WHY DEMPSEY LOST.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 228, 25 September 1926, Page 13

WHY DEMPSEY LOST.

A FIGHTER MUST FIGHT. TIME'S INEXORABLE LAW. OTHER BOXING PARALLELS. (By H.A.8.) The defeat of Jack Dempsey, supreme amongst heavyweight boxers since the war, shows how- insecure is the throne of a public idol, and affords yet another instance of a first-class man going down after a long spell of inaction. The history of the fistic ring abounds with similar cases, and yet it is safe to assert that the majority of people, whether in this country, in America or the United Kingdom, were inclined to the belief that the reigning champion would have little difficulty in withstanding the challenge of Tunney. Dempsey was certainly a strong favourite in the betting, and odds of 7 to 2 in his favour were taken when the men entered the ring, yet it appears that Tunney shaped like a winner from the start, and that the issue of the contest was never in doubt. There is an old saying that "the only practice for fighting is fights." This may appear to be stating the obvious, but such is by no means the case. In most fields of athletic endeavour it suffices for a competitor to keep fit and to practise conscientiously, but fighting (as distinct from mere boxing) is a law unto itself. No less an authority than James J. Corbett has stated that a fighting man has so many fights in him and no more; in other words, that each encounter uses up a certain amount of that vital force with which a man is endowed during the years of his youth and prime. Supremacy in any form of sport is subject to the law of time, and this law would appear to operate with more ruthless severity in the pugilistic game than in others. With scarcely one exception in modern times, the former champion has failed in his attempt to "come back," and prolonged abstention from serious contests has meant a weakening of both aggressive and resisting power, yet time and time again the "come back" has been attempted, and often enough (as in this latest instance), the public has had enough confidence in its old favourite to back the confidence with hard cash. The reason probably is that they prefer to pin their faith to the tried and trusted performer rather than to the man who is climbing the ladder behind him and whose turn to reach the top has at last arrived. Jimmy Wilde's Waterloo. There is a vast differtnee between the weight* at which any of the big men fought and that at which Jimmy Wilde —the '"paper" weight—used to enter the ring, but the great little Welshman met his Waterloo in just the same way as his heavyweight confreres. The writer has a vivid recollection of Wilde's, gallant attempt to give both weight and years to Pete Herman, the clever and hard-hitting American flyweight. There probably never was a more skilful and courageous pugilist than Wilde, but a long sequence of hard contests told its tale in the closing rounds of his last battle. He came up, game as a pebble after having taken tremendous punishment, but to the trained eye it soon became obvious that the Welshman's long and honourable career in the roped square was coming to its ertd. This, after all, was the inevitable end

of a pugilist's reign of supremacy, and as such it has none of the sadness of an unsuccessful return to the ring after an absence of years. The unavailing "come back" which springs most readily to the mind was that of James Jeffries, a great and deserving champion from 1899, when he defeated Bob Fit?simmons, until 1904, when he retired after knocking out Jack Munroe. In 1910—six long years since his previous fight—Jeffries was induced to try a "come back" against the negro, Jack Johnson, at that time at the height of his prowess. The result was pitiable, the old-timer beinc terribly punished, and at last knocked clean out. Such are the lessons of fistic history, hut as long as the sport continues there will be attempts to defy the workings lof time and there will be no lack of • encouragement ■ and support for those who try to come back. The evil of inflated purses has often been denounced. and it is perhaps in this respect that they are most to be regretted.