Between rounds: the aesthetics and ethics of sixty seconds

ABSTRACT

This paper seeks to develop a philosophical framework for what I argue are the Nietzschean and Kantian aspects of professional boxing matches: narrative dissimulation and moral obligation. The overarching objective of the analysis is to shed a critical light on brief intervals of boxing competitions (the minute between rounds) that are crucial but often overlooked in the philosophical literature devoted to boxing and, indeed, combat sport more generally. Additionally, in characterizing more fully the philosophical complexities of cornerman and boxer interactions in the flow of such a violent and dangerous sport, the analysis aims to make explicit some of what is unique—and uniquely problematic—to competing in and coaching professional pugilism and, by extension, other combat sports, such as mixed martial arts (MMA) and Muay Thai.

KEYWORDS:

• Aesthetics
• boxing
• coaching
• ethics
• narrative

Acknowledgments

In memory of Russian junior welterweight Maxim Dadashev, Argentinian super lightweight Hugo Santillan, and American super welterweight Patrick Day, each of whom died in 2019 as the result of injuries sustained in the ring.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Nietzsche (1873[1954]); translation mine.

2. The focus here is on boxing. But for a rich discussion of the aesthetic orientation and Nietzsche’s account of the aesthetics of existence, see especially Nehamas (1985). And for helpful discussions of Nietzsche and sport more generally, see Tuncel (2016) and Rosenberg (2008).

3. Following Cantor and Hufnagel (2012), we might call such storylines of overcoming ‘thumonic narratives,’ which are widespread in competitive sport.

4. For a discussion of the morality of amateur youth boxing, see Torres and Parry (2017). And for an important discussion of the value of dangerous sport, see Russell (2005).

5. See Scott (2009), Rotella (2003), and Boddy (2008), for example. And for a more traditional and comprehensive discussion of aesthetics in the philosophy of sport, see especially the 2012 JPS Special Issue devoted to sport and aesthetics.

6. Of course the pre-existing framing narratives can and often do affect the fights themselves. For example, an up and coming young professional is often expected not merely to win, but to win in a spectacular fashion by knockout.

7. See Lewandowski (2007).

8. Though clearly there are cases – not infrequent – in boxing (and other sports) when an athlete refuses to listen to his coach and pursues a narrative that only he or she has authored. There are also cases, even more numerous, of boxers concealing injuries (such as a broken hand) from their corners. More obvious, and even more problematically dissimulative, are those cases in which a boxer has a facial fracture (broken orbital bone or jaw bone, for example) that is apparent to all in attendance, but is not told so by his cornerman. The general point to be made is that in boxing narrative dissimulations, be they co-authored or not, are ineluctably partial and perspectival.

9. On this topic, see especially Wacquant (1988).

10. Of course as noted in the foregoing section, the stock distinction between the character of ‘the boxer’ and that of ‘the opponent’ is not fixed. The roles can be and sometimes are reversed, as when an ‘opponent’ scores a convincing upset or, as often happens in the later periods of a boxer’s career, a boxer’s skills diminish over time and he becomes the ‘opponent’ or ‘stepping-stone’ for the next generation of successful fighters.

11. See Simon (2013). And for a more wide-ranging treatment of the philosophical aspects of coaching, see Hardman and Jones (2010), especially the chapter devoted to ethical issues in coaching dangerous sports.

12. Indeed, on a moral level this is arguably central to what makes boxing something more than a human version of ‘BattleBots’.

13. On teamwork, see especially Gaffney (2015).

14. A much earlier version of this paper was presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of The International Association for the Philosophy of Sport in Oslo, Norway. The revised version of this paper has benefited greatly from the comments of those who attended the session, and, in particular, the insightful comments of Paul Gaffney.