Ringside seat was one to remember

Why is it that TV and radio announcers along with newspapers columnists always refers to boxing matches and boxers as fights and fighters, or could it be that that is what a lot of them are these days?

I had a ringside seat in 1960 at Carlaw Park, Auckland, and watched the Oceania light heavyweight championship match between American Eddie Cotton and the South Pacific holder, Tongan George Mahoni— a boxer similar to David Tua.

Yes, he didn’t box but was a bludgeoning fighter with killer punches. Up against Cotton, who did not, as the critics say, have the ability to produce a knockout punch (but he didn’t need one) I watched in awe as Mahoni was systematically and clinically cut to pieces in an exhibition of classy boxing.

The match ended with no one floored, but Cotton didn’t have a mark on him whereas Mahoni’s face looked like it had been dragged through a treadmill, with his eyes puffy and unable to see properly, as he did not have the ability to protect himself from the skilful boxing of Cotton. The match was awarded to Cotton on points.

There have been many boxers over the years, of course, with a similar ability, for example our own Ruby ‘‘Bob’’ Fitzsimmons, ‘‘Gentleman’’ Jim Corbett and, more recently, Muhammad Ali. Jimmy Anderson

Greenmeadows

No place for bikes

Not so long ago I wrote to your paper on the subject of pedestrians having to share the ‘‘footpath’’ with abusive cyclists.

I have to ask, firstly, why motorists have to slow to 15km/h in 100km/h zones because cyclists don’t want to use cycle tracks? Is it because they have purchased the wrong type of bicycle?

Secondly, why do pedestrians have to sidestep cyclists, both young and old, who believe they are entitled to ride on the ‘‘footpath’’? Now, pedestrians are being directed by the Hastings District Council to share a ‘‘footpath’’ on Caroline Road with cyclists. This is not only particularly dangerous, but is also against the law.

If the council took time to peruse The Official New Zealand Road Code, on page 104, Section 2.11, it will find that it is illegal for cyclists to ride on the footpath unless delivering newspapers, mail or leaflets.

I accept that, from a health, recreational and tourism point of view, cycling is a good thing but why are we letting this latest craze cost ratepayers money by creating signage which is seldom read and cycle lanes which are rarely used?

Also, why are we letting the council and cyclists alike get away with breaking the law? Alex Bracey

Hastings