Harry Sunderland

[RigbyLuger]

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

If we look at the three individual awards in UK RL:

Cup Final MOM - Lance Todd

Grand Final MOM - Harry Sunderland

Man of Steel - Steve Prescott

Are they the three names that best reflect 125 years of the history of our game? I'm comfortable if people say yes, but I don't think the answer should be yes just because that's what they are now.

If people are so bothered we continue to remember Sunderland, whose importance to the sport hasn't been explained well enough, then just add a name to it. Call it the Sunderland/Waring * Trophy or whatever.

[DavidM]

I can’t get too fussed personally over who an award is named after or if it’s named after anyone . The award or trophy is the important bit . 

[John Drake]

Various off topic argy-bargy removed.

Stick to the point of the thread.

[wiganermike]

12 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Similarly, should his name forever be used for this Mom award simply because he came before other legends of the game? 

It's why I like the refreshing of the titles so we can keep commemorating and celebrating our history, both recent and long forgotten. 

It isn't so much sticking with the name just because he came first, but that there needs to be a reason to change other than 'this guy played more recently so more people know who he is'. Going with the idea of honouring contributions by attaching names to other awards at the MOS awards a case could be made for attaching Lance Todd's name to a Coach of the Year Award due to his achievements at Salford, or an award for a pioneering achievement due to him being a All Golds tourist. However removing his name from a prominent award even when affixing to a less prominent one runs the risk of having many people not noticing the new association and interpreting that as his name having been "removed for a reason". People do leap to conclusions.

If a situation arose where a player already highly regarded for achievements/contribution had won the cup final m.o.m after unknowingly breaking their arm and playing on for example or a player had won the cup final with 4 or 5 different clubs then that gives a reason specific to that award to rename it in their honour instead. There is then an argument for renaming the award other than passage of time. It can then be explained why the name has changed and if desired the Lance Todd Trophy can be assigned to a different award.

If the desire is simply to honour someone more contemporary or because it is felt they deserve recognition too then attaching their name to a different award that already exists makes more sense to me. There are plenty at the MOS awards night.

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, wiganermike said:

It isn't so much sticking with the name just because he came first, but that there needs to be a reason to change other than 'this guy played more recently so more people know who he is'. Going with the idea of honouring contributions by attaching names to other awards at the MOS awards a case could be made for attaching Lance Todd's name to a Coach of the Year Award due to his achievements at Salford, or an award for a pioneering achievement due to him being a All Golds tourist. However removing his name from a prominent award even when affixing to a less prominent one runs the risk of having many people not noticing the new association and interpreting that as his name having been "removed for a reason". People do leap to conclusions.

If a situation arose where a player already highly regarded for achievements/contribution had won the cup final m.o.m after unknowingly breaking their arm and playing on for example or a player had won the cup final with 4 or 5 different clubs then that gives a reason specific to that award to rename it in their honour instead. There is then an argument for renaming the award other than passage of time. It can then be explained why the name has changed and if desired the Lance Todd Trophy can be assigned to a different award.

If the desire is simply to honour someone more contemporary or because it is felt they deserve recognition too then attaching their name to a different award that already exists makes more sense to me. There are plenty at the MOS awards night.

I get that, and my idea is not about more contemporary, by refreshing every decade these three main awards can celebrate more players from history, modern and even from the 1800s. I think it's a way of bringing the history of the game more to the forefront. 

[wiganermike]

42 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I don't think history should be thrown on the dumpster fire, but I do think things should be regularly under review. Lance Todd clearly had a big impact on the game, and so will others. I agree that if it was retired from the cup final it would fit nicely in at the MOS awards.

I was actually suggesting the new names proposed to be honoured were attached to awards at the MOS awards. Using names already being suggested Roy Francis' name could be attached to the Coach of the Year Award due to his recognition as an innovative and pioneering (and successful) coach. Not at the MOS awards but an Ashes (optimistic I know) (or WC or other international series) winning captain could be given a Clive Sullivan Medal. Or to ensure the last one is given out more reliably give it to the player of the series. We recognise the impact and contribution of important figures in our sport's history that way while continuing to honour those we already do.

[marklaspalmas]

I think now is the perfect time for rugby league to do the right thing.

Rugby league is a team game.

MOTM awards at the big finals, SL & CC, should be scrapped.

They're out-of-date. The decision is nearly always arbitrary with any number of contenders, and is sometimes plain wrong. Giving an accolade to one player over the other 25 (or 33 these days) is not the right thing to do. People will still remember stand-out individual efforts without these awards.

[Damien]

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I get that, and my idea is not about more contemporary, by refreshing every decade these three main awards can celebrate more players from history, modern and even from the 1800s. I think it's a way of bringing the history of the game more to the forefront. 

I agree. Not sure about the your idea bit though, I'm sure I posted it first . I'll let you off, great minds and all that. 

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

I agree. Not sure about the your idea bit though, I'm sure I posted it first . I'll let you off, great minds and all that. 

I suggested something similar on page 1 so I'm throwing my hat in the ring 

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

I suggested something similar on page 1 so I'm throwing my hat in the ring 

I posted it before the pair of you charlatans. Damned plagurists and you going on to do a PhD too .

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, Damien said:

I agree. Not sure about the your idea bit though, I'm sure I posted it first . I'll let you off, great minds and all that. 

 

10 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I suggested something similar on page 1 so I'm throwing my hat in the ring 

Sue me. 

I made it far better. 

[Oxford]

5 hours ago, Moove said:

Oxford you need to try answering a simple question without being so sanctimonious. Just the link would have sufficed, thanks.

Moove you need to read around and not be so touchy old son.

 

3 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

This is an old chestnut that keeps coming up on this forum.

Calls for the trophy to be renamed seem to be based on a single very small extract from Geoffrey Moorhouse's history of the game.

The assertion was unsupported by any evidence.

Harry Sunderland was a prolific Rugby League journalist, both in Australia and the UK in the first half of the twentieth century.

If there were any examples of racism from anything he wrote, I suspect it would have been unearthed by now. But I haven't seen anything.

Harry may have been dead since the 1960s, but he does have descendants who are presumably still alive. In fact his son was a much more famous person in Australia and throughout the world than Harry was.

For the game to trash their name on the basis of a throwaway line in a book would utterly wrong in my view.

As for Roy Francis, I totally agree that as a separate issue he deserves to be commemorated.

I have suggested that each year there should be a Welsh Player of the Year who is awarded the Roy Francis Medal.

I think a look into a special permanent BAME exhibit at the George would be a good move as well, with a section on Fijians, Maoris etc etc.

I never thought Harry Sunderland was a Colston or Robert E Lee figure by the way but if true it's something that must be considered and discussed even on this forum.

[Oxford]

The reasons for changing the names would have to have real substance to them.

This is not the same as proper recognition of our players and officials from different parts of our community.

Nor is it proper recognition of what the sport has been capable of when so much and so many around didn't seem so capable of anything like the same kind of actions.

The argument, it seems to me, that as players and officials pass out of living memory so their awards and trophies are supposed to disappear is as hollow as it sounds.

The WC and the Museum at the George are classic moments and events where we can recognise all of the above.

[Dave T]

16 minutes ago, Oxford said:

The reasons for changing the names would have to have real substance to them.

This is not the same as proper recognition of our players and officials from different parts of our community.

Nor is it proper recognition of what the sport has been capable of when so much and so many around didn't seem so capable of anything like the same kind of actions.

The argument, it seems to me, that as players and officials pass out of living memory so their awards and trophies are supposed to disappear is as hollow as it sounds.

The WC and the Museum at the George are classic moments and events where we can recognise all of the above.

I don't think it is about passing out of living memory, I'd support 3 new names all from the 1800s if a good case was made for them. 

But our 3 most high-profile player awards in the UK game are named after Lance Todd, Harry Sunderland and Steve Prescott. Out of the game's 125 year history how did we land there, and could we do things differently?

We don't need to be afraid of the answer being that yes we could position these awards differently. 

I understand why people wouldn't want it changed, but I'd be in favour of looking at it personally. 

[Eddie]

Change the name because it will honour someone else - fine. 
 

Change the name because of one unsubstantiated paragraph in a book, while seeking to impose 21st century thought on someone from the 1930s - no. 

[Mr Plow]

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

Change the name because it will honour someone else - fine. 
 

Change the name because of one unsubstantiated paragraph in a book, while seeking to impose 21st century thought on someone from the 1930s - no. 

Although racism and discrimination has never been acceptable and never will be, perhaps it is sensible to review who our awards and trophies are named after.

[Eddie]

8 minutes ago, Mr Plow said:

Although racism and discrimination has never been acceptable and never will be, perhaps it is sensible to review who our awards and trophies are named after.

Racism and discrimination have been acceptable in the past though, as they still are in many places in the world now. As much as I’m sure we’d like to change that, it can’t be denied. 

[John Drake]

Please keep this on topic and Rugby League related.

Political soap boxes are not appropriate to this section of the forum.

Thanks for your cooperation.

[bird]

7 hours ago, Bostik Bailey said:

Its not about tampering with history, it about moving on. Harry Sunderland is long gone, regardless of what his views were or were not, why not change the name to celebrate another aspect of RL.

You want to trash the reputation of a respected figure of the game purely on an unsupported paragraph in a 26 year book. Its tampering.

[Tommygilf]

25 minutes ago, bird said:

You want to trash the reputation of a respected figure of the game purely on an unsupported paragraph in a 26 year book. Its tampering.

I don't see it as trashing the reputation at all. The name means nothing to me, and little to virtually everyone else alive right now bar his descendants and regarding the MOTM award. 

I'm yet to see a really convincing case why Sunderland deserves a special remembrance in the grand final beyond anyone else?

[Mr Plow]

9 hours ago, Eddie said:

Racism and discrimination have been acceptable in the past though, as they still are in many places in the world now. As much as I’m sure we’d like to change that, it can’t be denied. 

It wasn’t though. There have always been people opposed to it. This is why the slave trade ended and we had the civil rights movement ect. No ones denying racism happened and is happening now

[gingerjon]

7 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I don't see it as trashing the reputation at all. The name means nothing to me, and little to virtually everyone else alive right now bar his descendants and regarding the MOTM award. 

I'm yet to see a really convincing case why Sunderland deserves a special remembrance in the grand final beyond anyone else?

I asked before and I'm not sure it's been answered: why is the award named after Harry Sunderland?

[Poower Lad]

What about the Nelson Mandela award . 

[Bostik Bailey]

8 hours ago, bird said:

You want to trash the reputation of a respected figure of the game purely on an unsupported paragraph in a 26 year book. Its tampering.

No please tell me where it states that awards cannot change their name. We renamed the “player of of the year” to “man of steel”to the “Steve Prescot award”. 
 

I don’t care what his views were decades ago, when many people would hold similar views(out of pure ignorance rather than deep felt prejudice) but if we renamed the award to someone like Clive Sullivan, people may ask who was he, and we can tell them he was the first black person to captain a UK nation side. Who was Harry Sunderland a journalist and team manager from decades ago.

Which one will spark more respect for the sport from the lay person?

[Dave T]

The 'Harry Sunderland was racist' point was skirted over on page 1, this conversation has become wider than that, I'm not sure why people keep bringing that back up as those suggesting possible changes (including me) are not suggesting it because of a claim of racism. 

The conversation has moved on and is about naming of the awards and how we honour players from history overall. 

Just coming on moaning about unfounded racism is not relevant within the context of the thread. IMHO this has become an interesting discussion, let's try and keep it off the woke vs non-woke.