BOXING.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 78, 3 April 1926, Page 25

BOXING.

"Tire wise men perched on pedestals," or, in other words, the judges at the recent Murray-Purdy contest for the light-weight title, have lately come in for a deal of criticism regarding their decision in favour of the champion, the fact that Referee Mick Stewart favoured the Aucklander, and the further fact that he bulk of the crowd thought Purdy had won. providing grounds on which several critics built up a theory that the two gentlemen who officiated were incompetent—or something to that effect. A writer in the "New Zealand Times" had quite a lot to say. and averred that England, America-, Franca and Australia considered that the referee was the best man to award the thick- end of the prize. Swift to contradict this assertion is "Cestus," of tho Christchurch " StaT." a staunch and outspoken adherent of conservatism, especially when any proposal is made which threatens to place boxing on a super-professional basis. "Cestus" is strong for judges. He points out that judges are frequently employed in America, that they are compulsory in New York State, that it was the practice in France to have three judges, while the fact that referees' decisions are so frequently unpopular in Australia does not commend itself as. an argument for the sole arbiter system. A man may be an excellent referee, so far as controlling a bout is concerned, but a poor judge of the merits of the contestants. It will be conceded at once that "Cestus" makes a wise observation in the latter sentence. But it is also true that a man may be poor in control, though an excellent judge. More important, and equally true, he may be in the ring as a referee, yet he may be as ill-fitted to judge as he is incompetent to control. These be all arguments in favour of the stooled adjudicators. Yet, after all, there is something unsatisfactory about judges at the ringside. Somehow the crowd prefers to leave the decision to the referee. If he makes a mistake —as, seemingly, he nearly always does! —well, the crowd can always hoot. To hoot a decision is a much-prized privilege of ringsiders. They exercise it frequently. Truth to tell," there is no perfect system of adjudication. Referee alone, referee and judges—both give rise to dissatisfaction. Worse still is the system employed in some American States of decision by newspaper. No more ambitious boxer has been known in the professional arena of New Zealand in recent years than Charlie Purdy,, lately an unsuccessful contender for the lightweight title. Hence, when he was offered a contest with Dick Loveridge for the welterweight championship, the young Aucklander was quick to accept. Only last Saturday (as was announced in the Eight O'Clock Edition of the "Star") Purdy telegraphed to New Plymouth accepting the engagement, which was to have been staged on April 17. However, Purdy's second opportunity to contest championship honours was not to come so quickly. Over the week-end, following the arrival of the Auckland boy's telegram, welterweight champion Loveridge changed his mind. It is now announced that Loveridge does not intend to defend his title for at least two months. He wants' to rest. It is perhaps a little! too soon to ask him to fight again for the much-prized belt, since it has been in his ppsses-sion for only a few weeks. At the same time, there is not the shadow of a doubt that Purdy will be right on the spot when the champion is at last prepared to meet challengers. The basis on which the two Wellington judges awarded their verdict to Murray have been made public, the adjudicators having granted an interview on the subject. The main points were: (1) Purdy hit incorrectly; (2) Murray forced the fight; (3) Murray was superior in in-fighting. "In the old bareknuckle days almost anything was allowed, including butting, palming, wrestling, biting and throwing," says "Olympian," of the "New Zealand Sportsman," who claims to have interviewed the judges. "Gradually rulet came into force, all with the object of cleaning up the mess and eliminating the more brutal tactics, until we now have the set rule that points shall be given for direct clean nits with the knuckles ■of either hand. The object of each boxer is to hit the other as often as possible, , on. either the front or sides of the face or body, but the blows must be properly delivered. Most of the regular patrons are quick to voice their disapproval of such obvious fouls as the rabbit killer and kidney punch, but there are what might be called border-line punches, ■ Which, while not serious enough to merit ' disqualification, are most certainly not point scorers. The referee who continu- • ally called these blows would ruin a con- ' test, just as a football referee ruin 3 a ! match by too much whistle, but the > judges must ignore them from a point- • scoring view. Now, no one will deny • that Murray was streets ahead of Purdy in all the in-fighting," asserts "Olympian." "That was clear, hut what was 1 not so clear, unless the rules are thoroughly understood, was that a very great ' number of what were apparently good 1 lefts to Murray's jaw were not points i scorers at all, as they were delivered • with the inside portion of the closed left hand. Murray's head was almost invariably driven sideways —not back. < Close observers, fully conversant with i the rules, are agreed on this, and that - Murray's forcing tactics, his superiority ! in in-fighting, and Purdy's incorrect method of hitting and landing, particu- • larly with the left hand (the right was • very seldom used offensively) entitled ; Murray to the verdict. Finally, it should always be remembered that a thousand blow 3, unless landed with the ■ padded portion of the glove covering the i knuckles, are of absolutely no value, and do not score half a point for the lot." Aucklanders will appreciate the enterprise of "Olympian" in seeking an interview from the judges, who appear to have convinced that jouralist, if no one else, of the reasonableness of their verdict.. Without having been an eye-wit-ness of Purdy's performance in Wellington, it would be manifestly unfair to pass comment upon it here, but, though it be conceded that he may ha\e erred in the way of hitting with the open glove, one big question remains to be explained. Why did Mr. Earl Stewart, competent referee that he is, declare that Purdy had won 13 of the 15 rounds? Do the judges go so far as to suggest that a referee of the experience, quick discernment and all-round qualifications of Mr. Stewart, would fail to detect a preponderance of irregular blows? One hesitates to think that such could be tha case- ....... . i