The aim of any boxing match is to cause more permanent brain damage in your opponent than you yourself sustain.

There is no such thing as temporary brain damage.

Both these statements are factually incorrect, thus destroying your arguement.

Ben H, Kenley, UK

I have been an ardent fan of Simon Barnes's column for a long time. His insight, intelligence and erudition are a few elements of his talent I admire.

This piece today is unfortunately dull, lame and quite frankly wide of the mark. His argument in boxing parlance is a cumbersome haymaker.

Sport brings us characters. Imagine a world without Ali, Frazier, Hagler, Louis, Duran, Marciano, Johnson, Hearns and Leonard to name but a few.

Boxerss are brave, proud and disciplined men for the most part. Their fights, each struggle encapsulates the tragedy and beauty of the human condition. Ultimately none of us wins at life, but the challenge is frequently to find strength where none remains. Nowhere is this lesson in life reflected so compellingly in sport as in boxing.

Please, sir, leave the fighters be.

Paul Puccioni, Esher, Surrey

Question. Explain the nature of boxing?
Simon's answer. To punch somebody in the head. This is really so bad it is quite difficult to believe it comes from someone who is such a respected columnist. But, then that is what columnists do. They bring complex matters down to absurdly simple levels. Simon did this before with his analysis of Paul Gasgoigne's life.

Here is another question. Explain the nature of journalism? Answer. To put words on a page. Would not this be a travesty? A ridiculous reductionist travesty?

To explain a social event like boxing it would be necessary, at the very least, to explore areas such as the ideas of the partcipants, who are actually human beings engaging in a complex social activity.

Boxing is not like other examples of people hitting each other on the head, it is an activity which must be understood within its own complex context, with the concepts that govern and determine the social relationships of those who participate in it.

Sean McGrady, York, North Yorks UK

Let us challenge Simon Barnes in his chosen arena and consider the question of audience: Compare the popular non-contact sport of football, with its associations with gangs, hooliganism and yob culture, to the contact sports of rugby and boxing, where the action stays very much on the pitch or in the ring.

The more visceral aspects of our nature, our passions, are part of who we are. Pretending they don't exist will not make them go away. We need outlets. Problems arise when aggression is vented in inappropriate or dangerous ways. Two men (or women), generously paid and with full knowledge of the risks, taking part in a public display of (lets be honest) violence in a controlled environment provide us with an outlet.

Maybe Simon Barnes doesn't need such outlets - after all, he has his newspaper column - but some of us find them helpful. And the passions are not to be sneered at, for they give us our drive for self-improvement and social reform. We just need a way to vent the excess.

Daniel L-W, Cambridge,

So permanent brain damage caused by intake of alcohol and recreational drugs id off the agenda then?
Actually a good idea but for the wrong reasons.

The brain has a fair amount of built in redundancy and most damage is infinitesmally small in boxing.
But if you really want to reduce the risk then ban the glove. The low frequency shock waves developed by blows from the glove are far more damaging to the brain than those from the bare knuckles.

In any case, if a person wants to smash their brains up for the entertainment of others, then that should be a matter for the performer and his audience. Not the holier-than-though 'objective' bystander.

Unlike the animals in hare coursing, badger baiting or cock fighting, we can discuss this with the participants and ask them if it's what they want to do. If it's OK with them it should be OK with us.

Mike Poulsen, Reading, Berkshire