History
The award was founded in early 1985 by the British magazine Open Rugby and was awarded to Wally Lewis for his performances throughout 1984. Lewis and the other pre-1990 winners were initially recognised for the years that they collected the award, not for the year of their performances, but this was changed by Rugby League World magazine in 2010.
No award was made between 1990 and 1998 due to organisational difficulties, the award was resurrected in its original format in 1999 when Open Rugby changed ownership to become Rugby League World Magazine, which retained ownership of the Golden Boot.
Andrew Johns collected the award in 1999 and again in 2001, becoming the first player to win it twice. Darren Lockyer has since repeated that feat, winning in 2003 and 2006 becoming the only player to win twice while playing in different positions.
It was presented during the RLIF Awards in 2004, 2005 and 2006. In 2007, the RLIF did not organise any awards. To fill the gap, Rugby League World magazine asked its Golden Boot panel to come up with winners in the existing categories used by the RLIF.
In 2011, Rugby League World magazine began to award retrospective Golden Boots to fill in "the missing years" starting with Garry Schofield who was adjudged to have won the 1990 Golden Boot. Schofield was due to receive the award at the time, until the sponsors, Adidas, withdrew their backing.
Read more about this topic: Rugby League World Golden Boot Award
Famous quotes containing the word history:
“I think that Richard Nixon will go down in history as a true folk hero, who struck a vital blow to the whole diseased concept of the revered image and gave the American virtue of irreverence and skepticism back to the people.”
—William Burroughs (b. 1914)
“No matter how vital experience might be while you lived it, no sooner was it ended and dead than it became as lifeless as the piles of dry dust in a school history book.”
—Ellen Glasgow (1874–1945)
“To summarize the contentions of this paper then. Firstly, the phrase ‘the meaning of a word’ is a spurious phrase. Secondly and consequently, a re-examination is needed of phrases like the two which I discuss, ‘being a part of the meaning of’ and ‘having the same meaning.’ On these matters, dogmatists require prodding: although history indeed suggests that it may sometimes be better to let sleeping dogmatists lie.”
—J.L. (John Langshaw)