Women’s boxing better than softball for Olympics?

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

My love for boxing dissipated years ago, after Mike Tyson bit off part of Evander Holyfield’s ear. But boxing is in the news today, thanks to the International Olympic Committee’s executive board, which approved women’s boxing for the 2012 London Olympics.

That’s right. Women now will be able to box for Olympic gold. Since boxing is already an Olympic sport, no other vote was needed to put women in the ring.

As the Tribune’s Philip Hersh points out in his report today from Berlin, where the IOC board met, of the 26 sports in the 2008 Beijing Summer Games, boxing was the lone sport that excluded women.

Well, thank goodness the IOC rectified that, though I can’t figure out how women’s boxing is more of a global sport than softball. Softball gets the heave-ho because it is seen as being less than a global sport. And we get women boxers instead? Thirty-six women in three weight classes.

The London Daily Mail (remember, London is the host city in 2012) offers this quick primer on women’s boxing.

Yes, I know. Women boxers have to have the footwork, speed, dexterity and power to do well in the sport. Good hand-eye coordination. Hmmm. Sounds a lot like softball.
I wish the IOC had instead opted for women’s baseball. Now, that would be gender equity.
-- Debbie Goffa