“Foul lightly, says the rule and suffer for it; foul hard and be champion.”

[APerno]

In reaction to the public outcry against the heavyweight championship changing hands on a foul, a month after Sharkey-Schmeling I, the New York State Athletic Commission enacted a new rule to deal with the ‘too many foul finishes’ that were hurting the game commercially. (There had been ten such fights in the last year alone, with the Carnera-Godfrey fiasco occurring just two weeks after Sharkey-Schmeling I.)

The two prong rule, enacted July 17th, 1930, now permitted fighters to wear protective devices to lessen the risk of groin injuries; and disallowed a fighter, who had been hit with a low blow, to be awarded the match, if he remained incapacitated on the canvas (as had occurred with Schmeling).

Referees were now instructed to begin counting over any fighter felled by a low blow, under the belief that there had been too many fakes, and that any fighter being counted over, who was still capable, would get up.

The rule then explained, if a referee witnesses the low blow he is free to penalize the offending fighter by taking away the round, but if the offended fighter fails to rise before the ten count, regardless of what the referee may have seen, the fighter delivering the low blow would be awarded the fight by KO.

As you can imagine, this paradox set off a firestorm of criticism. A popular muse of the day went: “Foul lightly, says the rule and suffer for it; foul hard and be champion.”

Others, less concern with this inconsistency, felt that the very appearance of groin protection gear itself would insure that the ‘last trace of sportsmanship’ would leave the game.

It wasn’t a popular rule then and isn’t now – I wonder what happens today if a fighter claims he can’t continue after his allotted five minute rest – does the paradox ‘foul lightly and suffer, foul hard and win’ still apply?

From Collier's Literary Digest, July 12th, 1930

http://www.perno.com/Boxing/nomorefoulfinishes.pdf

[Ambling Alp II]

Pretty sure now if a fighter doesn't want to continue after being given 5 minutes to recuperate he would lose. Have never seen a fighter not continue though. sometimes they don't even take the full five minutes. Obviously if a fighter was fouled and would win if he didn't want to continue he would have incentive to not continue.

There were a lot of fights way back that were stopped on foul. One low blow could end a fight. Phaintin Phil Scott made a career of it.

[Kalan]

If you commit an egregious foul and your opponent can't continue, you need to lose the fight.. 5 minutes to recover is BS. You could be hurting for weeks.

But Kovalev was robbed in a fight where his opponent kept claiming rabbit punches that didn't happen. In that case give 5 minutes recovery time -- or ignore his complaints if he clearly is turning his head or ducking in a manner where he's going to be hit accidentally behind the ear.

Sharkey smashed Schmeling with a deliberate low blow, and many fans and officials had a clear view of the foul... What do you do in a street fight??? As soon as you get a clear opening, smash your attacker in the balls as hard as you can... But Boxing has rules -- otherwise you could kick your foe in the head