Boxing Manners Maketh the Man

There are few better conversation stoppers at any gathering of allegedly civilised adults than admitting that not only do you like boxing, but you also write about it for a living. It's as if you are working for the Devil himself. Or, worse, Don King.

But, for the first time in years, perceptions might be changing. Boxing, against all the odds, could soon be respectable again. If you want evidence, look more closely at some of the boxers carrying their country's colours. They are not the street thugs who are frightening the middle classes and the smart columnists, nor are they in any way comparable with the spoilt footballing millionaires who fill the tabloids with their serial excesses.

They're decent, respectful young athletes operating in a sport that demands total commitment. And, for once, the public seems to be aware of the fact. Live on the BBC on Friday night Amir Khan, a clean-cut young kid from Bolton, boxed for England against the United States in Liverpool.

Khan, still only 17, won silver at the Athens Olympics and converted millions with his good manners and complete lack of side. He gobsmacked seasoned hacks when he told them he wasn't interested in turning professional before he had won an Olympic gold medal. They also found it hard to believe that he didn't know how famous he was. That's not something you would hear Wayne Rooney saying.

On Saturday in London, Manchester's Ricky Hatton, as nice a young man as you could wish to meet, defends his world light-welterweight title. A few hours later in Las Vegas, Danny Williams, from Brixton, fights for the world heavyweight title. If there is a more self-effacing man of 19 stone on earth, he has not made himself obvious to anyone outside his immediate circle.

And these boxers are not unusual. In hundreds of gyms up and down the country there are thousands of them, disciplined and dedicated athletes who have grown up in an environment where the watchword is respect. If there was a tenth of it in football - and there palpably isn't - we would not be witnessing the tantrums that have tarnished the national sport to the point where it is a laughing stock.

The anti-boxing argument is not unreasonable. Boxing is not a spectacle that invites moderate views. Those in love with it are as blind to its faults as those who hate it refuse to recognise any of its many good points.

Boxing, the professional wing of it, is dangerous and it can be seamy. But it also has a unique capacity to lift the spirit and to provide moments of unparalleled drama and heroism. I would defy even the most ardent abolitionist to sit ringside at a world heavyweight title fight in a packed auditorium and argue that he wasn't moved to the extremities of emotions, good or bad.

On Radio 5 Live last week, a doctor who said that he boxed as a youth and is now implacably opposed to it, argued that it is a barbaric exercise because it causes brain damage. Really? So does jogging, heading a football and drinking. Mountaineering is not particularly safe if you put your foot in the wrong place. And no amount of engineering genius will make motor racing safe. Or riding 100ft waves. Or sky diving.

Risk is an inherent part of the human experience. The secondary argument, the oldest and least convincing in my opinion, is that boxing differs from other health-threatening activities because the intention is to inflict that damage. So what is the point of putting your head in the way of a ball travelling at 40 miles an hour? Ask any old centre-forward what damage heading the ball over 20 years or so did to him. Or ask Mike Tindall what his intentions are when he lines up an opposing centre at Twickenham.

The other encouraging news for those of us who spend an inordinate amount of time defending boxing is that it is back in the schools. When the Government rubber-stamped the inclusion of boxing on the curriculum two weeks ago, it went virtually unnoticed. It was only the debate that followed that got the headlines.

There was no widespread celebration, no acknowledgment in an age of apparently growing delinquency that here was a discipline that could give young tearaways a sense of purpose, encourage respect for others as well as self-worth. Paul King runs non-contact boxing in 47 schools in Liverpool, where it is second only to football in popularity.

It is not stretching a point to say that of the many thousands of kids using up their energy in the ring, a fair number might be otherwise employed in less socially acceptable behaviour. Another point that some critics don't get is that you can join a boxing club without ever having to trade a blow.

Of the 40,000 boxers in clubs throughout England, only 8,900 are registered as competitive. If you're not good enough, you will not be allowed in the ring, which is as it should be. And, in a television first, boxing has finally made it on to Blue Peter , where presenter Simon Thomas went through the motions with the undefeated world super-middleweight champion Joe Calzaghe.

While the BBC have ditched Audley Harrison, they have made a commendable commitment to the amateur game. There will be seven live shows a year for the next four years, including the ABA championships and the Four Nations tournament in Liverpool. Elsewhere there are community programmes that use boxing to encourage young people to come in off the streets and spend their leisure time learning more about themselves than how to remove a hubcap or mug a pensioner.

Boxing stripped down to its essentials is a force for good that deserves a better press than it gets. It is a sport that fosters self-knowledge. High-minded nonsense? You can almost hear the abolitionists running to their laptops to pen their indignant response.