CHAMPION ALL-ROUNDER.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 208, 2 September 1926, Page 13

CHAMPION ALL-ROUNDER.

A. AND N.Z. DECATHLON WINNER,

Records fell like leaves in autumn at the recent athletic championships in Brisbane, five Australasian and seven Queensland marks going by the board. To some extent this welter of recordbreaking served to draw attention to the individual specialist* of the Queensland gathering, and to eclipse the great allround merit of the decathlon winner, Max Kroger, of Victoria.

I The decathlon has come into increased I favour at athletic gatherings in recent years, largely as a result of the prominence given to it at the Olympic Games, where it is regarded ac the supreme test of the champion all-round athlete. The decathlon consists of ten events, which are as follows: 100 metres flat, 400 metres flat, 1500 metres flat, high and long jumps, 110 metree hurdles, pole vault, shot put, throwing discus and javelin. This year the New Zealander, J. W. Shirley, was expected to be hard to beat for the all-round title, but he was unable to reproduce his best form. Kroger, a splendidly-built athlete, was wonderfully consistent from start to finish, and I his victory was anticipated by his team- | mates right from the beginning. j Kroger started off by winning the 100 metres flat in the fine time of 11 2-as. He followed this up later with several good performances, notably 52 2-5s for the 400 metree and 21ft 3iin for the long jump, winning all these events outright. At the end of the series he was well ahead on points. The grand totals were as followe: Kroger (Victoria), 6306.766 I points; Spicer (New South Wales), J 5750.632; Keekinen (Queensland). 5740.001; Beak (Queensland), 4110.991; Shirley (New Zealand), 3765.607; Moore (South Australia), 3028.497.

THREE GREAT SPRINTERS.

THRILLING OLYMPIC DUEL.

Scotland's Olympic champion sprinter, E. H. Liddell, in an article in an English sports paper, has made an interesting comparison between the styles of Harold M. Abrahams, J. V. Scholz, and C. W. Paddock. If you watch ths trio in action (he wrote) you will probably think that Abrahams is the more laboured runner of the three; he seems to have to expend

I more energy to get the desired result, yet , this very fact only serves to confirm his real greatness. 1 It is an inspiring thing in these days, when we hear so much about the "decadence" of England, to realise that poat- | war England has produced a runner, indigenous to its soil, who, at the zenith of hie career, has no equal in the world as a match-winner. 1 Scholz may have been a sweeter mover, [■with more rhythm and balance, and

Paddock may have been more machine - like in his stride, but, when it came to a fight, Abrahams was supreme. Nothing could illustrate this better than a remark he made to mc when he came in after winning a thrilling semifinal with Paddock and Bowman in the 100 metres at Colombee. He had been left four feet at the gun, and the two great Americans were out of their holes like a flash. No man in the world has ever given Charlie Paddock a start of more trian a yard in a hundred yards race and run him out of it, but Abrahams did it, his terrific finish thrilling the Stadium. When he came in I said: "You were badly away.'* He said: "Don't talk of it; I saw five in front of mc. But I, won't be left a second time." There spoke the match-winning temperament. It was not boastfulness at all, but the conviction of a man who realised that England's hopes rested on him, and who intended to live up to them. All the world knowe that Harold was not "left a second time." As a matter of fact, he never started better in his life, and neither Scholz nor Paddock ever headed him. I always like to think of the fine sportsmanship of the big army of American sporting writers who watched the finieh. For no one gave Harold a louder cheer than they did. It will be remembered that Scholz and Paddock turned the tables on Abrahams the following day in the final of the 200 metres, in which, incidentally, I ran third. There were critics, ignorant of the real facts, who ascribed Abraham's inability to finish among the placed runners to what they were pleased to call "his loes of nerve." The truth was that, while he would probably have been beaten in any event, because Scholz and Paddock ran like angels that afternoon, Abrahams for once made a mistake in tactics, and dropped behind for a, final effort instead of lying up with his field all the way. The result was that he wae giving away an impossible start from the top of the straight. Paddock knew he was running in his last Olympic test, and for once he recaptured the form that made him invincible in previous yeare. He was in front right up to the last twenty metres, with those arms of his going in the characteristic windmill way—balance perfect, as well as form. But Scholz was level ten yarde from the post, and only the judges knew who was first as they broke the tape. Abrahams finished last, quite run out, and his defeat rather confirms my impreesion that his style takes a heavy toll on his physical attributes, especially over a distance greater than a hundred yarde. Scholz, on the other hand, seems to take less out of himself, and keepe his balance better. This was not enough when ho just went under to Abrahams in the "hundred," because, as I have said, Abrahams had the will to win, and was able to maintain it until the finish; over the longer distance, however, the stylist prevailed.

Paddock has had a marvellous career, and he, too, is a "made" rather than a natural runner—l mean that he always gives you the impression that it is costing him much effort to win, like Abrahams, whereas Scholz just moves easily on.

The trio, however, have probably never been excelled in the history of athletics for spe^d—as a trio—and it is something to look back on the experience of having run with them in that gruelling final.

I was able to keep in third place, but although I was at the top of my form I could not increase my speed by a fraction of an inch. It is a race that I shall always remember.