ATHLETICS ON THE CONTINENT

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 235, 23 December 1927, Page 11

ATHLETICS ON THE CONTINENT

HIGH STANDARD IN GERMANY BRITISH CHAMPION’S IMPRESSIONS I’HEKE is no doubt that the Germans take their sport very. seriously. The impression one gets, says a South Afriean ex-hurdle champion who has recently been on tour, is that they consider sport is not a game in which only a few indulge and which the rest watch, but that it is for all.

Iff that country the tracks—admirably fitted out for running and field events —are crowded with men and women of ctll ages. Most of them seem w he there for the sake of exercise an d pleasure. excellent facilities JL most impressive sight ts the Gharjottenburg Stadium, originally built for the Olympic Games of 1916. The gtadium belongs to the State and is crowded daily. It has a 600 metre running track, and round this track a cycle and light car track; there is also a 100 metre swimming bath and numerous changing rooms, baths and a restaurant. Visitors notice how the comfort of athletes is studied—and one ■wonders what foreign athletes would think of our own inadequate arrangements. Again at Potsdam, the running track, football grounds, tennis courts, etc., are the property of the town. The track Is always in capital condition and is particularly well provided with jumping pits. i These particular grounds are a war memorial; and to what better use could one devote money given for a memorial? It is not merely that it may give pleasure, it has also the object of building up the nation physically. Great Britain has been called many times “The Motherland of Sport.” “It is time,” says this ex-hurdle champion, "that we in England realised that there are many lessons that we could learn from 'The children of Sport,’ when the Germans use the phrase ‘The Motherland of Sport.’ regarding Great Britain.” They mean by that “The founder of games,” more than * The home of sportmanship.” The latter is a very hackneyed and misused word, but there is no ether, and on this subject there is something to be said. A WRONG CONCLUSION One so often hears as a criticism of the Olympic Games that foreigners do not run fairly, and that England ought to have nothing to do with the Olympic Games for this reason. “.Not only is

this utterly false, but,” continues the ex-hurdle champion, “I would go further and say that you stand a better chance of fair play abroad than you do in England at a great many meetings. Of course, I except championship meetings and inter-club meetings in England, and realise that there are a few countries in Europe that have a great deal to learn.” What is the difference between foreign and British meetings? Abroad nearly all are open scratch meetings with a number of relays and a number of inter-club contests. Open handicap events are a thing of the past, and as a rule silver or bronze medals, sometimes cups or statues, are given as prizes—but the value is far below that of the prizes given in Great Britain or South Africa. THE DIFFERENCE The fact is that abroad all athletes run for two reasons—to keep fit and to bring credit to their club or town. In England the best athletes run for the same reason, but a number are content with mediocrity provided that, with a big handicap, they can now and then win a. prize worth £7. If there is the certainty of receiving a good start why should they bother to improve? Abroad if you do not improve you have no chance of winning. If a man is a true amateur he surely ought not to quibble at being given, say, £6 instead of £7 worth of goods.

One point more. Abroad, when an athlete runs he finishes the race. In a heat of a handicap in this country nearly half the field give up except in the sprints. What we want in South Africa is inter-town or district contests, more relay races, no handicaps except short limit, and prizes that are mementoes —not valuable goods.

Inter-town or district relays are the beginnigs of better things. Let us, at any rate, learn the lesson from the “foreigner,” and not think that because England started the game, they know better than the “foreigner.” In many ways—certainly in organisation —they are excellent.