Good versus bad medical stoppages in boxing-stopping a fight in time
Nitin K Sethi, MD
Department of Neurology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY (U.S.A.)
In boxing it is commonly said and not without reason “the fight must go on….”. Everyone ringside wants the fight to go on-the two boxers and their corners (sometimes not always!), the promoter (always!), the media (always!), the spectators (always!), the Commission and its appointed officials (only if both the boxers meet the Commission requirements for a fair and honestly administered contest), the referee (only if the boxers are fighting a fair fight and able to defend themselves), the judges (usually do not interfere with the conduct of the fight!) and the ringside physicians (only if the boxers are medically fit before, during and immediately after the contest!). So everyone ringside want the fight to go on but do some (media, spectators and promoters) want it more than others? As per the Uniform Boxing Rules (approved August 25, 2001, Amended August 2, 2002, Amended July 3, 2008), the referee is the sole arbiter of a bout and is the only individual authorized to stop a contest. In some states in the United States and in countries around the world both the referee and ringside physician are the sole arbiters of a fight and are the only individuals authorized to enter the fighting area at any time during competition and authorized to stop a fight. The referee and the ringside physician threshold to stop a fight (enough is enough!!!) may vary based on knowledge of boxing rules and regulations, knowledge of the boxers fitness level, pre-existing medical conditions, pre-bout fitness, intra-bout fitness and finally knowledge of medicine and bout ending injuries (head injuries, orthopedic injuries, eye injuries, blunt abdominal trauma). That is the reason why it is the referee (someone who has knowledge of boxing rules and regulations) and the ringside physician (someone who has knowledge of medicine) who are deemed to be the sole arbiters of a bout and entrusted with the health and safety of the boxers. The other MORE important question is when should the fight be stopped on medical grounds? Stopping the bout prematurely is unfair to the boxers, their corners, the promoter and the public. Stopping a bout too late risks serious injury even death of the boxer.
Boxer safety should precede all other considerations. The goal should be to stop the bout before a life threating injury or career ending injury occurs. Key word is before NOT after. Since at times this is not possible so more realistic goal should be timely identification of a serious injury in the ring and timely stoppage of fight. For that to occur the referee and the ringside physician should work as a team complimenting each other’s knowledge. Causes of sudden death in the ring or in the immediate aftermath of a bout are usually neurological.
To help timely identify and prevent TBI in boxing the following good practice guidelines are proposed based on personal and collective evidence of experienced ringside physicians and clinical acumen:
- It is a good point to remember that boxers rarely if ever voluntary quit or request the fight to be stopped. They fight for pride, at times at the expense of their health. Corners may also not want the fight to be stopped with the hope that their boxer may turn things around. In a closely contested fight the crowd is excited and wants the fight to go on. At these times, the ringside physician should make the call to stop or let a fighter continue, based solely on the medical condition of the boxer.
- During the one minute rest period in-between rounds, the ringside physician should step up to the ring canvas for a quick but thorough medical evaluation of the fighter.
- This is the ideal time for the ringside physician to assess the neurological status of a fighter. In the case of a fighter who suffered a knock down in the preceding round or sustained multiple head shots, the ringside physician should conduct a quick visual evaluation of the fighter (Is the fighter responding appropriately to the commands and directions of his corner? Is he making eye contact with his corner staff? Was the fighter steady on his feet as he walked back to his corner at the end of the round? Does the fighter voice any complaints to his corner staff such as headache or pressure in head, dizziness, and blurred vision?). The ringside physician should attempt to do the above without obstructing or imposing on the corner’s time with its fighter.
- If the ringside physician determines that he/she needs more time to evaluate the neurological status of a fighter, he/she should communicate this to the referee. The referee after starting the bout shall call a time out and walk the fighter to the ringside physician to be examined. The referee directs the other fighter to remain in the neutral corner. The ringside physician’s goal at this time is to conduct a quick but thorough neurological assessment of the fighter. He/she should begin this by asking the fighter few leading questions such as-how do you feel? Does your head hurt? Do you know where you are? If the fighter appears confused and disoriented, the ringside physician may ask more question like which round is it? Who is your opponent? Where are you fighting (name of the venue)? The ringside physician should then look for pupil symmetry and response and assess extra ocular movements (have the fighter track finger from side to side). The ringside physician should give the fighter a complex command such as touch your left ear with right glove and should assess the fighter’s gait and balance at the same time (is the fighter steady on his/her feet or is he leaning on the ropes for support). The ringside physician should then communicate to the referee whether the fighter can continue or the fight should be stopped. The whole process should not take more than 10 seconds.
- The ringside physician should be aware that too much time spent evaluating the fighter during time out, inadvertently gives the fighter more time to recover. The opponent’s corner rightfully resents this and it is akin to getting “saved by the bell”. The public, TV audience, press and TV announcers question the fairness of the Commission’s administration of the contest and the credibility and impartiality of the bout officials-e.g., referees, judges and ringside physicians.
- If serious health concern is raised for a fighter and the ringside physician is unable to document a good exam to determine whether it is safe for the fighter to continue, consideration should be given to stopping the fight. In these circumstances the ringside physician should tell the referee that the fight be stopped on medical grounds.
- For ringside physicians with limited ringside experience, it is encouraged that they consult with other ringside physicians at the venue and the chief medical officer before deciding to stop a fight on medical grounds.
As injuries mount, the boxing community is looking within and the sport is under scrutiny from the medical community and media. Boxing is the most controversial sport for physicians and neurologists in particular because of the potential risk and degree of neurologic injury, questions and concerns about long-term sequelae (chronic traumatic encephalopathy), and the occurrence of deaths in the ring . Various medical associations including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have stated opposition to both amateur and professional boxing . Many have called to ban boxing altogether . Dr. Hauser in a recent editorial titled “Beaten into action: a perspective on blood sports” says that “the medical, and especially the neurology, community has an obligation to do more. We need to spread the word that brain bashing is not a socially acceptable spectator sport, and partner with our national organizations to expand and improve the effectiveness of public awareness and other educational initiatives.” He further goes on to state “we should forcefully counter articles in the medical literature taking the position that closer medical supervision could obviate the need for a ban, or even worse that consenting adults have the ethical right to maim each other if they choose to do so .” While the neurological risks of boxing cannot be completely eliminated, boxing can be made safer .
It is recommended that the above proposed best practice guidelines be debated vigorously by the ringside physician and large scientific community and evidence based guidelines on medical stoppages be developed by the medical community in conjunction with professional boxing governing bodies. Boxing can be made safer but it shall be foolhardy to forget that frequently there is a very fine line between a good medical stoppage (medical stoppage done at the right time during the bout and for the right indication) versus a bad medical stoppage (medical stoppage done either too late, too prematurely or for the wrong indication). It is far better to stop a fight early rather than late. A ringside physician should never forget that in boxing one punch can change everything. One punch can kill!
4 thoughts on “Good versus bad medical stoppages in boxing-stopping a fight in time”
Sorry my comment is a little off topic but I would like to get your view on this.
I’m quite concerned about my dad. He is 48 years old, he is not on any medications. My dad was on the plane flying from UK to Europe, it was only a 2/3 hours flight. My dad has been flying before many times. We had a beer before the flight ‘as a good start to our short holiday’. Mid way through the flight, my dad suddenly felt weak, nauseous and light headed like he was about to faint. He then lost his consciousness. When he ‘woke up’ he didn’t know what happened. He dropped his phone which he was holding in his hand and also wet his pants. Unfortunately I did not witness this but lady sitting beside him said that he was shaking a little like he was having a small seizure. Apparently, it was a very short episode, maximum of one minute. My dad went to his GP and he said he will consult this with neurologist and he also took his bloods. The bloods have come back normal except for minor abnormalities to do with the liver. (My dad has been prescribed folic acid and advised to improve his diet and eat more vegetables). There is still no response in regards to neurologist opinion and I’m quite concerned as we have no idea about what was the cause of this. This episode had place on 8th of June 2017, and since then, there was no further episodes like this.
I’ve read your article about syncope and epilepsy. The description almost fits with syncope but you mentioned that people don’t tend to wet themselves. As mentioned before we had a beer before the flight, but we usually do that when we are going away somewhere so this wasn’t anything unusual. There is no family history of epilepsy. I would be grateful if could share your opinion about this?
Hi have just had a MRI and it was compared to a CT scan I had done 2012. The radiologist comments said, ” appearance of multiple whit lesions, with a frontal predominance, although there are clustèrs around the ventricular trigones of both cerebral hemispheres. Should I be concerned with with comment?
My sister who is 46 has the same. We both suffer mood swings and depression.
Dear Dr Sethi,
A couple of years ago (October 2015)my father (who is deaf) was placed in a military chokehold, which caused him to pass out temporarily, this incident took place due to a misunderstanding on the assailants half as he did not realise my father was deaf. Ever since he has complained about severe headaches, dizziness, nausea and vomiting spells, I’ve also noticed a decline in his memory and other cognitive impairments. He is also passing out/fainting which is something he never did before. He was sent for an MRI scan and in the report, it states “the susceptibility weighted sequence shows a couple of scattered microhaemorrhages in both cerebral hemispheres, the cailosum and periventricular white matter that raise the suspicion of an underlying inflammatory condition.” is this indicative of someone who has suffered a brain injury or is the findings inconclusive. I found a similar case in an article written by an Imran M. Asif et al. What is your professional opinion on the findings?
His symptoms show no signs of abating and he has been unable to work as a direct result of those injuries, I’m concerned about the implications for the later years in terms of his health.
HI I have a question I am hoping you may be able to answer. I had an MRI done and my Nuerologist said everything was fine despite all my symptoms and discharged me. Where can I go to have my MRI read for a second opinion?