Nevada says No to Tyson

The Nevada boxing regulators have apparently decided that Tyson's moral character is insufficient to engage in a boxing match in their state. I would be shocked if the Tyson-Lewis fight does not take place in another location.


Though I'm a defender of states rights, I don't see why any government should require a license to compete in a sporting event (or a sports entertainment event). Is everything so great in Nevada that their government has nothing better to do?

They regulate to some degree so that there is at least an appearance of propriety. This is in the state's interest because it allows its taxpayers (casinos) to make more money.


I tend to agree with you though. If people want to have pay per view fight to the death gladiatorial bouts its not really anybody's business if the participants consent. I think the whole backyard wrestling bit is hilarious as long as the morons who do it don't get indigent health care after tearing themselves up on the flaming table of death or getting their brains beaten in with a bat.

"They regulate to some degree so that there is at least an appearance of propriety. This is in the state's interest because it allows its taxpayers (casinos) to make more money."


I don't think the states' involvement in granting boxing licenses has had much impact on the public perception of boxing's propriety, or lack thereof. I also question whether the "appearance of propriety" necessarily increases profitability. Does not professional wrestling generate more income than boxing?


"If people want to have pay per view fight to the death gladiatorial bouts its not really anybody's business if the participants consent."


You're kidding I hope! Despite my libertarian leanings, I would draw the line somewhere short of murder for entertainment.

Does not professional wrestling generate more income than boxing?


Not for sportsbooks. Not for casinos who get the gamblers who bet in the sportsbook.


You're kidding I hope! Despite my libertarian leanings, I would draw the line somewhere short of murder for entertainment.


I don't want to see this. However, if you don't you should not want to get rid of states'licensing of fighters. But I don't equate voluntary participation in fights put on for entertainment with murder, even if someone dies. (That is not to say that participation in some unregulated fight would not run afoul of various criminal laws, including those pertaining to homicide of whatever kind.) This is a big reason states regulate.

i just wonder what the odds in vegas are that there will be a fight.


man... the one time i REALLY want to see a fight the nevada boxing commission desides to actually preform their duties. where was the don king kick back??

You have a point about the sportsbooks. However, many sports enjoy the "appearance of propriety" without benefit of government intervention. And as I stated previously, I don't think the governmental interference has much improved boxing's image.


Regarding the death fights, your original message implied (unintentionally I think) that it wouldn't matter whether or not the combatants had consented to participate!


-Mike

Nevada should allow the fight provided Tyson wears a muzzle.

keep out players who have shown bad example in conduct


lots of kids are into sports, and their "heros" should be good example