BIG BOXING PURSES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16331, 21 January 1921, Page 3

BIG BOXING PURSES.

FISTIC FINANCE RUN MAO. CALCULATED TO OO NO GOOD TO THE SPORT. It is quite a considerable time as these affairs go, since we heard anything about the big fight- between Dempsey and Carpentier (writes Lofig Melford in the London “ Evening Standard JJ ). _ Now that the articles have been signed and sealed by tho two principal® there is a lull in the proceedings, but no doubt the advertising “ slants **• which a match of this magnitude, and of such big financial responsibilities, renders imperative will soon be noticeable. Meanwhile the whole world continue® to be amazed at the extraordinary amount of the purse which the two fighters commandA sum of half a million dollars, roughly speaking £135,000 of English money at the present rate of exchange, will be shared by Dempsey and Carpentier, at the rate of 60 aud 40 per cent respectively. No doubt even their contemporaries of the fistic fraternity who are unable to work out a sum of proportion will agree that the figure® involved are out of all proportion ta what is reasonable and just. It is fistic finance run mad, and nothing but. a sheer gamble by promoters, who it would seem have a greater regard for this side of the affair than the benefit of the boxing game-

OUT OF PROPORTION. It is ridiculous to talk of boxing being benefited by Mich enormous purses. Tam heart aud soul in favour of tbo labourer being worthy of his biro, but nobody will ever persuade me thafi a champion boxer, or a champion anybody else, deserves to get £60,000 for any achievement. The whole idea i® absurd. From I lie economical point of view, [ wonder what real value can be placed on the doings of Dempsey and Carpentier in the ring. There is a certain ethical value perhaps in the lesson provider! as to physical fitness, endurance and courage, hut aparr. from a fleeting thrill and sensation—remember the match may only last a round—which only those present will experience, the world will be no better off after it than if the fighters never existed. The purse is abnormal, and it is calculated to do no good to boxing. It. will certainly not raise the. quality of boxing. According to what we Jen or* of the older days of the ring, fighters, who had t.o be content with very modest, rewards for their prowess, were far more skilful and better fighters than some of our modern gladiators who receive thousands of pounds to take the ring and go down without striking a> blow almost.

'Why. even in America many years ago Paddy Ryan took part in a knuckle fight with the veteran Joe Goss for the championship of America. This lasted eighty-seven rounds, and Ryan got £4O, which barely covered his training expenses ! Of a surety Ryan was bom too soon. PAYMENT ON RESULTS. V If fighters were paid according to the duration of their contest there might) be something said in favour of a big purse, but if this were so, how many; hundreds of rounds would it be necessary for Dempsey and Carpentier tn keep battling away to justify those half«< million dollars? I like that story of the well-known American boxer who in his earlier days contracted to meet an opponent over, the ten rounds course for fifty dollars, and it so happened that he knocked hi® man ont in one round. When he went for his money the- winner was handed five dollars. “Ini forty-five dollars shy !’’ said the boxer* fr What’s wrong?” “ That’s all right, ’* was the reply. ie You agreed to box ten rounds for fifty dollars. That’s five dollars ai round, and as 3011 knocked your opponent out in one round the five dollars is all you’ll get, kid!” Tliere you have the promoter’s point of view, wliich reminds me of the advertisement in connection with the sal a of sc historic boxing venue .which included this suggestive phrase, “ Most) of tho noted pugilists have appeared here with great success to the proprietors.” I doubt whether Messrs Rickard, Brady and Cochran will be able to say as much after they have got through with their big fight. TVith the purse, advertising and building expenses, and so forth, they will, need to take something like £200.000 to make it pay. Even in America that will want some getting.

THE GREATER WORTH. Boxing as a part of our everyday life, In its hygienic and moral influence upon »he person, is a recognised factor. Its value needs no emphasis on that m point, and as a part also of the en- M icrtammein. which is the reasonable de- A mand of tho public* for its recreation.® boxiug is admirably in place—within fl recognised limits. ® Boxers who supply the entertainment® called for are entn ied to their just as much as the singer or the for wliat they d<>, and according to standing iu the profession so their reJ® m tin oration must vary. It is not given to every boxer to bo a Dempsey or a Carpentier any mora than it is possible for every film actor? to be a Charlie Chaplin. Chaplin has caused millions of people to laugh, and it is a great thing to make people happy even if only for ai few moments. Chaplin’s £600,000 fortune seems out of ail proportion, however, to his efforts, sincere and. hard working as they may have been. Yet Chaplin's activities have a better value for the world generally than those of the boxers. But the film star must feel cuvioug of the fighting men who can get so much for ono bout, which at the very outside cannot last more than au hour. Even Charlie had to work harder than, this for his million dollar films. And they have twenty times a wider appeal than the half-million dollar fight. long melford.