POINTS IN JUDGING BOXING

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 15 December 1934, Page 8

POINTS IN JUDGING BOXING

Questionable Decisions Given Referees Taken to Task Clean Hitting and Aggressiveness - - Rushing Tactics do not Always Win

(By “Physical Culturist.”)

Thus “Hooker” in the “Dunedin Evening Star” : How often has the writer directed attention to the practice of some local judges in awarding most of the points for aggressiveness and failing to take into consideration clean hitting, countering, and making an opponent miss? More than once in the last season or two, attention has had to be directed to questionable decisions that have been awarded to the “tear-in” type of fighters at the 1 expense of a good, clever boxer who has won through his skill but has had the verdict given against him because the judges considered “he did not make the fight.'” Here is what Nat Fleischer, editor of “'Flic Ring” and a world-renowned authority on the sport, has. to say on this important subject: “I learned from my interviews, that nliereas most of the judges and referees award most of the points tor aggressiveness, the scribes take into consideration every angle—aggressiveness, countering, hitting, the damage done, and the misses ,and other items that correctly should be considered in judging a fight. In my latest book, ‘How to^Rcforce and to Judge a Fight’which incidentally has received heaps of favourable comment throughout the world and has been officially adopted by eleven American boxing commissions as a treatise for the officials who act a judges and referees—l call attention to this particular error on the part of most American officials. W ben a fighter is aggressive, he should be awarded points only if ho is successful in scoring against his opponent. For example, what earthly use is mere aggressiveness, when a fighter employing such tactics fails to deliver a telling blow while his opponent is smothering him as he comes rushing in ? “You have seen that often and so have I. "When one fighter is continually rushing forward, swinging his arms wildly and chasing his man around the ring, but the latter keeps meeting those rushes with straight bits, of course he should be receiving far more credit than the mere dashing, rushing fighter who only occasionally lands a telling blow.

entirely. Hooker Is one of tho most level of all boxing writers, an I generally lias something logical to say. Before this 1 have said something similar. In touching on the tin ties of a referee he points out a weakness that undoubtedly exists in boxing circles. There is no doubt that- many spectators are swayed by the one who rushes, not making any allowance for the science of the game. When I read Hooker’s remarks my thoughts strayed to a bout tho late Captain Oscar Gallie took part in at Masterton, and only shows the absurdity of electing a judge or referee on account of his popularity. It so happened that this scribe formed the acquaintance of a squatter who, on this particular night, was chosen as referee. The first two or three fights had ended and the referee had no difficulty in declaring a winner. However,” when Gallic’s bout came on it was a horse of another colour. He met a powerful, rushing fighter, who hit and missed, while Gallie, by clever back moving and ducking and keeping a straight left hand punch, was continually visiting his opponent’s face. But the referee, who was evidently impressed with the other man’s persistence and forceful attacking, declared in his favour. Immediately some members of the audience who disliked his decision, commenced to hoot. The referee then turned to me who was sitting alongside, and said “That was right wasn’t it?” Looking at him. I asked “Do you want my honest opinion?” He answered “Of course.” Then I said “\\ell. I think you have made a mistake.” “No, no.” he replied, “I made no mistake. Why, he* did all the rushing, ami it takes two to make a fight.” At this I said “He did a lot of missing, too.” From that night on I lost his friendship. I have related in this column how I aas pressed into service for the soldiers’ bouts. It was at these bouts that this friendship was renewed when ho came up and congratulated me upon my rulings. Referring to the night of long ago, he admitted he had made a mistake, hut I verily believe he was honest in his conviction that the other man did all the rushing and it takes two to make a fight.

“But liow many of our officials score that way. How many forget the chap who is scoring repeatedly to give credit only to the opponent? How many officials, when the verdict is questioned. Be ply: ‘Well, didu t he make the fight? Would you have had i a fight if he had not been the ag- ! gressor?’ “That, dear readers, is a fallacy which needs to be corrected by our boxing commissions. All other things being equal, the man who was the aggressor—mind you, I mean aggressiveness in which punches were landed—should be given the bout, but to consider aggressiveness as the greatest factor in the determination of a contest, that is wrong. As 1 have often remarked, a clean, forceful hit, landed on a vulnerable nart of the body above the belt, should be credited in proportion to its damaging effect and next in importance in judging a fight, should bo aggressiveness. And in that, the fellow who sustains tiie action of a round by tho greatest, number of skilful attacks, should be given the most points. The trouble is that the fighter who always crowds his man e\on though ho doesn’t land effectively, most often catches the eye of the crowd and the judges and referee arc too often swayed by such demonstration of the fight fans. The officials should keep a clear head and should weigh all points before a round merely on aggressiveness. Unfortunately, ‘ both the referees and spectators often are fooled by wild rushing which, is ineffective. Aggressiveness in which points are scored should be the only thing that counts. You have often seen one fighter evert himself to the utmost, yet scarcely a punch of his landed effectively, v.bilc on the other hand, his opponent block ed beautifully, countered well, duck erl, slipped and jabbed at will at hi> rival came tearing in. "Would you ignore the latter’s effectiveness simply because his opponent was the aggressor? No person would who judged boxing properly.” Those arc this scribe’s sentiments