PROFESSIONAL AND AMATEUR OARSMEN.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4212, 19 September 1874, Page 2

PROFESSIONAL AND AMATEUR OARSMEN.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — Your reply to the inquiry of “ Stroke Oar”- on the above subject seems to be contrary to the experience and opinion of Mr, Oliver Wakefield. The question then arises as to where, and to what extent, that gentleman’s experience has been acquired ; and dependent , thereon, wha£ consideration his opinion' is entitled to ; for X think that every one who has any but a very limited knowledge of sporting matters will recognise the correctness of, your definition, llowever, as Mi’. Wakefield has doubts on the matter, I would suggest that lie refer it to the Australasian, a well recognised authority bn such matters. Xu his letter of yesterday’s issue the secretary to the Star Club says :—“ My experience is that any man who has won money by his exertions upon such occasions, and appropriated it to his own private uses, can never again bo considered as an amateur oarsman ; but on the other hand, a man who has been presented with any number of cups, of ever so great a value, merely as a record of his success in various events, or who has received prizes or shares of prizes solely for the benefit of his club or any general fund in support of the. rowing fraternity, and has never prostituted his skill and physical power rowing for mercenary ends, cannot in justice be prevented from entering; for any smateur race in the world, and it may be taken for granted that such a one would never take an unfair advantage of inexperienced oarsmen, but would only oppose himself to those who would be worthy antagonists.” Now, if tliis opinion was adopted in rowing clubs, it would veryconsiclerably diminish the number of competitors, if not altogether put a stop to amateur rowing. It U well known by those who have competed that the prizes generally offered at regattas when won and distributed, or gained singly, as the case may be, are scarcely sufficient to pay actual training expenses. Would Mr, Wakefield, then, have it the rule that if a man appropriates a money prize, to the discharge of his training expenses he should be at once put down as a professional, and debarred from competing with amateurs again ? The idea is absurd, for there would then in reality be no amateurs but those who' had been repeatedly defeated, as each man as ho won a prize would have to drop out of the amateur circle and consider himself a professional. If a gentleman horso owner rides his own horse and wins a handicap steeple chase, as is frequently the case, and receives the prize—always in money—just the same as if he had engaged a jockey to ride for him, is that owner ever disqualified to compete as a gentleman rider in a Hunt Club steeplechase '{ Decidedly not. Then does not the argument hold good with reference to rowing, and why should not a man appropriate the prize money, towards the payment of his expenses ? How many young fellows are there, who probably are the best representatives of their clubs, on salaries of £l5O per annum or less, that could not afford to incur expenses amounting probably to £2O for training for one regatta, unless they could use the prize money to recoup that expenditure, Of course many incur the expense who. do not win ; but the chance is open to all, and brings competition where it would not be if disqualification as an amateur attended the muning or necessitated taking the prize in trophy. X take it that the distinction is for

the purpose of preventing men who gain their living by the exercise, and so have much better opportunity of becoming proficient and well-conditioned oarsmen, from rowing against others whose less healthy and more sedentary mode of living do not admit of the same advantages, and that the distinction should be only for the purpose of marking the difference, and preventing its detrimental effect on the sport. Apologising for the length of my letter, which, however, the importance and interest of the subject I think justify,—l am, &c. Amateur.