The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, April 24, 1904, Page 14

. oo e | Special Photographs by | | Bushnell. + ~ —+ OUL fighting in the American prize ring is nothing short of amazing. It has become so prevalent that both the fighters and the sport loving public have al- most completely lost sight of the rules governing the game, until it would be & positive revelation to fight followers here if an English referee should be brought over to officiate at a fight and interpret the Queensberry rules as strictly as they are enforced in the land where they originated. Nine- tenths of the fighters who are now popular favorites it is safe to say would be disqualified before the con- tests had gone half a dozen rounds. Of course, 1 wish it understood at the outset that by “foul” fighting I do mot mean that absolutely vicious and willful fouling of an opponent that never fails to arouse an American audi- ence to wrathful indignation, and which it is only fair to say is very seldom indulged in, but a technical dis- regard or perversion of the Queens- berry sules. which has become alarm- ingly common. Indeed, to any one who has given the Queensberry rules even passing atten- tion it is mothing short of amusing to P SO\ W Z] S\ A Z = W72 V hear the announcement made irom the ring side, as it is done with unvarying regularity now, that “the fighters have agreed to fight under straight Mar- quis of Queensberry rules, hitting with one hand free in the clinches,” or “both fighters have agreed to break clean at the order of the referee.” That is nothing short of an imper- tinence. The Queensberry rules do not allow of any agreement of any sort between the fighters with regard to hitting in the clinches “with one hand free,” while as to “agreeing to break clean at the order of the referee” they are left absolutely no option by the rules. To an English referee such an- rouncements would be the height of ridiculousness. 0 To begin with, the rules expressly declare at almost the very outset that there shali be “no wrestling or clinch- ing allowed,” while those who place a strict interpretation on rule five would be astounded at the way it is con- stantly violated in the ring here. It reads: “If cither man fall he must get up unassisted, ten seconds to be allowed him to do so, the other contestant meagwhile to return to his corner, and when, the fallen man is on his feet the THE SAN FRANCISCO SUNDAY CAL O BOXING INTRUCTOR AT THE- LYMPIC CLUB ONE 2By FOULZING OTHLER FIGHTIVNG a8 | fessor R. B. Cornell, phy: of noses showing how the fouls are universally committed. . ( " Professor Van Court is one of the few men who have developed championship | talent, such as Jim Jefiries, Jimmy Britt and Sam Berger, and this article, fol- | lowing close npon one from the same pen published in last Sunday’s Call, on “How Fighters Break Their Own Bones,” is the keenest eriticism yet made against box- ers who break the rules of the fighting game. ‘HE most sweeping expose of modern methods in the prizering are the charges of foul fighting, which Professor De Witt C. Van Court, boxing instructor at the Olympie Club, makes in the following article, which he has written_ ex- | clusively for The Sunday Call and illustrated with pictures of himself and Pro- . i cal culture instructor at the Lurline Baths, in a series -+ round is to be resumed and continued until three minutes have expired. If either man-fails to come to the scratch in the ten seconds allowed it shall be in the power of the referee to give his de- cision in favor of the other man.” Both these rules are simple and straightforward, without the peradven- ture of a doubt. There can be only one .interpretation. Rule three says there shall be no wrestling or clinch- ing allowed. There is nothing whatever in the rules about “hitting with one hand free,” but in the foregoing’ they do expressly state that both hands shall be free and there must be no clinching of any sort, and yet how often do we have the spectacle of both men holding on with one hand and slugging with the other. Rule five expressly gtates that when one man falls his opponent must return to his corner and stay there until the fallen man is on his feet again, when the round may be resumed. There is no mistaking that rule; but how often is it observed by either fighter nowa- days or enforced by the referee? Instead - we are invariably treated to the sight Jf the transcendent slugger ravenously standing directly over his fallen foe hungrily waiting for him to show the first evidence of getting on his feet so that he can smash him again and finish the job before his opponent recovers his senses. And with equal frequency we see the referee, instead of ordering the man to his corner while the other is down, wrestling with the impatient slugger to keep him away from his victim while the count is being made. All this is both unnecessary and un- fair, and under & strict interpretation of the rules is as much of a foul as would be a low blow, or striking a man when he is down. Yet it is a form of fouling that is constantly disregard- ed by the public and the fighters alike. Note, for instance, how the discus- sion waxed wroth after the Britt- Corbett fight as to hitting in the breakaway, hitting with one hand free, hitting In the clinches and which side the referee should have stood on when he forced the men apart after each clinch. In the light of what.I have just said about the rules on clinching and wrestling, all such talk is mere tommyrot. o In the first place the rules do not permit the men to clinch or wrestle at all, but declare that, on the contrary, they must keep on punching from the beginning to the end of the round. Both hands must be free all the time. If, when they do come to a clinch, as is sometimes unavoidable, as I will ex- plain later, the referee should not be compelled to force them apart by main strength or to come between them in any way from either side; they should break at his simple word. Indeed, in London and England gen- erally the referee rarely ever enters the ring at all, but takes up his po- sition outside and there passes judg-. ment and issues his warnings. This is eminently proper and quite as it should be if the Queensberry rules were carefully and honestly observed by fighters generally. But what a sensa- tion such a referee would create here! And what a howl there would be if such a referee were to strictly enforce the Queensberry rules under which our fighters so glibly agree to fight “with one hand free” or to “hit in the clinches,” and award the fight against the man who committed such a foul! Nevertheless, if such decisions were made with more frequency the sport would become cleaner and better, if Jerhaps not so enjoyable to the great mass of ring followers who must have a gory fight and a knockout before they are satisfied that they have re- ceived their money's worth. There are clinches in the ring, many of them of different sorts, that are quite unavoidable, but how often do we read in the accounts published in the papers the morning after any of our big fights that one or the other boxer repeatedly “rushed into a clinch and hung on to save himself”? If the ref- eree enforced the Queensberry rules the fighter who “rushed into a clinch and hung on to save himself” would have lost the fight by that very action. On this page I have {llustrated the various forms of clinches most come monly and regularly indulged in with- out protest from either referee or the sporting public until they have come to be accepted as quite permissible. And yet out of all this array there are only two that may be considered fair under the Queensberry rules. The first I have called a “fair” clinch to differentiate it from all the rest, because it is one of the unavoidable sort, in which both fighters have come together after both have led and missed, and is but little more than 4 momentary locking of arms until each can push the other away and strike out again. Indeed, It is not a clinch in the ordinary sense of the term. The other I have termed “a fair block,” and it is entirely permissible under the strictest interpretation of the Queensberry rules, for while one fight- er is holding the other’s arms he is do- ing it merely with his open hand, and the one so held or blocked, which is more correctly speaking, is quite at liberty to draw his arms back and punch as he sees fit. This is a block pure and simple, and in n> sense a clinch. But against these two are a great number of “foul” holds that fighters constantly take advantage of. One of the most common is that where both boxers after countering a missing take hold of each other with their right hands around the scuff of the neck and thus hanging on punch unmercifully with their left hands free. This is what they mean when they agree to fight “with one hand free in the clinches.” It is absolutely unfair and under the Queensberry rules cannot be indulged in, no matter what the fighters may agree between themselves. Another common clinch which is con- stantly allowed to go unpunished, and which 18 a no less flagrant foul, is the one I have labeled “one man fouling, otker fighting fair,” in which the op- ponent who is getting worsted clasps the other around the neck and hangs on to save himself. man who has thus been clasped around the neck is quite right in barging away with his free fists, but it is a strange and com- mon circumstance that the crowd will invariably cry “foul” at him for hit- ting in the clinches. Under the Queens- berry rules, as I have repeated, there can be no clinches and it is his duty to himself to keep on punching’ while his arms are free. = Another common violation of ths rules, and one that should be checked more particularly than any other, is what is called “giving the elbow.” This is absolutely unfair and very wearing upon the man who recetves the elbow, and has decided more than one fight in favor of the man using his elbow, when in reality he should have been instantly disqualified for such tactics. Then there is the ‘“‘choke hold” se- cured while a shifty opponent is duck- ing out of harm’s way, but this is a form of foulifig that the crowa i1s quick to disapprove of, because It savors of the rough and tumble order, but an- other hold which is just as bad and far more dangerous is the one I have labeled “the clinch after your oppo- nent misses,” in which with his left arm up over your shoulder you hold his right to his side with your left while you punch him in the ribs with the right. In England any fighter re- sorting to this trick would be instantly disqualified, but in America it is a foul that creates no passing comment. Two other forms of the same clinch which happen with great frequency when both fighters have become weary are “gripping opponent around the waist” and the “neck and waist hold,” in which both are clinching. In these two positions both fighters are often seen wrestling each other around the ring, with the referee using his ut- most strength to force the men apart. And yet they are supposed to be fight- WV = SNy y D / mg under Queensberry rules. If in such an event the referee . would promptly disqualify both fighters there would soon be less of this form of clinching and more clean hitting. Two other fouls that are regularly 4passed without even a reprimand are those I have shown under the title a “clinch after a cross counter” and “holding opponent’s arm” after he had swung his right at the ribs. Neither of these should be permitted, and yet they are under the fighters’ agreement to “hit with one hand free.” Likewise there are many sport fol- lowers who do not know when a fighter is down. For their benefit it might be stated that he is down when he has one hand and one knee or both knees on the floor, and at such fimes his opponent should retire to his corner in- stead of standing over him, waiting for him to get up. But, on the other hand, a fighter is up when he raises both knees, even though his hands are still on the floor and his opponent is at liberty to strike him then, but net be- fore. Bf 21l the Queensberry rules were strictly enforced and as strictly ob- served the sport in America would be better and cleaner.