I think this really depends on how one views corporal punishment.
I don't really approve of corporal punishment, but I think it's a stretch to define it as inherently abusive even if it's not ideal to rely on it.
If the goal is to injure or humiliate, or if it's done publicly, or if the motive is largely about venting anger rather than correcting behaviour I'd consider it abuse, but I don't think getting smacked on the backside in a society that's largely accepting of spanking amounts to abuse.
You're the one who knows him best, do you think his goal was to abuse you or modify your behaviour using the tools he had been led to believe were appropriate?
For me, the things that make corporal punishment definitely count as abuse are when it's arbitrary, when it's combined with other (verbal) abuse, when it's done to humiliate, if it's done with the goal of inflicting injury, when it's done as an emotional release, etc.
I can see the arguments for viewing all corporal punishment as abuse, but I also think they're pretty navel-gazey and require one to ignore the real world.
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
You can't advance to the next level without stomping on a few Koopas.