Green Machine said:
That means they were the last to pay players money on top of the table. It also means banning anyone for life who stepped foot on a Rugby League paddock. Of course Union going professional had nothing to do with being sh*t scared of Super League.
Not true. Tennis has been OPEN for the Grand Slam Circuit since 1968, 38 years ago. Here is bit on our champion Rod Laver path to professionalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver
As a professional
Laver turned professional after completing the Grand Slam in 1962. He quickly established himself among the leading professional players, delighting crowds with duels against Pancho Gonzales and Ken Rosewall. During the next seven years, Laver won the US Pro Championships five times, including four in a row from 1966-1969.
In the first half year of 1963, Laver was beaten badly by both Rosewall and Hoad. Hoad, in fact, won the first 8 matches against Laver, Rosewall 11 out of 13. By the end of the year, however, with three tournament titles, Laver had established himself as the No.2 professional player (on par with Hoad) behind Rosewall. In 1964 he ranked together with Rosewall with seven important titles, but Laver had a 12-3 head-to-head record over Rosewall and won the two most prestigious titles, the U.S. Pro over Gonzales and the Wembley Pro Championship over Rosewall (coming from behind in a tight 5-setter). In 1965 he became clearly the No. 1 professional player, winning 15 titles. In ten finals he met the still dangerous Gonzales, and won eight of their clashes. In 1966 he won ten important tournaments, again including the US Pro and Wembley crowns. In 1967 he won a record 18 titles, including the Wimbledon Pro, US Pro, Wembley Pro and French Pro Championship, which gave him a clean sweep of the important Pro titles. The tournament in 1967 on Wimbledon's Centre Court was the only Pro event ever staged on the sacred lawns and paved the way to open tennis. Laver beat Rosewall in the final 6-2, 6-2, 12-10.
Laver played 111 matches against Rosewall, all of them as a professional, winning 62 while losing 49. In open era the count is 22-9.
[edit]
As an Open Era professional
With the dawn of the Open Era in 1968, professional players were once again allowed to compete in the Grand Slam events. Laver became Wimbledon's first Open Era champion in 1968, beating fellow-Australian Tony Roche in straight sets in the final.
In the context of the discussion about professionalism in sport, 1968 is fairly recent.
Some of your colleagues are banging on about the damage that the Vichy regime in France did to your code...............they were gone in 1945.
Up until the end of the Cold War, US athletes were put into Colleges to compete for Olympic Sports. Trust funds were set up and payments were made to athletes on retirement. The Eastern Block countries put their athletes in the military
Yes. And in Australia, and many other countries, amateurism prevailed.
I am simply pointing out the facts of history, not defending them.
This means Cricket allowed the idiot sons of the aristocracy to maintain their amateur status. County Professionals had different change rooms to the amateurs. WSC put an end to that stupidity
Apparenty the "idiot sons" were good enough to play county cricket, and Test cricket?
There is no evidence that I am aware of that professionals were discriminated against in selection, other than that they could not captain the MCC (England).
Again, that's the payments under the table
I wonder how popular Soccer is in England?
Woods has never heard of BARLA.
Rugby League in England created BARLA in 1970s. The sport below the professional level struggled for government grants because the old Union mates in high places classed Rugby League as a professional sport, even at the junior level. BARLA took Rugby Union on with the issue of free gangway as well
That means all is forgotten, but not forgiven
The "old union mates" are doing pretty well around the world since the game went professional, aren't they?
This quote of the day. Of course, companies are lining up to sponsor weekend hackers, but social golfers prefer to maintain their amateur status,
As far as I know, there is still a distinction maintained within golf between amateurs and professionals, particularly at the elite level. I do not claim to understand the intricacies of it.
GM, I do not know what your particular problems in life are. You seem to be a particularly sad person. All I have done in this thread is to point out the facts of sporting history. Amateurism was the norm in British sports until quite recently. I did not make that happen. As a rugby person, amateurism, and the loss of good players to league on a regular basis throughout my lifetime caused me a fair bit of pain.
League has done well in Australia, mainly because it was professional. It has struggled elsewhere. That is undeniable. Perhaps you could address your anger and your energy towards working out just why that is?
