Why Boxing and Equestrian Dressage Should Leave the Olympics

Introduction

Boxing has long been one of the main sports featured among the dozens of Olympic disciplines. It has been part of the Summer Olympics since 1904. However, eight years before boxing was featured in the 1896 Summer Olympics in St. Louis, the International Olympic Committee had removed the sport from the Olympic program, arguing that it was too dangerous. The sport was very popular in the United States, and was therefore re-introduced for the 1904 Games. Controversy has surrounded boxing's presence in the Olympics ever since, with many calling for its complete removal. This essay examines the moral perspective that would support such a removal (Matthews, 2011).

Another sport that has generated disagreement among committee members is equestrian dressage — an event that involves the use of horses to show-jump and navigate a course with different obstacles. Though the sport is often enjoyed by the wealthy, it is perhaps one of the most dangerous events to both rider and horse in the Summer Olympics. A slight miscalculation when jumping an obstacle can cost a rider his or her life (Cooke, 2012).

The Olympic Ideal

The Olympic Charter states that Olympism is a way of life that exalts and tests the mind, body, and will. Olympism combines sport with education and culture, creating a competitive program that rewards effort while focusing on respect for fundamental moral principles. The Charter further states that the objective of Olympism is to use sport for the peaceful development of humanity, with the aim of developing a harmonious society that focuses on the preservation of human dignity (IOC, 2015, p. 13).

One can readily observe, however, that equestrian dressage and boxing expose sportsmen and women to injuries that can be potentially life-threatening. Competitors in these events must fight and likely harm their opponents in order to be rewarded. How, then, can these two sports be in harmony with the Olympic Charter? (Matthews, 2011)

Olympic Boxing and the Ethics of Harm

Philosophers have developed a moral principle to enable people to gauge the likelihood of harm to others and weigh it against potential benefit. This is the principle of welfare for others. A central component of this principle involves learning how to distinguish good moral conduct from bad. One of its key pillars is that it is unnecessary to cause harm to others; instead, one should strive to do good for those around them (Matthews, 2011).

In boxing, however, the opposite holds. The object of the sport is for the athlete to punch his or her rival while avoiding being punched in return. Punches are typically directed at the head and the abdomen (Wacquant, 1992). Many boxers attempt to win early by throwing heavy punches designed to knock out the opponent. In other words, to win at boxing, one must hit an opponent as hard as possible. This presents a moral dilemma. As Davies (1993) argues, boxing is the only sport that legally permits a competitor to harm his or her rival. How, then, can such a sport be reconciled with the Olympic ideal of respect for universal ethical principles?

Proponents of boxing have argued that training in the sport involves learning to cope with pain and suffering, and that developing this capacity can increase personal dignity and contribute to a more harmonious society. Opponents have countered, however, that one must knock out or harm an opponent in order to gain this knowledge, and they question whether the sport actually makes the world more peaceful or simply provides another avenue through which young people are exposed to and entertained by violence in sport (Morgan, 2006; Matthews, 2011).

It is therefore difficult to see how the ethical principle of welfare for others is upheld in Olympic boxing. There is no straightforward way to reconcile a sport that encourages athletes to train for months, perfecting their fighting skills in order to cause maximum harm in the ring, with the Olympic ideal of respecting human dignity and ethical principles (Wacquant, 1992; Davis, 1993–94).

Conclusion

It has been shown above that permitting boxing and equestrian dressage in the Olympic Games is not the right decision, since both sports can cause life-threatening injuries to participants. In boxing, one has to injure or even knock out an opponent to win a medal — a practice plainly at odds with the moral principle of welfare for others as envisaged in the Olympic Charter. In equestrian dressage, the likelihood of causing harm to the horse is very high, and the likelihood of the rider being injured is equally significant. It is therefore difficult to understand why either sport was introduced to the Olympic Games in the first place. Considering the lack of moral good inherent in boxing and the serious risks to riders and horses in equestrian dressage, both sports ought to be removed from the Olympic program.

References

Ball, C. G., Ball, J. E., Kirkpatrick, A. W., & Mulloy, R. H. (2007). Equestrian injuries: Incidence, injury patterns, and risk factors for 10 years of major traumatic injuries. American Journal of Surgery, 193, 636–640.

Cooke, S. V. (July 28, 2012). OLYMPICS, Equestrian eventing: The Olympics' most dangerous sport? TIME.com.

Davis, P. (1993–94). Ethical issues in boxing. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, XX–XXI, 48–63.

IOC. (September 2015). Olympic Charter. Retrieved from on 26 January 2016.

Matthews, C. (2011). 'The thrill of the fight' — Sensuous experiences of boxing: Towards a sociology of violence. Doctoral thesis.

Morgan, W. J. (2006). Why sports morally matter. London: Routledge.

Wacquant, L. (1992). The social logic of boxing in Black Chicago: Toward a sociology of pugilism. Sociology of Sport Journal, 9, 221–254.