The Olympic Games and the Duke of Westminster's Appeal

THE OLYMPIC GAMES. 27 if all or even p o.rt of these dreadful things co.n be done for t he money, it does not cost very much to demoralize a nation ! Of course, it is quite true that £100,000 is in itself a large sum, but considered ns o...,fund with which it is hoped t o create a. wide– sprelld organization and t o assist the efforts of a very large number of p eople it is certainly not an excessive amount. Supposing we compare it, for instance, with th e o.nnuo.l expenditure in t hese islands on golf b o.lls. At o. low e timate there must be 100,000 people who play golf more or less regulo.rly, o.nd if on the o.v erage each p layer does not spend 30s. per annum on balls he gets off uncommonly cheap. This produces a total out lay of £150,000 p er annum, and every one knows th o.t what is spent on balls is only a fraction of the annuo.l e"-penditure on golf ! Upon my word, when t he m embers of the Olympic Committee contemplate such noble figures as those they may well be surprised at t he moderation of their appeal. So much for t he mat ter of filthy lucre. Now as to one or two other points. The example of t h e Americans has been freely used to point a moral for .us, and t o show us what we may come t o if we try to organize ourselves at,hletically. The Americans, of course, are well able to look after themselves, llnd in any case it is not my duty to defend them. Bu t when I see it stated that they have systemat ized th eir ge.ines to such an extent that only the super-excellent p erformer continues to play o.nd the average mo.n has become merely o. specto.tor, I can only say that such a condition of things has not come under my observation, though I have spent a greo.t many years in the United States and Cana.de. and sti ll pass most of my t ime in the latter coU11try. The truth a.bout the Americans is, I think, that a certain number of their men are deadly keen a.bout anything th ey teke up, not only games, but a.II kinds of pursuits. Moreover. they have recognized that in order t o excel they must organize themselves and must consent to be taught how t o do things properly. No doubt many of our men, too, .are keen enough, but in most departments of athletics we are mere he.phe.zo.rd by-the'light-of' nature individuo.Ji3ts as compared with the American.~. This condition of affairs is so well recognized that I have seen no attempt to deny it or e"--plain it a.way on the part of the opposition. Yet, as far e.s I can U11derste.nd the matter, it is because the Olympic Committee are :proposing that our men shall be taught and trained m e. systematic manner that they o.nd their pro– posals have been most heartily denounced. For the life of me I cannot understand why it is held t o be right, wise; and meritorious to tee.oh a young English– man how to row, play cricket, fence, shoot, and perform ~listics, and why it is highly undesirable, ih• fact almost iinmoreJ 1 to tee.eh and train him to roil, jump, throw the lio.mmer, and put the weight. . ..A pertinent comment was added ne.xt day by Mr. A. B. George, tlie honorary secretary of the Athletes' Advisory Club, who wrote :'- In Mr. F. W. Rolt's excellent letter on· the @lyliipio Go.mes Fund lie points out that £100,QOO iii IW lifuall sum• in ct>mpo.?ilioil: to the annual expendi– ture on golf l:lo.lls, May I supplement his remarks tiy·stating, that IUllilially the New Yorlt City Park's l!)epamnent spends• £20,000; tlie Board of Education ilOOIOOO, and the Pul:llici Recreation Committee £7,OOO :oiiltli~ upkeep of{atllletio groliiids and running traciks ililil the payment of· traineril; &c. ? Upwards of · 200 oiliffl! :&iiet'ibail· cities· are can'ymg· on a )jke work ill ~ enlieavour to'improve the,physique of-the nation. !tif.bom~h oui' ap~ for £100 ()00 iii pelirli a :ibeM baiptelle, and it will. be welli wh'enl the· whole 'matt«'· iaitaken-in• Mucf. by the·Stii'tel A PLEA FOR CONCENTRATION. A general " Review of the Situation " was given in The Times on September 22, from the pen of its Special Correspondent at the Games of 1912. His comments may usefully be repro– duced here :- " Let us U11ite (he wrote) on certain things to start wit h-no.mely(l)t hat no one has any other motive but that of p ublic spirit , no object except to decide w'ha.t is best and most wholesome for Great Britain, and (2) that we are all equally concerned in maintaining and, if possible, improving the present standard of Brit ish amateur sport. A good dee.I will be gained at the outset if every one will divest himself of sus– picion t hat some one else is plotting to corrupt the amateur spirit of t he country, and will believe that others have just as high ideals a.s and an equal earnestness of purpose with himself. " Standing, t hen, on this common ground, w.e can find other general propositions on which we can agree. First, none of us has an exaggerated opinion of t he Olympic Games in t hemselves. To be quite frank, few of us have ever been able to bring our- . selves a.s devotees of Brit i h sport t o regar.d them as a first -clas fixture. T hey cannot hold the same place in our affections as is h eld by our own meetings at H enley, or Lord's, or \¥ imbledon, or Hurlingham, or Bisley, or o.t Queen's Club when the Universities come together. But, secondly, it is indisputable that we h ave allowed ourselves to become associated with the Games or to have been ' drawn into ' them, as it has been phrased. By our action in 1908 we gave them our active support and encoure.gemeq~; · it was the holcling of the Ga.mes in London ·in thnt year that suddenly lifted them in the eyes of the sport-loving peoples of the world to a new plane of importance. P robably very few people in Great Brito.in understood what had happened. In 1908 Great Brite.in very easily held her place as t he leading athletic nation-that is to say, we won vastly more ' points ' than any other people. This was sufficiently in accordance with precedent that it did not surprise us; and in comfortable self-compla– cency- still not caring much nor holding great opinion of the Ge.mes-we went to Stockholm. THE LESSON OF STOCKHOLM, " But (and this is a third point on whioh we can all agree) the result at Stockholm was hardly what we had expected. It has been pointed out more than once in The T imes that we did not do as badly at Stockholm as the public, ·without any close analysis of results, generally believed. But we did badly enough to cause us considerable mortification at home, and to make it to be widely advertised abimt the world that the Britisli, as athletes, were a de– generate people. Other nations (_which have no Henley, Lortl's 1 Wimbledon, Burlingham, and so forth) think muoh more highly of the e:-ames tht\n we ; and the British failure at Stockholm was inter– preted by tliem more seriously than we at home believe tliat it deserved, ascribing it as :we do chiefly to the casual way, as compared with other nations, in whi!)h olii'' preparations for the Games were. made; and: to lack of training, disciplfue 1 and oi'galiizatioil. Each• of. till may liave a diftel,ent opinion as to how much bett.er· we can• do• another tune if our organization be more· complete1 but tbefe is no disagreement as t<5 the fact that in 1,91'2 our organization was, at beat, ibdifterent. 'llhow• \Vho liad• charge of'our•affilit'B di; not dlln~ it. Wliat' they say is· tliat they had- no t'tioftey,; thnqh they· ..a