Do you think a boxer or wrestler talking about “violence is bad” makes him hypocritical?

Depends on whether they're talking to you or at you. Cause I don't need a mf who got a black belt in karate and won like 3 boxing championships trying to criticize me for fighting people. Lmao like maybe you should've thought about that before you kicked the last guy you fought in the face and then got money off of it.

But if he's trying to inform me that what he's doing isn't really the best way to live life, then it's not hypocritical since he's passing his wisdom onto me from his experience in a way for me to learn from his mistakes. But once he thinks he in a position to criticize I gotta put that shit on halt before he gets ahead of himself

No. Boxing / wrestling in a structured environment is different from a street brawl.

@jedixman:

But these jobs sometime even cause worse situation than just a street brawl.

@jedixman: Yeah that too

Could say the same about football players, who often suffer from head injuries.

Aside from what, I don't know what you mean by "worse situations."

No, professional fighting and punching your friend at school are 2 different things.

No its a sport

No, it's not hypocritical at all. Obviously a match in a controlled environment with a referee and a street fight are 2 totally different things.

What's next, "Do you think a target shooter talking about 'shooting people is bad' would be hypocritical?"

They are just people doing their job.

No.

No.

When a martial artist tells an untrained guy that "violence is bad", they're not really saying that all violence is bad. Just that the violence you participate in is bad. As in, nobody should be forced to watch two twig legged dudes try to peck each other into submission. We have no problems with skilled athletes trying their best to crack each other's chins, or put each other to sleep. We rather get off on that.

In all seriousness. Real violence and a sporting event are worlds apart.

Yes

Anyone who preaches about moralistic things is a hypocrite

No, because a wrestler is an actor and a boxer is an athlete, both of whom can be considered to be rolemodels.

Nope. Different circumstances from what they mean by violence.

No lol

Fighting as a sport in controlled environment (Ring Octagon, wrestling matt) is not violence imo as it’s controlled with rules, and is different than attacking someone on the street or a war or a riot which are things that are considered violence to me which are things that are out of control. I guess control is the common denominator here.

no they're playing a sport. violence is bad for solving problems and using against someone you genuinely dislike, but generally there's very much respect between boxers and wrestlers. all of the smack talking and press conferencing is just to market the fight. the fighters are usually on good terms outside of the ring.

no

Nah.

No, what they do is in a controlled environment.

I actually do wrestling, and I can say that it’s pretty safe. It’s a controlled environment with rules preventing people from using potentially dangerous moves. Using violence in an uncontrolled environment is completely different.

Generally I'd say no, it's just a job; however it would depend on the situation I'm in and the athlete's personal behavior. If you're like, say, Steven Segal and you beat your wife I don't want to hear crap from you. If you're a boxer who's cool and non violent in their real life I'm much more likely to listen.

Competitive Martial Arts and Boxing have rules and standards unlike real violence. When the match is over, it's over and the competition is done. Usually there's no permanent damage and no hard feelings. Hell, sometimes the opponents hug or shake hands. It's just different.

if they make a good point then them being a hypocrite is irrelevant. I mean, that's a non-sequitur. Attack the argument instead of the person.

Nah; unhinged violence is different than a controlled sport monitored by referees and judges.

There's different types of violence. A wrestler, boxer or mma fighter do perform acts of violence. However, they are in a controlled setting and the "violence" is expected, with a ref between their opponent. Random and unnecessary violence on various levels out on the street is completely different.

Depends what they mean by violence. If both sides agree to fight it's not violence but a sport/playing.

The difference between a sanctioned fight and a random street fight is that one is in a "safe" (relatively, deaths and injuries still happen) environment while another is generally on concrete with no rules outside of maybe an unwritten gentleman's agreement.

A fighter is right to criticise someone for engaging in senseless violence.

In Australia where I live there was a thing called the "King Hit", it was a name given to a sucker punch knockout on the street, which was generally done by young men to prove how tough they are. A local boxer called Danny Green starred in a campaign to rename the "King Hit" to the "Cowards Punch" which was extremely successful in reducing these incidences of senseless violence.