Christianity and Boxing: A Review Essay and Position Statement

Abstract

The sport of boxing has existed since ancient times, with fights sometimes ending in death. In the modern world, with our greater medical knowledge, the risks of brain and other life-changing injuries have called into question whether boxing has a place in contemporary society. In fact, professional boxing has been banned in some European countries. There are also questions about whether it is appropriate to encourage spectators to watch two individuals attempting to punch each other into oblivion and about the effect this can have on those watching. The fact that, in recent years, we have seen the development of women’s boxing both in the Olympics and at the professional level raises further questions. The particular emphasis of this paper is to note the number of committed Christians involved in boxing from grassroots to the elite level and to consider whether involvement in such a violent sport can be reconciled with the teaching of Jesus Christ. The main source of data is published biographies and autobiographies of Christian boxers and some interviews. There is very little published material at an academic level on the topic that we are considering. The conclusion is that despite the sincerity of the Christian boxers involved in the sport, it is difficult to justify boxing as a sport in relation to Christian teaching.

1. Introduction

At face value, punching someone around the head is a strange way to love your neighbour, yet many boxers confess to a Christian faith. The purpose of this article is to explore that dichotomy, which has been called the “apparent oxymoron of the Christian boxer” (Watson and Brock 2015, p. 8).

The method will be to conduct a thematic review of the limited literature on boxing from an explicitly Christian perspective and to look at how Christian boxers reconcile their involvement in the sport with their faith, based largely on published autobiographies or biographies. I will use the one interview I have undertaken with a Christian boxer and the biographies in order to undertake a thematic review, seeking to identify common themes and understand how boxers address the issues often raised in theological and ethical discussion. I will also look at where Scripture has been used to defend or dismiss boxing. As Ellis puts it, “boxing is a special and testing case for sport apologists…it crystallises issues about the acceptability of violence in sport” (Ellis 2014, p. 200).

Some (McCormick 1962) make a distinction between amateur boxing, where fights are shorter and participants wear headguards and large gloves to minimise injury and where the emphasis is more on skill and fitness than delivering a knockout blow, and professional boxing, in which the emphasis is often on knocking out an opponent. While the data are mainly from professional boxing, several churches in the UK and USA were found to have a boxing gym or boxing ministry.

The dilemma of boxing was well expressed in The Times report on the May 2024 world heavyweight unification fight between Tyson Fury and Oleksandr Usyk, which admitted that some readers “will reasonably question whether the danger in boxing even gives it a place in modern times”. But the article then continues as follows: “for this one hot, late night in the Saudi Arabian capital, however, it felt different. It felt like a pure, elite sport. It felt about as tight, edgy, knife edge and emotional as high quality sport can be” (Slot 2024, p. 52).

The task of applying Christian teaching to boxing is not straight-forward, as Jesus’ teaching as recorded in the gospels makes no explicit reference to boxing, so it is a case of taking principles from the sayings of Jesus and applying them to boxing. The Apostle Paul does make explicit reference to boxing, but, as will be shown, the interpretation of Paul’s reference to boxing is contentious.

2. Biblical and Early Church Material

The Apostle Paul refers to boxing in his first letter to the Corinthians, writing, “Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last, but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. Therefore I do not run like someone running aimlessly; I do not fight like a boxer beating the air. No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize” (1 Corinthians 9: 24–27). Paul also wrote in 2 Timothy 4:7 “I have fought the good fight”, a verse which is used in publicity by The Rock (n.d.) Ministries boxing club in Philadelphia.

Opinions vary as to the significance and interpretation of Paul’s reference to boxing. Hoffman suggests that we need to ask “why Paul would have used these athletic figures of speech unless he, in contrast to the church leaders that followed in his wake, were a proponent of popular sports” (Hoffman 2010, p. 42). Alois Koch takes a different view, arguing “It is improbable, and in my opinion impossible, that Saint Paul ever gave his approval, for instance, of boxing which was a life or death struggle” (Koch 2019, p. 100).

Ellis suggests that Paul may be “drawing upon language with which he is familiar through traditions of rhetoric but which does not reflect his regular and familiar speech or experience”—in the way that a modern speaker might describe an incident as par for the course or a game of two halves without anyone thinking that he was making a value judgement on sport (Ellis 2014, p. 132–33). If this interpretation is accepted, then Paul’s use of sporting metaphors cannot be used as evidence for a Biblical mandate for boxing.

Others, while not arguing that Paul is giving his blessing to boxing, suggest that it is unlikely that Paul would have used an allusion to something which he thought was inherently evil as a metaphor for the Christian life (Liggins 2020, pp. 39–40). However, just as in 2 Timothy 2 where Paul compares the Christian worker to a soldier, an athlete and a farmer, he is surely no more writing a theology of militarism, sport or agriculture than he is trying to instruct the Corinthians about the ethics of boxing. We will examine in more detail later how boxers use the Scriptures as part of their preparation for a fight.

A number of the early church fathers wrote about involvement in the ancient games. Tertullian (c150–240) commented facetiously about boxing: “God, too, gave him eyes for no other end than that they might be knocked out in fighting” (On Spectacles XXIII). On the other hand, Novatian, c 200–258 (Novatian 1974, p. 116) argued that if Paul could mention the games and boxing in his letter to the Corinthians, then there should be no reason for Christians not to attend such events. That Novatian writes about whether Christians should attend the Games implies that this was a live issue at the time.

3. Nineteenth Century Attitudes

3.1. Britain

The origins of boxing are unknown, but it is likely that humans have fought with hands since the earliest days of human history. Carvings from the second century BCE portraying fist fights have been found in caves. Boxing was part of the pankration in the Ancient Olympics, a kind of no-holds-barred fighting involving boxing and wrestling that was also popular in ancient Rome, sometimes as part of gladiatorial spectacles. Hoffman quotes historian Stephen Miller, who estimated that a boxer named Theagenes earned the modern equivalent of USD 44 million throughout his boxing career around 476 BCE (Hoffman 2010, p. 28). Even Homer (Homer 2007, p. 211) referred to boxing with Epeus, stating “I am the best boxer of all here present and none can beat me”—not unlike Muhammed Ali’s “I am the greatest” claim!

In the 18th century, boxing was revived in London in the form of bare-knuckle prizefights with contestants fighting for money and spectators making wagers on the outcome. The first boxer to be recognised as a heavyweight champion was James Figg in 1719. In 1743, a later champion, John Broughton, formulated a set of rules standardising some practices and eliminating others, such as hitting opponents when they are down or seizing opponents by the hair. Further regulation in the form of the Marquis of Queensberry rules came in 1867. The new regulated contest would have an agreed duration and be controlled by a referee.

Thomas Hughes, author of Tom Brown’s Schooldays, the influential novel published in 1857, said that when boys disagree, “fighting with fists is the natural and English way for English boys to settle their quarrels”. Elsewhere, Hughes (Newsome 1961, p. 213) explained further: “As to fighting, keep out of it all you can by all means but don’t say ‘no’ because you fear a licking and say or think it’s because you fear God for that’s neither Christian nor honest”. Hughes believed that the ability to fight and stand up to an aggressor developed self-confidence and self-reliance. Boxing was common in independent (private) schools in England in the nineteenth century (Tozer 2015, pp. 265, 319, 444 and 464). A modern commentator on boxing, Professor Gordon D Marino (Marino 2003) of St Olaf College in Northfield, Minnesota, an academic and a boxing coach, made the same point, saying “the ring is an excellent classroom for developing physical courage…Physical courage does not guarantee moral courage, but it is, with the proper wisdom, in itself a desirable quality, and may well be conducive to the development of moral courage”. Erdozain (2010, p. 155) notes that the impact of Muscular Christianity was such that Charles Dickens (2002, p. 52) created a boxing parson, Reverend Septimus Crisparkle, to mock the movement in his novel Edwin Drood.

Churches also included boxing among their activities. In Shoreditch, East London, in 1886, the Bishop of London decided to set up a church and asked Rev A O Jay to take on “the burden of being vicar of Holy Trinity, Shoreditch”. Boxing was a very common activity in the area to the extent that Shoreditch was called “the cradle of pugilism” (Jay 1896, p. 62), with most of it taking place in pubs and therefore associated with drinking. Jay took the unusual step of setting up a gymnasium, including a boxing ring, in the church building. In response to criticism, Jay preached a sermon at Holy Trinity called “May a Christian box?” describing boxing as “rational exercise and healthy recreation” (Wise 2008). It was said that his coup had been to remove boxing from the pub and the saloon bar and put it in the church, thus breaking the association between the sport and alcohol. Jay believed that “boxing-gloves are most useful, although considerably neglected, weapons in the armory of the church” (McKay and McKay n.d.).

Jay saw the benefits of the church gym in different ways. In a totally built-up area with no parks or open fields around, the gymnasium gave men a chance to exercise. For those whose jobs involved spending hours in one position, moving around in a boxing ring was an excellent way of undoing the damage to the body of unpleasant work practices. He also felt that teaching men to fight with their fists might reduce knife crime, which was common at the time. He believed that the way boxing taught discipline and self-control as well as self-defence could reduce the likelihood that men would fight each other. While totally committed to the project, Jay wrote “I never had a pair of boxing gloves…nor do I take the slightest interest in watching those who box” (Jay 1896, p. 63). Interestingly, Jay did not see the project as outreach, explaining that he never spoke about God to men in the gym unless they initiated the conversation because “nothing in my opinion is more rightly looked on with contempt by the ordinary working man than the attempt to entrap him into a place in order to force religion down his throat”.

In another part of the East End of London in the 1890s, Rev Tiverton Preedy ran a boxing club at All Saints Mission (Temple 2008, p. 390). Newsome also refers to “mission centres, equipped with footballs, boxing gloves and a pair of parallel bars” (Newsome 1961, p. 236). By the late 1880s, boxing was becoming a regular offering among charitable and university settlement outreach workers, who had come to realise that the best way to engage poor men was to formalise an already existing passion but to offer it in a disciplined and structured way. Inspired by the Muscular Christianity movement, clergy may also have “encouraged football and boxing in their boys’ clubs to show that Christianity was not feminine (Bradstock 2000, p. 220)”.

On the other hand, conversion to Christ under the primitive Methodists involved turning away from “the God-forsaken old life symbolized by the cock-fighting, the bull-baiting and the boxing match” (Phillips 1981, p. 298). The year 1899 saw the Congregational Church Union debate a paper by Rev J Hirst Hollowell, The degradation of sport, which praised the fairness and wholesomeness of a long list of sports but delivered an extended attack on boxing, saying “the very object of this sport is to knock a man out-that is to knock him senseless; and that may mean…to kill him” (McLeod 2022, p. 128). A congregational mission in South London, which had run a boxing club, decided in 1904 to ban it after protests that boxing “was contrary to the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount”. The Anglican University Club, which had been a major centre for boxing in the East End of London, closed in 1902 because of betting (McLeod 2022, pp. 76 and 128).

In 1891, Walter Wild, secretary of the Lowestoft YMCA, defended boxing using an interesting form of words, stating that boxing was “secular” but not “worldly” (Erdozain 2010, p. 179). The Earl of Shaftesbury, addressing a YMCA audience in 1881, found another clever compromise, telling his listeners, “I was a very good boxer. I never fought with anyone, but I found it developed the strength, gave play to the respiratory organs, and I was a better man for all the purposes before me” (Erdozain 2010, p. 176).

This all shows that little has changed over the years in Christian attitudes to boxing, with some churches finding it a good way to serve and make contact with the community, while concerns about the violent nature of the sport and its association with gambling and alcohol were also present. It has been argued that some of the religious criticism of boxing can be traced back to the Puritan conscience (Brailsford 1975, p. 329).

There is also the strange tale of Cecil Tyndale-Biscoe (1863–1949), a British Christian missionary to Kashmir, who taught at a Christian School from 1890 onwards, using a unique test to establish if Indians were serious in their desire to convert to Christianity. “I give out that no one could ‘go Christian’, as they called it, unless they first had a boxing match with my gardener” (Tyndale-Biscoe 1951, p. 114).

Women may have been competing in fighting sports for much longer than one might have thought. There are reports of Elizabeth Wilkinson defeating Hannah Hyfield in 1710 and claiming to be “championess of America and of Europe” and of a fight in 1768 “between two she-devils” (Jennings 2015, xxxi and 12). The Times (1807) reported that Betty Dyson and Mary Mahoney fought for a prize of 5 guineas and that they were both “hideously disfigured by hard blows”.

3.2. America

In the USA, there is evidence of the same ambivalence as in Britain. Baker reports that when prizefighting first came to America in the 1830s, it also stirred the wrath of God-fearing southerners (Baker 2007, p. 90). When Tom Hyers fought James Sullivan in New York in 1849, there was said to be excitement throughout the city except among “the rigidly religious, the pious, the Saints, the Puritans” (Baker 2007, p. 27). American Christian objections to boxing seemed to be based on the class of person involved as well as behavioural issues, with the Methodist Weekly seeming more concerned with the behaviour of spectators and the association with drinking and gambling than about the fight itself. It could be said that much of the Christian reservations about sport—not just boxing—in this era related to the association with gambling and drinking rather than sport per se. When John L Sullivan won the heavyweight crown from Paddy Ryan in 1882, ministers in New Orleans called upon public officials to stop the fight because they were concerned about mobs of unruly spectators contaminating their city (Baker 2007, pp. 90–91). On the other hand, YMCAs continued to include boxing in their programmes, with one YMCA official describing boxing as “positive righteousness physically expressed” (Putney 2001, p. 170).

The Christian Advocate, a Methodist weekly, described “public exhibitions of unspeakable brutality… prizefights represented a phase of degradation that must necessarily be regarded as a crime against society”. In several editorials against boxing in 1897, Methodists and Southern Baptists attacked “this barbarous and loathsome sport” as “a brutal and degrading spectacle” (Baker 2007, pp. 90–91).

On the issue of the role of spectators, Guttmann suggests that spectators watching boxing “vicariously can maul a staggered boxer or shudder to receive a knockout punch. We are what we watch” (Guttman 2004, p. 180ff). Ellis writing about fan experience particularly in team sports argues that for many spectators, watching is a vicarious experience of sport (Ellis 2014, p. 248ff).

In 1872, the Methodist General Conference included boxing in a list of sinful amusements on the grounds of potential physical harmfulness (Ladd and Mathisen 1999, p. 57). But it was not just boxing that caused concern. In 1892, The Methodist Episcopal Church in North Carolina declared that because of the violent nature of the game and the resultant injuries, intercollegiate football was a source of evil and should be abolished immediately (Balmer 2022, pp. 50–51; Doyle 1997). In recent years, Father Vincent Serpa (Serpa 2018) has questioned whether American football players could justify the damage they were doing (or allowing to be done) to their body. On the other hand, the YMCA promoted boxing during the First World War, arguing that it would help prepare soldiers for battle (Baker 2007, p. 126).

3.3. Johnson Jeffries Fight 1910

One major event brought Christian opposition to boxing to a head in 1910 on both sides of the Atlantic. When Jack Johnson, an African American, fought a white opponent, James J Jeffries, in Nevada in 1910 for the heavyweight championship of the world, a number of Christian businessmen worked together to try to prevent the fight from being staged, printing a million postcards with the message “Stop the fight. This is the 20th century” (Ladd and Mathisen 1999, p. 85). When Johnson was to fight in London the following year, FB Meyer (Mews 1972, p. 322), a Baptist minister, led a campaign—which was ultimately successful—to stop the fight taking place. Meyer said, “God had led him, so he profoundly believed, to endeavour to put down the proposed fight. They had an opportunity to raise the conception of sport and to uphold the true ideal of Christian manhood untainted by brutality” (The Times 1911a). While Meyer is seen as the leader of the campaign, there seems to have been broadly based support. Rev Luke Wiseman of Birmingham Wesleyan Central Mission said of the film of the previous fight, which had been widely shown in cinemas on both sides of the Atlantic, “It has no redeeming, artistic, scenic, educative or social value, It is wholly brutal, disgusting and demoralizing” (Mews 1972, p. 312). That The Times, reporting on Johnson’s previous fight, had expressed disgust at the number of women at the ringside (The Times 1910) indicates contemporary attitudes to boxing.

Meyer’s initiative evoked support from the Free Church President, the Church Army, the Primitive Methodist Church and the National Council of the Sunday School Union. Bishops rallied to Meyer’s side, and a memorandum against the match was widely signed (Bebbington 1982, p. 82). On the other hand, one of Meyer’s biographers recorded that “he received very little definite support from other leaders” (Mann 1929, p. 111). Certainly, there was not unanimity among Christian leaders, as Rev Howard Legge of the Oxford Mission dissociated himself from the views of Meyer (Mews 1972, p. 323). Rev Everard Digby was quoted in The Times saying that he did not believe the rank-and-file of the church was “with the present anti-boxing agitation” (The Times 1911b). One Sunday, there was a rowdy crowd outside Regent’s Park Chapel, where Meyer was preaching (Mann 1929, p. 119). The British Home Secretary, Winston Churchill, was prevailed upon to authorise proceedings against the match promoter. Churchill wrote to his wife, “I have made up my mind to try to stop the Wells-Johnson contest. The terms are utterly unsporting and unfair” (Churchill 1969, p. 1128). But in what way did he find it unfair? Was that another veiled reference to the racial aspect of the fight?

The fight was stopped when the owners of the freehold of Earls Court (the venue for the fight), the Metropolitan District Railway Company, obtained a court injunction stopping the Earls Court company from allowing the fight to go ahead. Ironically, the judge who granted the injunction was a Baptist (Mews 1972, p. 329). The reasons for Meyer’s objection to the fight are not entirely clear but seem partly to be a concern at the brutality of professional heavyweight boxing, which normally ends in a knockout.

Another question is why the Free Church decided to object to boxing in 1911 and not previously. Bebbington noted that “Boxing had seldom been a target of nonconformist campaigns but in the previous year there had been sporadic objections to the showing of a film of the last world heavyweight fight [Johnson Jefferies] as brutal and demoralizing” (Bebbington 1982, p. 82) and suggested that there were concerns that the fight might arouse racial tension in the Empire—especially if the black boxer won. That Meyer referred to the “proposed fight between the negro and the Englishman (Mann 1929, p. 111)” would seem to support a racist interpretation.

Several suggestions have been made as to why Meyer and his supporters targeted this particular event. Perhaps they thought that a high-profile lucrative championship fight would give extra publicity to their campaign, or alternatively that they wanted to challenge the legal status of professional boxing or even that the Free Church Council movement needed an issue which would unite the denomination (Mews 1972, pp. 313, 316 and 318). Reading from a 2024 perspective, some of the arguments made against the fight by Christians seem blatantly racist, with Meyer referring to “the instinctive passion of the negro race, which is so differently constituted from our own” (Mews 1972, p. 328).

Similarly, in the USA, the Jack Dempsey v George Carpenter fight in 1921 aroused co-ordinated opposition from Christians. It was condemned by both the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of the US and the Board of Temperance and Public Morals of the Methodist Episcopal Church (Christianity Today 49, 1 October 2005, pp. 124–5). It was said that the fight was not representative of American life and was a disgrace to the city of Philadelphia. In the 1920s, state legislation in New York proposing to legalise and regulate boxing divided the Christian community with some supporting the bill and others opposing it. Hoffman (2010, p. 125) reports that a list of 900 clergy who supported the bill was presented to the hearing. Yet, more than 20 years later when Billy Graham, at that time an evangelist working for Youth for Christ, started to see the value of adding the testimony of a famous athlete to his preaching, he was often accompanied by the runner Gil Dodds, but also on occasions by Bob Finlay, a former collegiate boxing champion (Ladd and Mathisen 1999, p. 113).

4. Case Studies

At least 10 boxing champions with a Christian faith have written autobiographies or been the subject of a biography. Surprisingly few explicitly address the issue of the compatibility of a brutal sport with their faith. In this section, we will look at what principles emerge from this material.

4.1. Source of Ability

Katie Taylor, 2012 Olympic gold medallist, professional boxer 2016–, world champion, believes she is using her God-given gift and even fulfilling her destiny in her career in professional boxing. As she puts it: “I think boxing is what I was born to do”. Her mother, Bridget, adds, “We believe that it comes from God, and what she’s doing is a gift from him”. Bridget prays with Katie before every fight “for protection and strength”, not for a win. Taylor says, “I think it puts a big smile on God’s face when you’re doing what you were born to do” (Murphy 2012).

Tyson Fury (2019, p. 273), professional boxer 2008–, world heavyweight champion, in a similar vein, refers to doing “justice to my God-given talent in the ring”, explaining that “God gives us talents and I’m using mine to the best of my ability. It tells us in the Bible we need to work, and boxing is just a sport at the end of the day.” Evander Holyfield (Holyfield 2008, p. 210), professional boxer 1984–2011, world champion at cruiserweight and heavyweight, was convinced that “God gave me these gifts and I believe he meant for me to use them”. Manny Pacquiao says, “Everything I have accomplished is from God-given strength and the Lord has raised and put me in this position” (Callao 2021).

4.2. Motivation and Hate

One of the arguments against boxing is the motivation to injure an opponent and the unacceptable need to hate one’s opponent to achieve this goal. Several Christian boxers quoted deny that this is the case. Derrick Osazemwinde, professional boxer 2017– and ordained minister at a church in Nottingham, England, nicknamed the Punching Preacher, argues that in boxing (Osazemwinde 2016), “my objective is to hit and not be hit–and to win. My objective is not to hurt my opponent…My aim is to win and not to hurt”.

Evander Holyfield explained his motivation in the ring: “When I box I don’t hate my opponent, not by a long shot. I don’t hate him any more than a pro tennis player hates her opponent …The point of a boxing match isn’t to maim the other guy or humiliate him or end his career. The point, as in any other athletic contest is to win” (Holyfield 2008, p. 211). The reference to the female tennis player hating her opponent is interesting as Nancy Richey, winner of three grand slams in the 1960s, who became a Christian mid-way through her career, said that as a Christian, she struggled with being competitive without hating her opponent. After talking to a Christian pastor, she changed her attitude, trying to see hitting tennis shots as an act of worship (Hoffman 1992, pp. 111–12).

Chris van Heereden (2016), professional boxer 2006–2022, world welterweight champion 2011 and 2015, explained his approach: “We’re not dealing with hatred to kill someone. It never feels nice to knock someone out because afterwards you are hugging each other”.

George Foreman was an Olympic gold medallist in 1968, professional boxer 1969–1997 (with a 10-year gap in the middle), and a twice world heavyweight champion. Foreman is particularly interesting as he had two careers—before he was a Christian and afterwards—and noted the contrast in his attitude. After retiring in 1977, he converted to Christianity and was ordained as a Christian minister. In 1987, he believed God called him back into boxing and he had another ten-year career (1987–1997), winning the world heavyweight championship again. In his first career, he used to build up feelings of hate for his opponent to motivate himself. Then, fighting as a Christian and a pastor, he felt “because I no longer had hate boiling within me, I couldn’t imagine boxing again” but then recognised that he “did not have to be hateful” (Foreman 2007, p. 139) to succeed.

4.3. Role of Scripture

In the previous section, we noted that boxers were not necessarily motivated by hate. Several seek motivation in the Scriptures. Katie Taylor’s pre-fight routine includes reciting Bible verses, particularly Psalm 18, known among her friends and family as ‘Katie’s Psalm’. It says “It is God who arms me with strength and keeps my way secure. He makes my feet like the feet of a deer; He causes me to stand on the heights. He trains my hand for battle; my arms can bend a bow of bronze. You make your saving help my shield”, which Katie applies to her profession. She has referred to the Bible as her sports psychology manual (O’Toole 2012, p. 15). K. Taylor (2012, p. 156) adds, “There are others [Scriptures] that seemed to have relevance for my sport: ‘My heart and flesh may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever’ and ‘The Lord is my strength and my shield; my heart trusts in him’. These are words that have really inspired and encouraged me over the years. Every time I have to box I speak these truths over and over throughout the day. They gave me the strength and the confidence to get through the hours and minutes leading up to the Olympic final”.

In terms of her violent profession, Taylor suggests, “God isn’t exactly squeamish when it comes to fighting and there are plenty of references to combat in the Scriptures. Some of the great men of the Bible, such as David, Gideon and Samson, are men of war. Look at how Jesus drove the money-changers out of the temple. He is ferocious. Of all of characters in the Bible, I particularly enjoy reading about David, because he was a warrior and a man of great courage. He is the only person in the Bible described as a man after God’s own heart, which says a lot about who David was, but also a lot about who God is. Most of the Psalms are written by David. I find them all incredibly powerful and I often recite them when I’m preparing for a fight” (K. Taylor 2012, p. 155).

Derrick Osazemwinde (2016) takes his life values from the Bible, saying, “We read in the Bible: ‘So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God’. 1 Corinthians 10:31. And in Exodus 14:14 we read ‘the LORD will fight for you’. I firmly believe that every time I’m in the ring, I train as hard as I can and I can pray for protection but I also believe that it is God who fights on my behalf”.

Joshua Buatsi (2016), Olympic light–heavyweight bronze medallist, 2016 and now professional, reads the Scriptures “to motivate me and to remind me that God is going to be with me. There are Scriptures like Samson and David telling you to be confident and courageous, not afraid or dismayed. God is the King of the battle. There are so many Scriptures that I can feed off before I go into the ring”. Joe Frazier, 1964 Olympic gold medallist, professional boxer 1965–1981 and world heavyweight champion 1968–1973, liked to read about Jacob wrestling the angel, but his favourite Bible passage was Judges 7, where God tells Gideon to fight with just 300 men, which showed Frazier (Shirley 1999, p. 47) “that with God on your side you can win any battle”.

Evander Holyfield said in an interview that he believed every word God says and that his faith in God and in himself saw him through. He often had Philippians 4:13 [I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me] on his back as an indication that he could do all things through the strength of Christ. “I believe in God so I will surely beat Mike Tyson” (Baker 2007, p. 237).

We will look later at how a Christian approach to boxing can be developed from Scripture. It is sufficient here to say that several boxers use Scripture to motivate themselves.

While Taylor finds the practice of reciting Scripture helpful as part of her preparation for a fight, it is doubtful Biblical exegesis to draw parallels between the ancient Old Testament stories and her profession as a professional boxer. Similarly, Jesus driving corrupt money-changers out of the temple is hardly a parallel with professional boxing. Again, God’s promise in Exodus to fight for Israel against the pursuing Egyptians has no relevance to 21st-century professional boxing. That Christian professional boxers gain psychological strength from reading particular Scriptures cannot be denied but nothing in this section helps us to develop an objective Scriptural defence of boxing as a sport.

4.4. Witness

Jesus told his followers to “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature”. (Mark 16:15). Several boxers refer to this as part of their motivation for practising their profession. When asked to sign autographs, Evander Holyfield often added to his signature “Phil. 4:13.” which states “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me”, taking the opportunity to refer to Jesus Christ as the source of his strength.

Tyson Fury is aware of the platform that his profile gives him. He had a strong conviction in his victory over Wladimir Klitschko that he had “a duty to fulfil, a duty to speak about the Lord Jesus Christ” and more generally, “I have been placed in a position, on a worldwide stage through boxing, to be able to help others... If I’m ashamed of God, then God will be ashamed of me. If you put him first then everything will work out. I use religion as a strength not a weakness, and it helps me. I do my training and then He does His bit” (Fury 2019, p. 32).

Jimmy Tibbs was a professional boxer 1966–1970, who later became one of the top boxing trainers in the world. When he considered giving up, a decisive factor in changing his mind was people telling him, “Jesus wants you in the gyms. Don’t give up. Your work is not finished”. Chris van Heereden (2016) referred to using his boxing successes “for the right reasons, as a platform to spread the word”.

On the other hand, Foreman made a point of not talking about God in post-fight interviews, questioning the sincerity of those who “make a big show” of pointing to heaven or saying that they give “all the praise to God” for their success. Foreman felt “it didn’t seem right” (Foreman 2007, p. 195). When Evander Holyfield fought Mike Tyson, much was made of the fact that Foreman was a Christian and Tyson a Muslim. When he beat Tyson, Holyfield referred to a victory for Jehovah God over the Muslim God Allah, adding “I give the glory to God” (Baker 2007, pp. 236–37).

While the opportunity to witness to their faith was clearly important to the boxers concerned, this section contributes little to our fundamental question as to whether involvement in boxing can be supported by theological arguments.

4.5. God’s Presence

When she won her Olympic gold medal in 2012, Katie Taylor said that she “felt the presence of God in that stadium”. On other occasions, she has said that she is “privileged to glorify His name through my boxing” (O’Toole 2012, p. 122). This is not unusual among Christian athletes as other research has shown that many others see using their God-given talents for His glory as an act of worship (Ellis and Weir 2020).

Tyson Fury believes too that God is with him in the ring. He applies this faith to certain fight situations. He believes God helped him to rise and win after being knocked down by Deontay Wilder and to win a tough fight against Wladimir Klitchko, of which he said, “God won it for me”. He explained further, “It gives me strength to know that if God is in my corner then no one can beat me” (Gore 2015). The problem with that kind of statement comes when he loses—as Fury did to Oleksandr Usyk in 2024. Joshua Buatsi said that he “reads the Scriptures to motivate me and to remind me that God is going to be with me” (Buatsi 2016). Then, there is the famous quote from Floyd Patterson on his victory over Archie Moore: “I just hit him again and the Lord did the rest” (Day 1957)”.

Some boxers see God using their experiences in the ring. Ray Mancini, world lightweight champion 1981–1984, commented on the death of his opponent: “I’m a firm believer that the good Lord puts things in our life to grow our faith and to develop us as people and to get stronger. I’ve dealt with things in my life and it has only made me lean on Him more” (Worsell 2017, p. 96). George Foreman acknowledged that his defeats were not “what I wanted or what I would have chosen… [but were] part of God’s plan for my life” (Foreman 2007, p. 103). Gabe Ruelas, whose opponent Jimmy Garcia died in a fight, looked for an odd kind of salvation in future fights: “each time he was hit and hurt, each time he was knocked down or knocked out, Gabe told himself it was God’s way of punishing him for what he had done to Jimmy Garcia at Caesar’s Palace. ‘That’s why I wanted to fight’ he says. ‘I felt responsible, I felt it was my fault. I felt I should be punished for what I did. I could only find some sort of peace by getting hurt. I know that sounds crazy, but I wanted to get hurt in the ring just as Jimmy had been hurt. I needed to be punished for what I had done’” (Worsell 2017, p. 140).

Sensing the presence of God is a normal Christian experience, so there is no reason why it should not be the experience of a boxer as well as anyone else. The idea that God’s presence gives a particular boxer an advantage or that God made a particular boxer win a fight is problematic.

4.6. Compatibility of Faith and Boxing

The fundamental question which this essay is addressing is whether the sport of boxing, which involves intentional violence against another human with potentially serious injury resulting, is compatible with the Christian faith. Katie Taylor gives one of the strongest defences of Christian involvement in the sport: “I have also heard people say that boxing isn’t a sport that a Christian should be involved in because of the aggressive and physical nature of the sport. My view is that people who say those things know neither boxing nor the heart of God, because I believe that it is God who has given me this talent for boxing. I believe this is a gift and that it is my God-given destiny to be a boxer. For me that is absolutely clear” (K. Taylor 2012, p. 154).

Taylor has said that she is not motivated by anger or hatred for an opponent and nor does she go into fights with an aggressive mentality, but rather focuses on the technical side of boxing to win. She further explains her position: “I’m privileged to glorify His name through my boxing. To say that Christianity and boxing are incompatible also misses the point that the aim in boxing is to outscore an opponent, not to hurt them” (K. Taylor 2012, p. 154).

We have noted earlier that George Foreman had two careers, pre-Christian and then as a Christian. Foreman describes boxing as a Christian with an entirely different attitude from that of his first (pre-Christian) career. Earlier in his career, he used to build up feelings of hate for his opponent to motivate himself and admitted to wanting to hurt opponents, seeing them as “animals to be hunted…I’d say to myself ‘I’m going to kill him’”. As a Christian, he saw opponents as “human beings, the most valuable of God’s creation” and made a point of greeting his opponents at the start of the fight with a big smile, wanting to be seen as “a good man–not a mean, hateful guy”. He explained that the Christian George wanted to win without hurting an opponent more than was necessary. “I’ll hit a guy and tell ‘hi, I love you, son’”. Returning to the ring as a Christian, Foreman said he was more aware of the “skill and strategy” required in boxing (Foreman 2007, pp. 190–91). Foreman was convinced “there is nothing ungodly about boxing” (Shirley 1999, p. 47). He paraphrased the Golden Rule of Matthew 7:12 “do to others what you would have them do to you” as “I try to treat people the way I want to be treated”.

Evander Holyfield posed the following question bluntly: “What would Jesus think? If He walked through the door right now, would He approve? Could I hold my head up and answer with pride if He asked how I earn my living? It’s a great question” (Holyfield 2008, p. 210). Holyfield’s answer was “People sometimes ask me how someone who calls himself a spiritual man, a Christian man, can be a professional prizefighter. Being a Christian doesn’t mean that I belong to a specific church but that I try to take Christ’s life as an example of how to live my own. Put that way it really does sound at odds with what I do for a living. But there’s no contradiction at all, for a couple of reasons. First of all, God gave me these gifts and I believe he meant for me to use them, the way he meant it for anybody else who chooses to be a fighter and has the skills and talent” (Holyfield 2008, p. 210): Holyfield adds, “I believe that God approves. In fact, I think He more than approves. I believe He smiles”. Holyfield also says that he tries “to fight with a pure heart and good intentions, not anger, and I think that pleases Him” (Holyfield 2012, p. 210).

Derrick Osazemwinde stated, “I happen to be a pastor who is a professional boxer. I’m no different from a pastor who is an accountant, a doctor or a lawyer. Boxing is a martial art and when I go into the ring, my objective is to hit and not be hit–and to win. My objective is not to hurt my opponent. Before I go into the ring–and even before I spar–I pray for myself and for the welfare of my opponent, that we both get out of it safely. It’s not personal” (Osazemwinde 2016).

In an interview, Manny Pacquiano, professional boxer 1995–2021, world champion at four different weight divisions, reflected on the tension between his faith and the nature of boxing. He was asked if boxing was sinful. He replied, “It is a good question. I think it is wrong that we try to hurt one another, but I also think that God will forgive us [him and his opponent] because it is our calling” (Watson and Bolt 2015, p. 8).

Jimmy Tibbs anticipated the question when he heard about Jesus, asking, “If I committed to God, could I still stay in boxing and train fighters? Could I live a normal life?” Elsewhere in his autobiography, he writes that being a Christian has made him a calmer person and therefore a better trainer. The Christian Jimmy realised, “Giving encouragement to a boxer is far more important than shouting at them”. When Michael Watson, whom Tibbs trained, was badly injured in a fight with Chris Eubank on 21 September 1991, sustaining injuries from which he never fully recovered, it resulted in great soul-searching for Tibbs, who recalls the time: “A range of emotions were running through my head and several questions rose rapidly to the surface. Was it time to throw in the towel? Did I need to be part of a sport which could potentially do this to another man? Am I cut out for this any more? …The people from my church had also made their way over to my house and they helped convince me to remain in boxing to this current day. They said, ‘Jesus wants you in the gyms. Don’t give up. Your work is not finished’. That was the defining moment that made me carry on, I could have easily swayed the other way in terms of my career as a boxing trainer” (Tibbs 2014, pp. 248, 281 and 290). He continued for several more years in the sport.

Ray Mancini (world lightweight champion 1981–1984) integrated his faith and his profession with the help of his priest, Father O’Neill. After each fight, he received a blessing from the priest (Kriegel 2012, p. 143ff). However, he experienced a crisis in 1982 when he defended his world title against Duk-Koo Kim. The Korean boxer was knocked out and subsequently died. Mancini struggled with boxing after the Kim fight, saying “I fought for the love of the game. I fought to win the world title for my father. I fought for religious reasons. But after the Kim fight there was nothing righteous about it anymore. My Christian faith is the only thing that carried me through. If not, I might have taken the bridge, put the gun in my mouth, drank the bottle or taken the pills” (Worsell 2017, pp. 89–90 and 96).

One of the arguments against boxing is that the aim is to hurt and injure an opponent. Derrick Osazemwinde explained, “Your intention is not to hurt anyone. No boxer would want an opponent to sustain a serious injury so that they couldn’t box anymore or enjoy a certain quality of life. My aim is to win and not to hurt. My objective is not to hurt my opponent” (Osazemwinde 2016). While accepting the point about the technical skill involved in boxing, it is difficult to accept that a boxer spends 30 minutes punching an opponent without wishing to hurt them.

5. Theology of Boxing

There have been a few attempts to set out a systematic Christian view of boxing.

Eugene Hillman1 described boxing as sinful because of the intent to damage the human body. He concluded that boxing could not be reconciled with the commandment “you shall not murder”, interpreting the commandment in relation to violence and injury as well as causing death. He refers to the dangers faced by miners, acrobats and test pilots but makes a distinction that with boxers causing injury is intentional. Hillman (1951, p. 317) goes as far as to say that a boxer sins when he attempts to land severe blows on the head of his opponent.

In the 1980s, the Churches Council for Health and Healing2 in the UK published an occasional paper “Boxing: a Christian Comment”. The paper summarised the purpose of the human body as follows:

• The temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:10).
• The body is further dignified by its use as a model for the body of Christ.
• The doctrine of the incarnation involves God honouring human flesh and life.
• The essential message of the Gospel is the creation of health or wholeness or salvation.

The report found it impossible to reconcile a sport which sought to inflict deliberate damage on the temple of the Holy Spirit with Christian principles and concluded “It is, then, for both medical and Christian reasons, that the working party feels bound to discourage rather than encourage boxing”. It is significant that this report reached such a clear and unequivocal conclusion about boxing.

Nick Watson and Brian Brock concluded that boxing was immoral and neither appropriate nor helpful for Christians to participate in, writing, “As Christian theologians we are very uncomfortable with the intentional (sinful?) interpersonal violence directed at an opponent, who is fashioned in the image of God” (Watson and Brock 2015, p. 13). They add that the case for boxing to be seen as a Christian vocation needs a much more “robust theological justification” than has thus far been made. Greg Linville, an American evangelical theologian, describing the ultimate goal of professional boxing as to physically incapacitate another human being, concludes that it is a biblically indefensible sport (Linville 2014, p. 70). Linville’s complicated argument is that sports need to meet his criteria of having a redemptive purpose as well as biblically based rules to provide protection for the boxer. His judgement therefore is based on boxing as currently practised with the possibility of amending the rules to eliminate the risk of serious injury.

On the other hand, Woodbridge (2018) in an unpublished paper written at Oak Hill College, London, concludes that boxing is not inherently sinful. The paper looks at the 1 Corinthians passage pointing out that Paul was familiar with the Isthmian Games, in which boxing was one of four sports. The paper suggests that the lack of negativity in Paul’s reference to boxing implies that Paul did not think boxing was inherently sinful. Quoting proverbs 4:23 and the instruction to “guard our hearts”, Woodbridge also suggests that spectators need to guard their heart and understand what they are enjoying as they watch boxing. He concludes “that boxing is not sinful and can be watched and participated in to God’s glory. All who watch and compete in boxing must do so with a heart concerned for the good of their opponent, all who fight and their Christian brother or sister”, an interesting charge on the spectators to look for skill, not violence.

Shirl Hoffman, an American academic, is very critical of American evangelicals for not speaking out against violent sports such as boxing, accusing them of pandering to big-time sports (Hoffman 2010, p. 282). As an example, he quotes the editor of Christianity Today, “who has made many otherwise important contributions to the discourse on sport, softens the unspeakable violence of boxing by hinting that it may ennoble the humanity of the participants and worries that if we apply knee jerk ethics, rejecting boxing we will have to do the same with many sports that bring us joy and meaning” which seems a pragmatic argument rather than an evidence-driven one (Hoffman 2010, pp. 191–92).

An encouraging development in recent years has been the number of books3 at an academic level on Christian attitudes to sport including attempts to develop a kind of theology of sport. It is surprising how few of these works actually address the specific issues in boxing.

6. Roman Catholics and Boxing

As a general rule, Roman Catholics have been more positive in their attitude to boxing than other Christians. Amy Koehlinger, a Catholic historian at Oregon State University, argues that boxing is the “most Catholic sport” (Koehlinger 2019), citing Bishop Bernard Sheil (Auxiliary Bishop of Chicago 1928–1969) as an example, who founded the CYO (Catholic Youth Organization) and trained Chicago’s delinquent youth to box, as well as the Knights of Columbus which sponsored boxing tournaments and widespread catholic boxing clubs. As an example of the Catholic grassroots engagement with boxing, in 1930, when the first CYO boxing tournament was organised, 1600 young men signed up to fight (Baker 2007, p. 179). Koehlinger quotes Sheil as saying that he was helping young men “see God through a pair of boxing gloves”. She also referred to how Catholic periodicals and some devotional magazines profiled prominent boxers or fights, highlighting the moral lessons or spiritual insights of the sport, and concluding that up to the 1970s, “boxing saturated US Catholic culture. There were parish boxing clubs and matches sponsored by the Knights of Columbus, sermons about boxing by prominent bishops, and boxing columns in Catholic periodicals. Boxing lessons were common in parish schools, and priests served as trainers at all levels of the sport” (Koehlinger 2019). Boxing events were also used to raise funds for missions. A 1954 film On the waterfront featured a boxer, Terry Malloy (played by Marlon Brando), whose life is transformed by a streetwise priest Father Barry (Karl Malden) who was also a boxer. Koehlinger suggests that films of that type helped underscore a muscular Catholicism.

Koehlinger wrote that “while Protestant writings and sermons at the beginning of the 20th century touted boxing’s capacity to instil virtues like masculine vigor and moral discipline in its practitioners, boxers and boxing fans within the ‘Catholic ghetto’ inhabited a moral universe that emphasized the physical aspects of boxing, attributing an inherent spiritual value to the physical punishment that the sport of boxing engenders” (Koehlinger 2019).

Koehlinger also offers an intriguing explanation of why boxing is such a popular sport among Catholics, that it resonates with their “devotional culture that placed spiritual value on the experience of the body in pain”, seeing a boxer’s willingness to endure suffering as a form of imitation of Christ’s suffering followed by a kind of re-enactment of the resurrection when a boxer is knocked down and gets up again (Koehlinger 2019).

Father George F Rutler saw “a real moral doubt about professional boxing…based both on its deliberate intent to inflict serious injury and on the corruption of promoters” (Rutler 2013). Richard McCormick, a Catholic priest, writes of “a growing consensus among theologians that the sport will not survive moral scrutiny” and that “the current version of professional boxing is immoral”. He argues that professional boxing is unique among sports as “the only sport whose primary objective toward victory is to batter and damage an opponent into helplessness and the incapacity to continue…a sport where the infliction of damage is rewarded”. While equally significant injuries are sustained in other sports, they are incidental, whereas in boxing, they are intentional. For that reason, McCormick (McCormick 1962) suggests boxing has “surpassed the bounds of reasonable stewardship of the human person”.

McCormick suggests that the reason the Catholic Church has not condemned professional boxing is partly that it is not the role of the Church to make such an intervention. He explains, “While the Church speaks frequently on changeless moral principles, she is generally quite content to leave the application of these to her theologians”. He then acknowledges that “theological opinion has been, possibly still is, somewhat divided, or at least hesitant. Most of the serious writing has been unfavorable to boxing, but there are many voices yet to be heard”. However, McCormick’s (1962) own conclusion is that “Unless the arguments leveled at professional boxing as it is today can be answered, I believe the sport would have to be labeled immoral”.

Nathan O’Halloran (2019), a Jesuit priest, noted that St Thomas Aquinas referred to boxing in his Summa Theologiae, widely regarded as comparable in importance to the Bible and official Church teaching without condemning it, writing “goodwill sometimes arises suddenly, as happens to us if we look on at a boxing-match, and we wish one of the boxers to win” (Feeney 2005, p. 39; Aquinas 1274, II-II.27.2). However, McCormick (1962) suggests that “Thomas Aquinas knew nothing of professional boxing; but with an unerring knowledge of human nature he pointed out that to take pleasure in the unnecessary sufferings of another man is brutish”. Given that there was financial reward for boxing even in the ancient world, McCormick’s assumption may be wrong. O’Halloran notes that the Catholic Church had never made any official pronouncement on the morality of boxing, but recognises that contemporary Catholic theologians increasingly have trouble defending it. O’Halloran, who is no theoretical commentator on boxing but an active participant, strove in the ring as elsewhere to live up to the Jesuit principle of doing all things “to the greater glory of God”. O’Halloran (2019) concluded “The worry about boxing is often built around the question of ‘intention’. Morally speaking, the intent or object of a sport cannot be to hurt another person...Because there is no intent to harm built into it, there is, I would argue, nothing immoral about amateur boxing”. His distinction between amateur and professional boxing seems too stark, and injuries also occur in amateur boxing.

While there have been no authoritative Pontifical pronouncements on boxing, the actions of particular popes have been documented and interpreted. Pius XII did, however, refer to the “pride for madness which cannot resist ruining the health and strength of the athlete in unhealthy exaggeration simply in order to carry off the honours in some boxing bout” (Pius XII 1995, p. 31) and also said that athletes “should not ruin their health or expose their lives to danger in athletic pursuits” (Feeney 2005, p. 171). When the Catholic boxer Floyd Patterson won the world heavyweight title, Pope John XXIII sent him a congratulatory telegram and later granted him an audience in the Vatican (Stratton 2012, pp. 124, 127). On the other hand, when Davey Moore died in a fight with Sugar Ramos in 1963, Pope John proclaimed that boxing was “contrary to the natural principles” (Kriegel 2012, p. 91). In June 1982, Muhammad Ali and his wife had an audience with John Paul II at the Vatican, at which Ali is pictured signing an autograph for the Pope. This incident has been used to suggest that John Paul II was not against boxing.

Sonny Liston, world heavyweight champion in the 1960s, was involved in crime in his early 20s and was imprisoned. Rev Alois Stevens, who was a chaplain and also athletic director at Missouri State Penitentiary, met Liston and suggested that he try boxing. From the beginning, he had a talent and went on to defeat Floyd Patterson for the world heavyweight title before losing it to Muhammed Ali. Stevens continued to be a mentor and coach to Liston. He also linked Liston with another priest, Father Edward P. Murphy, a Jesuit who was the pastor of a church in Denver when Liston relocated to Denver. There, he underwent extensive counselling with Father Murphy (Dunn 2005).

In 2005, La Civilta Cattolica, an influential Jesuit magazine, did condemn professional boxing as “a form of legalized attempted murder”, adding “that the case against boxing is stronger than it is against any sport” (Galli 2005). Vatican radio reached a similar position, but the radio station was not deemed to be communicating an official Catholic position (McCormick 1962). In a Catholic book on youth sport, Richard Gaillardetz referred to the “real dangers that hyper-violent sports like football, [ice-] hockey, rugby and boxing present to the long-term health of those who participate in such sports” (Gaillardetz 2015, p. 156).

Catholic boxing clubs continue to be found in the USA, Canada and the UK. One example, The Furness Catholic Boxing Club (n.d.), has been operating since 1957, providing training and coaching for amateur boxers—boys and girls. Overall, Catholic attitudes to boxing are mixed, with some strong positive endorsements.

7. Death in the Ring

One of the arguments against boxing is the number of deaths which occur in the ring. Between 1740 and 1889, the era before gloves were introduced and boxers fought bare-knuckled, there were 266 documented deaths. In the period 1890–2019, a total of 1876 boxers died as a direct result of injuries sustained in bouts (R. Taylor 2024). While no other sport comes close in terms of deaths, it is interesting to note that in one year in the USA, a total of 446,788 sports-related head injuries were treated in hospital emergency rooms. The largest number was in cycling (85,389), but basketball (34,692) and golf (10,035) were also included (American Association of Neurological Surgeons n.d.). Elliot Worsell, in his book based on interviews with boxers who had experienced an opponent dying after a fight, found that most of such boxers were so deeply affected by the experience that they were never as effective as fighters after that occurrence, perhaps fearing a repeat (Worsell 2017 and also Lepne and Leone 1992). Several also recognised that the outcome of the fight could have gone the other way: while on this occasion, an opponent had died, it could just as easily have been themselves who died (Kriegel 2012, p. 14). Several blamed the referee for not stopping the fight when the opponent was unable to defend himself. Gabe Ruelas, one of those who saw an opponent die, said, “It’s not a game. You play football, you play rugby, you play cricket. You don’t play boxing” (Worsell 2017, p. 193). Professional boxers live with the danger throughout their career but may be able to de-couple their actions from the possible consequences until a tragedy occurs.

8. Discussion

8.1. Negatives

The classical arguments against boxing are that it is dangerous, potentially resulting in serious brain and eye injuries and in extremis can lead to death. Boxing, it is argued, is the only sport—perhaps along with MMA Cage Fighting—in which a contestant deliberately sets out to injure an opponent.

The following statement by the World Medical Association well summarised the consensus of medical opinion on boxing: “Boxing is a dangerous sport. Unlike other sports, its basic intent is to produce bodily harm by specifically targeting the head. The main medical argument against boxing is the risk of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), also known as chronic traumatic brain injury (CTBI), and dementia pugilistica or “punch-drunk” syndrome. Other injuries caused by boxing can lead to loss of sight, loss of hearing, and fractures. Studies show that boxing is associated with devastating short-term injuries and chronic neurological damage on the participants in the long term” (World Medical Association Statement on Boxing 2017).

While statements by the British Boxing Board of Control and other governing bodies about increased medical care for boxers such as having ambulances on standby are positive changes, they do nothing to counter the plain fact the boxing is a dangerous sport.

McCormick (1962), quoted earlier, notes that in boxing uniquely, the aim is to injure an opponent and “the infliction of damage is rewarded”. That the intention of boxing is to injure and potentially knock out one’s opponent illustrates boxing’s “unique precariousness” (Erdozain 2010, p. 176) among violent sports. That is not to say that American football, rugby and other high-impact sports do not have a case to answer, but boxing is different as our data have shown that deaths in the boxing ring are not infrequent. Life-changing injuries also often result. One could also ask the question about the potential moral or psychological damage of a profession which has inflicting injury as its purpose.

8.2. Positives

The two strongest arguments in defence of boxing are that success in boxing can be life-changing for an individual in terms of earnings and that the discipline learned through boxing training and competition can help the individual make a success of their life. The British Boxing Board of Control (n.d.) argues that the sport gives young people a chance to achieve something, boosting their self-confidence and self-esteem as well as teaching self-control and discipline (British Boxing). Professional boxer Derrick Osazemwinde credits boxing with changing his life. He takes up the story: “Growing up in London, I was often in trouble and was suspended from school about 16 times and was on the verge of being excluded permanently. Joining a boxing club was lifechanging. It started as something to keep me out of trouble, became a hobby, then a passion and a lifestyle. The biggest thing I learned from boxing was self-control and self-discipline. It’s about being able to control yourself and sticking to a game plan. Overall it just made me a calmer individual. All the excess energy that I had, I put into boxing” (Osazemwinde 2016).

World heavyweight champion, Tyson Fury, cites the example of Naseem Hamed who went from a council estate in Sheffield to becoming a multimillionaire (Fury 2019, p. 269). Jimmy Tibbs, one of the most distinguished boxing trainers, argues, “The irony of it is that boxing is one of the strongest disciplines on the planet which stops many becoming violent inside and outside of the ring” (Tibbs 2014, p. 231). Another world heavyweight champion, Evander Holyfield (1996, p. 214), saw boxing as a lifeline for “at risk” (his phrase) kids. “Boxing is a way out for them. It provides discipline, direction, mentoring and an outlet for youthful energy”. While one can see the strength of these positive arguments, the idea of a poor boy becoming a millionaire through inflicting harm on a series of opponents raises serious moral arguments. Teaching self-discipline through boxing training is very commendable, but the question needs to be asked whether this could be achieved—like martial arts training—without an end result of someone being hurt.

The financial gains through boxing should not be overstated, as former World champion Duke Mackenzie points out that “boxers who have retired with their health and wealth you can count on the fingers of one hand…nine out of ten boxers will see their personal life suffer because of the sport they have chosen” (Broadbent 2024).

This argument should not be overstated. Many working-class boys have become millionaires through football or boxing, but experience of interviewing dozens of footballers and reading boxers’ stories suggest that they pursued their sport out of a love for it rather than for potential financial rewards. However, as interesting as the socio-economic reasons as to why some are drawn into boxing may be, my interest is more abstractly theological. In any case, one could reasonably ask whether the reason why one boxes mitigates the problems associated with the sport.

8.3. Make It Safer

There are ways that boxing could be made safer, but so far, the authorities have shown little desire to do so. In the Middle Ages, people used to have sword fights, using real swords and resulting in injuries. Fencing has evolved from sword fights, but the modern version of the sport sees fencers not using a potentially fatal weapon and, for example, wearing a headguard. In martial arts like Taekwondo, fighters stop short of delivering the potentially fatal blow. NFL players wear helmets. The authorities in football and rugby are actively looking at reducing head contact, but no such move is occurring in boxing.

Differences between professional and amateur boxing where fights are of shorter duration and with headguards worn are arguably significant. In amateur boxing, it can be said that the purpose of the boxer is to outthink and outmanoeuvre one’s opponent and so score points—but still land punches to the head. Boxing is thus seen as a technical exercise of skill and timing where any injury is, to some extent, incidental or accidental to the object of the contest. This seems easier to maintain in amateur boxing where headguards are worn in a deliberate attempt to restrict or prevent an ‘accidental’ injury, which limits the length of the contest and the fatigue of the boxers. However, as soon as you consider the notion of a ‘knockout’, the idea that harm is not intended seems much more difficult to maintain. It is hard to get away from the intention of boxing being to harm or incapacitate the opponent, meaning that both the object and the effect seem problematic (Schneider and Butcher 2007, p. 361).

The advantage for the boxing fan of the knockout is that there is a clear winner of the fight. When a fight goes the full distance, judges decide the winner, something which is very subjective and often controversial. In the May 2024 world heavyweight unification fight, one judge made Usyk the winner by the narrowest of margins, another made Fury the victor by a similar margin, and the third judge gave the verdict to Usyk by a significant margin, leaving the outcome controversial and unsatisfactory.

In boxing, headguards could be mandatory in professional as in amateur boxing, or better still, the head could be taken out of the permitted target area for punches. Opinions as to the level of protection headguards give vary, and there appears to be no enthusiasm within the sport for any of these initiatives among the authorities or boxing fans. A safer sport might be of less commercial value.

8.4. Arguments from Boxers

8.4.1. My Calling

When a person has a conviction that God has told them to do something or wants them to do something, it is difficult for third party to challenge the conviction. Yet we have to assess these claims. Michael Watson, Katie Taylor and Tyson Fury all believe that their boxing ability is a gift from God. We might define boxing ability to include strength, speed (of thought and action), agility, etc., and agree that, as with every human ability, it is a gift from God. Whether that strength, speed and agility is best used to punch an opponent in the face is another matter.

Katie Taylor takes it a stage further, believing that boxing is her God-given destiny, what she was born to do, and again, it is hard for a third party to tell her that it is not. This is not unique to boxing; legendary Croatian high jumper Blanka Vlašić (2016) has said that she believes she was born to high jump. However, being born to jump is less problematic than being born to box. In the film Chariots of Fire, Eric Liddell speaks the words “God made me for a purpose and when I run, I feel his pleasure”. Liddell then goes on to say that God’s bigger purpose for him was to be a missionary in China. Of course, these words were written by scriptwriter, Colin Welland, and may or may not reflect how Liddell felt. Katie Taylor is also aware of a bigger picture, suggesting that she is glorifying God’s name through boxing. Taylor’s and Holyfield’s conviction that boxing causes God to smile parallels Liddell, as portrayed in Chariots of Fire. Pacquiano refers to professional boxing as “his calling” (Watson and Bolt 2015, p. 8). The hard question remains whether one can worship and glorify God—and make God smile—by injuring another human.

There is no reason to doubt that the boxers quoted here sincerely believe and experience what they describe. However, none of this proves that boxing is a worthy Christian activity. The morality or otherwise of boxing from a theological perspective must be argued with stronger evidence than the intuitions and feelings of professional boxers, however sincerely held.

George Foreman, Floyd Patterson, Michael Watson and Tyson Fury all refer to God being with them in the ring. At one level, this is theologically sound as Christians are promised the presence of God with us at all times. Christians will attest to God’s help, protection and guidance in many aspects of life. If the boxers mean that God is with them in the ring as he is with them in the supermarket, then that is fine, but if the implication is that God was not only approving of their actions but also helping them win as some claim, then that may seem to be a bridge too far. Certainly, the claim that God possesses Manny Pacquiano when he fights is not one I am comfortable with (Poole 2010, p. 121). One cannot deny that God has given more sporting ability to some than to others, but acknowledging that is a long way from believing that God wants and helps a particular individual to win.

8.4.2. Scripture

In the case study material, several boxers quoted from Scripture, often drawing parallels from their performance in the ring to the actions of Old Testament warriors who did battle at God’s command. The allusions to Samson, David, Old Testament warriors or Jesus being the Lion of Judah do not really help us towards a theological understanding of boxing. Katie Taylor’s Psalm with its promise that the Lord trains one’s hand for battle is an interesting promise, but professional boxing was hardly what the Psalmist was thinking about! Applying poetic language literally to the boxing career is problematic as it is difficult to see how the actions of primitive people fulfilling what they believe to be the call of God can give us much help in deciding if a career in professional boxing is a suitable occupation for a modern-day Christian.

Other than Paul’s failure to condemn boxing—and we recall that the interpretation of the passage in the Corinthian letter is disputed—it is hard to argue that any of the Scriptures quoted by boxers help us in our quest to establish a Christian view of the sport. Similarly, Paul’s use of analogies to slavery is not usually taken as an endorsement of slavery.

8.4.3. Hurting an Opponent

The purpose of boxing is to punch and hurt an opponent—whether to achieve a knockout or to incapacitate them temporarily and to win the round on points. However, in the case study material, Taylor and Osazemwinde stated that their aim was not to hurt an opponent. That argument is hard to defend, particularly as the knockout—or leaving an opponent unable to continue—is so much part of professional boxing. George Foreman’s distinction between boxing before becoming a Christian and as a Christian is interesting in the way he refers to his desire, as a Christian, to win without hurting his opponent more than was necessary. But for a boxer to say that they do not want to hurt their opponent seems an unsustainable argument, as hurting an opponent is an inevitable consequence of punching them.

In boxing, it is claimed that injuring an opponent is the intention of the sport, while injuries in other sports are an unwanted by-product. However, it is not as clear-cut as that. We have noted above that several boxers say they have no intention to hurt an opponent, but this claim seems problematic. Hurting an opponent in, for example, rugby or American football may equally be quite intentional. Currently, a number of rugby players who have suffered dementia, allegedly as a result of repeated blows to the head, are suing the sport’s federations, claiming that the federations are responsible for their (mis)management of the environment in which the injuries occurred.

Chris Eubank, not speaking from an explicitly Christian position, expresses an extreme view of boxing: “It’s the hurt business and that’s what we’re in it for-to persevere…you cannot expect to get anywhere near greatness if you’re not prepared to accept damage…hurt is good. Damage is good” (Worsell 2017, pp. 257–58). McCormick quotes Floyd Patterson, “I am in a business of violence” (McCormick 1962). While Christian boxers would have a different attitude and would probably not explicitly agree with Eubank that hurt is good, it is hard to sustain an argument that any boxer punches an opponent without the intention of hurting.

Holyfield and Taylor both stress that they are not motivated by anger. Holyfield adds that he does not hate his opponent any more than a tennis player would hate an opponent. Foreman contrasts the pre-Christian George hating and wanting to damage his opponent with the Christian George smiling and telling his opponent that he loves him. While we can easily acknowledge that anger and hatred are negative emotions, their absence does not in itself vindicate boxing as an activity. Similarly, Jimmy Tibbs and Chris van Heereden rightly refer to the opportunity and need for Christian witness in boxing, but again, that argument does not help us in our moral evaluation of boxing from a Christian perspective.

Several boxers refer to prayer—praying for strength and acknowledging their need for God when fighting. Ray Mancini refers to praying that neither he nor his opponent would get hurt in their fight. When Michael Watson knocked Nigel Benn down, he reported that he prayed for Benn not to be seriously hurt. One cannot say that they were wrong to pray like this—the Apostle Paul commends praying without ceasing. However, it is difficult to sustain an argument that a boxer can simultaneously punch an opponent as hard as possible while praying that the opponent will not get hurt. Hoffman suggests that pregame piety usually runs in direct proportion to the importance of the contest and that boxers, for obvious reasons, are the most prayerful of all (Hoffman 2010, p. 155).

Players get hurt playing association football, rugby, American football, cricket, etc., and Christian players pray in advance that no one will be hurt. We are left with the question of whether the injuries that boxers sustain are caused deliberately, whereas they are accidental in other sports—although the distinction is probably not as clear-cut as that—and if that makes a difference, it can be asked whether and how one might pray.

Nathan O’Halloran, a Jesuit priest, quoted earlier states: “Morally speaking, the intent or object of a sport cannot be to hurt another person...Because there is no intent to harm built into it, there is, I would argue, nothing immoral about amateur boxing” (O’Halloran 2019). However, it is difficult to argue that even in amateur boxing, there is no intention to hurt or harm an opponent.

9. Conclusions

The Christian attitude to boxing is not simple or clear-cut. There are strong arguments against boxing on health and safety grounds, but they apply equally to some other dangerous and violent sports. That the purpose of boxing is to punch and (inevitably) risk hurting an opponent cannot be denied. There are therefore real questions as to whether boxing can be justified from a faith-formed worldview. We noted earlier how little theological reflection has been published on boxing. Eugene Hillman’s (1951) paper remains the most comprehensive with its conclusion that boxing is sinful because of the intent to damage another human body. The British Churches Council for Health and Healing similarly concluded that the Scriptural doctrines of the incarnation and the designation of the human body the temple of the Holy Spirit rule out commending a sport which intentionally damages another human body. No published protestant theological defence of boxing was found.

There is more Roman Catholic material on what Amy Koehlinger has called the “most Catholic sport”, citing the Catholic view of the spiritual value of the experience of the body in pain and seeing a boxer’s willingness to endure suffering as a form of imitation of Christ. While there had been no clear definitive papal pronouncement for or against boxing, there seems to be a “growing consensus among theologians that the sport will not survive moral scrutiny” and that “the current version of professional boxing is immoral”.

On the other hand, there are a number of Christian boxers who, having prayed about it and studied the Scriptures, feel comfortable engaging in the sport of boxing. That some boxers explicitly state that they believe it is their calling from God does not negate the case against the sport. While it is difficult to challenge another person’s sense of calling, this does not constitute empirical evidence in support of boxing. The church continues to have an ambivalent attitude to the sport, recognising the theological, ethical and medical case against it yet continuing to promote boxing in church clubs and to publicise the faith stories of Christian boxers. This dichotomy has existed for centuries and may continue into the future, yet it is hard to disagree with the conclusion of the Churches Council for Health and Healing that boxing should be discouraged rather than encouraged.

Further research involving empirical studies of boxing based on in-depth structured interviews with boxers, coaches and referees at youth, amateur and professional levels would be useful to delve deeper into some of the issues I have raised.