THE BECKETT FIGHT.
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Sin,—Mr. Bayne, in a letter published in your last issue, passed " a word or two of fair animadversion " on my article describing the Beckett-Moran fight. He states that the article contains nothing about " the real art and skill of the combatants." May I draw his attention to the following extract from the article referring to the Wells-Bloomfield fight ? " They judged carefully and hit surely, boxing in the best tradition," and to my references to " the generalship of Bloomfield and the classicism of Wells," to Fritsch's " skilful victory." I can hardly be said to have completely " overlooked one essential element—the real art and skill of the combatants." Mr. Bayne has himself acknowledged that this is not the " essential element " of Beckett's or Moran's boxing. I think he will agree that the Spectator is not the paper for a detailed report of Wells's skill. For that the dailies and the technical Press are proper places. I must, finally, disagree with him when he writes, " Britain has no credit by her present champion." Beckett is not to compared with Wells as a boxer, but as a fighter he is clearly his superior. Did Mr. Bayne see his magnificent light against Moran, and how he was down for a count of seven from that formidable hitter ? I have rarely seen a man so shaky as he was when he struggled up. Is there no credit for his supreme effort of " pulling himself together "_ and winning ? Beckett is so much better than he was, as a fighter and as a boxer, that now, I think, we must give him credit. After all, half the fame of Sayers, to whose tradition Mr. Bayne appeals, depended on his wonderful fighting capacity.
Our pugilists are not what they were, it is true, but surely it is unfair to say " no credit ! "—I am, Sir, &c.,
ANTHONY BERTRAM.
Previous page
