BOXING v. FIGHTING.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXV, Issue 2, 27 December 1912, Page 5

BOXING v. FIGHTING.

Though the above heading may be stretching the point, it comes pretty near to describing the different methods of English and American boxers, speaking generally. The former are clever enough in “tapping” their rivals and so scoring points, but all this frequently goes for nothing as the consequence of one crushing blow from an opponent. We saw this well illustrated when J. Sullivan, of England, and Billy Papke met in a contest in London. The former simply piled up the points until the ninth round, when Papke got in a powerful body blow which knocked out the Britisher. Frank Klaus owed his victory over G. Carpentier, of France, to his aggressiveness ; and now Papke has demonstrated the same thing by making Carpentier stop in the seventeenth round of their contest at Paris. All this gives one room to compare the utility of ■scientific boxing with the ability to take and give hard blows. The results of many contests go to show, however, that the aggressive and hard-hitting boxer often beats a more scientific rival who lacks the same power. One recalls how Fitzsimmons beat Corbett with one terrific body blow when the latter had outpointed the English-born fighter almost throughout their great match at Carstpn City. On the other hand, some boxers are so clever that their hardhitting rivals never get a chance. Young Griffo was a grand example of a real champion who could not hit hard to save his life. Pedlar Palmer was another who excelled by cleverness rather than hard hitting. Generalship also counts for much, and it was Charley Mitchell’s long head which enabled him to draw his bare-knuckle fight with J. L. Sullivan in France in 1888. Some good judges think the Englishman, was foolish to agree tb a draw, and that he would have won outright had the contest been carried To a definite conclusion. ;i V' .