WRONG STYLE

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 731, 2 August 1929, Page 15

WRONG STYLE

Boxers Who Use the Open Glove SHOULD NOT GET POINTS Are non-scoring factorse taking the place of legal hitting in the boxing game? Are the judges and referees allowing the noble art to deteriorate? After seeing the bouts at the Auckland championships at the beginning of the week, this question becomes important and needs answering. Several of the competitors hit with the open glove without receiving admonition, but it was in the case of Johns, who was awarded the featherweight title, that the breach was most marked. Johns is without doubt a clever and scientific boxer, lie is fast on his feet, making him a very elusive target, and ho sends in blows with both hands extremely fast. But most of his blows are non-point scorers, and a man cannot win without scaring some points. Any points Johns scored in the tournament' were not for hitting. When he learns to use his hands properly, Johns will be a worthy champion, and should make a name for himself in the New Zealand ring. But if he goes on in the way he did at the Auckland tournament, he will never really win a fight, although he may receive decisions. It must not be thought that Johns was. the only offender. There were others, but Johns was the most consistent offender by far. That is why his case is being cited in this article. There are three people who can correct faulty hitting. First of all, there is the trainer, but he can only instruct —he can do no more. Then there is the boxer, who, when he hits with the open glove, does himself no good. He can remedy his faults. The last say is with the referee. He can warn a boxer for open-glove work as well as for other foul hitting, and if his warnings go unheeded, he can disqualify the offender. If that were done there would soon bo an end to the offence. How can the judges give a man a decision on points which have not been scored? If judges are to be worthy of the name they should know what are scoring blows and what are not. The decision first of all lies with the judges, and should they disagree the referee has a vote. In the first two bouts the judges may have agreed that Johns by his superior work with the palms and tips of his glove.-? had obtained the decision, but in the final against Manson, it appeared from the Press table that the judges disagreed and the referee voted in favour of Johns. This may not have been the case, but the fact remains that the referees and some of the judges as well were responsible for condoning an annoying offence. —G.K.M.