[The Clockwork Rat]

Considering the mounting evidence that concussions can have serious effects on the mind and brain even in adults, I don't believe there is any good cause to condone the participation of children in full contact combat sports such as Muay Thai.

http://espn.go.com/espn/e60/story/_/id/ ... ploitation

I would certainly not suggest that children should not be restricted from practising martial arts (since I actually teach kids martial arts myself), nor indeed even Muay Thai. The primary concern is the effect of repeated concussions on developing and immature brains. Full-contact competition should be restricted to informed and consenting adults.

Then it's awesome.

[Decky]

Pathetic, I suppose you want full contact rugby banned in schools just because occasionally a kid dies? Guardian readers are free to enroll their own kids into basket weaving lessons if they want, leave everyone else elses alone.

[Godstud]

Pathetic, I suppose you want full contact rugby banned in schools just because occasionally a kid dies?

Yep, that's the liberal way. Just don't let them do anything they could possibly hurt themselves in. No karate, no judo, no hockey, no football, etc. etc.

TCR's post is in response to some photos I took of Muay Thai. Liberal hissy fit.

[The Clockwork Rat]

I suppose you want full contact rugby banned in schools just because occasionally a kid dies?

Horse riding is more likely to result in fatal injury than rugby, and American Football may be more likely to result in brain damage due to padding. No, I'm saying that full contact sports should be restricted to adults because they damage kids' brains.

[Godstud]

OK. I don't agree with your opinion. I think we're doing too much protecting kids from possibilities already, to the point where they can't even have pillow fights.

[Decky]

No, I'm saying that full contact sports should be restricted to adults because they damage kids' brains.

So when you say no you mean yes you do want it banned in school (by definition they tend to be populated by kids). Fucks sake are you honesty a Jock from the highlands? I would expect this from someone like Goldberk but not you.

[Godstud]

I played hockey back when we had body checking. That's been outlawed now. They've taken a good deal of the fun out of things by deciding that they're too dangerous. Let the parents decide what's best for their children, and let them know the risks. That's all. You don't want your kid doing that? OK.

[Decky]

In our school all kids were forced to play whatever game was being played and that's how it should be. Two years under me there was a kid who was actually prescribed growth hormones he was so tiny (even the people just coming in for their first year of senior school were taller than him when he had been there 3 years, including the girls) and even he was forced to play rugby (by all accounts it didn't end well, I wish I had been there to see it ).

That is how it always has been and that is how it always should be.

[Conscript]

Yep, that's the liberal way. Just don't let them do anything they could possibly hurt themselves in. No karate, no judo, no hockey, no football, etc. etc.

TCR's post is in response to some photos I took of Muay Thai. Liberal hissy fit.

Somehow I get the feeling the same people who cry about liberals here likely don't permit children (especially their own) to voluntarily do drugs, since it'd affect their developing minds.

[Decky]

Lucky I don't have any but if I did they would only be allowed to use alcohol and only in (more or less) moderation.

[The Clockwork Rat]

OK. I don't agree with your opinion. I think we're doing too much protecting kids from possibilities already, to the point where they can't even have pillow fights.

Disregarding your colourful exaggeration at the end there, I do actually agree with you that kids are being mollycoddled, and that children aren't given room to make mistakes to learn from. However, concussions are not the same as cuts and broken limbs; they have significant long-term health effects which are especially pronounced with repetition that is inherent to full-contact combat.

[Godstud]

Kids doing drugs? Doing drugs and sports are not even close to the same thing.

Kids doing sports are improving their fitness, physical skill and development, as well as learning other things such as teamwork, determination, self-discipline, etc.

Every parent makes choices for their children, and hopefully they are the right ones. The children also have the right to make choices.

Concussions are not guaranteed any more than in any other sport, TCR. A risk? Surely. At the same time, is it worth the risk to develop skills, mental fortitude, etc.? Maybe.

Incidentally, head kicks and elbows are not allowed with kids under 13, So the risks are greatly reduced.

[Rejn]

I played hockey back when we had body checking. That's been outlawed now. They've taken a good deal of the fun out of things by deciding that they're too dangerous. Let the parents decide what's best for their children, and let them know the risks. That's all. You don't want your kid doing that? OK.

Body checking is outlawed? Even so, would you really say that they've taken a good deal of fun out of it by disallowing it? By removing body checking, you end up emphasising other skills in the game, and it can actually be more fun, especially for smaller players.

[anarchist23]

Godstud is quite aware of the risks of children boxing but just glosses over the dangers.

In early October, Thai media reported on an ongoing medical study that mapped the brains of 13 fighters under the age of 16 and the brains of 200 non-fighters of similar ages. The study, conducted at Ramathibodi Hospital in Bangkok, showed abnormalities as well as inferior memory response among the fighters. Damage in the fighters' brains resembled that caused by auto accidents, falls and assaults.

http://espn.go.com/espn/e60/story/_/id/ ... ploitation


The vunerable and exploited children knocking out other children for money. This is wrong.

[/quote]

[Godstud]

Read the whole article you posted, instead of just glossing over and cherry picking a few lines. It's just not something in your English culture, so it's BAD.

Proponents say muay Thai provides children a process of acculturation, and teaches them values of perseverance and self-reliance -- not to mention that the money they earn can be the sole income for impoverished rural families during the wet season.

As Vail points out, "Children from poor backgrounds don't have many opportunities, and the countryside is rife with problems -- everything from drug abuse, hooliganism, to having to work in potentially dangerous and underpaid jobs. Conversely, children who box are often admired in school -- which many can afford to go to only because of the money they earn boxing -- and they have a strict training regimen that keeps many of them out of trouble.

"None of this is to advocate children's boxing, mind you, or deny its very real dangers. But again I think it has to be seen in context."

Context can be found in research of the late Dr. Pattana Kitiarsa, assistant professor of Southeast Asian Studies at the National University of Singapore. Kitiarsa, the son of an avid boxer, wrote a 2003 paper titled "Thai Boxers as National Heroes."

In it, Kitiarsa connects muay Thai to Thai concepts of manhood and masculinity:

"For every muay Thai boxer and for many ordinary Thais, muay Thai rings are culturally sacred domains, traditionally reserved for men and their fight for masculine dignity. Fierce, full-contact strikes in muay Thai, which are considered brutal or devastating by many foreigners, are highly valued as the core symbols of the 'true game of true men with dignity and pride' by the Thais ..."

[Ganeshas Rat]

I agree with OP. Box must be denied for anyone not of mature age. You must have a head on your shoulders to decide if you want to put it on the block. Broken arms can be healed, brains no.

[SolarCross]

There are pros and cons, risks and benefits in all things. To focus only on the risks, only on the cons and hence restrict the range of actions only to those that are "safe" carries its own risk, its own con, that of becoming weak, timid and effete. He who dares wins and victory in the battle of life goes to the swift and the strong; the timid and weak find only defeat.

[The Clockwork Rat]

Empty rhetoric and grandstanding.

[SolarCross]

Finally it is safe to play footie in the park!

[Godstud]

Empty rhetoric and grandstanding.

No, it's not, but since you don't agree with it, you call it that.