Charlie Purdy and “Grape Vine” Methods

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 86, 2 July 1927, Page 1

Charlie Purdy and “Grape Vine” Methods

A CORRESPONDENT’S DEFENCE CHALLENGES "REFEREES" CRITICISM lr\ the following article, a correspondent. “Old Auss'e," vigorously challenges the Sydney “Referee’*” criticism of the Purdy-Fairhall fight, which was cabk*J to New Zealand a few days ago. J In your issue of Thursday, you j publish a cablegram from Sydney referring to the methods of Charlie | Purdy, the cleverest boxer New Zea - j land has produced. The cable i« I headed “Shocking Display” and continues:— “The Referee.” commenting on the Purdy-Fairhall fight at Melbourne. says that Referee Stokes - bury missed an opportunity of making a name for himself in not disqualifying the New Zealander in the first round.. It was a “shocking” exhibition with the New Zealander holding on from the word go. To give him his due Fairball wanted to make a fight of it. but Purdy clung like a limpet and absolutely refused to fight at all. He lacks the boxer's instinct and will never prove an attraction with his grape vine methods. It was a dreary affair and everyone was glad when the finish came. The Sydney “Referee” authority, you can be sure, was not at the fight in Melbourne, so that the opinion he gives is from hearsay, and you can be equally certain that had Purdy transgressed the rules in the '‘shocking” manner indicated, Referee Stokesburv would soon have put the closure on. Imagine if you can. Purdy (who stayed 15 rounds with Billy Grime in Wellington. losing on points, though many good judges considered a draw would have been a correct decision) having to do anything of a particularly “shocking” nature to stay and beat Fairhall, even if the bout was to last a week. PURDY’S PREVIOUS RECORD Some time back, when Purdy first appeared in Sydney, he fought Jimmy Allen a draw, and the same Sydney "Referee” was particularly caustic in its remarks, and plainly wrote that Purdy could not fight, wanted any amount of tuition, hung on too much and generally speaking was lucky that Referee Joe Wallis was so lenient. Some good judges of the game who saw the Allen-Purdy clash told me that they never saw Purdy fight a worse battle, but undoubtedly despite his poor showing the New Zealand bov won, and the Sydney “Bulletin,” perhaps the best and fairest authority on all Australian sporting matters, stated in its columns that Allen had been given a splendid boxing lesson and never won a round. Now as to the “limpet” or “grape vine” business: The Sydney “Referee,” the same as most of the present day writers on boxing, has tolerated, encouraged and excused the in-fighting introduced and indulged in by the American importations until it is most unusual for any clever two-handed work at close ranged to be indulged in. To fall into a clinch, butt each other, hit and hold and do all sorts of work on the blind side of the third man in the ring is the usual thing at the majority of boxing matches. To say Purdy lacks fighting instinct is not true. Ask Grime about his capacity to take and give punishment, and if Purdy had made up his mind to knock Grime instead cf to stay with him for 15 rounds, a different ending to their crash might have been recorded. However, I have no desire to take anything away from Grime, who is a very classy performer, who did wonderfully well to get a verdict over Purdy, seeing that the weights were so much in the New Zealand boy’s favour. While it may be that the Sydney “Referee” does not approve of a boxer holding on in a clinch, the writer or paper has never openly declared that aii fights should be fought with a clean break and no blows exchanged unless both hands w'ere free. The oldtimers, Mace. Foley, Jackson, Newton, Slavin, the incomparable Griffo and many, others, never butted. “shamrocked,” “grape vined” or “rabbit-killer” punched anybody. And they cou*d all fight some and when they got too close together, the order “break” came from the referee. The men stepped apart and the result w as two-handed work of the finest quality. But this letter is not written to uphold the old time style (though none could be better), but rather to say a little on behalf of Purdy, who is unquestionably a wonderful boxer, whose fairness in the ring is unquestionable and who, outside the hempen circle, has hosts of adfnirers. It is a certainty that no man in Australia or out of it at his weight, 9.11, ringside, fighting with a clean break will find Purdy lacking fighting instinct or gameness or readiness to admit defeat, when the decision goes against him. In all his career I have never heard Purdy say a word against any fighter or referee, and some of the decisions given against him have been very doubtful, and calculated to make a man angry, but Purdy has simply said: “Well, you cannot win all the time, and in any case what is the use of grumbling.” Hope the length of this letter will not debar your giving it space, and that some abler pen than mine will take up the subject so that any wrong impressions about the best boxer New Zealand has ever produced may be removed.

Purdy’s Melbourne Fight. Commenting on Charlie Purdy’s fight with Tommy Fairhall, the Sydney “Bulletin” says:—ln a recent bout at Melbourne under the auspices of the National Sporting Union, which is renewing its argument with Stadiums, Ltd.. Tommy Fairhall and Charlie Purdy, both 9st. 8 Jib., charlestoned their way to a colourless draw. The most interesting personality in the ring was third-man Joe Stokesbury. Joe spoke to the principals as he would do to a couple of recalcitrant children, and frequently urged them in homely fashion to cut out the “’uggin.” The blonde Maorilander must have learnt boxing from a dancing-master. He is a pretty mover and claimer, but overdoes this branch of the business. Fairhall fought Bill Grime to a draw, and Purdy was reported to have run the champion to a disputed decision. Bill must have been having a little game on each of these occasions.