|
Never has there been a public question yet, but what
has had its boosters and knockers. In this enlightened age, there are but
few people who do not boost for athletics. There was a time, however, when
many men -- and educated men, at that -- felt strongly that for a student
to indulge in athletics was to waste his time. The young man was going
to school with the express purpose of studying, and to spend two hours
a day upon the athletic field was just so much lost time. The thoughtful men of today, however, know that
the best work cannot be done, mentally, unless there is a physical fitness,
and so they consider athletics a good investment -- thinking of the matter
from a standpoint of physical training only. When a boy is growing -- and even after he has
reached manhood -- his body is undergoing a constant process of storing
up energy within him. This energy is expected to find an outlet in work
-- physical work, but the ordinary High School lad has neither the time
nor the inclination, nor the opportunity to work off his superfluous energy
in this manner. Nor should he be expected to do so. He has to settle down
to work soon enough as it is, and he should be allowed to derive as much
pleasure, as is possible, from his days in school. Since, therefore, he
cannot have the manual labor, there must be something to take its place;
and we find a mot fitting substitute in placing the young hopeful upon
the athletic field.
Football, baseball, basketball, track and tennis
are all good to develop the physical side of the youth. From the purely
physical side there is not much to choose between them. If the boy takes
up but one branch of athletics, ALL are perhaps better than football, because
they can be indulged in practically the whole year around.
But it is much more interesting for the individual
to take part in each branch of athletics as it comes forward in its inevitable
procession. He does not have to be on the "Varsity" team in order to reap
the physical benefits, by playing on the "Scrubs," he gains just as much.
And it goes without saying that the class of teams a school can put on
the field is much augmented by having a full quota of second team men.
But the boy should be upon the athletic field
practically every day in the school year. It is a great mistake for him
to undergo a strenuous football season, and then to subside from athletic
activities until the following year. From a physical standpoint it would
have been much better for him had he kept away from athletics entirely.
To raise one's self rapidly to a high point
and then, just as suddenly, to fall back into a rut, always tends toward
the detrimental -- morally, mentally, spiritually, as well as physically
-- because he is a strong governing
factor in our lives, and once the habit
of backsliding is acquired, the stimulus to reach upward is soon lost.
And this matter of the schoolboy keeping at
some branch of athletics the year around should be continued through life.
It is just as bad for a man, who has had an athletic career through his
high school and college, to neglect physical training when his school days
are finished -- as it is for a student to drop into athletic oblivion as
soon as the football season is closed.
This would not necessarily follow if a man's
future lay in the direction of agriculture, for instance; that is, if his
work centered around the physical. But a man whose work keeps him "inside,"
should take up tennis or "Gym" work or something with the emphasis on physical
exertion. Otherwise, he is apt to become rotund and flabby, or physically
deteriorated to such an extent that his body is an invitation for the germs
of tuberculosis to come and feast.
I have been speaking of athletics merely from
the standpoint of the physical benefits derived therefrom. I believe that
we would be justified in making them an important part of our school curricula
even if there were not ADDED benefits. To my mind, however, the greatest
argument in their favor lies in the fact that they train the youth for
his battle with the world. In laying this phase before you, I must differentiate
between "good athletics" and "bad athletics," or, according to their order
of presentation -- "bad" and "good." And let us use the game of football
as our vehicle to make the point clear.
It seems to me that football is carried on too
much as a matter of business; that is, too great emphasis is placed on
winning. A coach feels that his reputation is at stake and in order to
hold his job, he must put out a winning team. He does not, therefore, consider
the welfare of the youth under his care as much as he does himself -- for
if coaching is his business, he must hold his job that he may live. It
is perfectly natural, then that he is apt to drill his team in methods
that are somewhat shady. His first step is to work up a system of signals
with the quarterback so that he can conduct the play from the sidelines.
This is strictly against the rules set down, but it does not take an immense
amount of gray matter to "get around" the rules in this respect. He robs
the players of the opportunity to THINK FOR THEMSELVES; but his team must
make a respectable showing, at any cost!
Next, he shows his men how to twist an opponent's
knee without being seen by the officials; and the best methods of injuring
the players in the tackle. His idea is not so much to down the opponent
as it is to injure him so that he will have to leave the game. The minds
of his men become saturated with "dirty" tricks -- and that sort of thing;
but never mind, they are out TO WIN.
One team that I know of, pumped air into the
ball until it was as hard as a brick and then capped the climax by making
it slippery with polish. This piece of headwork was to keep the much lighter
opponents from handling the forward pass to advantage; and the ruse worked
-- the GAME WAS WON.
Many other instances might be cited, but they
need not be employed for they all point to the same thing: they develop
DEPENDENCE rather than INDEPENDENCE, and fill the mind of the youth with
shabby standards. On an ethical basis football, carried on in this manner,
is a detriment rather than a benefit. It trains the youth for his battle
with the world, in some respects, but it is the wrong sort of training.
I maintain, however, that if football is conducted
in the proper manner, it has no equal for mind training. It teaches the
boy to play CLEAN and HARD. He learns to forget himself entirely in a fight
against constant opposition and discouragement. He learns that there is
no such thing as "quitting" -- though he may feel that human endurance
is exhausted. And behind it all, he knows that he cannot do his best work
unless he is living a life that is clean and well regulated.
These things are all, certainly, elements of
success in the world of accomplishment. They could be taught, perhaps,
without the necessary physical strain of a football season' but because
of the enormous intensity with which a boy plays football, the impression
on his mind is deep and lasting.
What is true of football applies to the other
branches of athletics, though not, perhaps, to so great a degree.
We all wish to make a success of our lives.
That goal is set before us from earliest childhood. Let us, then, first
make a success of our athletics. If we do this, we have certainly and surely
made a long step in the direction of our future success -- of world accomplishment.
V. W. Shutt.
|
