The Washington times., 1930-04-05
- - >
FOUR JUDGE
WITH
REFE:.RE.E:
BY DAVIS J. WALSH

ny DAVIS Js WALSH
NEW YORK. April 5.-If box
ang judges here continue to cal
their decisions as other people
don't see them, the time may moi
be far distant when New York
viii be deciding it's prize fights
Including the many that involve
worlds championships, on the
basis of five-man vote.
This proposal, the writer
learned exclusively today, has
been broached to the New York
boxing commission and, while II
has indicated no opinion in the
matter, the understanding is that
the sentiment of at least one
member is not unfavorable. The
plan, if carried through, would
add two judges to the present
three-man system and give each
an equal voice in the decision, 1t
being figured quite conservatively
that five pairs of eyes ought to
be able to find the right man be-
fore the. end of a given meeting
Nothing quite so radical ever be
fore has been contemplated In
boxing.
It merely is in the stage of
contemplation, however. In
fact, no action will be taken
!, at this time for several
reasons.
One is that those to whom the
project has been mentioned pre-
fer to wait in order that they
may discover whether so-calleo
bad decisions are actually bad or
simply an illusion of mob pSy
lchology, inspired by neighborly
chagrin. Another reason for de-
lay is that the required amend
ment to the boxing law isn't cor
Sidered possible at the present
session of the, State legislature.
In regard to the latter, it may
.be stated that boxing matters at
this time must be confined to the
passage of the amendment, cur.
rently called the boxing Baumes
Law, by which incorrigible foulers
are to be set down for periods
of two months, three months and
six months with each successive
pffense. a..
AS for the professional old
timers. any excuse that would de-
lay an enactment of the pro
posed five-man system must, OF
necessity, be an excellent one: In
fact, so far. as they are concerned
If no action on this is ever taken
it will be extremely premature
They are not for judges at all;
they are reactionarieS who feel
that the referee alone should be
the sole Judge of play and that
any plan that doesn't admit this
is, per Sc, the Pigment of blith.
ering mind. Their reaction to
the idea of four judges, instead
of two, isn't likely to be tranquil;
it is liable to be downright vio'
lent.
Arguments in favor of the
proposal brief, but not alto
gether illogical for instance,
it is admitted that one prize
fight can look a half dozen
different ways, according to
direction from which one
sees it.
With four judges, it is claimed,
the fight will be seen from five
sides, namely, left, right, front,
rear and from above, the last
named sector being covered by
the referee. The judges, it
further is pointed out, would
occupy each of the four sides Of
the ring, thus covering the two
sides that now are open.
Another. argument cent ter
around the fact that at present
if two officials come to the fight
blind or temporarily demented,
the wrong man proceeds to win.
This, they say, is unlikely to
happen with a five-nan vote, be-
cause the two pSychopathic votes
would cease to be the mighty
majority and become the meager
minority. Of course, one of the
other officials might lose his
mind before. he gets a chance to
speak it by way of the ballot,
but, at that, it must be conceded
that the will of a majority Of
three is liable to be more sensible
than that Of a majority Of two
Besides, one of five men will see
any close fight as a draw, which
forecloses any possibility Of the
wrong man winning,
So much for arguments in
favor of the idea. Those against
it needn't be listed for obvious
reasons. I'm only writing a
story, not an encyclopedia.
phnnnix RaSeha1IerS Meet