The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1918-01-21
ATHLETIC CONTRASTS
(BY SOL METZGER)

play his golf without being rushed.
George E. Vincent, president of the
General Education Board. made, a
splendid address at the recent meet
ing of the National Collegiate Ath-
letic association, in which he pointed
out the great advantages in the mass
drill which is a part of the senersl
scheme of physical education of Dem
mark. He also let it be known be
tween the lines that he regretted our
colleges save little opportunity for
such physical training and that inter-
collegiate athletics might be held re-
sponnsible for this He had much
good natured sport at the hands of
AlonZo Stagg, the Chicago University
coach, who is a warm personal friend
of his.
Professor stagg replied. He first
regretted very much that the good
Lord had not endowed him with pow
ers of oratory. Then he referred to
the days when his friend George had
been at Chicago and especially be-
moaned the fact that George, while
at Chicago, had not taken ADVANTAGE
Of the massed drill, which is a daily
portion Of physical training at that
university. The "Old Man." as Stagg
is called by everyone who ever went
to Chicago, won his point in a friend
ly and amusing bout of words.
Stage, like great many other
| trainers and coaches, wants a more
general participation in athletics by
college men than is now the case It
remains for someone to show the
way. George E. Vincent, who is a
Yale graduate by the way, believes
that we must first adopt another
standard in athletics than the one we
now follow in our colleges TO accom-
plish this desired result. He leans
toward the foreign idea of mass drill,
yet he recognizes that our scheme of
things athletic goes well beyond that
in character training. AS a great
many men are now giving this prob
lem much thought it may be that this
year will sec it's solution. For one
thing our great environments offer a
fertile field for solving this problem,
and in them the solution may be
found
There remains much confusion in
the mind of many attacking this prob
lem as to just what intercollegiate
thinkers have clearly shown that they
do not stand for physical education.
as we think of that subject I'M its en-
tirety, Hbut rather the soul and spirit
of the college When that idea is
firmly established a big step will have
been made toward a solution.
Those who believe intercollegiate
sport to be physical education can see
no solution by this means of our
problem of evolving an athletic plan
which will make for sport for all. AS
result they condemn intercollegiate
sport. The broader view is to retain
it as a ub-division of physical edu-
cation both as a goal to strive for
and as a source of revenue for the
carrying out of some scheme of phys
zeal education.
The cantonment idea of sport is
sport for ALL 1t eventually may de-
velop the champion, but everyone is
desired as an active participant in
those contests from which comes the
winner. There is no great reason,
aside from the financial one, why such
a scheme may not prove practical in
our colleges after the cantonment has
shown the way. A similar and smaller
organization along the same lines can
be worked out in the college which
should prove especially efficient should
the college demand actual sport par
ticipation by all normal undergrad
yates. Four years of such training
during college life would come near
making every graduate an athlete;
we'll equipped not only with health
and strength, but with love for
sport which would remain with him
to his dying day and mean much Tor
the future man-power of this land.
Copyright, 1918, by Sol. Netzger)