OLD QUESTION, SAME ANSWER
The idea began to trouble the young girl golfer five years ago, perhaps when a sporting goods firm offered her some free equipment, or when a well-heeled, well-meaning Seattle duffer suggested she take $1,000 under the table. Last December, after long study, Anne Quast Decker, women's national amateur golf champion, framed her conclusion in a letter to the United States Golf Association. Her precise, schoolteacher prose was effective enough to move the USG A last week to circulation of a 1,300-word reply to her proposals.
"Why would it be wrong," she had asked the USGA, "for an amateur to accept money for expenses entailed in going to a tournament?" The USGA rule against such expense accounts, she said, "adds an additional requirement [beyond playing for fun] for being an amateur: substantial means ... to pay for the pleasure of playing in tournaments."
"Should the possession of money be a requirement of an amateur for competing in tournaments?" she asked.
The USGA reply restated its position that "fair competition will not be assured if amateurs are permitted to accept expense money...." It cited the possible development of "golf tramps," held that those who now cheat would continue to cheat [and more easily], remarked the impossibility of establishing fair expense standards, and observed that only top amateurs would be able to get expense money, driving out lesser players who nevertheless get fun out of competition.
Our only comment would be to cite the experience of Earl (Butch) Buchholz, just returned from his first professional tennis tour and as yet unconvinced that professional tennis players make more money than some amateurs. In one old Italian town, he said, he was eliminated in the first round, and his pay for that tournament was thereby a mere $158. Later in the week, playing in an amateur tournament in the same town, Italy's top amateur, Nicola Pietrangeli, lost his first-round match to Ronnie Barnes of Brazil but still picked up $500, his guarantee for just being there.
"I'm a professional," Buchholz observed, "and Pietrangeli is an amateur, but I drive an MG and Nicky drives a Ferrari."
TEMPEST IN A BEAN POT
A certain sensitivity to bookmaking allegations has been noticeable in Boston ever since CBS-TV photographed clients and cops entering a Massachusetts Avenue bookie joint which was disguised as a key-repair shop. It was as if the Old Howard burlesque house had reopened with fanfare instead of with circumspection. Bostonians were embarrassed.
So when, in the course of ballyhoo for the limited middleweight title bout between Bostonian Paul Pender and Britisher Terry Downes (April 7), it was published that Downes was proprietor of seven London bookmaking shops there was a good deal of political comment—mostly on the order of "Harrumph! Well, now, harrumph!"