If you listen to knowledgeable people on this issue-the problem is the coaching at younger levels. Basically anyone can be a pee-wee coach and on up through middle school. People who don't exactly know the best techniques for both safety and effectiveness. They also say that kids don;t need to start playing at such young ages to learn. There are tons of stories of kids starting to play in 9th grade, learning and progressing and being great players.

You also sound like the over protective, "don't want my child to stub a finger" parent. How many kids have played football and/or boxed in the last 100 years? How many are seriously injured or die? The numbers are against you, actually...

I'm not an expert and don't pretend to have any particular knowledge of this. I'd have to see some more specific numbers to really be convinced one way or another.

However, it would make sense that pee-wee football isn't going to be where kids are getting hurt. Hell, pee-wee players are doing well to walk out on the field with all the gear on without falling over. Most kids simply aren't big, heavy, fast, or tall enough to generate destructive tackling forces until they get a little older - like say the middle-school to 9th grade age range.

Also, regardless of what YOUR kid's coach teaches - OTHER coaches on OTHER teams DO teach players to deliberately hurt opposing players.

I've read of at least 6 high school/prep school aged players dying THIS SEASON, so far, alone. So, I'm pretty sure the answer to your question puts the numbers against Rob.

I have read all the comments, and everyone missed the main point.

1. Money drives all of the sporting activities. Nike has practically a monopoly one all (male) sports from grade school up and especially, college football.

2. Despite having to comply with Title 1X (Girls get to play), sports is about boys. Predators (scouts, agents) are even checking out Grade school boys, and definitely High Schoolers to make money (greed).

3. Sports (Football, Basketball) are the "Cash Cow" for most schools, colleges, period.

4. Children injured in school sports (college included), are never adequately compensated or even recognized as such, and live in pain most of their adult lives and end up having short earning periods/medical dependency.

5. While aggression in boys, while in school, is closely monitored, watching boys beat the crap out of each other at a boxing event, while (adults gaze on) , is really: sick.

The money spent on male children's sports, could be better used to help them become functional adults, but it will never happen, because we still have the male Gladiator Complex.

Jensen-

You can make anything look ugly if you only highlight the flaws, but there are many positive aspects to sports as well that you are ignoring.

Many of the cliches about sports are, in fact, absolutely true. They help kids to socialize, work as a team, and build relationships with people outside of their usual bubble. They teach kids a lesson in the rewards of hard work, and about success and failure. They provide a potential route to college that might not otherwise have existed for a lot of kids. Not to mention the obvious health benefits of exercise.

They might as well. There's generally not of material there to start with.

Exactly. How will they become men and know how to defend themselves if you shelter them? What does not kill you, only makes you stronger.

I pity the kids who have to grow up in a padded and sterile environment. No wonder they are a weaker generation who cannot handle failure.

Oh boy, another thing to shelter the children from, on the way to creating a nation of sissies. No wonder there's so much gender confusion today.

What does not kill you, only makes you stronger.

brain damage makes you stronger? not that i agree with stopping kids from boxing but that's just a ridiculous statement.

Yes, because trying to prevent brain damage is "for sissies."

Yet, when one of these kids takes too many hits to the head, grows up, loses their mind and kills somebody, you'll want to put the death penalty on their ass.

The hell is the matter with you people?

I totally agree. We want to keep kids safe, so we don't let them play the sports they used to, and then we yell at them for being lazy and playing video games where it's safe. I would rather my kid take the slim chance of getting injuries and have him/her play sports, be active, interact with other kids, and enjoy life. As I get older and am physically unable to do these sports, i wish i would have done them when i was younger. Live life, enjoy it, and die happy. It's not about how old you live to be by playing it overly safe, it's about enjoying your life no matter how long it is.

This is not a question of whether kids should play sports or sit around playing video games. This is a question of whether kids should BOX or play, for example, baseball.

I often wonder if the people who vehemently bemoan the "sissy-fication" of our nation's youth in response to stories like this actually have children. I had a very similar opinion before becoming a parent. But, it's a much more difficult balance between protection and over-protection when it's your own flesh-&-blood.

Why get so defensive? It's not as if they're proposing a law to ban boxing, football, or other violent sports.

Doctors warn us about all sorts of health risks: that's what their job is. If you want to ignore their advice for whatever reason, feel free; but at least now you have the information to make a more informed choice.

DirtyDog200 wrote "Oh boy, another thing to shelter the children from, on the way to creating a nation of sissies. "

Boxing rules were crafted to produce a match for spectators. There are many sports available, including hard contact martial arts, that produce tough men without an emphasis on striking to the head.

As anyone that has punched a head would know, fingers/knuckles are very easy to break and cut when punching without gloves. A cut from a human tooth requires an immediate trip to the hospital. Two ways to cut the line in the emergency room are joint dislocations and tooth bites. This is an indication of their severity.

PDK wrote "I often wonder if the people who vehemently bemoan the "sissy-fication" of our nation's youth in response to stories like this actually have children."

Count me as a parent. With the typical American boy experiencing his first male teacher in middle school and a compete sissification of recess and school sports to neutralize normal boyhood play, I have a major concern here.

Boys learn much from hard contact sports by nurturing traditional male cultural attributes such as competition, aggression, hierarchy and courage, all of which are associated with reasonable bodily risk.

Yeah, because everybody knows that boxing is the only alternative to playing video games. Oh, no, wait. There's motorcycle racing. That's the other one.

I prefer to have my kids involved in Scouts, Cross Country running, track, soccer, tennis, and we bike a lot as a family. The only options for all of America are not boxing or sitting in front of a TV. However, for many inner city kids who don't have safe neighborhoods, those are their only options. It would be nice to have other options available to those kids, such as martial arts, which can affect the same solution without taking repeated poundings to the brain while it is still developing.

Too bad they didn't address karate and other martial arts in this article - any of which would probably provide much more discipline and focus than boxing. I'd love to know how many injuries kids get in those activities - if any. Not to mention that any reputable martial arts instructor would preach avoiding a fight rather than looking for one.

Excellent point Miker. The only difference is that karate lessons cost a lot more than joining a gym and a lot of these kids probably have no choice but to belong to to the gym.

Well, you got me on that one! I let my kids try karate last year and it cost a bundle. However, I would suggest that karate isn't inherently expensive. It seems to have become one of the "in" activities for parents to put their kids into; again, I'm no expert, but I'd guess that the recent popularity has driven up the price of karate lately.

Somebody who really cared about keeping kids off the streets could surely teach karate for little more than what it costs to run a boxing gym, no?

So causing brain damage will allow them to live long enough to present clinical and behavioral evidence of it? Brilliant! How come nobody else sees the sheer genius of this?

Miker: I'm sure someone could teach karate for the same price as going to a gym but it would take some time donated on their part. If the inner community went and asked for help, I'm sure something could be worked out.

Mymom: not all boxers become brain damaged, quite the contrary, its probably very few in the realm of the entire field. Closing the gym and having the kids hang out in the street will do a lot more harm than a potential brain injury down the road. Maybe they should shut down all football leagues across the country because they have a higher rate of concussions than boxing. Or motorcross should be banned because you can become crippled if you crash. Ban all motorcycles for they clearly lead to premature deaths. Death rates on motorcycles are substantially higher than boxing. As a matter of fact, more kids die and are brain injured from pool drownings than boxing. We might as well ban swimming and ownership of pools. These are all so dangerous and we have to protect our children, right? Where do you draw the line?

ok ... i have read all the uneducated comments i can handle. First of all Armature boxing and pro boxing are so far apart from each other! .. in Armature boxing the kids wear USA boxing approved headgear (which is tested to absorb the blows). They box within weight classes and experience levels. The Referees and Judges watch very closely so that NO CHILD IS HURT!! If one of the boxers seems to be outmatched in anyway, the bout is stopped right then. They are not taught to "beat each other to a pulp!" It is very controlled and disciplined! and as far as the comment about them "looking for a fight" .. that is where the discipline comes in. You leave the fight in the ring! you never are supposed to use your boxing skills outside o the ring. It is amazing how people who don't understand the sport, can just bash it the way you people are! .. oh and by the way I am a 55 year old woman who has been involved with armature boxing for many many years!! who has 5 grandchildren! and guess what ... some of them box, some play baseball, and others play basketball. sports are the way to keep kids off the street and away from drugs! some of our coach's even have the boxers bring in their report cards, if they are failing, they don't compete. Lets see... does football do that?? or soccer?? Look at the stats .. there are less injuries in boxing than any of these other sports! EDUCATE yourself folks before you judge something you know nothing about!

i have read all the uneducated comments i can handle. First of all Armature boxing and pro boxing are so far apart from each other! .. in Armature boxing. . .

Armature boxing? Is that done with electric motors? So much for "all the uneducated comments."

nana: I get your point; well spoken even if mispelled. Miker: you're tough, I better check my dictionary before any further posts, LOL.

Chet: No need! I just found it a little ironic that nana basically called us all "uneducated" and then proceeded to spell amateur wrong multiple times while mounting an enthusiastic defense of amateur boxing.

Yeah, that was pretty funny.

Ronkonkoma wrote "The only difference is that karate lessons cost a lot more than joining a gym "

It shouldn't. Karate and the like (grappling) require less equipment than boxing. The main problem with youth karate is indeed its absence of hard bodily contact and general conditioning. Most McDojo karate classes are taught by young boys that are taught by martial arts teachers that haven't fought, either.

I think they actually have come out on the football issue on several occasions. But, you've basically called it right - it's not so much that the doc's won't speak out about it. The American public at large just isn't going to hear it.

Neck, head injuries in Foot ball are at epidemic numbers. The fairly recent use of the helmet for "spearing" a downed runner is very troublesome. So much for sportsmanship and fair play.

The solution - better padding to protect the tackler... what about the receiver?

Football at the high school level is ridiculous. All of the padding and helmets have created a version of sport which are designed to destroy an opponent.

I'd really like to know why big french-fry eating fat guys are athletic heroes.

I would probably agree with you on many similar subjects, but not this one.

Are you saying that everybody who doesn't box is a wuss?

I think the point the docs and others are trying to make is that there are alternate activities which serve the same purpose (being "unwimplike") without deliberately inflicting long-term injuries which may not become symptomatic for years and years.

No Miker, they are just turning us into a bunch of pussies. You can get hurt in many ways in this world. I'd rather have my kids know how to box and defend themselves. A lot of people in the world that are mean and bad. ...and as a sport it does teach discipline and helps you stay in good shape. Better than having your kids sit in front of a tv all day or the internet. Sure there are a lot of sports, but you can get injured in all of those also and have long term effects from it. You can't just not do things in fear of getting hurt. That's what the world is becoming, at least in the US. A whole lot of softies.

100% agree

Chris: You'd have to read ALL of my posts on this article to get that I actually agree with your point. But, I don't agree that boxing is the best or even a particularly effective activity for accomplishing that goal.

For my part, boxing is probably teaching the kids in the 'hood the wrong thing to start with. There's already plenty of violence all around them. They don't really need anybody to teach them about that. My position is that just about any true martial art would be a much better path for these kids as well as kids who live in the suburbs.

On top of that, why are boxers matched up by weight? Think about that for a minute. Then consider that martial arts teach kids to deal with any opponent, regardless of relative size.

Trying to turn us all into a bunch of wimps.

... that's not the Doctors so much as the feminizing of men being carried out now in the final stages of militant feminism. Fem-bots have already made it OK to be gay, now if they can just get men to denounce that ugly, aggressive side of their nature - everything will be perfect.

What they are looking for is inter changeability between male and female. Girls can now do whatever boys can do and still be feminine. But boys are still held to the old standards of chivalry.

Have you seen any popular media (TV or movie where a strong women is not there to save the male lead at some point in his trials)? Have you seen a real honest to goodness, TV Dad who honored by his family? Most have Dad as some bumbling idiot who the wife is constantly saving his on comedic excesses.

chris wrote " I'd rather have my kids know how to box and defend themselves."

Why does boxing, an archaic spectator sport designed with repeated skull contact above the ropes for all ticker purchasers to see, have to be the way kids learn to defend themselves? Boxing wouldn't exist without gloves and a ton of rules. Boxing specifically excludes strikes to the groin. Thus, it isn't real self-defense.

I agree that sport fighting is important. Can't other targets be included such as legs? What about wrestling and submission grappling?

'cause then it wouldn't be boxing.

If you want to see all the other stuff, there are other martial arts which allow it. Car racing is called car racing, because race cars. If you want to see horse racing... go to a horse race. If you want to see wrestling, go see wrestling... street fighting - heck, just cuss someone down at the local pub.

Boxing, done outside the ring is a lot more effective than you think. As for the gloves, they allow a stonger, more consistant punch than bare knuckle boxing. If you go to the MMF exhibitions - you'll notice most of the contestants wear them - they protect the hands ... a fighters best weapon. The hand/fist is a easy to damage - has ruined the career of many fighters who used tape men who didn't know what they were doing.

I have to say I agree, Beoweolf. I have to say that as the woman who has a man beast (who boxes very well, I might add. Just, never in a ring) for a husband, that is highly MALE. He is highly agressive, and shows it. I love it. I must add that I am a slightly agressive female. But, that doesnt mean that I am not feminine. It just means that I have a strong mind, and can hash things out in a decent and honorable manner. I believe that men and women have their prospective places in a family.

wowed: would he smack you around if you disagreed with him?

Hell NO! He woudnt touch our kids either. I think the only time he actually put hands on one was when he had to physically stick our son in the corner because he thought he was tough stuff for a minute, lol. He is a real man. He works hard, plays hard, and is the sweetest, most gentle giant when it comes to me or those kids (unless its discipline time). And I have given him plenty of opportunity to test the limits on what a man can take before he comes to the point of no return. Trust me. There is never an excuse for a man to hit a woman. Unless she is a psycho, and is trying to kill you. That I do believe needs a knock out. I was raised by a mom that said "If you are going to hit a man like a man, be prepared to get hit like a man". I laid one wife beater out. He hit my friend right in front of me. He didnt hit me back :)

He sounds like a good man, and you sound like a smart woman.

Why, thank you. He is a good man. He was in prison for 6 years (once for arson, and once for property destruction), and had a pretty bad childhood. He was angry for alot of years, and he is the first to admit it. He is also the first to tell you his kids WILL NOT make that mistake. He was mean, never abusive, before I met him and he went to prison. He didnt care what anyone thought. In fact, there is still a town (300 people) that hates him with everything because he didnt care what they thought, and used to tell them as much. He destroyed the house there (abandoned, and the town is full of inbred nasties, just FYI), and that is why he went the last time. Now he is different. He still doesnt care what you think, he just does the right thing. He looks scary, but he is the most decent man I have ever met. And the strongest, I think.

And thank you for my compliment, as well. I like to think I am. Common sense goes along way, and I think people have forgotten that.

Wouldn't surprise me. But, as you and most everyone else outside of SF knows, there's a huge gulf between SF and reality.

DCLaw1 wrote "The San Fransico Council"

Nonsense. California, and particularly the SF Bay Area, are a hot bed for martial arts training.

Well there are other types of self defense that don't involve always going for the head.

is there truly cause for concern based on evidence?

I believe the entire point of this article is that there is.

I have to agree that kids need to know self defense. While I can see that it may cause some brain issues, but at the same time, those same issues can arise from being beat up by the neighborhood bully. I would have to say that I prefer my kids know how to handle themselves, than to get beat up for me worrying over a concussion. Kind of sounds pointless.

My kids can handle themselves NOW, just because their step dad slap boxes with them constantly. I saw my son being picked on by a kid twice his size, and when the kid threw a blow, he blocked it and then laid him out. My son was bullied a lot as a young kid, and now he cant stand to see someone going through the same thing. I think that self defense classes and martial arts are a great way to teach kids to anti-bully. They know they can handle themselves, but they also know it is only to be used for protection. They also have a tendancy to do better as far as school because they are taught to push themselves harder.

These kids in the bad parts use these things as a way to escape their horrible home life. They use it, and it makes them stronger, better, and happier people. If they dont have boxing, they will find something that is probably worse to pass the time, and then a concussion is the best outcome. That would be preferable to a bullet anyday.

Most martial arts do not include repeated lunging punches to the face? Why? Because 1) it destroys the hand 2) subjects the punches to lethal infections.

While I admire boxing for its athletic conditioning and competition, boxing is a punching-the-head-with-a-big-protective-glove sport that excludes kicking, takedowns and grappling. Why is American youth self-defense crippled by a spectator sport?

Same reason WWF was/is(?) so popular. People are amazed by the things they cannot or do not want to do themselves.

As far as it goes, I see boxing as a somewhat, eh, more barbaric sport than martial arts, but they all have discipline, and the outcome is still pretty much the same.

Unobjective view- I suppose a boxer could say that they dont like to kick because it could cause some other injury in response. I could see faults with both sports as far as injuries.

I say let the kids do what they need to do to stay out of trouble. Be careful, teach safety, and dont they have head gear? I dont know. I just know that there are ways to keep this being a positive thing for kids. That is what the bottom line is.

Come on. First of all, badminton a contact sport?

Second, polo? Seriously? There probably aren't 3000 polo players in the whole country. I'm sure I'm way off on that, but the point is that relative to the population as a whole nobody really plays polo. As you said, it's the bailiwick of the wealthy. Who the hell else could afford it? So, hardly anyone - relatively - gets hurt doing it and of those who do, well, they're big (and rich) boys and girls who can make their own decisions. Nobody really cares if they get hurt or even killed. Their families can afford insurance and funerals. (As far as damage to the horses, that's another issue altogether - not for this thread.)

Yes, your point is valid that virtually any sport can result in injuries. That's why the sports medicine field exists. Those injuries are generally incidental to the sport itself. The point of this article, however, is that the whole point of boxing is to inflict injuries.

lal!

I would LOL, but all I can do is make a sort of grunty-snorting sound through my flattened, broken nose that I got from boxing.

Congratulations.

I do wonder, though, if you'd be such a supporter if your son had been (or if he happens to eventually become) one of the kids who finds out that he's got a serious brain injury.

I don't think anyone, including these doctors, are saying that boxing has never done any good for anyone. Obviously it has gotten lots of kids out of the 'hood and turned some of them into millionaires. The question is: At what cost? Mike Tyson, Cassius Clay. . . not exactly models of what I want my son to be like when they reach those ages.

Both of the boxers you site were not genius material to begin with, so no loss there.

Many people would argue that boxing automatically makes you "not genius material." So, you kind of set up a circular logic there.

Mike Tyson, Cassius Clay, Mohamed Ali . . not exactly models of what I want my son to be like when they reach those ages.

January 17, 1942) is a retired American boxer and three-time World Heavyweight Champion, who is widely considered one of the greatest heavyweight championship boxers of all time. As an amateur, he won a gold medal in the light heavyweight division at the 1960 Summer Olympics in Rome. After turning professional, he went on to become the first boxer to win the World Heavyweight Championship three times.

Ali, is a sad case, its difficult to see the remnants of the great physical specimen he once was. But again, I look at the number of football, players who regularly die in their late 40's to mid 50's and I see where he, being alive and seeing his children grow up... its not that bad either. He had a chance at a life which few dream of and fewer still achieve. Even in this stage of his life, he has grace which many admire. The question to ask is whether living his life as he chose, did he give more than he took? I think he made a great choice.

Especially in the case of Mike Tyson, the trajectory of his life vastly improved by him even reaching his current age - regardless of the mistakes he made. The Street thug which he freely admitted he was, had a limited life expectancy. He was doomed to either killing or being killed by the time he was 20 or 25... if he didn't go to prison.

Mike Tyson did go to prison. . .

I do agree with the point you raise about football, though. That's why my rather thin son will not play no matter how much he bugs me about it. There's virtually zero chance that he could ever make a living at it, so there's simply no point in taking the risk of a lifelong injury. If he wants to play when he's fully grown, that's his choice. My job is to make sure he lives that long and I'd like to see him do that without a crippling knee injury or multiple concussions.

I'm sure for some kids those risks are worth taking.

Yes he did ... but NOT for murder and he is still alive, thank heaven for small favors.

Miker wrote " The question is: At what cost? Mike Tyson, Cassius Clay"

This is unfair. You are picking on poor youth that elevated themselves through boxing. Their other opportunities would have been running packets of recreational and illegal drugs through the streets.

Arguably, there are several options. The National Junior Tennis League, among others (http://www.njtlfirstserve.org/about.html).

Not going to teach kids to defend themselves in a street fight or a mugging. But, that's not always strictly needed. Where it is, what about karate? Judo? Jujitsu?

Excellent post. However. . .

There are a lot of ex-boxers that have attested to the fact that their lives would have been much, much different without the mental, physical, and yes, social, training they went through in order to compete in this sport.

I'd submit to you that these ex-boxers' lives weren't changed so much by the "mental, physical, and. . . social training" as by the money. And, on that note, the boxers' lives weren't improved nearly as much as the lives of their promoters.

Thanks. There's been a whole lot of boxers that never even made it to the pros that have said their lives were changed by being involved in amateur boxing. I'm one of them.

Again, excellent point.

I'm sure nobody would try to discount what it did for you. And, I'm very sure that nobody is trying to eliminate a path to success, especially for kids who may need it. Sounds like it worked out great for you, and that's awesome.

I would be interested to know if you know of anyone who boxed who hasn't suffered because of it? I don't mean a few black eyes or cut lips - but truly life-long injuries?

Yes, I have, and there's a lot of them. You can pretty much see who's going to have the later problems by their style of boxing. Guys like Mayweather and especially Bernard Hopkins, who seldom get hit with a good shot, have the defensive skills necessary to ensure longevity in the sport, and in life. Others, that I don't want to bring more public attention to, are suffering now because they simply took too much punishment, because they didn't have the skills to avoid it, or simply stayed in the sport for too long, and as their reflexes and speed naturally slowed, they took more punishment. Again, this is where strong administration might help, to identify boxers that are in this category. I can see several pros right now that fit this description, but unless they're told by a doctor they can't continue, they will - ergo your point about the money being a strong influence. The intoxication of fame is another factor also, this is the easiest one to see, people who just can't bring themselves to walk away because they are so hooked on the fame and adulation associated with being a world class fighter.

I'd have to say if they ever come up with such a sanctioning body you sound like the sort of person who should be the chairman.

Thanks again for that, and I would definitely be involved if I had the opportunity, but there are many, many people out there that are so much more qualified than I. I've just done enough of it to really appreciate the sport, and have watched it for many decades, but the ones who've boxed professionally for many years, some of the managers, trainers, and announcers really know what's going on very well. It's nice to know that there are people like you that have an open mind about the sport, thanks for your comments here.

The article isn't about parents saying that boxing is dangerous. It's about doctors saying that it's a lot more dangerous than many parents realize.

my point is "some" parents will take this one article and consider themselves empowered to tell all other parents that "they would not let their child participate in this sport and neither should you"

No doubt, but you know many parents will try to do that on any subject - TV watching, video games, tree climbing. . .

very true Miker

The real question is whether it is more dangerous than being jumped by 3 or more idiots, stabbed multiple times, intimidated and bullied everyday from kindergarten to the day you either drop out of school or hopefully beat the odds and actually graduate?

If that's the question, then I'd argue that spending your time training for a sport where you have no more than ONE opponent at a time, matched by weight-class, in a confined ring, with no weapons of any kind is NOT the answer.

Whereas, a martial art which is "watered down," as you say, "to provide the necessary skill of self-defense" actually IS the more logical choice.

All I an tell you is a trained competitor, regardless of weight class, has an advantage over an un trained competitor in the majority of situations.

Isn't that the same rational behind Asian Matial arts? That an skilled farmer had a better chance to protect himself and his family from maruading mercenaries than an unskilled one? No one claims he will "win" every conflict, but he will not be a total victim who will not even try to defend himself. It takes time, a lot of time to develop the advanced skills of most martial arts (including boxing) - however, for rapid progress - I doubt if any shows greater, competence, usable results, faster than boxing.

Remember - even Jeet Kune Do, the system developed by the very gifted and nationalistic proponent of Kung fu, Bruce Lee - also incorporated "Lowly", common, boxing into his system. Lets not get to wrapped up in denigrating boxing because of its origins in the mean streets of East London. It was also practise by the Greeks and Romans in antiquity.

Not denegrating at all. Just pointing out that you're supporting it as a means of teaching kids to defend themselves against situations which bear no resemblance whatsoever to what they'll encounter in a boxing match. Whereas, while one or two may include some boxing techniques, the traditional martial arts are more specifically geared toward practical self-defense.

I know it takes years to become a black belt guru wizard, but I'm living proof that even a rather unathletic guy of slight build can learn and apply effective practical martial arts techniques quickly. I'm not "into" karate or any of them. I'm just arguing that boxing may not be the most effective means of teaching what many people here are arguing is a necessary skill or mindset for kids in rough neighborhoods.

I might suggest, we are not as far apart it may seem. If I were in living in Shanghi, my first inclination might be to attend Kung fu classes, if I were being harassed. In Thialand... Muy thai, In the USA, in the suburbs, you have many many choices. However, generally speaking the local free/low cost PAL classes will likely be Boxing. You start where you can, then go from there. The point, in my opinion is to develop some method of self defence, a source of earned/learned self confidence.

Heck, where I grew up, having skills at insults was practiced as a martial art. Some kids were particularly devastating in "combat"... no one would challenge them - not even bigger, physically imposing fighters.

All I can tell you is a trained competitor, regardless of weight class, has an advantage over an un trained competitor in the majority of situations.

Isn't that the same rational behind Asian Martial arts? That an skilled farmer had a better chance to protect himself and his family from marauding mercenaries than an unskilled one? No one claims he will "win" every conflict, but he will not be a total victim who will not even try to defend himself.

Too true, too true. And, we aren't far apart at all.

In an earlier post, though, I suggested to someone that karate isn't an inherently expensive activity. I think it has become pricey in the 'burbs because so many well-off parents sign their kids up for it, but when you get down to it you don't even need a gi to do karate. Just a fairly big room with a padded floor. (I guess if you really wanted to develop some tough kids you could forego the padding. . . ) Obviously sparring requires some gear, but again I think there's an unrealistic mark-up on the price of that stuff.

So, while I totally agree with you and your point, I don't agree that karate has to be an unaffordable option.

True enough. There's suffering brain damage, and then getting older and dying in a nursing home a lot sooner than might otherwise have been the case.

They're not talking about scrapes and bruises. They're talking about serious brain injuries. But, I'd agree that football is at least as bad - probably worse.

Tag? Seriously? I guess I shouldn't be surprised. My kids rarely get to go outside for recess - it's either "too hot" or "too cold."

That's not my kids' decision, by the way. That's the teachers who say that! (My kids come home and go straight outside unless there's lightening.)