THE PRIZE RING

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25609, 25 September 1948, Page 3

THE PRIZE RING

(Specially Written tor -The Press.-) (By ARNOLD WALL) <-'=K? e „? = S et S y . for War ™ the British T§C »% r Shuiv < ell - speaking at the i.U.C. a few weeks ago. said “We must n°t pull our punches, because anrt opponents "’ill Stop at..nothing”; ??“ a university lecturer here, in a broadcast on the United Nations a S" ?/ s e “lier, said that the U.N. ,J“H? t l be a « ble to P ack a punch,” that is. to nave force at its command. These two statements, both of which are expressed in terms of the prize rin® will serve to introduce this little study of 2L a l. s ? urc ® °f figurative language in Professional boxing is not a very dignified or refined sport; but it has supplied, as my examples show exwhich are used in quite respectable contexts and by persons ot a.more or less exalted position in the aiscussion of very serious affairs. It JhJ. e A°A ay ’ll at no nafiqn other than ™° se °f the .British Commonwealth “j! J he U ? lted ( - States °f America makes use of such figures in such contexts. Queensberry and Rafferty __?? nce , th , e . P rize ring as a sort of .national (late, international) institution is quite modern, less than 200 years old. the metaphorical application of its terminology is also comparatively recent, and the nature of its Source is such that the boxing Idioms ? S a fi rou P belong almost exclusively to the masculine vocabulary. These picturesque and expressive idioms begin to aupear in the late eighteenth or early iffneteenth century, the socalled palmy period” of the prize ring initiated by the famous Queensberrv Rules,, which were drawn up by the P“t° rious millionaire Marquis about 1780; and’they occur very often in the writings of a “sporting” character such as Pierce Egan and Theodore Hook, while several standard, if not classic authors, who were interested in “The Fancy," used them freely, e.g., “Christopher North,” Hazlitt, and, in Amer- ]? a - YL Holmes. I do not know tnat the Queensberry Rules ever acanv fi g ur ative usage: but the Rafferty Rules” certainly did. This ferm in boxing means no rules at all; in Australia, and hence New Zealand slang, it, tneans any free and easy way of Running things: “Rafferty” here is thought to be an English dialect corruption of “refractory.” The heroic combats of those “nalmy days” were conducted under conditions very different from those now enjoined by law; thev fought in a convenient field; on the grass; without gloves (with “the raw ’uns”); no gate-money was paid; and the ring was a ring, a rough circle which has since been squared but is still called a ring and probably always will be. The ring itself appears in the phrase “to keep the ring.” used, e.g.. when the big nations stand by while the smaller fight it out without interference. A modern nolitician will sometimes announce that he is going to deal with his opponent “without the gloves” or “with the gloves off” (Usually, I find, a rather disappointing performance). A combatant who was knocked down was,said to be “grassed”; North uses it of the logical controversy: “Hume or Voltaire. is grassed and gives in.” “Grassed” is now obsolete, but that “gives in,” still in use. is also originally a term of the ring. Two Churchills The eldest use of a boxing figure that I knew of dates from 1763 when Hogarth, in the course of his bitter quarrel with Churchill the pilloried his enemy in his gross and cruel picture called “The Bruiser.” By an odd coincidence, during the last war another and very different Churchill was sometimes referred to as “a great old bruiser.” A useful old term of this class which has now passed out of use was “bottle-holder,” said of one who supported another in some political conflict; it is used by Carlyle in his history of Frederick the Great. A good example of a pugilistic figure, often used by those who probably do not know its original significance, is “to throw up the sponge,” which vyas the signal given by the second that his man was. beaten.

Only remotely connected with the ring, and now forgotten, was the “boxer-’ hat worn by ladies in the mid-nineteenth century, a flat-crowned felt hat supposed to be worn by boxers; ladies wearing “boxers” may be seen in a picture of the,, crowd in our Cathedral square at the celebration of the marriage of the Prince of Wales in 1863.

Naturally some of tthe most vigorous and expressive of the boxing idioms are -merely slang. An example is the knock-out. A “knock-down blow” is quite respectable; but to call a good road or a pretty girl a “knock-out” is just slang. Not perhaps readily recognised as boxing language is “to give it him” or “let him have it,” both originally terms of the ring. So also is to “come up smiling” after a misfortune. One who has suffered a loss gets “one in the eye”—“one in the eye for Joshui,” says the vulgar old ditty. To “hit a man when he is down”; to “hit below the belt”; to “take the count,” or “count out” a boring speaker; ‘down and out,” are all boxing idioms, and it may be observed that in most of these cases the boxing idiom cannot be improved upon. It offers the best and clearest expression possible in English. In place of the old “grassed.” one who is knocked down in a fight is said to be “downed” or, “floored”; one man “downs” another in an argument, and a candidate is “floored” by a difficult question. Very expressive and economical was the old “facer,” a blow in the face; Thackeray has it: “Every man must meet with a blow or two and every brave one would take his facer with good humour.” Any hard problem is “a facer.” A man “squares up” to a difficult situation; that is, he takes up the fighting attitude. Altep some wordy conflict one man is said to “have got the best of that round,” the reference of course being to a round or bout in a boxing match. Lastly, what would the military commentator have done, in the last war. without the famous “left hook” which he used to describe the favourite tactic of the great Monty? And where did that “left hook” come from if not from the boxing ring?

The British Library Association conference at Scarborough recently heard an outline of the scheme under which-London’s libraries are to specialise. Each library undertakes to provide books and periodicals on a particular subject, building up its own special collection which any London borrower can use. Thus, as the Bethnal Green librarian put it; “This vast conglomeration of villages have knocked down the parish pump.” Publicity has been avoided, for fear of attracting a demand it might not be possible to meet before the special collections are built up. This the libraries will hasten by freely using each other’s reserve e Fairbairn (1.C.1., Manchesterj- spoke of industry’s need for rapid technical and commercial Iflfofmfflion and regretted that so many specialised collections were in London while the industries which they served were in the Midlands or the North. He wanted the public libraries to give open access to this literature. Here there was an objection from Mr Charles Nowell (Manchester), who declared: “The ruthless technician tears out pages just as unscrupulously as the ruthless antiquarian.”

MINUTE LONDON’S BURNING O dear Sit Ralph—l am sory to be the mesinger of so dismall news for por London is almost burnt down . . . it did begin in; pudding lan at a backers, whar a- Dutch rog lay, and Jaurnt to the bridge and all fish street and all crasus stret, and Lumber Stret and the old exchang and canans stret a4d so all that way to the reaver and bifeigsgat sid, and now tis com to chep sid and banescasell. and tis thought flet stret will be burnt by tomorrow, thar is nothing left m any hous that, nor in the Tempell, that was never so sad a sight, nor so dolefull a cry hard. _ Lady HOBART [1666 j