One school maintains that Wells is a first-rate boxer, another that he
is a bad boxer. It all depends upon what you mean by boxing. If boxing
is a game as golf is a game, an almost theoretical attack and defence,
the rudest expression of which is what we call an “Exhibition”--then
Wells is a first-rater. But if boxing is the translation into rude and
rough sport of a quite practical defence and offence, whereby one man
disables another (but confined within rules which are unlikely to be
obeyed in a very serious affair, any more than the Geneva Convention is
obeyed in very serious wars)--if, within these rules boxing means the
real conflict between two men whose strength and endurance as well as
skill are supremely tested--then Wells is, on the whole, a bad boxer.
The explanation of Wells is extremely simple: he is a scientific boxer
who does not really like fighting.
When we talk of a “natural fighter” we mean a man who, however
good-natured--and good nature has nothing to do with it--enjoys bashing
people and is willing to run the risk of being bashed. He may be
skilful too, though that is beside the point. Wells has been called a
coward--which is frankly absurd. He has never provided any evidence of
cowardice. He does, no doubt, “know the meaning of fear”: the bravest
men always do. The “man who does not know what fear is” clearly is a
very useful man indeed, but he is not so brave as the man who knows
all about it, is indeed afraid, but keeps his fear in hand. In this
sort of discussion too sharp a line is usually drawn between brave
men and cowards: too sharp a line is usually drawn in any discussion
about primitive qualities. I don’t suppose that Wells enjoys being hurt
any more than I do, but his difficulty lies in the fact, that he gets
no enjoyment from hurting--or, let us say rather, winning physical
domination over--other people. A boxer to be a good boxer must have
the instinct for bashing. This may not be a highly civilised instinct,
it may (for all I know) be highly reprehensible, but it is present in
successful pugilists, and they can’t get on without it.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account