, which can heal, but I can't agree with putting it in the Olympics for either sex.
I think you should do some research as to what was included in the original Olympic games. In fact, the above ability was pretty much the only one that was being tested and on display.
All that rubbish with synchronised swimming, rhythmic gymnastics etc etc has far less of a place in the Olympic Games than boxing does.

Bring back Pankration.

About bloody time too! :D

Only introducing 3 weight categories leaves a lot to be desired though. That's the only complaint I have.

Which 3 weight divisions are in the olympics?

Which 3 weight divisions are in the olympics?

Flyweight (48-51kg), lightweight (56-60kg) and middleweight (69-75kg): http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympic_games/8196879.stm. Seems very unfair on those who fall outside of or between those categories. Either they will have to boil down massively (always risky), fight someone who is naturally much bigger (also risky), or not compete at all. Which would be a shame as Britain has several world-class female boxers.

Flyweight (48-51kg), lightweight (56-60kg) and middleweight (69-75kg): http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympic_games/8196879.stm. Seems very unfair on those who fall outside of or between those categories. Either they will have to boil down massively (always risky), fight someone who is naturally much bigger (also risky), or not compete at all. Which would be a shame as Britain has several world-class female boxers.
I wouldn't worry about those in-between - its not a massive cut. If you weigh 68kg and can't make 60 then you'll just have to bulk up a couple.

There aren't enough female boxers to have full competetive divisions like the men and this system seems the best compromise. Of course it won't please everyone but that's the nature of the beast.

Most female boxers are used to giving a lot of weight, and it's not so bad if you're only just outside a weight class. But the ones who are right in the middle of inbetween (54 or 64kg) are in a very difficult situation.

There are full competitive divisions in the World and European championships so I'm not convinced there aren't enough boxers.

However, it is a step forward. Roll on more progress for 2016!

Most female boxers are used to giving a lot of weight, and it's not so bad if you're only just outside a weight class. But the ones who are right in the middle of inbetween (54 or 64kg) are in a very difficult situation.

There are full competitive divisions in the World and European championships so I'm not convinced there aren't enough boxers.

However, it is a step forward. Roll on more progress for 2016!
Are you saying that 4kg is too much to cut? Allow me to say 'cobblers!'

You can say whatever you like, but there are ways of expressing your opinions without being rude.

4kg (8.8lbs) is a lot of weight for fighters in the lighter divisions, especially as they are likely to have low body fat to start with, as most boxers do. Plus even when this amount of fat loss is possible, it will still leave a fighter who has had to drastically alter their body weight in order to even compete, at a massive disadvantage to one who is fighting at his/ her best weight. Women often give a lot of weight in fights, but these fights are usually at a much lower level. At world level, the gulf would be huge.

There is a reason so many weight categories exist in boxing. Can you imagine if the men's event was cut to 3 divisions? (at the 2008 olympics there were 11) There would be major concerns over safety and fairness, and rightly so. I'd like to see at least 6 divisions personally.

If they can't manage a 4kg cut, they need to learn how to cut weight properly.

You have just avoided answering all of the points I raised. You need to learn how to debate properly.

I tend to stay away from martial arts threads on SF because they so often descend into petty arguments (otherwise known as willy-waving :hihi:) between posters, instead of debating issues in an adult manner, with respect for others' experience and opinions. I see this one going the same way.

If they can't manage a 4kg cut, they need to learn how to cut weight properly.

Whats the most weight you have ever cut?

Whats the most weight you have ever cut?

66kg down to 60kg. And that was at short notice. Wasn't fun but it got done.

There is evidence that girls aren't physiologically as able as blokes when it comes to cutting but I still think that the weight classes are a reasonable compromise. Note the word compromise, which, as I said before, implies that very few people will be absolutely satisfied by it.

I still think that the Women's Boxing Lobby should be viewing this as a great victory and a good step forward rather than immediately clamouring about everything that is "wrong" with it. Baby steps, baby steps.

66kg down to 60kg. And that was at short notice. Wasn't fun but it got done.

There is evidence that girls aren't physiologically as able as blokes when it comes to cutting but I still think that the weight classes are a reasonable compromise. Note the word compromise, which, as I said before, implies that very few people will be absolutely satisfied by it.

I still think that the Women's Boxing Lobby should be viewing this as a great victory and a good step forward rather than immediately clamouring about everything that is "wrong" with it. Baby steps, baby steps.

At short notice I'd never let one of my fighters cut that amount of weight. Was that for a BJJ or Grappling competition?
I have never cut much weight myself as when i was fighting actively i was always reasonably fit anyway I pretty much walked around at maybe 2kg over what I would fight at anyhow. It just got harder and harder the older I got. Now my metabolism is that slow that even one visit to Jumbo chinese buffet and I put on 3 kg in one sitting!!!

Carcass, was 66kg your optimum fighting weight or your normal, everyday weight?

And was the fight at world level? I'm guessing not, because why would anyone fight at anything other than their best weight in an international tournament? Unless of course, they'd beaten everyone at their usual weight, but then surely you'd go up rather than down? At world level, especially the olympics, the difference between an athlete winning gold and coming last is a tiny margin. To put some athletes at such a big disadvantage seems crazy. There's a big difference between giving that kind of weight on a club show, or even in a national tournament, and doing it against the best athletes in the world, some of whom will be fighting at their perfect weight.

I agree that women's boxing being introduced is a step forward- but a compromise would be perhaps 6-8 weight classes, not 3. If everyone is trying to cram into 3 weights, at best the sport will look crap because of the mismatches, at worst someone could get badly hurt due to the toll of weightmaking (just as they could in men's boxing). And that will be all the naysayers need to get rid of it all together. Of course I sincerely hope everything goes well, GB get some golds, and more progress is made for 2016, but you can't blame people for being concerned.

Would you honestly be happy if the boot was on the other foot and men's event was cut to 3 classes? The fewest there has ever been is 5, and that was a century ago. At the last olympics it was 11.

It's about time MMA got on the list. Closest thing we have to Pankration.

Still, this is good, except for the weight classes.

It's about time MMA got on the list. Closest thing we have to Pankration.

Still, this is good, except for the weight classes.
No chance of it happening - too much chance of injury. Remember fighters have to fight for something like 5 consecutive days or at least every other day.

Sub wrestling might be in with a shout.

No chance of it happening - too much chance of injury. Remember fighters have to fight for something like 5 consecutive days or at least every other day.

Sub wrestling might be in with a shout.

True, never thought about it hard enough. Article about that here (http://fiveouncesofpain.com/2008/06/19/mma-in-the-olympics-a-novel-idea-that-will-never-happen/) actually.

Yeah, maybe BJJ / sub wrestling though.

^^ Good article.

One of the points against sub wrestling being included is, ironically enough, the presence of ADCC. The IOC stipulates that one of the conditions of inclusion in the games is that the olympic medal must be the highest achievement in the sport (so technically tennis and football should be dropped). With a huge and very prestigious tournament already in place, perhaps we don't need it in the Olympics...