Olympic Games and the Duke of Westminster's appeal for £100,000

THE
OLYMPIC GAMES. 5
country except the United States is purely absurd,
the fact being that the bulk of the points scored by
other countries were in branches of sport which are
hardly practised in England, or in events in which
we
did not seriously compete. That we were systematic-
ally, or even frequently, beaten by any others than
Americans in the things, in which we are accustomed
to take part is quite untrue, although one exception
must be made in favour of the Long-Distance running
of Hannes Kohlemainen, of Finland, who was seri-
ously challenged only by J. Bouin, the Frenchman,
and that only at one distance. As for other countries,
the regularity with which, after the preliminary
and semi-final heats in the track events, whether the
distance was long or short, the survivors for the finals
were confined to American and British representatives
became monotonous. Had it not been for H. Braun
and R. Rau, of Germany, there might, in effect,
have been no other than the two Anglo-Saxon
nations competing. The one running event in which
Sweden or any other country achieved success was
in the Cross-Country run, in which the course and
conditions were almost ludicrously unlike those which
we associate with that event in England.
" To talk of any other country than the United
States as being on a par, or nearly on a par, with us
in the track events (always excepting H. Kohlemainen)
is nonsense. The exasperating thing was that,
being, as we were, so easily second, our men, for mere
lack of teaching, should have been made to seem
almost like children by comparison with the American
runners, when, in proper hands, rightly trained and
told how to run, there was no reason whatever why
the British athletes as a body should not have been
a better ` pack' than the Americans or have divided
honours with them at least evenly."
This refers, it will be seen, only to the track
events. The British performances in the Games
in general will be more closely analysed later.
It is sufficient at present to note in general terms
that the running events at Stockholm (still ex-
cepting Kohlemainen and Bouin) were on the
whole a duel between the United States and Great
Britain (or the British Empire). At long distances
we showed an immense superiority over the
Americans. At short distances they completely
wiped us out. In such Stadium events as the
javelin, discus, and standing jumps (with the
pentathla) which we do not practise, we neither
expected to win, nor did we win, a point. What
is most discreditable is that the United Kingdom
also failed to win a point in either of the running
jumps, in the weight, hammer; or pole vault.
M
ISCELLANEOUS
S
PORTS.
In the miscellaneous competitions outside the
Stadium we did very much better than the United
States. Taking the Swedish system of marking,
the comparison is as follows :—
U.S.A. U.K. Empire.
Stadium events
Other sports ..
87 15 28
42 61 90
129 76 118
But it has to be remembered that we competed
in these " other sports " on a much larger scale
than did the United States. While there were only
290 American entries in them there were 314 from
the United Kingdom and 193 from the rest of the
Empire, or 507 altogether. But so far from Great
Britain being " decadent " or " degenerate,"
there was nothing to show that we are not
still the best all-round athletic people.
B
RITISH
L
ACK OF
O
RGANIZATION.
The exasperating thing (to quote from
.The
Times
Special Correspondent's article reproduced
above) " was that, for mere lack of teaching, our
men should have been made to seem almost like
children by comparison with the American runners."
This " lack of teaching " was only one mani-
festation of the generally slipshod way in which
we competed at Stockholm. Nor is that any new
thing. A glance back to the table on page 4
will show that the United Kingdom is not im-
proving its position in the chief Stadium events.
Omitting the year when the Games were held in.
London, in the first two meetings we scored four
firsts out of a total of 29, and in the last two we
scored only one out of 39. This is only the in-
evitable result of slackness which grows only
more slack when all the rest of the world is
becoming much keener and taking the Games
more and more seriously.
As long ago as 1906 the Special Correspondent
of
The Times,
who was at the intermediate Games
at Athens, wrote:—
O
UR
S
LACKNESS IN 1906.
" The truth is that a total absence of organization
marked the arrangements for British representatives
at the Games. In fact there were no arrangements
at all, and the traditional English principle of leaving
everything to individual effort and initiative was
rigidly adhered to. In striking contrast was the
eN: cellent provision made for many of the foreign
teams; the American, for instance, arrived in good
time, accompanied by a trainer and physician;
they found a comfortable house prepared for them
and proper arrangements made for diet, baths, and
all the equipment of an athletic establishment.
Their training, continued regularly until the last
moment, and the series of victories which they, the
Scandinavians, and others achieved must be attri-
buted to these sensible and, indeed, indispensable
precautions. Owing to the apathy prevailing in
England no real effort was made to secure adequate
British representation on this interesting occasion."
(The
Times, May 6,
1906.)
I
N
1908.
At the Games of 1908, in spite of the huge total
of points which we scored, with the assistance of
being the Home Country, our want of organization,
especially in the lack of proper training of our
competitors in the running and field events, was
no less apparent. The Special Correspondent of
The Times,
summarizing the results of the Games,
then wrote :-
11
In many cases our men were as children beside
the athletes of the United States. Or, to put it
differently, they were as amateurs compared with
professionals. They have not been so well taught.
In many cases they have not been taught at all, but
run and jump and throw the hammer and the weight
simply by the light of nature. . . . Our hap-
hazard methods of training have served very well as