BACK IN THE FRAY

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 12, 5 April 1927, Page 6

BACK IN THE FRAY

THE PURDY-TROWERN CASE MR. T. G. TROWERN REPLIES Apropos of the PurCly-Trowern dispute, Mr. T. G; Trowern writes to say that the statement that he was of opinion that the light-weight title should have been awarded to his son is incorrect. His contention is that it should have gone to O’Neill, who expressed a wish to defend it, or that it should have been fought for in the ring. “The secretary of the N.Z. Boxing Council was informed that Trowern could make the weight, and was prepared to fight for the title,” states Mr. Trowern. “He was also informed that it was considered impossible to present a championship to anyone, and that Trowern would not accept it if it were given to him. It is very clear that it was given to Purdy in order to make the Grime-Purdy fight a greater attraction. WHAT OF THE RULE? “When the question of this championship crops up,” continues Mr. Trowern, “the slogan is; ’Let me quote the rule.’ I contend that the N.Z. Council had no right to make this rule. It is not in accordance with the custom in any other part of the world, and it cannot be effective. “Did anyone ever hear of a sprinter, swimmer or any other athlete being awarded a championship without competing for it? No. It had to be competed for, and the best man got it. If a championship is so cheap that it can be given away, then it is not worth fighting for.” Referring to the taking of five per cent, of boxers’ purses, Mr. Trowern says “that the council is arogating to itself powers which cannot be read into the Act and regulations thereunder. Many laws on the Statute Book, although allowed in a Lower Court, have been upset in a Higher Court, and these laws are drafted by an expert before being passed into law by the highest authority in the land.”