BOXING

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 45, 17 November 1926, Page 8

BOXING

CONTROL OF THE GAME

ARE PROFESSIONALS EARNING THEIR MONEY?

(By

“Punch.”)

Hon. Hugh D. Mclntosh, M.L.C.. writes in the Sydney "Referee” in favour of the establishment in Australia of a Boxing Board of Control. Judging from what one reads in Australian papers, there is urgent need for some constituted authority to take control of professional boxing, but it is just a question as to whether a board ci control is the required authority. England has a board of control, which has been subjected to severe criticism, and recently a proposition was put forward that boxing in England should be put under commission rule such as has found favour in America. It has to be recognised, however, that the conditions in America are vastly different from those which exist in England and Australia. The stumbling block in England is the National Sporting Club, which, in boxing,-, is the equivalent of the M.C.C. in cricket. In Australia Stadiums, Ltd., occupies a position similar to that of the National Sporting Club in England, and it is just a question, m view of the adverse criticism of the English Board of Control, whether such a body in , Australia would successfully function. The main thing that appeals to those who regard a change of conditions in Australia as necessary is that some constituted body should be brought into existence. In urging the formation of a Board of Control Mr Mclntosh stresses the opinion that it must be an independent board, free from political and financial control It has to be borne in mind that he is dealing only with the professional side of the sport. In New Zealand, horrible to relate, an Act which was introduced for the purpose of protecting the. amateur side of the sport is now utilised to prevent its advancement. Of course, this state cf affairs eventually will be removed, because amateurism in spoit is a law to itself, and beyond the powers ol Parliamentary Act to control. All the same, it should be a lesson for the exercise of the greatest caution in any movement to place sport under political control If Australian advocates for an alteration in existing methods are wise they will carefully- examine the position from every known angle belore they call for the' formation ol a controlling body. Most of our 'professional boxers are highly scientific (says the Auckland “Star”). They have nothing more to learn'. So clever are they that the public simply won’t go to see them. To read: about the kind of science we refer to is more enjoyable, and certainly less of a bore, than to watch it. Modern science runs to the gentle art of not hurting the other fellow, keeping clear of liarm yourself, and doing the distance at all costs. It is more difficult to do this than the novice would imagine. Once learned, it can be repeated any given number of times, till at last you find yourself performing before the referee, a group of officials with glassy eyes, and two newspaper men, who are sound asleep. Things are shaping this way in Auckland. Contests of this hug-and-slam-the-back variety—highly scientific affairs!—have ruined the game. For the sake of the good name of the sport in other parts, one hesitates to mention the microscopic dimensions of the “crowd” which rolled up for the N.B.A.’s last carnival. If the association took £65 at the doors it was doing very well.

Those who have followed the trend of boxing at home and abroad during the last quarter of a century cannot have failed to notice the all-round fall-ing-off in the standard of skill (says London “Sporting Life”). It has been gradual, but none the less sure, in England as in America and Australia. Broadly speaking, America has become the. home of the slugger where sheer animal force, combined with reckless disregard of the rules, have driven the boxer, as such, into the background. For this we should say the Press and referees in general are largely responsible.

“There is real humanity and commonsense in that rule of the New York Boxing Commission which does not permit contests of more than six rounds of three minutes to any boxer under the age of twenty-one,” says a London, paper. The rule might well be made law in New Zealand. The professional contest between Harry Casev (Australia) and Dick Elmour (France) at the Caledonian Hal! on Wednesday night ranks among the best seen in Christchurch for a few years, but frankly the writer confesses that never once did he feel like applauding either man in any one of the fifteen rounds (writes “Cestus” in the “Star”). Elmour moved very slowly, and his science was not sufficient to hold the battering ram Casey at a fighting distance. His attempts to open up the fight were futile. I think he led blindlv, for at times he went wildly astray.' His left, that could have and should have kept Casey at arm’s length, was very poor, and failed miserably in its mission. Casev was aggressive, but his style of boxing is the style that tends to mar rather than enhance the setting. He is essentially an in-fighter, and at close quarters is one of "the hardest propositions to-day. He bits powerfully rrom short range, but at arm’s length he is out of the fight. A man with reach who could use two fists and his feet well would beat him easily. Casey won, but he beat a man who could rot use the tactics he had been taught. In case I am not clearly understood, I repeat that a inan who could keep Casey out in the open and use his feet to- advantage would beat him any day.