No offence to the women boxers, but i think it was shocking to pick this sport. squash or even rugby should, in my eyes been far higher in the pecking order for the olympics. the reasoning is ridiculous and i dont understand why a sport which is so much less popular has been picked.

Think you have missed the point Charlie h, women's boxing is not a new sport as such as boxing is already in the Olympics whereas squash and rugby are not. Anyway, if it was all about popularity we would have darts, snooker and fishing in there. Perish the thought.Gaynor

Although not in London, but being born there, the 2012 London Olympics is a thrill.Being an ex-amateur boxer, the decision to include women's boxing in the London Olympics is a double thrill.Although there is only expected to be three weight classes, all the participants will be an important part of history, and,in my opinion,will be a bright new day for the sport of boxing.For those few that may be grumbling or gnashing their teeth at the thought of women's boxing, give it a rest. Going back to the war years, the women were there front and center doing all sorts of "men's jobs", so get over it.,2012 will be a great time for boxing and fantastic time for women's boxing.

Actually Charlie H this isn't a newly added sport considering there is already men's boxing so why don't you get the facts striaght first and get behind the girls and team GB. Rugby is being considered and will be added for the 2016 games in it's sevens format, no further sports were deemed necessary to add by the IOC