This is an absolutely excellent article. It is a breath of fresh air in the usual smothering stench of feminist/left moanings about men, boys, their troubles and evils. The author truly deserves a standing ovation.

And it is indeed noteworthy, Boaz, that there has been no opposition put forward, yet, to this opinion. But then, I have observed over time that when men of reason put forward positive statements of masculinity, they find little argument. Any argument against men is usually confined to the conduits of traditional feminism and is trumped up to support some artificial claim of women's victimhood. There, they seem to argue viciously.

But we wait and see.

To Mr Dave Smith, my deepest thanks for writing this opinion of yours. Please do write more - the world is in serious need to hear more messages like this from men like you. Many thanks.

Thanks for your affirming words, brothers. :-)

I am deeply touched. I've written plenty more on this subject (indeed, I've published a book on it) all of which can be reached through www.fatherdave.org, but I'll try to see if the good people of 'online opinion' will publsh some of my similar articles.

Dave

I believe that most young men require some form of heavy physical aggressive activity, that also requires discipline, and mentoring and coaching. I don't think that boxing is necessarily the best or the only activity in this regard. Boxing is primarily an individual activity, one on one. I think that a mesure of teamwork is also required, such as that provided by some of the football codes.

I was raised playing rugby league, and rugby in high school, then some rugby after leaving school followed by American football. These all provided a major level of hard physical contact, required skill and a good a sporting attitude and physical fitness.

I was also fortunate to be coached by men of integrity and discipline. This integrity and discipline from the coaches at is absolutely necessary to character building.

The aim of boxing is to cause pain to your opponent, preferably with a measure of physical damage. In the football codes the aim is to score points, and any damage done to your opponents is incidental. Sorry, but I don't consider a 'sport' with the aim of harming your opponent to be one to be encouraged.

There are other fields of activity that can also instill character and self reliance. For instance I think that it is unfortunate that so few schools have cadet units any more. There are also a considerable number of boys and young men not physically suited to physical sports.

It should be remember that another secret of the Greeks was to 'expose' to nature - ie kill - any who were not good physical specimens, and Greek culture was often barbaric in comparison with the standards we set for ourselves.

So yes, boys and young men need physical activities that test and challenge them, many boys and young men have the physical capacity for contact sports, but to me boxing is not the best activity for it.

I do not think that boxing should be the way for young men to find their role models- it is very violent and the aim, as Hamlet pointed out above, is to physically harm your opponent.

That said, I do agree that sports are generally good at helping people, all people, not just young men have fun/work as a team/achieve goals/yada yada. (Heh. Although I was never any good at sports. I much preferred a book!)

Timkins- remember when talking about family breakdown that men leave their families as often as women do. It is a tragedy, yes. But it is not one you should be blaming on either men or women.

Boaz- 'protector, provider'. Ugh. Get off your high horse. If men need to bash each other to prove they can 'provide', then they are significantly less evolved than I had thought.

Ahh! Here they are at last.

Anyway, it was bound to happen eventually, the detractors would get to this with their touchy-feely feminine group-huggy rubbish, all about teamwork and subjugation of the individual for the betterment of the group. These writers just don't understand natural masculinity. Not a skerrick, not an iota, not the slightest bit. They just don't get it. About how a man must find his own self, alone, and face his own demons, alone, to become a man. Without that, he maintains nagging doubts about his masculinity. It's a journey each man must take and alone. That's why boxing is so good. It's one boy/man against himself and his own fears.

Teamwork is useful in society, but it's not at all useful in a boy/man finding his own self respect.

Of interest though, is to read how harmonious the discussion was before the late arrivals. Men, just getting along, being peaceful and polite to each other. Reasoning and considering. No discord. This very observation and truth is well worth considering and remembering.

yeah right on maximus, in fact you shouldnt be allowed to call yourself a man until you have killed a lion. with your bare hands.

and laurie, you are less of a man for passing the ball, you should have taken on the whole team and ended up standing on a pile of your enemies, or died trying. yeah.

anyway, i tend to agree with the article. i was the beneficiary of boxing classes at school, a great help for a kid a bit on the skinny side who played dungeons&dragons, with the occaisonal self esteem problem. and i must admit to a certain pleasure when my boxing coincided with a growth spurt and lets just say certain kids dint pick on me no more.

as an added bonus i now have an image in my mind of martin luther king boxing with mother teresa, damm funny.