No Headline

There appears in a recent number of "The Illustrated American" an article, purporting to be written by a Harvard sophomore, which reveals such a state of ignorance of athletic affairs here at Harvard that it demands public correction. The article deals with the matter of college athletics and their reputed over-importance and discusses in a very illogical and one -sided way Dr. Sargent's views and methods in athletic training. We shall pick out only a few of the mistakes and confine our attention to these.

In the first place, the writer conceives that athletic men here look on the best type of a man physically as something comparable to a "draught horse." Nothing need be said in answer to this but that the best physiques, as shown by Dr. Sargent's charts and as admitted by sensible men everywhere, are not necessarily those of enormous bulk and huge muscle. Symmetry, not size, is the test. The writer repeatedly confounds gymnastic work with the work of athletic contests and includes the former in his attack upon the latter. He makes the very popular mistake of seeing no middle ground in physical exercise, or if he sees middle ground he denies that it is recognized here at Harvard. In answer to this we need only ask the writer to use his eyes in the gymnasium any afternoon. There he will see plenty of men doing quiet gymnastic exercise either by themselves or in classes under Dr. Sargent.

The writer is evidently absolutely ignorant of the rule that no man can begin a career on any athletic team till he has passed a physical examination by the proper authorities. In the article the writer says, "One would presume that before a young man was allowed to pursue the difficult and perilous occupation of a record breaker, the proper authorities would ascertain whether he was constituted for such trying and critical work." Then the writer gives an awful picture of "the best all-round athlete that ever graduated from the Heminway Gymnasium," who "fell dead on the Harvard campus from heart disease." We are informed by the highest authority that no such accident ever occurred; the unfortunate was a fanciful creation of the writer's imagination. The sophomore very much overestimates the importance which the college authorities attach to athletic contests. He says that "especial leniency is shown in the class room and examination hall to men in training," etc. If he will look into the matter he will find that though the athlete in training may have a few more "cuts" granted him, he has to pass the same examination which other men pass and on the same standard of marking. Again, the writer cannot remember the name of any man prominent in college athletics who has since risen to prominence. This is most absurd. Without searching we remember men like Lodge, Winslow, Bancroft, Roosevelt, and the President of the University himself, all of whom were prominent in one or another branch of athletic exercise.

We cannot go further with the discussion here. It is a pity that a member of the University should give to the world so careless and unscientific a statement of affairs, especially when he shows by two or three passages in his work that he is not brainless, and might do better. Some of his ideas are excellent and worthy of attention; we would suggest to him that by his inaccuracy he has defeated his end and done harm rather than good, and that if he is going further with tale writing he will do well to take more time and more pains to make his work correct.