Author
|
Topic: Man vs. woman in the ring?
|
FastFoodFreddy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10062
|
posted 30 August 2005 06:06 PM
Ann Wolfe wants to do what a lot of women just dream about - beat up a man. http://msn.foxsports.com/boxing/story/4813600
Don't think this is such a good idea Imo. But if I'm proved wrong,my hats off to any woman who can hold the world title in any class that includes male opponents. I will be very impressed.
From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045
|
posted 30 August 2005 06:55 PM
Didn't "mean margaret" someone or other from, I think, Winnipeg go up against a guy from the states and win on points?Women's boxing is so new that the quality isn't really very high. Much and all as I admire Layla Ali I don't think she'd be on her feet at the end of the second round against any one of the top fifteen men in her weight class. Men can wear a massive protective "jock" and even so can be immobilized by a low blow. A woman doesn't have the same level of breast protection. I have to tell you, on my very best day, one whack to the breast by Winkie Wright would have me running home to mother. Wouldn't even pack my bag, t'hell with that, buy new stuff when I get there! Winkie Wright is, in my opinion, pound for pound the most impressive boxer in the ring today. Layla Ali is good, but not a tenth of what Winkie is. Sorry , women. We've come a long way, but not THAT long!
From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
FastFoodFreddy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10062
|
posted 30 August 2005 07:38 PM
But ya got to give her credos for going for it.Whatever it takes, dedication (pain intolerance, Ouch!!)to go the distance is somthing to be admired. If we can keep the drugs and steroids out,it could be an interesting challenge. I say BRAVO.
From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957
|
posted 01 September 2005 10:13 AM
People do far more damage to their bodies by becoming heavy and out of shape than they do by boxing, wresting, judo etc. If our society allows us the freedom to overeat and underexercise, why shouldn't it allow us to engage in martial sports ... which take a lot of discipline, self control, and fitness, so long as its between mutually consenting adults (ie no one forces anyone into the ring).As for women in boxing: its still early, where women in wrestling and judo was a few decades ago. A modern olympic level female wrestler or judoka would easily win against her counterpart from a couple of decades ago, and would also handily beat club level male competitors in her weight division (though they still lose to elite level men). Look, martial arts (western or eastern) appeal to some sorts of people, including a lot of women. The women who do them seriously are tough, strong and disciplined, and have great confidence - and I suspect (which I can confirm at the club if you like) would say its the worst kind of sexism to say they're just picking up bad male habits.
From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 01 September 2005 10:26 AM
While I don't get boxing, I know that there are more and less disciplined levels (marked by class factors at least, I should think) and some curious fans -- would you believe that novelist Joyce Carol Oates, eg, is a boxing enthusiast?The Eastern martial arts seem to me much more obviously disciplines, mental/spiritual as well as physical, especially those that are now practised without any necessary contact with others at all -- tai chi, for instance, although I understand that tai chi is something like reverse karate? Or at least, I've been told that when students have learned the whole of the tai chi "dance," which is done in slow motion, they then learn to do it backwards very fast, whereas karate adepts do the reverse, performing their routines backwards very slowly. Does anyone know whether that is true? Wrestling, again -- there are class markers: Olympic wrestling is not the WWF, yes/no?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yst
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9749
|
posted 01 September 2005 07:41 PM
Furthermore, boxing has a tremendous cultural history and symbolic appeal to it which I don't think is going to go away any time soon. It has a mystique which surrounds, in particular, the character of the impoverished ethnic or cultural minority boxer (Black, Irish, Italian) who rises to success as the underdog, whether society and the crowds like it or not. I strongly contest the idea that boxing's symbollic appeal is merely based on violence, and would absolutely, emphatically disagree with the idea that it elevates violence as oppression, were anyone so preposterous as to suggest it. It's quite the opposite. The romance of boxing is the romance of the oppressed striking back.People like Jack Johnson and Mohammad Ali. Or in music, the subject of Simon and Garfunkel's The Boxer. Some people seem perfectly comfortable saying "your cultural tradition sucks - get a new one". Maybe one in which we instead exclusively romance the image and the idea of the underdog sitting down and talking out his or her differences with, say, in the case of a figure like Jack Johnson, the overtly racist old South. Good luck there. I doubt boxing's going to go away any time soon, nor is the image of the underdog fighting back going to lose its romance, given its historical appeal and the culturally significant figures who have emerged from it. [ 01 September 2005: Message edited by: Yst ]
From: State of Genderfuck | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
FastFoodFreddy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10062
|
posted 01 September 2005 08:37 PM
quote: Originally posted by nonesuch: Do we have to take part in all the worst guy stuff to prove we're equal? I concede, then: we're equally stupid! If we were smarter, we would try to stop people beating, bombing and burning one another. (Also cheating, robbing, exploiting and humiliating... but that's another fight.)
You put to much faith in the Human Race.
Check out the amount of fans that World Wide Wrestling takes in at there events.It's incredible and this crap is fake. And also check out the(UFC)Ultimate Fighting Championships,not fake and pure brutality to the finish. And we showcase this brutality weekly on your local network. It's like "ROME" rising from the dust. Woman have become just as violent as men Imo. Take a womans child away from her and the human instinct(Or should I say Animal Instinct)comes out very fast. Are we really that far above the Animals ?
From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Cartman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7440
|
posted 01 September 2005 10:30 PM
quote: Do we have to take part in all the worst guy stuff to prove we're equal? I concede, then: we're equally stupid! If we were smarter, we would try to stop people beating, bombing and burning one another. (Also cheating, robbing, exploiting and humiliating... but that's another fight.)
As a guy, I would like to see men compete more often with women rather than women compete with men. I know it sounds the same, but they are different IMO. Women should not try to replicate the same mistakes men have made in the name of masculinity. This is not equality, it is an attempt at "masculinity". I would like to see men compete to spend more time with kids, compete to effectively articulate emotional and health needs, and compete with women in methods used to resolve disputes. Maybe this sounds weird coming from a guy, but why does it seem that women usually try to become more like men when women have also (traditionally) exhibited valuable characteristics that could be exploited?
From: Bring back Audra!!!!! | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045
|
posted 02 September 2005 12:00 AM
Skdadl: Joyce Carol Oates isn't alone. I watch boxing every chance I get. Yes, some boxers are killed by the sport. So are people who drive cars and ride in airplanes. Or live in New Orleans. Yes, some boxers wind up punchy: so do people who experience head injuries at work or in car accidents, or who fall down the stairs, or take a horrible fall while skiing or...Boxing needs to be cleaned up, no denying that, it has fallen into the grubby hands of creeps and gangsters. What hasn't? POLITICS needs to be cleaned up, it has fallen into the grubby hands of creeps and gangsters. The training boxers go through is long, intense, and requires as much mental involvement as any "eastern" discipline. Lose your temper in the ring and you've just lost your bout. Yes, people get punched. They know before they go into the ring they are going to get punched. If they don't want to get punched, they stay home. Yes, it is brutal, and yes it makes heavy demands on the human body. Go to ANY working class bar and look at the hands of the people having a cool brew after a day of unremitting hard work. Peoples' lives are written in their hands. Look at the knuckles, look at how permanently swollen the fingers are, look at the wrists, look at how their veins stand out like strands of rope. Now watch how they get out of their chair to walk to the john. See the limps? See how they favour their backs? And they do it for what, ten lousy bucks an hour, forty hours a week, fifty weeks a year for how many years with never a chance at "the big break", never the dream that they'll be able to buy a house for their mother AND for themselves... boxing is kind compared to logging, boxing is gentle compared to working steel, and every boxer knows in her or his heart that when (not if) they are champion of the entire fekkin' world they will get RESPECT. For some it might well be the only way they can see to get respect. Boxing , like baseball, which I also watch and cheer, is chess. For every punch a counterpunch. Yes, "if only I were fifty years younger"... you bet I would. ("I could'a bin a contenduh"). Someone wrote that women have become just as violent as men. Some of us always were!! Women as warriors is an ancient tradition which has been deliberately "hidden" by the patriarchy. One of the first things the Christians did when they took over Ireland was take away the KNIFE all Celtic brides wore to their wedding. The skian dhu of Scotland was worn by both male and female. Celtic women always went into battle . When 'home and hearth' are threatened you think we're going to sit with our knitting and pray while wiping the occasional tear on the edge of our aprons? Nope, move all the kids out of harms way, leave them with those too old to fight and grab something; axe, scythe, sickle, or sack of rocks and beat the bastards back... but if you erase the memory of women who could stand up for themselves you might be able to convince their grand daughters to be meek and mild and take orders and be marginalized and subservient and obedient and NICE. I don't think most women boxers would win against most male boxers in their weight classes. Yet. But you might ask yourselves why it has taken so perishingly long for us to even have the opportunity...
From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448
|
posted 02 September 2005 12:29 AM
quote: The Eastern martial arts seem to me much more obviously disciplines, mental/spiritual as well as physical, especially those that are now practised without any necessary contact with others at all -- tai chi, for instance, although I understand that tai chi is something like reverse karate? Or at least, I've been told that when students have learned the whole of the tai chi "dance," which is done in slow motion, they then learn to do it backwards very fast, whereas karate adepts do the reverse, performing their routines backwards very slowly. Does anyone know whether that is true?
Karate is Japanese and T'ai Chi is Chinese. They are no more related than any of the other Asian martial arts disciplines from other countries and cultures. T'ai Chi and Kung Fu are more closely related, as they are Chinese and both have roots in the Taoist tradition. I don't think T'ai Chi is learned in a foreward/backward manner, exactly (I am studying Kung Fu, but have talked with T'ai Chi students at my school). Taoism is very concerned with balance, yin and yang. Most of the movements in the formal "forms" are balanced, almost circular. The same is true of Kung Fu, but it is faster, and often starts on the opposite side from T'ai Chi (there are also different palm positions, stances, etc). If this is overly simplistic, please forgive me -- I'm still a beginner as I have only been studying for about a year now. I'm not a great fan of boxing in its current incarnation, but I don't think that martial arts, eastern or western, are a bad thing. All peace and no fight is not balance. All fight and no peace isn't, either. For myself, I would not instigate a fight, but I reserve the right to defend myself and those close to me. [ 02 September 2005: Message edited by: Zoot ]
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yst
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9749
|
posted 02 September 2005 02:12 AM
Well, I'd resisted the urge to wax dogmatic, but on the violence vs. non-violence debate, my point of view is, living in a war zone, one had better learn to use a gun. Happily, I don't live in a war zone, so I needn't learn to use any such thing.But many women still live in the equivalent of a war zone when it comes to the threat of physical violence. And preparation for reciprocity should it be necessary strikes me as a reasonable approach to dealing with that. Consequently, I will assert that, at the very least, a tactical physical sport the specific goal of which is to use one's hands to bring an opponent down has a place as a reflection of that potential necessity and, most importantly, as a demonstration of the ability of a women to defend her body by physical means. More than anything, I think that a mainstream popular representation of effective female self-defence as an inherent possibility is very worthwhile, as far as cultural imagery goes.
From: State of Genderfuck | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 02 September 2005 08:22 AM
Well, um, I don't think I'd get too carried away at the prospect of what women can do, with either their hands or guns, in a war zone. Once an area is occupied by an invading enemy, what women are looking to avoid is rape, and fighting off an entire army one guy at a time does not sound to me a practical way to approach that problem, unless one's position is that one would prefer to die than be raped, which actually may be my position -- dunno: haven't been there yet. As far as I know, there aren't any really practical solutions to rape by invading armies. Some women are lucky; others find a powerful protector (an officer) with whom they can trade sex for safety. But a wave of such rapes is probably inevitable -- it seems to have been, thoughout history.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957
|
posted 03 September 2005 11:34 AM
You'll probably find this hard to believe, but while the actual competitions in martial arts (like any sports) are pretty intense, the training, which makes up 99% of the time spent on them, is very co-operative and comradely. Lots of us make life-long friends in them, more so than in most sports for some reason. In training people go out of their way to help another, in sparring we let beginners succeed (this is partly because its important to train neuron pathways to succeed, but also because its part of the club atmosphere). Most people see far more aggression on the freeway or at the office than they see training for boxing or judo. And then the competition is the test of what you've learned, and when you've trained its almost never brutal even when you lose (sure, like in anything there are exceptions, but its rare). As for why women's boxing is still so far behind; its not the coaching, it just takes time for a generation of girls to grow up. To excel at any sport, you have to start young; the current generation of women boxers started as teenagers or even adults, and it shows. Like in wrestling, judo, hockey (which went through this a couple of decades ago) the next generation are starting as girls; by the time they become women the proper reactions will be part of them, not something learned. You'll see the difference ... [ 03 September 2005: Message edited by: retread ]
From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308
|
posted 03 September 2005 02:42 PM
quote: Originally posted by brebis noire: I'm not sure how to approach that even in theory, especially being aware that an entire female culture (Amazon) was pretty much wiped out despite their knowledge of how to use weapons. Unless it was all just a myth used to teach women not to use weapons...
I believe so, yes. We tend to be aware of the classical Greeks discriminating against and marginalizing women, ignoring them even to the point of having a strand of opinion that didn't consider them worthy of love, so other men should be sought out instead. But the flip side that's less noticed is that they seem to have been quite afraid of women as well. The Furies were females who existed purely to exact the vengeance of the gods, and very nasty and fearsome they were. If you look at the backstory of the Trojan wars, they were started entirely by female goddesses. The Bacchantes were women--they tore Orpheus to shreds when he rejected them, and were generally known for embodying wild violence and rage, the dark side of untamed nature. And the Amazons, too, seem to have been a representation of Greek guys' fear of what women might be like if they got out from under the thumb. Of course it all had to end badly for the women, but that doesn't seem to have managed to rob the feared image of its power.
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045
|
posted 03 September 2005 05:17 PM
When I was in grade seven or eight we were being fed the "mythology" of "our" (British) culture and I (fool) asked why we were studying Mediterannean and Norse myths instead of the Celtic, Pictish, and British ones.Then (bigger fool) went on (yappy brat) to ask about Boann, and ERinn, and Banba and... came very close to "failing" that course. Did not get an answer, let alone a satisfactory one, continued to study Greek, Roman, and Norse myths, answered the questions, passed the tests and got the teacher's remark "does very well in those areas of the course in which she has interest and not well in areas which do not interest her. A more balanced approach is needed to improve her mark.". I asked my mom what it meant and Annie said "zip your lip, nod a lot, and pretend it's all very interesting". So I did. I passed easily. Question still lingers..why do we know so much about the mythology of the INVADERS and so little about Celtic, Scot, Pictish and Welsh mythology?
From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
bittersweet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2474
|
posted 03 September 2005 05:39 PM
quote: The Bacchantes were women--they tore Orpheus to shreds when he rejected them, and were generally known for embodying wild violence and rage, the dark side of untamed nature.
Well, that is the general idea, but it's important to know the context, that the Bacchae were mortal women, possessed by a male God. And that Orpheus, in his overwhelming grief, rejected nature, a central feature of the myth. The Greek myths are full of wonderful and wise dualities; those involving Bacchus/Dionysus are good examples. "...And so these same sisters I have stung with madness, driving them from their homes, and they inhabit Mt. Cithaeron bereft of sense; I have compelled them to take up the symbols of my rituals, and all the women of Thebes--the entire female population--I have driven from their homes in frenzy." - Dionysus in Euripedes' Bacchae.
From: land of the midnight lotus | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5702
|
posted 03 September 2005 06:42 PM
quote: Most people see far more aggression on the freeway or at the office than they see training for boxing or judo. And then the competition is the test of what you've learned, and when you've trained its almost never brutal even when you lose (sure, like in anything there are exceptions, but its rare).
As a casual observer, who admittedly doesn't understand why anybody in their right mind would take up boxing, regardless of their gender, boxing seems brutal even when you win, unless the competition is very uneven, and you managed to pummel your opponent into oblivion. Any "sport" where knocking your opponent unconscious can be considered a win seems brutal to me. Which is not the way eastern styled martial arts, or even greco-roman wrestling seems to me. quote: When I was in grade seven or eight we were being fed the "mythology" of "our" (British) culture and I (fool) asked why we were studying Mediterannean and Norse myths instead of the Celtic, Pictish, and British ones.
Anne, you were a far better student than I was, as I never even considered the possibility of bias in what were learning at that age. I would have love d to learn a broader curriculum of mythology from more varied cultural perspectives in school. Edited: stupid spelling. [ 03 September 2005: Message edited by: Raos ]
From: Sweet home Alaberta | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308
|
posted 04 September 2005 05:35 AM
quote: Originally posted by anne cameron: When I was in grade seven or eight we were being fed the "mythology" of "our" (British) culture and I (fool) asked why we were studying Mediterannean and Norse myths instead of the Celtic, Pictish, and British ones.
Interesting question. One possibility that springs to mind is that modern dominant/mainstream "British" culture comes out of the Anglo-Saxon + Norman traditons. Meanwhile, the mythologies available from the Celtic side are mainly Welsh and Irish. Nobody really knows much of anything about the Picts, and Scottish traditions are fragmentary and mostly derive from Ireland anyway. So the thing is, the Welsh and Irish are both politically troubling from an English point of view. Weren't the Welsh forbidden to speak Welsh until relatively recently? So, although nobody's going to say it and most probably won't even think in those terms, teaching the myths of the conquered people is an uncomfortable thing, especially if they still have a tendency to fight back. Greek and Norse myths are safe. Personally, I can't imagine raising the point, partly because I didn't really think in political terms at that age, partly because I would have been so enraptured that someone was actually teaching some of my favourite stuff (mythology, whosever they are) that I can't imagine worrying too much about details like just whose myths they were. You were lucky--nobody ever taught me anything that interesting in, well, pretty much all of school. And the Norse and Greek myths are great stories. Celtic ones are too, but gift horses, what?
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 04 September 2005 07:58 AM
I think that Rufus and byzantine are right about the "Why?" part of your question, anne, but I am, of course, driven to precise this claim a bit: quote: Meanwhile, the mythologies available from the Celtic side are mainly Welsh and Irish. Nobody really knows much of anything about the Picts, and Scottish traditions are fragmentary and mostly derive from Ireland anyway.
It's true that the people originally called Scots were the Irish settlers/raiders who established Dalriada at Dunadd in Kintyre and then, from the C6 to the early C9, just joined in the mix of alliances and contests going on around Strathclyde, where they, the Picts (north and east), and the North Britons (Cumbria) and Welsh all met. Their leader Kenneth McAlpin simply took over the land of the Picts in 839 after the last Pictish king was killed (we think) defending against a Norse army from the north. Prebble says the two peoples then just "fused and annealed" -- McAlpin seems to have had little conquering to do. Until recent times (C18), what that tended to mean was that the western clans were indeed more "Scots" but some of the central and northern clans were more Pictish or Pictish-Norse. The farther north you go, the more Nordic, and some of the Norse sagas are indeed part of Scottish heritage, the stories of Orkney and the stories of Macbeth and Bishop Crinan and Thorfinn notably. As Rufus says, though, the Scots (Gaelic) and Welsh (Celtic) mythologies survived, sort of; so did the Cumbrian and the Nordic; but most of Pictish history did not, was simply absorbed by the others. Hadrian called the inhabitants of Scotland he gave up trying to subdue Caledonians; I don't think they are called Picts (and other things, depending on who's calling) until about the C4. The names of their kings are known; their language isn't; and there is controversy over whether they were incomers or not, and when. byzantine, that is a lovely post, and I'm not exactly advocating canon-busting, but it can be amazingly tonic sometimes suddenly to put your mind at a different centre in the past and then view all the history that followed from that perspective. A book that did that for me, eg, is Neal Ascherson's The Black Sea (1996), where he retells the story of Europe by centring it to the north and east of Greece, the Greeks becoming peripheral players, sort of cheap snobs sometimes with that onomatopoeic word of theirs "bar-bar" -- barbarians -- ie: people who speak nonsense -- ie: not Greeks. Lovely meditation, that book.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957
|
posted 04 September 2005 10:20 AM
quote: As a casual observer, who admittedly doesn't understand why anybody in their right mind would take up boxing, regardless of their gender, boxing seems brutal even when you win, unless the competition is very uneven, and you managed to pummel your opponent into oblivion. Any "sport" where knocking your opponent unconscious can be considered a win seems brutal to me.
Actually uneven fights are the only ones which are brutal under your definition - closely matched opponents tend to have very few real hits, and the gloves absorb a lot of those. For my part, I see boxing (which is pretty popular among the first nations and which I did seriously as a kid) as much less harmful than say overeating, getting drunk, or smoking; if nothing else, among the pros (who are the only ones who don't wear helmets and who fight long matches that increase the chances for knockouts as they tire) its rare to have more than a few matches every year. And as said above, there are a lot of benefits to boxing training, mentally and physically. But mainly some of us just find it fun ... but since everyone's definition of fun varies I'm not going to try to convince you of it, anymore than someone will convince me that sitting around watching TV can be entertaining.
From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Canadian Revolution
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10398
|
posted 23 September 2005 04:33 AM
quote: Originally posted by FastFoodFreddy: Ann Wolfe wants to do what a lot of women just dream about - beat up a man. http://msn.foxsports.com/boxing/story/4813600
Don't think this is such a good idea Imo. But if I'm proved wrong,my hats off to any woman who can hold the world title in any class that includes male opponents. I will be very impressed.
This can only work if they skew/warp the numbers and basically make a 'heavyweight' female boxer go against a 'featherweight' male. Then again, I've seen some featherweights box, and WOW...they can sure whip out a flurry of lefties. The only problem with something like this...(and you are bound to see it), is where a female boxer is simply 'out of her league' as are some male boxers and they get their faces smashed into a bloody pulp. The last thing we need is to see a woman get beaten to the point where her face is turned into hamburger meat. Enough of the 'experimentation'. Men can beat the crap out of women. CASE CLOSED. [ 23 September 2005: Message edited by: Canadian Revolution ]
From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rumrumrumrum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3832
|
posted 25 September 2005 10:42 PM
Originally posted by Rumrumrumrum: Boxing is one of the stupidest activities that people engage in. Much like reading posts like this.
chubbybear rabble-rouser Babbler # 10025 no cb your post is not as dumb as boxing not quite
[ 25 September 2005: Message edited by: Rumrumrumrum ]
From: BC | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yst
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9749
|
posted 28 November 2005 02:11 AM
Update on this story:Sounds like the fight is off. Or possibly postponed. Quoted from commercialappeal.com, which appears to be behind a subscription wall or compulsory login at any rate, so this was retrieved from a Google cache: "Ann Wolfe injured herself in training this week so we had to go ahead and cancel it," said Prize Fight's Brian Young. "The card will probably be rescheduled, maybe in 60 days or something. But because she's injured, we won't be able to do it Dec. 2." I can't say I'm disappointed, if it never happens. She sounds like she's a genuinely talented female boxer who's trained herself to be as good as she is, and this reeks of perverse publicity stunt. [ 28 November 2005: Message edited by: Yst ]
From: State of Genderfuck | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|