TOMMY BURNS ATTACKED

Sun (Christchurch), Volume III, Issue 699, 8 May 1916, Page 2

TOMMY BURNS ATTACKED

GIVES BAD DECISIONS AS REFEREE. A few weeks ago it was pointed out in these columns that, although a. fine fighter, Tommy Burns, former heavyweight champion of the world, is a poor judge of the boxing abilities of other men. Now, Burns has something more serious to account for. A recent issue of an American sporting journal contains the following:— "There are many ways to kill the goose that Jays the golden egg, but none that quite measures up to ihe imbecile measures resorted to by Tommy Bums to kill boxing in New Orleans. Burns, who is one of the owners of the boxing club there, arrogates' to himself the right to referee the bouts. Although an old fighter himself, he seems to have a poor knowledge of the elements of the game, or else his sense of honesty and fairness has been so warped by his own experiences that he allows his prejudices to influence him in giving decisions, especially if one of the contestants happens to be a local representative. The unfairness of Burns's decisions has been the subject of criticism on several recent occasions, and the New Orleans sport writers have used some pretty strong language in commenting upon his obvious unfairness. "Several weeks ago Porky Flynn gave Fred Fulton a fine lacing in the ring at New Orleans and well merited the decision, but Burns, evidently actuated by mercenary motives, seeing in Fulton a possible attraction for his club in a match with Willard, deliberately favoured the Minnesota giant by awarding him the honours. The spectators hooted Burns as he was leaving the ring, and the New Orleans papers 'panned' him unmercifully. To everybody else this manifestation of disapproval might has been an inspiration to act more fairly and justly in handing out his decisions, but it didn't; for more recently Burns put his foot in it again by making an incomprehensible error in awarding .loeMandot a decision over Johnny Dundee in spite of almost unanimous disapproval on the part of the spectators at the ringside. "The only 1 reasonable explanation' that can be given for his mad action is ' that, having made a blunder in the Fulton-Porky Flynn episode, he tried to curry favour again with those who criticised him, by favouring Mandot, who is a New Orleans boy.' Itt doii'ig this he muddled things worse than ever, and instead of being commended, as he thought he would be, his unfairness made him the target for even harsher criticism than before. Hardly a sport writer on the New Orleans papers failed to 'roast' him; and many of the patrons of the club openly expressed their intention to refuse to attend any more bouts as long as Burns officiated as referee. So manifestly unfair have been his rulings that many fighters in other cities have refused matches at Burns's club, especially when they were wanted to appear against a 'home boy,' expressing the fear that they would not receive square treatment."