"A 'Cage Match' Between Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg May Be No Joke/Talks over a matchup between the two tech billionaires have progressed and the parameters of an event are taking shape."

This is an article in the NYT, and I'm annoyed at myself for spending the time to try to understand what is going on. These 2 showboats want our attention, and now I'm checking to see just how old, tall, and heavy each of them is and what that means in a "cage match."

Ugh. I don't like thinking about either of these men's bodies, but now I know Musk is 6'1.5" and Zuckerberg is only 5'7". Zuckerberg weighs 155 and Musk is anywhere from 30 to 70 pounds heavier, so he's something like 2 weight classes higher than Zuckerberg. Musk is 12 years older, and maybe Musk is less in shape:

Mr. Zuckerberg is likely in fighting shape. He has been on a strict workout regimen, going for runs and challenging friends and colleagues to beat his times, two people close to him said. Last month, he posted a personal record for completing the “Murph” challenge, which requires completing a series of pull-ups, push-ups, running multiple miles and doing hundreds of squats, all while wearing weighted, military-grade body armor.... 

So Zuck has been bragging. Meanwhile, Musk is massaging expectations: 

Mr. Musk, on the other hand, has tweeted that he “almost never” works out and once suffered a back injury that required surgery after participating in an exhibition with a sumo wrestler. Last month, he said he had trained in “judo, Kyokushin (full contact)” — two Japanese martial arts — and “no rules streetfighting.” 

“He made that very clear: ‘I’m not going to lose any weight,’” [Dana White, president of the Ultimate Fighting Championship] said of Mr. Musk’s approach to the potential matchup....

It sounds ugly. A much larger, heavier man permitted to kick the little guy? But as soon as I saw the word "charity" in the article — "The tech leaders have agreed there should be a charity component" — I realized that it's just a stupid exhibition, they're not really going to be trying to hurt each other, and we are fools if we want to watch. Let them give their own billions to charity, not put on an idiotic show to extract it from us. 

All my life, I've heard various comedians and commentators bring up the idea that instead of war, the leaders who want war ought to engage in a boxing match. So, like, Zelenskiy and Putin could box. Do you find that an amusing joke? It's been made repeatedly, as if it's incisive or hilarious, though it's not, so it must hit so core psychological spot. But in that idea, a war is avoided, and the winner gains something that was enough for countries to go to war over.

In the Zuckerberg vs. Musk fight, there are no stakes other than the bragging rights for one of 2 men we have no interest in hearing bragging.  

ADDING: I asked ChatGPT who first thought of that idea of a boxing match instead of a war. Answer:

The concept of resolving conflicts between leaders through a boxing match... is often attributed to Jean Jaurès, a French socialist leader and pacifist.... 

You can read about Jaurès at Wikipedia, here. Interesting character, but nothing about the boxing idea. Is this one of ChatGPT's false stories?

Let's try Bard:

The person who originally proposed that instead of going to war, the leaders of countries ought to participate in a boxing match was Marquis de Queensbury. He was a British nobleman who is considered the father of modern boxing. In 1867, he published a set of rules for boxing that are still used today. These rules included banning wrestling, biting, and gouging, and they also limited the number of rounds to 12. Queensbury believed that these rules would make boxing a more civilized and gentlemanly sport. In 1882, Queensbury proposed that the leaders of countries should settle their disputes in a boxing match instead of going to war. He argued that this would be a more humane way to resolve conflicts and that it would also help to prevent wars from happening in the first place. Queensbury's proposal was not taken seriously at the time, but it has since been cited by peace activists as a possible way to prevent war. 

Here are some additional details about Queensbury's proposal: 

• He suggested that the boxing match should be between the two countries' leaders, or their representatives. 

• The match would be held in a neutral country. 

• The winner of the match would be declared the victor of the dispute. 

Queensbury believed that this would be a more fair and just way to resolve conflicts than war. Queensbury's proposal was not without its critics. Some people argued that it would be too dangerous for the leaders of countries to fight each other in a boxing match. Others argued that it would be unfair to the leaders of smaller countries, who would be at a disadvantage against the leaders of larger countries. Despite the criticisms, Queensbury's proposal has remained a popular idea among peace activists. It has been cited as a possible way to prevent war in a number of conflicts, including the Cold War and the Vietnam War. It is unlikely that Queensbury's proposal will ever be put into practice, but it remains a reminder that there are alternative ways to resolve conflicts besides war.

Here's the Wikipedia page for the Marquis of Queensbury. Did he really propose the boxing alternative to war?

IN THE COMMENTS: tim maguire quotes a passage from "All Quiet on the Western Front" (1928), and I'll do the same quote but from the translation in my Kindle:

Kropp on the other hand is a thinker. He proposes that a declaration of war should be a kind of popular festival with entrance-tickets and bands, like a bull fight. Then in the arena the ministers and generals of the two countries, dressed in bathing-drawers and armed with clubs, can have it out among themselves. Whoever survives, his country wins. That would be much simpler and more just than this arrangement, where the wrong people do the fighting. The subject is dropped.

Then the conversation turns to drill.