web
counter
 

In Boxing, Everybody Loses

By Michael Murray | Posted Under TV Reviews | Comments (32)



thriddalla.jpg

While watching TV the other day I happened upon a boxing documentary. It was the 2008 HBO film “Thrilla in Manilla,” chronicling the third and final battle between Heavyweight champs Muhammad Ali and Smoking Joe Frazier. Immediately, it struck me how very anachronistic boxing had become. It’s just not the sort of thing you stumble across on network TV anymore—except the celebrity version—having given way to the more accessible global phenomena of Mixed Martial Arts.

Back in the 80s boxing was everywhere, and Sugar Ray Leonard, Thomas “The Hit Man” Hearns and “Marvelous” Marvin Hagler were household names that frequently glowered out at you from the cover of SI. Even if you weren’t a fan, you’d usually end up catching a bit of one of their fights on Wide World of Sports when nothing else was on.



Boxing was mainstream and it bled into the culture regardless of whether you actually liked it or not. Sure it was a bottom-feeding blood sport that was at best economical exploitive, and at worst, racially so, but it was on, and thus it had a fan base.

However, after the retirement of Ali in 1981, boxing lacked a charismatic heavyweight who could really seize the public imagination. And then in 1985, in the monstrous form of Mike Tyson, the sport was saved, sort of. Tyson knocked the shit out of everybody he fought. He was terrifying, and his violence was so forceful and naked in intent that it was irresistible, especially to sheltered middle-class white kids, for whom Tyson was the embodiment of both everything they feared, and wanted to be.




But Tyson was savior and destroyer of the sport. At the best of times, boxing was an unpredictable venture for advertisers, as they never knew how long a fight would last. However, when Tyson was in his prime, they did know—about 30 seconds. And so in spite of the immense public appetite for Tyson, networks really couldn’t secure any advertising dollars to broadcast his fights, and suddenly, with armies of people just dying to see his fights, Pay-Per-View became a viable delivery system for boxing. However, this also made it the exclusive purview of a narrow band of fanatics, and in so doing, lost an entire generation of people who might have become accidental fans just by repeated exposure to the sport.

And so, if you’re like me and you still want to watch boxing from time to time, you’re left with virtually nothing, which is why coming across “Thrilla in Manila” was such a gift.

Joe Dower’s documentary is brutal and often difficult to watch, but it’s an utterly mesmerizing story and I couldn’t stop watching.

Muhammad Ali is one of the most beloved and venerated men of the last century. Beautiful and as fluidly articulate as a poet, he exploded like light into the world. It was simply impossible not to love him, and of course it was Ali who defeated Joe Frazier back in 1975, in what many describe as the greatest fight the world has ever seen.

Ali, always the good guy, needed a villain to fight, and the unwitting Joe Frazier was to become this villain. With the backing of the Nation of Islam, of whom Ali was a member, a racial narrative was constructed to be the hinge upon which this drama swung. Frazier was framed as the white man’s stooge, with Ali calling him an “Uncle Tom.” In this fictional portrait, Ali was the “real black man” while Frazier, in spite of his roots growing up in South Carolina and the grim streets of Philadelphia, was depicted as some sort of pretender to his ethnicity.

To make matters worse (for Frazier) by 1975, when the fight took place, Ali was considered a hero of anti-war politics for his refusal to be drafted into the Vietnam War back in 1967. However, at the time he took this anti-war stance, Ali was reviled and seen as anti-patriotic. His license to fight was revoked and he was cast into a professional limbo. During this time, Frazier defended Ali’s position, petitioned to have him reinstated and even gave him cash, and that Ali would turn on him with such unflinching cruelty, was too much for Frazier, who simply did not have the verbal tools to defend himself against Ali’s assaults.



“Thrilla in Manila” uses archival footage of the event, as well as interviews with all the key players (save Ali) as they, like shell-shocked Greek warriors who have returned from Troy, recount the terrible glories they witnessed. But it’s really a story told by Joe Frazier, and the portrait of the man—who was 63 at the time the film was made—that emerges is positively heartbreaking.

The fight took place under punishing heat, with each man battling back and forth for 14 rounds. Frazier was actually laying a brutal beat-down on Ali during the middle rounds, but soon his eye began to swell shut, rendering him virtually blind, something Ali took vicious and merciless advantage of, but still, Frazier kept coming.

Even now, almost 35 years to the day the fight took place, it’s still a shocking and disquieting thing to watch. The fight did not feel remote, but was vivid and horrible, and even though I knew the outcome, I still found myself flinching, unable to process the amount of abuse these men were going through. Honest to God, watching the footage made me feel like I was culpable in some way to a suicide.

Frazier, nearly blind from the beating he had received, was prevented from returning for the 15th round by his corner, and the decision went to Ali, who raised his arms in triumph and then collapsed on the canvas.

Now suffering from diabetes and high blood pressure, Frazier has thick and slurry speech, and the lopsided face of a fighter. The interviews with the present-day Frazier that provide context throughout the film, are hard to understand, and subtitles would have provided clarity, but it’s probably for the best that the damage that boxing has wrought upon him was made so vivid.

In one passage we watch Frazier as he looks at film of the epic fight, and he just doesn’t seem present. His eyes cloudy, his mouth agape, he seemed like a lost and broken man, somebody who still only sees the white whale that long since eluded him.

Vindictive and bitter, Frazier chooses to see Ali’s Parkinson’s as a kind of divine retribution, one that the Lord administered through Frazier’s own fists. His unappealing antipathy was such that he told reporters back in ‘96, when Ali lit the Olympic torch in Atlanta, that he wanted to push him into the flames.

Ali, willfully cruel, exploited the vulnerabilities of a man who actually wanted to be friend, and has been lavished in riches and venerated as a saint. Now having descended into an almost elegant silence, we remember only Ali’s beauty and electricity, while Frazier, the noble loser of that great fight, rattles on, making himself less and less sympathetic as the years wear on.

At the time of the film, Frazier lived in a room (the he referred to as his dungeon) above his boxing gym in Philadelphia-the same one he originally trained in for the epic match— having lost his money in a series of mismanaged real estate deals.

In 1976, just one year after the Frazier-Ali fight, the movie Rocky was released. Saturated in a compelling bathos that managed to adorn the rugged streets of Philadelphia with a poetic dignity, Rocky was a Cinderella story in which defeat was a moral victory and everybody was a winner. However, in the real world of boxing, as documented by “Thrilla in Manila” we see that everybody actually lost, and the fight itself, a defining and extraordinary moment in the lives of both men, did little to improve them, but instead diminished them, serving as a cautionary tale to those who would hope to achieve such greatness.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Emma Stone Up for Career Suicide | Oh, Emma. Don't Do It | Jack Goes Boating Review | Keep Fishin'









Comments

I've mostly stayed away from boxing as a spectator, as at its basic level it does not hold much allure for me. Still, by its nature the sport creates compelling narratives. Great job of highlighting this - I enjoyed the read.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at September 24, 2010 11:40 AM

I was going to write a long defense of boxing. It's one of my favorite sports, and a sport that's often misunderstood nowadays (football is just as, if not more dangerous to a person's long-term health than boxing). But frankly, it would be a futile effort. You either love boxing, or you don't. Many people hate it. I think it's pretty ridiculous to call it a "bottom-feeding, racially exploitive blood-sport," but that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. I hope you'd acknowledge, however, that the people who actually know boxing, who actually participate in it, don't see it as such. Ask Frazier, broken as he is, or Ali, with all his physical ailments, whether they still love boxing. Ask almost any old boxer, and they'll tell you that they still love the game. Scars come with it. It's after all, been called "the sweet science of bruising," as well as the "manly art of self-defense." And anybody who's ever actually attended a boxing match has seen things of human nature that aren't apparent in day-to-day life. And of course, boxing gyms in the inner-city have long had a very positive effect on the youth who get involved in them. Just ask Cuddy.

Posted by: jmag at September 24, 2010 11:48 AM

@ jmag:

I actually like boxing.

I was at a club on the weekend watching a bunch of amateur bouts ( it was a first for me) and it was an incredibly family friendly event, only with punching. It would be pretty impossible to have construed anything negative, or even inappropriately negative, about what was taking place. It was wholesome.

However, at the professional level boxing becomes very ugly, I think, and we've all seen ample evidence of that. It's practically a dead sport in North America, now, and the titans of sport are now hulking Eastern Europeans instead of the African Americans who dominated the last half century. People in North America just aren't boxing anymore, at least as much on a pro level, and quite frankly, that's probably good.

And you're 100% right about football. In due course it will be revealed to be a particularly dangerous, even gladitorial endeavor, and if it didn't have such a huge purchase on our culture, could be banned in a couple of generations. Malcolm Gladwell wrote a terrifying and sobering piece on it, trying to understand why dog fighting was a recreational sport for many football players. This is the link:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/19/091019fa_fact_gladwell

Posted by: michael murray at September 24, 2010 12:04 PM

I grew up with a boxing-loving dad and still watch and love the sport to this day. To me, boxing is the bedrock epitome of what all sport is: two men competing against one another until one emerges victorious.

The disappointment is that, unlike other professional sports, boxing never left behind its nastier elements. And those, more than anything, are what have killed the sport.

Posted by: Fredo at September 24, 2010 12:34 PM

Just a quick clarification, ALi does not have Parkinson's. He has pugilistic Parkinson's syndrome. In short he suffered severe trauma to the brain that killed off in an acute period of time the same types of cells that are killed over time in idopathic Parkinson's. Why does this matter? Because a lot of people look at Ali and are scared shitless (I knew of one patient who tried to commit suicide when he got his diagnosis) but idiopathic disease is much better controlled by medication and surgical techniques.

Posted by: PaddyDog at September 24, 2010 12:34 PM

Paddydog:

Thanks for that, I was confused by the various contradictory things that I had been reading and hearing, some saying Parkinson's, others pugilistic dementia, and so a combination of the two makes sense.

I think that every old(er) boxer that I've ever seen interviewed has had difficulty speaking, usually requiring subtitles.

In Canada there was a fighter named Sean O'Sullivan who was a going concern in the 1980's. Smart a whip and with great verbal dexterity, and years later when I saw him interviewed--probably not yet 40--you couldn't even understand him. It was, obviously, immensely sad.

Posted by: michael murray at September 24, 2010 1:36 PM

Michael >> Thanks for that extra link - excellent and sobering read. I'm a Malcolm Gladwell fan and obviously a big NFL fan. I do think the league should promote research and take steps to protect players, particularly medically after their careers are over. Above all, players should be fully informed about the risks that these studies have revealed in the first place.

In that sense, I don't find the analogy to dog-fighting in Gladwell's piece very apt. The "gameness" of a dog is not the same as a "gameness" of an NFL player. The former is purely instinct and conditioning. The dog does not have free will in deciding to fight in the first place. The football player does. Even in his declining condition, Kyle Turley says that he would do it all over again because he loved the game so much. I'm not one to deny him that choice.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at September 24, 2010 4:12 PM

Darth:

I couldn't agree with you more.

The analogy that Gladwell ( and I am also a fan) draws between dog fighting and football is specious, and convenient only as a "grab." Any athlete, and anybody for that matter, is going to want to do their best at something at their own peril, and Gladwell may as well have used the warrior imagery of a gamer with carpal tunnel syndrome. But all the same, the article was great, and scary.

I like football in small doses, but I didn't grow up with it. When I was in Texas a couple of years ago--a first for me--the thing I wanted to do more than anything was go to a high school football game, but unfortunately we were off-season.

It's inconceivable that American football could be altered significantly to protect the players, and I agree that human beings should be given the choice to do what they want. However, soon and perhaps very soon MMA will be facing serious legal challenges as to whether it can be sanctioned. As the data pool expands, they're going to find more and more serious and debilitating head trauma--there just aren't any old MMA fighters yet.

(PS: In football it seems to be the massive, inhumanly massive lineman who are at greatest risk, and examples like Bernie Kosar are much fewer.)

Posted by: michael murray at September 24, 2010 4:32 PM

Darth:

I couldn't agree with you more.

The analogy that Gladwell ( and I am also a fan) draws between dog fighting and football is specious, and convenient only as a "grab." Any athlete, and anybody for that matter, is going to want to do their best at something at their own peril, and Gladwell may as well have used the warrior imagery of a gamer with carpal tunnel syndrome. But all the same, the article was great, and scary.

I like football in small doses, but I didn't grow up with it. When I was in Texas a couple of years ago--a first for me--the thing I wanted to do more than anything was go to a high school football game, but unfortunately we were off-season.

It's inconceivable that American football could be altered significantly to protect the players, and I agree that human beings should be given the choice to do what they want. However, soon and perhaps very soon MMA will be facing serious legal challenges as to whether it can be sanctioned. As the data pool expands, they're going to find more and more serious and debilitating head trauma--there just aren't any old MMA fighters yet.

(PS: In football it seems to be the massive, inhumanly massive lineman who are at greatest risk, and examples like Bernie Kosar are much fewer.)

Posted by: michael murray at September 24, 2010 4:32 PM

Darth:

I couldn't agree with you more.

The analogy that Gladwell ( and I am also a fan) draws between dog fighting and football is specious, and convenient only as a "grab." Any athlete, and anybody for that matter, is going to want to do their best at something at their own peril, and Gladwell may as well have used the warrior imagery of a gamer with carpal tunnel syndrome. But all the same, the article was great, and scary.

I like football in small doses, but I didn't grow up with it. When I was in Texas a couple of years ago--a first for me--the thing I wanted to do more than anything was go to a high school football game, but unfortunately we were off-season.

It's inconceivable that American football could be altered significantly to protect the players, and I agree that human beings should be given the choice to do what they want. However, soon and perhaps very soon MMA will be facing serious legal challenges as to whether it can be sanctioned. As the data pool expands, they're going to find more and more serious and debilitating head trauma--there just aren't any old MMA fighters yet.

(PS: In football it seems to be the massive, inhumanly massive lineman who are at greatest risk, and examples like Bernie Kosar are fewer and further between.)

Posted by: michael murray at September 24, 2010 4:34 PM


Darth:

I couldn't agree with you more.

The analogy that Gladwell ( and I am also a fan) draws between dog fighting and football is specious, and convenient only as a "grab." Any athlete, and anybody for that matter, is going to want to do their best at something at their own peril, and Gladwell may as well have used the warrior imagery of a gamer with carpal tunnel syndrome. But all the same, the article was great, and scary.

I like football in small doses, but I didn't grow up with it. When I was in Texas a couple of years ago--a first for me--the thing I wanted to do more than anything was go to a high school football game, but unfortunately we were off-season.

It's inconceivable that American football could be altered significantly to protect the players, and I agree that human beings should be given the choice to do what they want. However, soon and perhaps very soon MMA will be facing serious legal challenges as to whether it can be sanctioned. As the data pool expands, they're going to find more and more serious and debilitating head trauma--there just aren't any old MMA fighters yet.

(PS: In football it seems to be the massive, inhumanly massive lineman who are at greatest risk, and examples like Bernie Kosar are fewer and further between.)

Posted by: michael murray at September 24, 2010 4:35 PM


Darth:

I couldn't agree with you more.

The analogy that Gladwell ( and I am also a fan) draws between dog fighting and football is specious, and convenient only as a "grab." Any athlete, and anybody for that matter, is going to want to do their best at something at their own peril, and Gladwell may as well have used the warrior imagery of a gamer with carpal tunnel syndrome. But all the same, the article was great, and scary.

I like football in small doses, but I didn't grow up with it. When I was in Texas a couple of years ago--a first for me--the thing I wanted to do more than anything was go to a high school football game, but unfortunately we were off-season.

It's inconceivable that American football could be altered significantly to protect the players, and I agree that human beings should be given the choice to do what they want. However, soon and perhaps very soon MMA will be facing serious legal challenges as to whether it can be sanctioned. As the data pool expands, they're going to find more and more serious and debilitating head trauma--there just aren't any old MMA fighters yet.

(PS: In football it seems to be the massive, inhumanly massive lineman who are at greatest risk, and examples like Bernie Kosar are fewer and further between.)

Posted by: Michael Murray at September 24, 2010 4:36 PM

Michael >> I believed that you couldn't agree with me more the first time. Now I really believe you. :- )

Posted by: DarthCorleone at September 24, 2010 4:50 PM

Actually, MMA is much less dangerous as regards head trauma than the NFL or boxing. The smaller gloves and (paradoxically) the lack of a ten-count mean that the first bit of head trauma is usually the last. The real brain damage comes from multiple small brain injuries, such as linemen continually running into each other, or boxers absorbing shot after shot. MMA fighters rarely absorb that much punishment. In fact, people who watch MMA with an unpracticed eye see the superficial injuries to the nose, the cuts, and the hyperextended limbs from submissions, and call it brutal. In fact, it's proven to be much safer than boxing (and will prove to be safer than football as well). And don't forget, I'm a fan of all three. I think an excellent point has been made. The people who participate in these sports do so of their own free will, and we can't forget the benefits these activities bestow even as we acknowledge the undoubted harm they do.

Posted by: jmag at September 24, 2010 5:11 PM

Ooops.

jmag--I get what you're saying. It does seem to be repeated trauma ( we see it all the time in hockey up here in Canada, where after a point, the slightest blow ends a career), that does the most damage. (wrestlers suffer this sort of dementia, too) However, I think with MMA it's just too soon to say, when I see somebody getting beaten out with repeated, vicious elbows to the face ( like fucking pistons, 10 blows in 5 seconds), I think uh-oh, that can't be good.

Posted by: Michael Murray at September 24, 2010 5:20 PM

This was the doc that turned me off Ali for life.

The systematic insults about Frazier, prior to the fight, went beyond any necessary pre-fight hype.

To do so to a man who was in his corner when he needed him most was repugnant.

Posted by: elzupasmonkey at September 24, 2010 6:23 PM

Some years ago, Ali said he regretted his (vile and totally undeserved) treatment of Joe Frazier and publicly apologized. Also, he apologized to Joe personally. At the time Joe said he accepted it and forgave him, but some hurts can't be mended by words.

Posted by: mechadave at September 24, 2010 6:56 PM

Anybody interested in the Thrilla should definitely read this article. In my opinion, sportswriting gets a bad rap. I can still remember being just a kid and running into this old Sports Illustrated my dad had lying around and reading this article. I'm sure I loved boxing before then, but I'm not sure I realized the potential for beauty and truth in sportswriting. I dare you to read this article and not be moved.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/centurys_best/news/1999/05/05/thrilla_manila/

Posted by: jmag at September 24, 2010 7:01 PM

I remember catching this doc while channel flipping, and I ended up glued to the tube for the rest of it. I'm an MMA fan myself, but I still remember the days when fighters like Tyson and Julio Cesar Chavez were still bringing glory to the sport, and it saddens me to see what was once known as "the sweet science" be reduced to trash talking, backroom dealing and all-out decadence.

I'm not afraid to say that the image of Frazier watching the fight is probably the saddest thing I've ever seen, and it truly moved me to tears. That, alone, is what makes me think this is one of the best documentaries ever made.

Posted by: Danny from Puerto Rico at September 25, 2010 12:44 AM

So, this is a sequel to "When We were Kings"? Surprised nobody mentioned that, and how George Foreman played into Ali's hands, and how George went on to become the anti-Joe Frazier.

I've been asking for decades why, when somebody dies in a boxing ring, there's often a huge outcry, which used to be regularly accompanied by demands that the sport be banned, but when somebody dies on a football field -- as six or 12 or 15 young men do every year -- he gets the tragic hero treatment.

They say it's not the aim of football to inflict pain, except I'll always remember the fucking hypocrites at Sports Illustrated wailing about football violence on the one hand while using "The NFL's Greatest Hits" videos to sell subscriptions. "The other team's quarterback must go down," Al Davis would say, "and he must go down hard." I think the message of that is pretty clear.

Football is now where the cigarette business was 40 years ago. "Head injury? WHAT head injury?"

Dear NFL: Mike Webster says "Fuck you" from the grave.

Posted by: , at September 25, 2010 1:41 AM

So, this is a sequel to "When We Were Kings"? When George Foreman played into Ali's hands ("Ali, boomayea!") and then went on to become the anti-Joe Frazier.

I've long wondered why it is that when a boxer dies in the ring, there's often a huge outcry, which used to be accompanied by a demand that boxing be banned, but when six or 12 or 20 young men die on a football field every year, they get the noble and tragic warrior treatment.

I think football is now where the cigarette industry was 40 years ago: WHAT lung cancer? WHAT head trauma?

Dear NFL: Mike Webster says "Fuck you" from his early grave.

Posted by: , at September 25, 2010 1:45 AM


It was my understanding that Ali apologized in public, and to Frazier's son for what he said, but never to Joe Frazier himself, which is the bitter rock Frazier has clung to all these years.

And yes, seeing the footage of Frazier watching the fight was complicated and unspeakably sad--it was like he was uncomprehending, unable to process how close he was to death, how close they both were to the brink--as if seeing a shadow of yourself in great illness.

Posted by: Michael Murray at September 25, 2010 1:45 AM

*joins Michael in multiple post shame*

Posted by: , at September 25, 2010 1:46 AM

Football probably is where cigarettes were 40 years ago, and that's very well put.

I think the reason that there's more hand-wringing over a boxing death than a football one is because there's more opposition to boxing. There's no present movement to outlaw football, at least that I know of, and boxing, of course, is pure and simple reduction of violence, while football's intent is to "score" not knock-out your opponent. The injuries/death in football are considered collateral damage to the ultimate goal--a touch-down. ( But what you say is still true, this is just what I imagine the line of reasoning to be)

When We Were Kings was made by a different director and production house, so it's not exactly a companion piece, but it's a great story, too--and yes, had Joe Frazier been a different man, he could be as beloved as George Foreman selling surprisingly good grills to the public. (Foreman, by the way, is one of the few old fighters I've seen who doesn't have some suggestion of pugilistic dementia. Here's hoping that continues.)

Posted by: Michael Murray at September 25, 2010 10:14 AM

Michael,

I didn't mean sequel literally; "companion piece," as you put it, is more accurate. I just meant, you could watch "Kings," and this one would more or less pick up where that one left off.

We're kind of attuned to the football head injury thing here because Dr. Julian Bailes, who works out of West Virginia University, is one of the lead researchers on the issue now.

I understand they're also doing some interesting work at North Carolina, where they've had every player's helmet wired for every game and practice for several years to record the impacts. The notion that seems to be emerging is that it's not the big highlight hits that do the damage, it's the constant low level hitting every day, dozens of little hits in practice and in games, inflicted by unnaturally large, unnaturally strong human beings.

Which, of course, makes perfectly good sense.

Maybe the solution isn't to build a better helmet but to go back to the days of having NO helmets, or those thin leather things of the Jim Thorpe/Red Grange days. If you know that if you tackle with your head it's REALLY gonna hurt, then you might learn to tackle with shoulders and arms instead.

Of course, in Thorpe's day, "big" meant 180 pounds.

My other solution? Big puffy helmets!

Because nobody's going to be talking about banning football in my lifetime.

Posted by: , at September 25, 2010 10:55 AM

When they asked him who was responsible
For the death of Duk Koo-Kim
He said, "Someone should have stopped the fight."
Told me it was him.
They make hypocrite judgments after the fact
But the name of the game is be hit and hit back.

-- Warren Zevon

"Boom-Boom Mancini"

Posted by: , at September 25, 2010 10:58 AM


We have exactly the same type of conversations up here in Canada in regards to hockey. If players didn't have helmets, then they wouldn't so reckless with their sticks, etc. Of course, unlike football, hockey is played on rock hard ice, so I don't think the abolitionment or degrading of helmets would make as much sense as it would in football.

Personally, I like the idea of the smaller helmets in football, but I don't imagine it would ever be implemented as the warrior, gladitorial look of the players is really a pretty integral part of the sports popularity.

Posted by: Michael Murray at September 25, 2010 3:36 PM

Good point. Although I'm not sure how it would hurt the sport to actually be able to recognize the players, see their faces. Among my many problems with football, especially at the pro level, is it's all pretty much the same except for talent distribution. That seems pretty obvious but what I mean is, if all the uniforms were the same color (Penn State white) and there were no numbers, and 15 teams played the other 15 on a given Sunday, I seriously doubt 99.9 percent of fans would know which team was which, just from watching them play. Pro football bores me to tears.

I root for a terrible baseball team, but I'd recognize a few of the players if they walked into a bar. I might recognize one of the local pro football players, but only because he'd be hogging a sink in the restroom, trying to drill an underage chick who's drunk out of her mind.

OTOH, it must be easier for football fans to not give a crap about who's wandering around out there with his bell rung one too many times when you never get to view them as human beings with faces but as some sort of gladiator video game sprung to life. That might be part of the problem too, why there's no huge outcry over head injuries. Football players are faceless and largely anonymous, therefore completely disposable.

Posted by: , at September 25, 2010 5:01 PM


You sound like you live in Pittsburgh.

One friend of mine declared that pro football is nothing more than a delivery system for gambling, a rather dramatic statement but one that certainly carries with it an awful lot of truth.

And you're right about football players being disposable for their anonymity, as are modern soldiers. If you went out and humanized football (and the military, for that matter), in particular the big, old hunks of meat that are the lineman, then you'd have a really different, and likely very uncomfortable relationship with watching it. Football and the military are very similar, and there are brilliant minds intent on sustaining both enterprises.

Posted by: Michael Murray at September 25, 2010 5:39 PM

Nicely put.

And I don't live in Pittsburgh but I'm close enough.

Posted by: , at September 25, 2010 6:48 PM

Wait ...

I forgot that I'd recognize two Steelers. The other would be Troy Polamalu (who from everything I've ever read is the anti-Roethlisberger in the human being category), unless he got a haircut.

Posted by: , at September 25, 2010 6:52 PM

And your friend is quite astute.

Posted by: , at September 25, 2010 6:52 PM