[TO THE EDITOR Or THE "SPECTATOR.]
SIR,—The writer of the article " Games versus Athletics " (Spectator, July 20th) will have the approval of many athletes. Games, not only for the physical benefit which they ;confer, but also for their usefulness in developing activity, pluck, endurance, initiative, esprit de corps, and other valuable traits of character, will always be the greatest national athletic asset we possess. But games require green fields, -and these are becoming increasingly difficult to obtain. They
require, too, co-operation and expenditure, not always easy to get, so that the community in many cases is thrown back upon individual effort. Athletics here fill up the gap.
We have too much responsibility as a nation to " throw up the sponge" because our athletes have been unsuccessful at this year's Olympiad. If the contests are analysed, it will be found that the majority of the winners are of British origin, This is especially the case in purely athletic events.
The points gained by the official winners were largely rein- forced by their successes is the miniature rifle contests and yacht racing, and these events do not call for any athletic excellence any more than the games of chess or draughts do.
If we wish for success in the next Olympiad at Berlin iu 1916, we must have better organization. A National Olympic Society, with a practical and patriotic council, should be formed, their objects being— (1) To find the suitable physical material.
(2) To train it.
(3) To pay expenses, if necessary. (4) To ensure that the rules be straightforward and equitable to all countries.
If this were done I feel sure that the results at Berlin would be very different from those at Stockholm this year.
Meanwhile, as an athletic nation, we must smile at our defeat and congratulate the victors.—I am, Sir, &c.,
A. ALEXANDER,
Principal Southport Physical Training College.
Previous page
