The Olympic Games and the Duke of Westminster's Appeal

6 THl!J O.LY.JJIPJC OAllIEJ:J. long a.s we had only each other to contend with. . .. If we are to compete against the world, especially _ against such business-like athlete· a the Americans with any hope of improving om· performances this year, we must be businesi,like OO'l," (The 1.'imes. · July 27, 1908.) lN 1912. In 1908, the Games being in London, we did not have the problem of organization for competition in a. foreign country to contend with ; in 1912, at Stockholm, we had. Of the character of our competitions on that occasion Tlte Times, in a leading article at the time, said :- " I ~ is not that we are a deco.dent people-we an, nothing of the kind- but that we do our best to appear so in the eyes of the world. . . . Tho line between professionals and amateurs is often hard to draw, but it is obvious that a large proportion oi our best runners at Stockholm were amate11rs in the most eclectic sell!,e of the term. They ran by th'3 light of nature and they did it for the fun of the thing; nor was it their fault, or any sign of decadence in England that they won no more than they did. • . . But we have to recognize that it is pointless to stake our national reputation in international competitions without creating the mechanism in this country which such competitions require. Two things are wanted-a determination to organize P.roperly and funds. At present it is hardly an e'xaggeration to say that there fa no organization at all. • . _ The immediate and essential necessity is to prevent the public from maintaining the attitude of indifference which it has hitherto adopted towards the Olympic Games. We cannot now withdraw from the Games ; and if we enwr them a.t all, we should enter them with a due regard for the reputa– tion which we stake." (The T imes, Aug. 5, 1912.) ill.-PUBLIC APATHY AND FINANCE. More than one reference has been made to the " pqblic a.pa.thy .,, wifil). which the Olympic Games a.re regarded in the United Ki.ngdoJ!1. It is not nc~~ to dempn11tra.te that such a.pa.thy has e*t:aj, for we all know it. But the reason why it ~xist.s 'Yhen in almost every opher country the ~·~es f.1,re con!li4ered of the first importance ~ worth inquiring into. The ea.uses a.re not far to ~k. The words in which the Special Correspon– dent of Tke Time& a.t the Stockholm Ga.mes aiµmµa~ ~~ chief of the cll'\ises and their effect on the showing which we ma.de a.t the ~mes may be repea.~ he~ :- ·o~ ~V~TAG]!llf• :•Jn. tJ!,e tint p~ ~ur iq.!:l,31 is po~ tJi,e Ql,..P,o j4eal. We hf.1,ve, in fac~, never yet l>r,:,ugli.fi o~y~ t,o take ~~ Plyµipic Gl!,mes alqet.h!'r aeri,:1QB!.y. To be ~ntirely ~. th,ey l!,1t,ve not 1t,p~ ~ us ~ stand for the besi; in &IJU!,~JIJ' swrt ; a.µd it is undeniably true that the Olympic Stadium cannot :qa.ve, &l)!l pp>~bly pe:ver ~ a.cqqire, the a.pm<>jpJi,~re (!f LQ~'s, of }Jeoley, qf d.ow~, qr Wi.Jp~ledon, or Queen's Club on t;he day of Uie Umverility Sports. Measured by the standards to which we are aocustomed, the Olympic Ga.mes have ~~ t.o us t.o be ~~~ second-ra.!ie ~ ; ~ litJr9in our very strength has beep our wealmess. Other countries have no Lord's or Henley or Wimbledon. To them the Olympic Games stand alone, representing the very best. They have no ' Grand ' and no ' All-comers' ' prize, and they do not tmderstaud ho,v it is possible, nor do they believe us when we tell them, that the winning of the. e is more coveted than ,·ictory in the Olympic Regatta or on tho Olympic lawn-termis courts. Th is year the lawn tenn is at Stockl10lm suffered not a little by conflict with the Wimbledon tournament; and the Games must always conflict with one or another of our meetings, be it Henley or Bi lcy or Wimbledon. It is rea sonably certain that, unless we change om· national · point of view, our best men (or crews or teams, a1 the case nmy be) will not care four yea.rs hence to ' cut ' our own meetiJ1gs for the sake of going to Berlin. Other natious, however, will not understand our motives. They will only know that in the aggregate we fail to win points. Nor, perhaps, will they be orry. But the actual clashing of dates, and the consequent loss of so many points in an individual event, is of less import– ance than the underlying fact that we alone of all peoples possess fixtw·es of our own of such importance that they make us think a little contemptuously of Olympic honours. As long as we place our own events first and take p!),rt in the Games only more or Jess incidentally and as it happens to suit us, so long must we be at a disadvantage as compared with those countries which are concentrating their efforts through the whole four-year period in bringing to the scratch their perfect strength in every com– petition which the new Olympiad will offer. " Our strength, also, begets weaknes..q in another way. If we had not played our games so much, and organized them so thoroughly in the past, we should not now have Governing Bodies which, while so useful (both in orgaµizing the sports at home and as guarantors of !), certain standard of ama.teurship), have, by allowing tµeir sensitiveness and jealousy to weigh with them, been a serious embarrassment · _securingJepresentation at the Games by our full strength. In most other countries the Olympic· authorities are, a.t least fpr Olympic purposes, supreme. They do not have to con– sider the sensitiveness and rivalry of old and deeply intrenched associations ; nor do the people of other countries understand how that sensitiveness and rivalry can be permitted to stand in the way of ' patriotism.' GAMES veT8U8 ATHLETICS. "It is, again, to our disadvantage, from the Olympic point of view, that in Great Britain we attach so much larger importance to games than we do to pure athletics. As a nation we do not think much of track athletics. Crowds will not flock . to an athletic meeting a.s. they do t,o footba.ll and cricket iµatches ; and a.t 01.Jl' public schopls (and this ·is even mo~ true