Page:Out-door Games Cricket and Golf (1901).djvu/235

196 much to choose between amateurs and professionals. For the last few years Messrs. Ball, Tait, Hilton, Laidlay, Hutchinson, and Balfour would have been able to hold their own against Taylor, Herd, Park, the two Kirkaldys, and Braid, and in this case the amateurs have not all been able to give their whole time to golf. As for cricket, it is no good mincing words; we all know that many so-called amateurs are and have been professionals, have been paid indirectly if not directly, and have, in fact, lived by the game. I do not think that this is the case at golf, and I earnestly hope that it never will be. One reason, and a very substantial reason, against it is that golf is a game for individuals, cricket is for a club or county; gate money cannot be charged for one, while the other lives on it. There is no rivalry between St. Andrews and Prestwick, Hoylake and Sandwich, as there is between Surrey and Notts, or Yorkshire and Lancashire. If a man wants to make money at golf, he can only do it by becoming an obvious professional, taking chaise of a green, or being employed and paid as a coach. Our so-called amateurs at cricket