Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-08-07

we'll find ont what kind of . man Hall is
If he is no better than his contest with
Billy Mccarthy would make him out to be
he will be beaten by Pritchard. So far
Hall has been advertised for show purposes
only.
Jem Smith, that greatest Of all modern
pugilistic frauds, has declined to meet
Choynski at any place except Europe. A
purse is not forthcoming there for them and
it is not likely that they will fight, as 1t Is
hardly possible that anybody IN EngIand
will put up a stake for Smith to hgnt
Choynski an honest battle. Choynskl
would knock smith out Just as soon as
Pritchard did and why Smith continues to
talk about fighting is hard to understand.
He would't even be q good opponent Tor
Joe McAulife.
Som what Strange Opinion.
A writer in the London Referee, MI. Cob
bett, I think, comes to the following sur
prising conclusion regarding the late john
son and Dixon battle:
"Somehow the cabled reports of Dixon's
fight with Fred johnson never did seem to
read right to me- As a rule, such dis
patches mislead you on the most important
point, and you never half know where you
are till the American exchanges come to
hand. Originally, we were told that while
johnson was UOWu DlAOu dCCiuchediAy iSAI
ON him, and so Jared the Londoner's head
against the floor that he knocked him out.
Clearly, in this case the darkie ought to be
disqualified for breaking the rule requiring
the man who gets his opponent down to
stand off and leave him free to rise. Now,
on unimpeachable, testimony, we hear that
instead of Dixon's dropping on johnson
after he had him ON the boards he rushed
him down and fell with him. banging john
sons head on the hard wood, and stunning
him. I call the evidence unimpeachable
because it comes from Ben Rowland, john
sons trainer, and while on the first re-
ceived account you could make no doubt at
all that the referee ought to have dis
qualified Dixon, Rowland's version makes
the referees duty more difficult to define.
If ever there were a case in which the
referee ought to give himself time to have a
good long think, this was one. He ought
not to need moments consider
alton to know that the one who
caused the accident-no one for
a moment suggested intentional foul play
should not win on account of it. The ques-
tion was whether johnson should be de-
clared winner or the pair ordered to meet
again. Ordering them 10 hight on in the old
fashioned manner was no use, because john
son couldn't go on. Acting quite strictly up
TO the letter and spirit OF boxing rules,
johnson should have been given the win.
Dixon threw him. But as the all given was
accidental another meeting ought to have
been ordered"
Where the Big Mistake Is Made.
The above argument would have great
force were the reasoning based on correct
premises. But they are not Besides it is
very very strange that Rowland or some
body else did not in behalf of johnson make
some kind OF statement at the time OF the
battle.
Every account have read Of that battle,
and what learned from very well In
formed friend Of mine who saw It, Is apso-
down. The blow delivered at the final stage
WIS not clean knock down, but it staggered
johnson SO much that he grasped hold OF
Dixon, pulling the latter toward him and
they both fell, Dixon being on top. 1t is
thus clear that if the fall was an accident it
was caused by johnson himself. the
that there was in any way any unfairness
doled out to Johnson.
Suspension of Local Amateurs.
Now and again the A. A. q. comes to some
very funny conclusions, and ii. on all occa-
sions, these conclusions are warranted by the
Unions rules it is certainly time these rules
were changed. A lew days ago the Atlantic
division of that wonderful organization,
through it's officials, suspended Messrs. Nc
Kennan and Paul, OF this city, 80 days for an
al eyed violation of rule. Said viola ton
consisted in the two young men lea wing the
East End Gyms and conteSting in events in
the cOlors of the Three AS without allowing
sufficient time to elapse after giving notice
OF leaving the Gyms. OF course 1t was the
East End Gyms who protested the young
men. and the date of protest. I think, was
May 2S
Now I am not going to argue the right or
wrong Of the protest. Its local effects will
be bad enough, but l want to draw atten-
ton to the most unreasonable and unfair
penalty imposed on the young athletes
The wiseacres have suspended them for 80
be suspended 80 days because they were
protested May 2s. The moguls OF the At.
lantic division of the A. A. q. did
not choose to meet until some kind
of ungenerous spirit moved them and
they shut their eyes to the TACT that their
victims had been protested SO long. This
is an Unjust and q ruinous way Of proceed
ing.
These divisional potentates of the A. A.
U. evidently sway scepters of unlimited
power. Apparently they could have held
their meeting next December and then i'm
posed the months suspension, practically
shutting Messrs. McKennan and Paul out
for the entire year.
Whether or not spirit of animus or re-
venge has prompted these unfortunate pro-
tests / know not. am told that such is the
Paul choose to leave one club and join an
other. cannot vouch for the truth of this,
but it is natural to expect that any club
would feel angry at losing two such good
men as Mckennan and Paul. But if there
is any revengeful spirit existing the sooner
it is killed the better. Its development will
not only injure amateurism locally, but will
certainly affect the A. A. U. generally in the
long run. PRINGLE.