RINGCRAFT OR COWARDICE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXX, Issue 3551, 15 June 1912, Page 10

RINGCRAFT OR COWARDICE.

THE ART OF DODCINC. AN UNCOMPROMISING OPINIONAn English sporting writer sums up boxing ill two classes:

I believe many men follow boxing solely.for the money it yields. Believing this, I have carefully studied 1 the bearing of certain boxers under different occasions.

As a result of this careful study, I have observed that there are two distinct classes ill the ranks of the profession. These are the good winners and the bad losers.

But this in no way classifies the boxers finally. For some of the good winners are bad losers, and some had winners are good losers. Therefore, I have been compelled to weed out both classes under the heading Game or Cowardly.

SHOULD BE HOUNDED OUT. - It is a serious accusation to dub any man as a "quitter,” but it would be no liberty to tabulate here the names of eome men who ought to be hounded out of the profession. It is a somewhat difficult matter to define the border-line between, gameness and cowardice, but it is not such a 'big job to anyone who knows the business thoroughly. Nevertheless there is always the haunting fear that an injustice may be done to a man who lias been wrongly classified. So better that I should mention no names.

Yet I firmly believe that some men who have climbed the ladder are cowards at heart. It is a strange theory I am about to propound. Making such a bold) assertion, naturally, I must give my reasons. Well, then, what makes one man a fighting good to-day and wretched the next time out? I don’t believe it is always due to varying form- i think, rather, that it is often- fear oi punishment which is gripping his imagination. "May not the boxer count the cost?” you ask. Assuredly; but it must not affect his showing. I will demonstrate my point. "'A” is a boxer. He has shown good and promising form on all of bis figlfts. Early on in every match he has landed a particular blow which weakens his man. Then he finds himself homing an advantage. He is top-dog for the rest of the contest. His showing is goo-d. He knows, he feels, that his opponent cannot injure him. So he boxes in supreme confidence, and goes on from round to round, winning better the longer he is in the ring.

But when he meets a man who "gets there first” it is a different story. He has lost his vitality; he cannot do things he used to do. His mind apprehends disaster, so he clinches for safety. Every time be gets within striking distance he attempts a blow, but clinches at once, whether he lands or misses-

This points a moral. He is still prepared to inflict punishment, but dreads receiving it. The man is a coward. What other explanation is there? You may call if generalship, ringcraft—call it wliat voir ..will. I call it rank cowardice,.

The rules do not provide for clinching. The man who clinches is taking a liberty. The man who takes a liberi/ is afraid to meet the evil hour when it comes, so he endeavors to sneak in a punch or a winning move any way at all. There is a lot of generalship in this move, but it is only gc-neralship ? Doesn’t it denote a sinister driving force? That is how l view it.

Again, some men are only tappers. They don’t hurt when they land their clows, but their speed keeps them on top end fight after fight stands to their credit although they may on’y sr-rape through after the mest anxious time. IN THE. GOOD OLD DAYS. The old rules, were in some respects more satisfactory. For then every contest was a test of pluck. The now obsolete rules of a quarter of a century ago called for a fight to a finish. Every man. who found himself in the ring with an opponent knew that there could be but one winner. The man with all the qualities won, and not only won, but- got the lion's share of the purse. To-day iheso things are changed.

In some ways it is better so, but ta.« change has to my mind opened the door to cowards, loafers, timewasters, and imposters. For. when a man engages to "box” any stated number of rounds, the public does not expect to witness a hugging match. There is no doubt many rounds are n :r.ed by clinching. Men clinch to save themselves. -

"What do they avoid ” you may ask. There is but- one answer. They avoid the returns of tlieir opponents. Men who smile when they dish out punishment but shirk when called on to receive are rank cowards. The ring to-day is teeming with them, iuen. do not fight now for supremacy so much as for £ s d.

The verdicts frequently go to the men who score often and clinch often. If you have seen recent- contests itmust be within your recollection that u±ere is far too much waste of time. This evil acts and reacts. It will continue to do so until clinching lias been abolished-

Can you wonder that some cowards are climbing to fame? The unwritten law is to countenance clinching. Clinching is one of the 'greatest of evils. Until it has .been cut out altogether, until referees have been armed with authority to promptly disqualify for this offence, boxing as a sport will continue to offer fame to some men of questionable courage.