CROSS-COUNTRY SEASON RESULTS IN PROGRESS

Athletic fans are all addicted to a peculiar malady known as "dope". At the beginning of any athletic season, those interested in the particular sport forecast the program with their "dope"; during the season the dope continues, and after the season these same men start doping the next season. I have heard many men say that they did not believe in this sort of thing, but in the end we all come to it, and without "dope" or forecast, there could be no comprehensive planning for the season ahead.

The "dope" on this year's Cross-Country Team was not encouraging. Starting the season without a single "H" man on the squad, we might have faced the season with a gloomy outlook. Added to this we had behind us a record of defeats dating back to 1916, for during the interim between 1916 and 1921 not a single race had been won by any Harvard Cross-Country Team. Last spring, however, we learned that the only way we were to achieve success ultimately, was by progress. We saw what progress did for the Track Team, and while we hoped that the Cross-Country progress would result in a victory over Yale, we were determined that we should watch our progress from week to week, and to try above all to learn why we went faster or why we did not come along.

The squad at the beginning of the season numbered close to 50, almost double the number we had last year. For the first two weeks we held practice from the Stadium rather than over the regular course at Belmont. The reason for this was that the Belmont course is a hard course, and for a beginner we thought that we were more likely to retain his interest if we did not run him over hills, but confined his running to distance rather than to the distance plus the hills. Our judgment proved correct, for during the first two weeks of practice the squad remained practically intact. After the first practice in Belmont, however, there was an appreciable drop in the squad, and no amount of urging brought this number back again. There is something important to consider for another year especially if the I. C. A. A. A. A. meet is to be run over a course similar to the one used this year. If courses could be approximately standardized not to include the wicked hills such as we have had at Belmont and at New Haven, it seems to me that we could develop more speed for our final race. For example, if the modified "Cemetery Course" was adopted for our course; if Princeton retains the course she is now using and if. Yale changed her course, we should have at least four meets where we should have the same kind of a course. If, however, Yale insists on the course she has used during the past two years, we cannot develop a team to compete with them unless we have the hills of Belmont for a training course.

From the point of view of victories, this year's Cross-Country Team cannot be considered successful, but from the point of view of progress, (incidentally our aim), we cannot consider the season a failure. We at least broke into the winning habit when we defeated Princeton by a single point. In the Yale Meet our showing was very poor, and an alibi for a Yale meet is never offered. In the Intercollegiates the following week we ran without the help of two of our best men, namely Captain Bemis, John Harris, and Lutz running below form. J. W. Burke was the only man to win his letter during the season).

At the suggestion of this year's manager the Student Council voted to award a "cHc" to scoring members of the Harvard team in the Yale and Intercollegiate Meets. This, I feel, will help the team because being a distinctive award, it might be one more argument for team spirit.