Would it be more attractive for amateur and youth boxing, if mals fighters would go shirtless and gearless?
2007-05-30 04:46:31 · 4 answers · asked by benvolio90 3 in Sports ➔ Boxing
"gearless" means: without headgear
2007-06-02 03:30:25 · update #1
I assume you're talking about wearing (or not) vests and protectors in the amateur game? The vest thing is really just tradition now, probably relates to Olympic Games (amateur, of course!) and International matches, to distinguish Boxers from different Countries. Pro's dont wear vests.
The wearing of protectors.. ie, cups, gum shield and headguards, is obviously there to protect as much as possible the boxer from serious damage to 'vital' parts. Pro's wear gum shields and cups. Only amateurs wear headguards. This one has been debated for many years now, with some having the view that they may cause more damage than they protect, as it offers abigger target area, and damage can be done when the brain is banged off the inside of the skull !! Not sure about the attractiveness of it.. Just reckon safety come first!!
2007-05-30 05:17:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
IMO, rather lots some thing grownup men do shirtless is extra beneficial exciting for the two individuals and spectators. yet "gearless"? i will't tell what you're speaking approximately relatively, yet while kit is sensible, why drop it?
2016-11-23 18:01:20 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
IMO, almost anything guys do shirtless is more fun for both participants and spectators.
But "gearless"? I can't tell what you're talking about specifically, but if gear is useful, why drop it?
2007-06-01 06:33:46 · answer #3 · answered by georgetslc 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's not a fashion show.It doesn't matter one way or the other
2007-05-30 13:36:42 · answer #4 · answered by BEJEWELED 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋