BOXING.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LX, Issue 143771, 20 April 1912, Page 8

BOXING.

(By “Upper Cut.”)

In commenting on the LangfordM‘Vea fight, ‘“Amateur,” in the'Referee, says : —Possibly the Stadium held as many thousands on Easter Monday night as were comfortably seated within that enclosure over three months before—on Boxing Day last. And the same big majority, over 90 per cent., applauded Arthur Scott’s decision for Langford as hooted “Snowy” Baker’s ruling in M ‘Yea’s favour. The whitehaired referee made a mistake, as I, said at the time, and have stated on many occasions since, which I could not understand until he explained later that a good deal of Langford’s work at close quarters—his “uppercuts and right chops,” etc.—was not allowed because it occurred in ‘‘‘clinches.” Never was such an untenable defence of a decision heard before. Just the same amount of Langford’s scoring on Monday, and perhaps a little more, was done in “clinches,” so called, and Arthur Scott very properly allowed for it in the reckoning because it was legal and in conformity with.the rules of the game. The “clinches” were not clinches at all. M'Vea was the only man holding on both occasions; but it takes two to provide a clinch—each must be embracing the other. Were it not so the less gritty, the sorely pressed, or the absolutely beaten boxer would “clinch” all the time. That “Snowy” Baker should have fallen into such an error was certainly a surprise to me, because I rarely before saw anything wrong with Ins sizing up of points. Wc may have differed a little one way or the other, but it was just as easy for me to be wrong as it was for him. However, all’s well that ends well. Sam Langford is to-day whore he should have been on December 27 last year. Many who did not see the previous battle went to watch the latest I one mainly on account of the difference of opinion expressed by some writers regarding the correctness or otherwise of the first pronouncement, and this journal’s views was borne out to the letter. Langford won every round but three—a'performance which was in the neighbourhood of an exact repetition of what happened on Boxing Day, Sam M'Vea brought his right more into action on Monday than he did when the referee declared for him, and consequently 'the battle was not so much one hand against two hands, as we saw it before. M'Vea’s desire to clinch was, perhaps, more strongly noticeable on the latest occasion because Arthur Scott allowed it to be exposed, and the crowd had a better chance to so© for themselves exactly what went on. When M'Vea protested that Langford was strilnTig him while he (M'Vea) held, Referee Soott, very properly, told M'Vea that tho way to beat the

trouble was to use his arms for fighting, and not holding, which is the law. On April 6 Dan Flynn and Jimmy Barry met at the Sydney Stadium. ' The contest lasted the whole 20 rounds, and at the close the referee, “Snowy” Baker, declared ■ for Flynn. Jimmy Barry fought hisusual fight, \ and Dan Flynn handled him better [ than did either Langford or M'Vea, from a spectator’s point of view, for he went in and did things, and gave the | lusky boy from Montana all the op- | portnnities that individual’s fighting instinct craved for, short of tying his . defence up and neglecting to be as . elusive as he (Flynn) knew how. ' Flynn showed a good deal of variety in his work, and through that hadBarry puzzled many a time. Nothing daunted, however, Barry bore in and 1 plugged and hammered at the atmosphere mostly; but that did not mat- | ter, for it certainly contributed ma- | tenally towards the amusement and' - excitement in evidence. , —: