WRESTLING

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 284, 27 August 1930, Page 17

WRESTLING

(By

“Halch.”)

Criticism of Wrestling

A PLAUSIBLE CORRESPONDENT

Harsh criticism of wrestling seems to be expressed in a tetter from “J.W.8.,” printed yesterday in the correspondence columu, and although the writer mentions me at the beginning it seems unlikely that he is very much interested in what I have to say in reply. His opinions are obviously moulded and set. No reply therefore would be undertaken, were it not that he lays certain charges against wrestling—or, more accurately, makes certain statements —to which for the benefit of the outside observer another side of the question should be put. It must be allowed that “J.W.8.” states a good case, when his arguments are glanced at, and glanced at only. Bitt as far as "Hateh” is concerned the tetter is nothing more than extremely good reading, marred by an unintentional and perhaps rather important misquotation.

At the outset “Hateh” realises that in making a reply to “J.W.8.” he will probably lay himself open to charges (a) of "protesting too much,” and (b) of making the matter a more personal one than was required. Leaving this, however, in the meantime, and coming straight to the issues, I. find that the writer of the tetter makes two principal statements criticising the “game,” as he calls it. The first of these, prefaced by an unimportant supposititious clause, is as follows: “Wrestling is clearly a display of almost uncontrolled savagery, and, along with the pugilism which it is seeking to outdo, probably the most degrading influence among us to-day.” In conclusion, he says that wrestling is “a sport that not only expresses, but must further foster, the most depraved tastes of the people.’.’ A series of extracts from reports of various wrestling matches and of two Australian ones are quoted by “J.W.8.” in support of his case. Cluu-ges Not Admitted.

Strange to say, in spite of the. seuse of humour denied by "J.W.8.” to wrestling enthusiasts, his statements seem first to require a reply framed in the idiom of the immortal Prince Scithenyn. That wrestling is a strenuous and very strenuous game, I am free to confess; that it is sometimes questionable in parts, I do not altogether deny; that it is any the worse for that, or degrading, or depraving, I do most sturdily gainsay. In those few words, “Haleb,” and everyone else who is interested in the game, would reply to stupidly severe allegations of savagery and coarseness, aimed in good faith no doubt by one who is not properly au fait with its conduct and good qualities. “Halch” will go even further than this and formulate accurately the burden of “J.W.B.’s” complaint. He implies with his allegations of depravity and savagery that wrestling such as we have been getting is marred by brutality, illegality, and animalism. These are the factors which “J.W.8.” seems to indicate, and as such, they can be dealt with separately. Parenthetically. “Halch” would remind “J.W.8.” that this is no mere spectator talking, but one who can claim a small,

but nevertheless practical, experience of the game.

Brief Replies. Brutality, and all suspicion of brutality, he can be assured, never enters the minds of any amateur or professional. It is difficult to explain the outlook to “J.W.8.,” when he has—-so obviously—grasped the wrong end of the stick, but he can, nevertheless, rest confident that this is so. The game is one of pure combat, and any legitimate means of pinning or fighting the other man is allowed. Submission falls, and locks which obtain them, are very generally barred in amateur ranks, although nowadays amateurs frequently train with professional latitude. It docs no harm, it has no pernicious effect, it is part of the game, and it increases their power of resistance. Holds leading to submission arc allowed to professionals, and it is a question then whether a man has enough power to resist them or enough skill to escape from them. To bar submission falls would be like taking the wood-wind section out of an orchestra.

Illegality occurs occasionally between professionals it is true, and this is always faithfully reported in order to cheek it. A great deal of skilful and extremely good crystal-pure wrestling goes unreported. But it is a fact that the best match we have had this season the cleverest and most scientific, as well as the one which aroused most enthusiasm. was also a very clean one. Illegality does not go down with the average audience, and is never seen for more than, half a minute all told in a fast match lastin'; an hour or two. The animalism—by which I mean apparently savage behaviour—is pure showmanship nnd quite artificial. The crowd does not thrill at it—the crowd laughs heartily. Like the parsley on the fish, it is there but is of no consequence to quote a recent comedian.

Specific Explanations. Finally, for “1.W.8.’5” benefit, a few of his phrases can be dealt with concisely. “Wrestling of the wildest and roughest, nature” could be expressed as “wrestling of the fastest and most strenuous nature.’’ The MacDougall incident nt Auckland resulted from interference by one of Alley’s seconds, who. it appears, put his arm round and under MacDougall's neck to separate him from his opponent. He should not have interfered nt all, and MacDougall struck him in the heat of the moment. “MacDougall added variety by kicking his opponent in the stomach” is a complete misquotation, nnd was—whoever was responsible for it—a loose statement. The Sydney referee, Tom Banner, wns kicked accidentally through approaching too close to the contestants. Thye aimed the “kick” at no one—it was merely a sharp and necessary movement of the log. In conclusion, “Halch’’ would like “J.W.8.” to accept a ticket for the next local wrestling match and to find out for himself exactly bow “revolting” nr- 1 the “details” of its conduct. This invitation, I should like to hope, is not an idle one.