COOK-BECKETT MATCH

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 87, 12 April 1922, Page 5

COOK-BECKETT MATCH

A DISAPPOINTING CONTEST. " THING Or BRUTE STRENGTH." REFEREE CRITICISED. (By Co We.—Press Association.—Copyright.) ('Received 10.00 ».m.) LONDON, April 11. Cieorge Cook is by no means satisfied at the verdict of disqualification in his right with Joe Beckett. Interviewed by the Australian Press Association, he outspokenly referred to the referee being outside the ring. ""Had he been inside, where he could have separated us," he said, "'there would be a different tale v> tell. When in the fourth round I punished Beckett severely, he held mc repeatedly, but was not disqualified. 1 admit that Beckett dazed mc. in the sixth for a second or two, but then 1 made him miss and recovered quickly. While recovering I admit that I. claimed Beckett awhile, but the referee immediately disqualified mc. Why did not he rule out Beckett in the. fourth, when 1 had him beat to the world. He was flagrantly guilty." Discussing the contest generally. Cook paid a tribute to Beckett's left arm hook. This was his best punch, and he had a nasty way of bringing it off during the breakaway, when his opponent was obliged to be very wary. Beckett had a way of bringing up that left hook from the rifci with all his weight behind it. Cook realises that he should have danced about, more, making; him miss, and wu.9 absolutely certain that had the fight gone another two, rounds lie would have floored Beckett, who must give him a return match. Mr. Cha,s. Lucas (Cook's manager) stated that Beckett would have been beaten in another conplo of rounds. Beckett dazed Cook in the sixth, but Cook recovered so rapidly that when the cpnteet wae stopped ho was having far the better of the exchanges. The fight was spoilt by the referee sitting below vie ring, regularly climbing up, anil speaking to the boxers as though they were school children. So intent were both fighters on winning that they sneaked punches at. every turn, and when true referee made his usual, child-like wail they ignored him. Had the referee been inside breaking the men. all clinching and holding would h*ve beep avoided. He was posting £500 for a return match. The Australian Press Association's correspondent at the ringside says that before the fight opened Cook confidently' winked and smiled at his friends. Judging by appearances Beckett was already beaten, but Beckett soon showed out for the fight of his life. Both were fit, and co anxious to get to work that they overlooked the courtesy of a hand-1 shake, and tried to punch before the gong- It was not surprising that the referee eventually disqualified Cook. Beckett, vrtio is, no waye a popular idol, received a mild ovation as champion of the Empire. Cook retired to his corner dazed, disappointed, and crestfallen, obviously realising that the decision was his deathblow.— (A. and N.Z.) COOK'S FATAL MISTAKE. TOO MUCH INFIGHTING. LONDON, April if. Cook made the fatal mistake of infighting. He held Beckett in such a tight lock that the latter frequently appealed to the referee. Cook was repeatedly warned. Beckett likewise was guilty of holding , . The crowd became angry with both men, and shouted, "Get on with the fighting." From the start the fight was fast and fierce. Beckett soon showed that he had a stronger punch than the Australian, and he landed several halt-arm lefts and rights with telling effect. Later j Cook's speed and cleverness in ducking j saved him often from half-arm jolts, which were a feature of the encounter. Before many seconds had passed both men were moving round the ring locked in each other's arms. The fight slisrhily favoured Cook until the sixth round, when Beckett dram:i cally and unexpectedly landed a succession of terrific blows at Cook's head. Cook became groggy against the rope,, and w as a .beaten man. The betting opened at seven to four against Cook, stiffening to two's at the end of the third round. Cook said he was beaten by the better man. Beckett said: "Cook was a good, clean fighter, but was guilty of holding. I was slow owing to the result of influenza. My great ambition is to meet Carpentier." Critics discuss the fight with withering sarcasm. Mr. Bennison, of the "Dajly Telegraph," writes: "'The affair was without science or niceness. It was merely a thing of brute, unholy strength. To say that Beckett or Cook boxed with a high regard for the spirit of the game is untrue. Oook hae not improved in any vital particular since his defeat by Carpentier. Beckett i« so crude that it is difficult to believe that he is placed among the champions. Beckett regarded Cook as demon-like, and Cook thought Beckett a mighty foe-1 man. Both were wrong, and thp result' was a burlesque. It was not even good wrestling." ' The "Daily Express" states that thej fight did not end a moment too soon. ; From first to last it was an undignified scramble. The men fought like butting, steers in a pen. ] The "Daily Chronicle" says that the; fight was a terribly poor exhibition. A | good man would have beaten either eontentant. Neither showed any initiative. What one did depended upon what the other did. The contest would not Jiave been a credit to a suburban show. The "Morning Post" states that there was no semblance of science of any description- Both men were slow. Beckett had a punch if he had been given time to find it. Cook was quicker, but was without power in his punch, ; "Sporting Life" says that f'ook held Beckett grimly to save himself. Tt was a poor affair na a boxing' exhibition. One man wanted to box as well as he ■wtiß able, and the other would not ncrmit him, nbr colli ,l he box himself. Beckett says: "The job was harder than I expected. I hn<l Cook going wlieii lip was disqualified."—(A. ami N.Z. Cable.)