WHAT IS SPORT?

Evening Star, Issue 19328, 14 August 1926, Page 12

WHAT IS SPORT?

THE BEAL PROFESSIONALISM. (From the ‘New Statesman.’) In some form or other this question must have occurred to a great many people in England during _ thc_ past week or two. Every day, in spite rvi the coal crisis, the chief topic of the newspapers has been sport—golf, tennis, and cricket championships, and now there is rowing at Henley. And through it all wo, most of us, icel that there is something wrong. Apt ( ono Englishman reached oven the semi- j finals at Wimbledon, and in the open golf championship the first four were Americans, and there were only two Englishmen in the first ton. At cricket wo have done better—but wc did not wm. What is the matter with English sport? Is there anything wrong with it? The answer is both yes and no. 11 the object of games is merely In win at all costs, then our whole outlook is a wrong one; we do not go the right way about it. It is obvious that wo do not subscribe enough money to train and keep our potential champions, Hagen, on leaving England, declared that our golf players are “lazy.” He would have been nearer the mark if he had said that our golfloving public is stingy; it does not endow its professional “hopes” and enable them to devote tbeir whole time to training and practice. It is money that is the trouble; without money wo can never maintain our supremacy in the realm of international “ sport ” in spite of tho fact that practically every known outdoor game was invented in this island. But if on the other hand, wo arc right in regarding a game as a game, and “amateurism,” in its broadest sense, as being the very essence of everything that is worthy to be'called | sport, then we may take comfort to mir souls .and declare with a whole heart that there is nothing whatever wrong with English sport, and that indeed it hn.s never before been so flourishing as it is to-day. Games occupy an extraordinarily largo place in' modern civilised life, and probablv their popularity will increase for decades to come. Of that I fact in itself we do not see why anyone should complain. Outdoor games are an invaluable adjunct to_ life—so invaluable that wc do not think that even the great prominence given to them in our public schools is pcrinnsly excessive. But still they are only an adjunct. ‘Hiere is not much harm, and some good, in their being made tho chief business in life of the schoolboy, but if they become the onl- business in life of adult men and women, then as “sport” they are ruined. To take a. game too seriously is to torn it from j a sport into a. business—and that is exactly what most of these foreigners, who have, borrowed our games, do. They say wo are lazy, not serious enough, too casual about “ training,’ and so on. Surely 'we may not only admit such charges, but welcome them. We invented cnekcl, and tennis, and golf, as recreations, not as short cuts to newspaper fame and financial prosperity. It is time _ Englishmen searched their souls on this subject and found some satisfying answer 1o the question of “What is Sportt” _ ■ Tho cruieal point of tho problem is the matter of “ professionalism.” It is not, of course, a question of technieal professionalism. Well-to-do ama-j tours who have tvtver made a. penny j nut of the games they play may be I more “professional” than many ai nlayer who earns his weekly livelihood 1 Tiy making centuries or coaching.! Mademoiselle Lenglen, for example, ri j the verv type of a professional. So n j a. slightlv 'different sense is Mr Bobbie ; Jones. They are. perhaps, respectively the greatest tennis and goil players! who ever lived, and, of course., have J never in their lives accepted a cheque, for a match ; hut the game is never- 1 theless their profession and their life. Thev don not plfv for money, hut neither do they play for recrealcm ; | they pi a v for fame and the advantages! which thereby they derive. 'lhere ,S| no reason why they should be blamed | nr despised for that, any more than I we despise the greatest batsman .’n | the world. But' in any consideration \ of the fundamental questions ol sport it is certainly necessary to re in ora her that there is no real difference of status between a Lenglen, a llohls and a Bijhbie Jones. Such differences as exist are merely accidental. The real difference between ibe amateur and professional attitude _ha.si nothing to do with money. It, is a | nuest i til of “seriousness,” A man; who devotes Ids whole life to a game, ; studying it, “keeping fit” /mly fori it, even though lie be a millionaire.; essentially a proles,sional, and may doi more than any wage-earning player to j introduce the professional spirit into the game, and thus make it pio game | at all. 'Hie real amateur (paid or un-; paid! Hays for the soke of the game, | |!,,, ■'roC'"-sioiial (naid or unpaid) plays; merely to win at all costs. Hint is! the essential difference. - 1

And it has lately become a very important difference. For there is no doubt that those who are trained to “ play to win ” will win more often than not. Mile Lenglen is the outstanding example of this. How perfect and how dull the majority of her shots are! There are, of course, in her play, flashes of dazzling ability, strokes that oue would have supposed impossible, and that we should regard as a glorious fluke if we had not seen that she could produce them almost whenever she likes. But ,she never produces them for their own sake or cares to take a. risk. Her characteristic game is to play for safety, waiting for the inevitable error of her opponent. And that, of course, is the way to win. But it is not great fun either for herself or for the spectators. M. Cochot, who was expected to win the world’s championship this year, is another player of the same type. From time to time he makes brilliant strokes, but only in an emergency. In general he relies upon his opponent to win the game for him. For this attitude there may he much to bo said, hut certainly it 'is not “sport” as Englishmen have hitherto understood that word.

To bo sure of beating foreigners wc must certainly adopt their methods. We, must ‘‘train” like a boat race crew, and then play for safety. But is it worth while!- 1 What is sportf Consider the present agitation for a “ light to the finish ” in test matches. If county matches can usually be, finished in throe days why cannot test matches? Everybody _ knows the answer. It is this “ playing for safety ’’—turning the game into a business. County matches are for the most part sporting fixtures; test matches have become games in which gate money is the first consideration and individual success the second. Why should Hobbs’s play be so different whom his score is 70 from when it is 90? Naturally, and quite rightly, he wants his “ century,” but that is_ not an adequate excuse for his having abandoned his forcing strokes and taken an hour last Saturday to make 12 runs. (If only wo wore te adopt a. duodecimal notation the “century” bogey might become much loss harmful —so conventional is its foundation.) The stonewalling of the Australian captain in the second innings was even more indefensible ; for it was obviously a moment to hit and make a game of the match. The “ play to a finish ” school are demanding something which wc hope they will 'never get. They axe asking lor lour or five or six-day matches, which would not only utterly derange the infinitely more important county p’rogranmie.s," but which would lead to a new style of cricket of the dullest and moat unsporting character. If the demand wore granted it would become the positive duty of every test match batsman te play for safety and to hit nniliing but the very loosest of balls. Than that such a spirit should be introduced into English cricket we would rather sec the rest matches abandoned altogether. The present problem is bow to win in three days. It must either ho solved- on the obvious lines or else we had, better adopt some such suggestion as that which was made the other day by a correspondent of the ‘ Morning Post,’ who proposed (.bat every maiden over should count, as - runs to the fielding side. These considerations apply to every form of athletics. If “ professionalism ” in its real meaning cannot bo eliminated, then let us forswear international contests. Me invented ail these games, and it is our business to see that, thev remain games and not mere contest’s for that hardly more than mathematical superiority which seems to be the aim of mast modern international tournaments. In the Olympic Games nowadays we cut as a rule a fairlv poor figure; and when they are over some patriot peer writes to ‘The Times’ to point out that unless the |i(]hin* will subscribe, a hundred thousand pounds nr so to provide tor the proper maintenance and training of British athletes wo are likely to cut as poor a figure next time. Wol], why mu? What does it matter? What is

“ Sport ”? If there ip money available for sporting purposes, might it mu bo hotter spent on tlio maintenance of village cricket grounds and the provision of more facilities for outdoor games in onr industrial cities? Does it matter whether wc win or not in international con tests? For our part wc have no doubt at all as to the proper answer to that question. It is infinitely more important that we should maintain the spirit of national sport than that we should endeavor'to compete -for pre-eminence in those professionalised arenas where the latest international “champions'” meet and fight for money or fame. We. have a special responsibility in this matter because Great Britain is the homo of all these games, if we cannot keep them a.s games, then let us withdraw from international contests altogether. Otherwise they seem likely to fall to the spectacular level of a CarpentierDempsoy prize figln. “Keenness” is good always and in everything: but “efficiency,” in its modern and foreign application to games, is nothing less than the dcath-knol! of sport. ■