Are the working class better at sport ?

[swampster]

There was a comment in the thread about Greg RUsedski that if Tim Henman was working class, he'd do better at Wimbledon. But is that true ? Do working class sportsmen perform better for England than middle-class ones ? We always seem to asume that the middle-classes don't have the balls for sport, but if that's the case, why did Steve Redgrave win 5 gold medals and a Rugby team made up of mostly middle class boys win the world cup, while a (richer) working class England football team stumble along in the mid-table medicority of International football ? comments?

[GETT1NLOTS]

No I dont think so.

The vast majority of Rugby Union players are from the middle classes and they do 'ok' don't they?

I think that more working class kids try and make a living out of sport as they are not blessed with some of the private school privelages of their middle class peers.

Ergo more working class kids try and make a living out of sport - therefore more working class kids become sports stars.

Law of averages really.

hi swampster

The comment was made by me and was entirely directed at the tennis world. Im just bitter at the fact that it was one sport i was very good at but my family couldnt afford to send me to a private club my cousin went to. The simple fact of the matter is that working class families would need to sell their homes to send their children to proper colleges to train. Im not aware of any other major sport where this is the case.

I would wager any amount of money that the next british tennis champion will not technically be from these shores !

sadly we are only currently the best or nearly the best in the two most public school sports there are: rugby and rowing

public school kids are @#%$ at football tho

[GETT1NLOTS]

Yeah you are.

Rich tossers.

eh? are you not english too? or was that sposed to suggest i'm a public school kid? if so, then grr to you

[GETT1NLOTS]

Sorry Paul - I misunderstood your post.

I thought you were saying you were a privately educated school kid (ex obviously) and that you were only good at two types of sport and....

Oh you know what I mean... sorry. :o

grrr back

We had one set of pads and two cricket bats at my school. Needless to say we didn't produce any cricketers and since we didn't own a tennis racket either, we haven't produced any Wimbledon champions. Footballers and rugby players by the ton and in summer we could run round the athletics track so we also produced a few decent distance runners.
I wouldn't state that we would have produced a Wimbledon winner even if we had had a tennis racket but it's reasonable to assume that we could have produced someone, (given the numbers) who had natural ability at least at the same rate that we produce a Henman through his system of priviledge.

Course there's a direct connection between the ability to win and a hunger to win and given a level playing field where the hungry and the priviledged could compete like for like, I'd take the hungry to win every day and that's why boxing has always fascinated me in this respect. For over 40 years the heavyweight champion has been black (and likely to be so for a long time yet). If hunger wins titles then the hungriest will always make the better fighter.
Perhaps you could move this analogy across to Wimbledon and say that the hungry will always win there too?
I'm sure of it.
As long as they give us a racket...

[PAULM03]

maybe theres more working class sports stars cause theres more working class people? just a hunch

Black people are mainly heavyweight champions simply because black people make the best boxers (there was a black heavyweight champion in england in the 1700s)

as for hunger theres no reason why a middle class kid cant be as hungry as a working class one. I grew up on a council estate and most of my old mates are a set of lazy fcukers who wouldnt know hunger if it jumped up and bit them

[GETT1NLOTS]

Gotta say mate, fair play.

(there was a black heavyweight champion in england in the 1700s)

I boxed a little when in my teens and love watching boxing.

I didn't know that.

Who are you speaking of?

[PAULM03]

John Richmond was the boxers name. He was brought over from america by lord Percy in the mid-late 1700s and trained to be a furniture maker, but he threw it all in for boxing.

I think he was already english champion when he fought Tom Cribb for the british championship, but was robbed after the ring was stormed by Cribb's fans when he was close to being knocked out. Richmond was subsequently knocked out, but then went unbeaten until the age of 51

[Mr Intensity]

Going back to tennis, the most obvious example is the Williams' sisters. Also just read McEnroes autobiography and he was from a pretty ordinary background. Of course, these are Americans and the reason we don't have any tennis champs is because the system sucks.

I used to be involved with a council run 'squads' scheme where kids could play for 6 weeks on an indoor court for about 8 quid. Problem was that they only played there (once a week) and obvious you ain't gunna become a champ like that. To be a champ you need to be at a top club (in my area that 120 quid a year for kids) and get coaching (15 quid) and practice every day.

The working class may be more motivated to sucseed in sport but without the money in the bank or major sacrifices from the parents it will never happen.

[PAULM03]

Thats the one

I can hardly imagine old Forbes Phillips Masters with jumpers for goalposts. All the other kids probably told him to fcuk off cause he went to the local grammar school and talked proper the snobby cnut.

Didn't stop him making it to the heady heights of league football though did it? thats what a bit of hunger can do for you, it's got nothing to do with background

And what happened to the working class kids that told him to fcuk off? probably sat skagged up watching repeats of supermarket sweep on a nicked portable T.V.

i go to uni with a load of public school people, as well as a load of normal people, and i wouldnt say that us normal folks are more motivated at all, if anything its the other way around. maybe thats just cambridge, i dunno, but i reckon its a bit of a big assumption to presume poor kids have more determination to succeed. i guess if you come from a background thats so used to success, you want it for yourself, ppl have been saying thats what keeps driving man utd forward anyhow.

they (rich kids) are still shite at football tho. other than frank lampard, but i'm sure that was a fluke, cos i played his old school last year and they're utter turd

[swampster]

Frank Lampard's new money though paulinho, surely ? He's as working class as pie n' mash !

[PAULM03]

on the issue of rich kids ben shite a football does anyone remember the name of the guy that baddiel and skinner used to take the mick out of on fantasy football?. The one with the poshest footballers name ever, played in the third division, something like tarquin cholmondely-smythe.

i only mentioned it cos lampard is the only decent footballer i know of that went to a posh school

[Matt]

Paulm - Forbes Phillips Masters