IS BOXING BRUTAL?

NZ Truth, Issue 67, 29 September 1906, Page 3

IS BOXING BRUTAL?

Under Royal Patronage.

Pugilists m Court.

Interesting Evidence.

While the wowser element is discussing m the newspapers the question as to whether a boxing match is a brutal exhibition, it is interesting to read the account of a case just decided m the Glasgow Court. Some of J;he evidence given shows that even Royalty— which, according to naice wowser society,- can do no wrong— attends . the so-called brutal exhibitions. The report reads .— A case of considerable interest to [sportsmen came up lor trial at the Western Police Court, Glasgow, recently, the parties.^implicated being the two well-known' professional boxers, Joe Smith, High Blantyre, an-d I "Darkie" Joe Riley, Aberdeen. The two Joes had had an encounter on the Tivoli stage on the 16th ult., ' and the charge preferred against them, by the police was that they had assaulted each other, Smith by striking I Riley repeatedly on the face, head, and body, and by knocking him down, "to the injury of his person," and Riley by butting Smith with his head on the face, also to the injury of his person. Only Smith put m an I appearance, and, pleading not guilty, { was defended by Mr Angus Campbell. Judge Finla-" .was on the bench. The prosecution was Conducted by Superintendent Douglas, the witnesses including Inspector McLean, Sergeant

Murray, and Detective-Constable Farquhar. The evidence generally was to the effect that the contest was one of six rounds of two minutes each, a. minute less than under ordinary Queensberry rules, and that the whole period occupied m the boxing on this occasion was just seven minutes,. The gloves were produced m court, and' Inspector McLean stated that they seemed to be double the size of those used m the fight. STAND-UP FIGHT. j Sergeant Murray, who was crossexam'ined at some length, expressed the conviction that ■ the contest was m dead earnest. The first round was» light. . Mr Campbell : Did you ever know any other thing m a first round than the men sparring and feeling each other. That is the invariable practice ?— Witness : Yes. Mr Douglas : Each was striking the other regardless of consequences. A blow might have broken a jaw or anything. They did not care where they were striking above the belt. They were pretty evenly matched, and were clinching frequently . Detective Farquhar described the fight as a good stand-up one. Both men were m earnest, trying to get the knock-out blow. They were striking each other regardless of the injury they might do. They struck heavily, and. at any part above the belt. ' Rilev was lenocked down, but came- up to the call of time. Do you think it degenerated from a legitimate boxing exhibition to a regular fie-ht ?— ln. my opinion it was a regular fight m the latter period— not m the first round. Judge Finlay : How do you distinguish between a -boxing; match and a fight ? Do you mean to tell me that when they become more earnest it means a fight ?— They were very earnest m the second round. . Did the referee not interfere ?— He interposed when they clinched together. NO BRUTALITY. The first witness for the defence was Harry Barrowman. manager of the Tivoli. He stated that he managed the contest and witnessed it. It was announced as genuine under the Queensberrv rules, and Smith was introduced as the champion of Scotland. Smith was a very scientific boxer, and an exponent of the knockout blow. The contest was absolutely fair and squarely conducted, and the display was a scientific one. During the first round the men "felt': for each other, as was customary, but there was no deliberate fouling from beginning to end. The clinching was far, from being an evidence of brutality. . Indeed, it was the very' opposite, and was a means of preventing the knock-out. With the exception of a slight cut above Smith's left eye, Hhere was no mark on either of the boxers. Brutality was never permitted m the Tivoli. and no unnecessary violence occurred m the. contest. It was decided against Smith on a pure technicality. namely ; striking m a clinch. . What took place was practically children's play compared with what was witnessed m contests m . London and m the army and navy. These contests, too, extended to 20 3-minute rounds, and j were witnessed by Royalty. TRAVELLED WITH THE PRINCE. They had . been conducted m the presence of His Majesty' when he was Prince' of Wales, and" he (witness) had -gone to "The Club" iii the same coach. ' I ! Cross-examined : Witness did not i think a man's jaw might be broken by the 'gloves produced. The only way they could win was by the knock-out ?— Oh, no ; counting the points. ' Did not the -fact that it was such a short contest make it all the more imperative on the boxers to strike harder ?— No. Re-examined ■; Witness stated that the men were engaged at ; a certain salary There was no stake. . William Gibson, who acted as referee, stated that the contest was .quite fair, and it was only on a techicality that Smith was "disqualified. The men had nothing to gain m the way qf money by knocking each other out. Mr Douglas : This was a contest for the championship of Scotland ?— It was billed as that. Why were the prices doubled ?— A bigger draw. A large crowd interested m the sport ?— Yea. Do you think they expected a genuine contest ? — Yes. Did they expect a fight to a finish ? —No ; not when you advertise a thing as a six 2-minutes' round contest. " ■ When Smith got the championship lie knocked put Macdonald m the first round ?— Yes. Both men were fighting fiercely ?— We]], trying all they knew. Were the monetary terms arranged previously ?— Yes. So that the victory did not mean any monetary advantage ?— No monetary advantage. ■ But it meant the championship of Scotland ?— That's so. I After hearing further evidence the case was dismissed.