BOXERS AND ANTIBOXERS.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10036, 9 July 1910, Page 3

BOXERS AND ANTIBOXERS.

With that indignation termed righteous, a meeting of Methodist minis» ters in Sydney is endeavouring to prevent the introduction of the film of the Johnson-Jeffries fight into the Commonwealth, and Mr T. E. Taylor is moving in a similar direction in New Zealand. It would be interesting to know exactly why. We can understand the prohibition of the fight pictures in the settlements where the racial feeling ia liable to explode on the slightest provocation, where the community is made up of Europeans and blacks in active association. But there can be no such fear in the colonies, where the attitude towards the coloured races, especially the negro, is one of broad tolerance. 11 Probably the average colonial is one of the fairest sportsmen in the world, and it is characteristic of him that he is ready to admit and acknowledge a champion, be he black or white. Doubtless the deputation of Sydney ministers and Mr Taylor will stress what they may be pleased to "brutaliaiflg aspect of such an encounter," and will enlarge upon the probable effect, from their point of view, upon the youth of There might be reasonable ground for qualms if the cinematograph had been in operation in the days before the Marquis of Queensberry rules, when such hand-to-hand contests resolved themselves into bare knuckle struggles, that lasted, often, not fifteen or twe'uty rounds, but three and four times as many—in fact, until one of the contestants was blind and incapable of raising his arm. Such an exhibition, in cur opinion, would not be a desirable thing to repeat before impressionable youths and men. But the rules of the ring to-day encourage a science of seli-defence, a training of the body pnys'cal to muscular perfection almost, and not so much the animal endurance that made a man victor fifty years ago. There is a distinct' of demarcation between boxing and prize-fighting, but there are many who fail to distinguish it. The fact tbatphe contestants at Reno on Monday were both big men should not distress the "indignators" unduly, for it is quite conceivable that two feather-weights of hard-hitting tendencies, at the end of a closely contested bout, would present as many signs of punishment as two heavyweights could inflict on each other. Wnerefore, then, the movement; for prohibition of these pictures? As we have before observed: The art of sciectific boxing teaches manliness and self reliance at least, and' enoouragea a high standard of sorry day fur the youth of our country if they could ,not*look upon such a display without moral hurt—on a professional of one of the manliest of pastimes—Wellington Post. ' '■*