RING REMINISCENCES

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 75, Issue 125, 30 May 1932, Page 9

RING REMINISCENCES

SOME FAMOUS FOULS. EMINENT TKANSGIiESSUKIS. Another championship bout ended in a foul recently—that between Palmer 1 und Hennebcrry at Sydney. This, comments “The Gong” in the Taranaki Herald, brings to mind fam I ous Joule of tho past and arouses us again to the danger that threatens the sport of boxing through an epidemic of low blows and consequent unsatis j factory decisions. The American public for years paid god money to see dis- ’ tressed boxers escape the business < nd of gloves by hitting low blows and Jos iug on a foul, bfore the Boxing Com missions stepped in and ordered the boxers to equip themselves with efficient shields, and referees to ignore low blows. l h record of the Australian middle weight title since Jack Haines left the team is disgraceful. Palmer has lost this title twice by fouls; Hennebcrry won and retained it by fouls; and Thornton won it on a foul and lost ii on a foul. Foul fighters hurt boxing more than bad fighting. And it, isn 'I. always the man rub-d out that is to blame. There has been a good deal of mis understanding in England, according to one writer, with regard to the foul” blows landed by Canzoneri in his contest with Berg, and generally as to a certain American rule. Much as we dislike the idea of allowing blows below the belt—and even the American spectators, who knew the rules under which the men wore fighting, hooted Canzoneri—it must be remembered that both men had agred in writing to wear a certain type of shield which was believed to give full protection, and it was only on this condition that low punches were not to disqualify. The rule in question was introduced nominally because there had been an epidemic, not only of fouls, but of unjustifiable claims for fouls, which was bringing boxing into disrepute. It is to bo feared, however, that the disappointment of the spectators when a promising contest was brought to a promature and unsatisfactory end hy a foul, and tho consequent fear of* promoters for their gate money, was the real cause for the adoption of the rule in New York. It does not hold anywhere else, and Schmelling, tho world’s heavyweight champion, refused to fight under any such rule. Having won his championship on a foul this is perhaps natural. Berg, however, was a challenger, and had to take whatever terms he was offered. Broughtom’s Rules. Broughton’s Rules in .1743 are the first written record prohibiting blows below tho belt, but they merely codified the existing practice. It is reasonably clear, too, that there was. some similar rule in the most ancient nines. When Dares met Epeus in a boxing match before the walls of Troy, during tho games held before the funeral of Achilles, both men put on blets which can only have been to define the area in which blows were allowed. That there were rules of a sort generally understood, even in casual “byebattles,” is shown by the discussion between. Polydeuces and Amycus before the fight which Theocritus records. Broughton’s Rules were only seven in number, and contained little detail. There was nothing in them to cover the most hotly disputed point that has ever arisen in the history of boxing, the question whether Gentleman JaSkson committed a foul when ho seized Mendoza by the air in their famous fight in 1795. Intense interest was taken in the match, which took place just when pugilism, which had for a generation been under a cloud, was entering upon what has always been considered its Golden Age. Like many eagerly anticipated contests it proved a fiasco. Mendoza, who was a Jew, was a very clever and scientific boxer, the idol of the Corinthians of his day. . He was rather a small man, standing only about sft. 7in., and weighing well under 12st. John Jackson, on the contrary, was an exceptionally big and powerful man, standing 6ft. and weighing 14st. He is said to have been able to write his name on a ceiling with a 41b. weight suspended from his little finger, and many other stories are told of his great strength and agility. Such was Mendoza’s reputation, however, that heavy odds were laid on him. In the event, however, he was given no chance at all, for, after a little sparring, Jackson seized him by tho hair and did not release him until after such a hammering that he was rendered practically helpless After Jackson had again punished him in the same way, Mendoza gave in, but there was for a long time bitter feeling about the result of the contest. It was as a precaution against the roeurroncc

of such an incident that prize-fighters took to cropping their heads closely, a practice which prevailed until the last days of the old ring. His Own Fault. Another hotly-disputed incident oe curred when Carpentier knocked out Kid Lewis in the first round in 1922, Palmer, the referee, had just spoken to the fighters and Lewis lowered his guard probably, probably thinking he was out of distance. Carpentier promptly knocked his opponent our. with a straight right to the jaw. Tho photographs show very clearly what happened, and, whether Lewis was taken unawares or not, it was his own fault. Carpentier, owing to the. strength of his legs, could land a hard punch at an abnormal distance. The referee, quite rightly, counted Lewis out. Ernest Hemingway’s short story, “Fifty’ Grand,” probably tho beat boxing story ever written, is based on a foul, or rather two fouls. Jack Brennan, the old champion, knows he cannot win against Walcott, the young challenger, and bets “fifty grand” (i.e., 50,000 dollars' against himself. Walcott, by arrangement with a bet ting gang, deliberately fouls his opponent at a time when he cannot otherwise lose. Jack Brennan instantly grasps the situation, refuses te claim a foul, and in turn hits Walcott low and is disqualified. The story of which this is a bald outline is told mainly in dis logue, with a vividness and economy of words recalling certain conversations between Hamlet, or Mercutio. and others. Bendigo was notorious in his day for | tho use he made of fouls, both by getI ting away with them himself undetected anil by inducing his opponent to . foul him. Mitehell tried to play the I latter trick on Corbett, but was unsuccessful in his attempt to provoke the American into hitting him when he was down. A curious instance of a double disqualification occurred in the contests between Stribling and Camera. Tn the first fight Stribling was disqualified for hitting low. while in the return, which took place in I’aris, the Italian lost through hitting Stribling after a round had ended. Phil Scott was probably fouled n<ore often than any other prominent boxer. This was at least partly due to his great height and erect stance, which compelled many of his opponents to go for his body. With tho modern practice of swinging blows up at. the lower j ribs it is obvious that if the other man I steps in as the blow at him is delivered a foul is certain to result. It is regrettable but true that in r j number of cases boxers who have begun to lose their speed and skill have preferred to lose on a foul rather than to be outpointed <»r knocked out. This kind of thing has happened too often ■ on both sides of the Atlantic to b® mere coincidence, and it is a tendency which should be sternly repressed. Th® same kind of thing may often be observed in old dogs, which will take to paw biting and other similar tricks, when youthful vigour for straightforward fighting begins to fail. Tom Sawyers, in all his battles, neither won nor lost on a foul, and the same thing may bo said of Belcher, and one or two others of tho old ring, but of very few modern glove fighters.