OLYMPIC FENCER SAYS SENSATIONALISM HAS MAGNIFIED DISSENSIONS OF GAMES

The following is the first of two articles on the Olympic Games written especially, for the Crimson by Burke Boyce '22. Mr. Boyce, who is a former editor of the Crimson, was a member of the American Olympic Fencing Team.

I was interested to see, in a recent edition of the CRIMSON, an editorial dealing with the Olympic Games in general, and deploring the disgraceful outbursts and "mischlevous dissensions" that are supposed to have marred the playing of the Olympic Games at Paris this past summer. The CRIMSON is only following the opinion of most Americans and American newspaper-but that opinion is an unfortunate one, fostered by the desire for sensationalism and by a ready misunderstanding of the way "these foreigners" look at things. Certainly the members of the American Team knew little enough about dissensions and unpleasantness-until they got home and read about themselves in the paper, or had their friends ask them "Did you have a fight? Get challenged to a duel?" Then, and then only, did they realize that the Olympic Games had been a cross between a New York subway rush and an Elizabethan tragedy of blood.

The misunderstanding over the Games has arisen, It seems to me, from two main sources: first, the insistence of those at the head of affairs that the Games would be an immediate cure-all for international disagreement; and second, the failure to remember that the Games are athletic contests of the highest and most nervous sort.

Games Are Not For Diplomacy

To have representatives of every nation on the face of the globe meet together in athletic rivalry is a splendid idea, and if firmer friendships and better understandings spring up, well and good. But to say that the Games are promoted chiefly for the purpose of cementing friendship is to mistake effect for cause, and put the cart before the horse. The Games are for sport, not for diplomacy. But because they were not so considered, when they failed to be what they were not, and never intended to be, that failure was doubly emphasized in the eyes of those who had persisted in misunderstanding them. In other words, the Games were considered in a false light from the beginning by a great many persons: and consequently were dobmed to disappoint a great many persons a disappointment which showed itself in the exaggeration of disagreeable incidents, in the second place, those who competed in the Games were far from being trained diplomats, or even, perhaps, average representatives of their countries. They had been picked, not for the impression they might create, but for the points they could win. It would be no more fair to hold them to account for the official expression of their nation's sentiments than it would be fair to judge a university by the actions of certain bodies of its undergraduates after a football victory. Even in this country, where we are all, supposedly, one people, it would be impossible to draw a thousand athletes together for competitions without friction of some sort. Is it sensible, then, to expect perfect harmony among the athletes of many nations, all strung up to the tautest pitch of excitement? And is it sensible to regard any personal reaction to that excitement as the expression of the offending athlete's country?

"Dissensions" Often Only Funny

I do not say that there were no "dissensious" I saw several of them myself even took part in one wherein, if not wholly to blame, I was at least, to put it mildly, "hasty" Yet I have no animosity Aganist the country whose representative clashed with me nor did I have at the time. And to say that Denmark and America are on the verge of broken diplomatic relations as a result would be the highest kind of folly. There were "dissensions", yes, But, taken out of the false glare of newspaper talk, they were perfectly comprehensible, and at times even funny. They were merely the physical expression of personal and national character: and, understood as such, they cease to become the terrible things the scare-mongers would like to have us believe. Take, for example, the case of the Italian fencers. Their match with France was tied when the Italian and French champions finally crossed blades. It was an exciting moment Harvard-Yale football games played by two men would best express it. The judges were all of neutral nationality. At last this Frenchman who; whereupon the Italians, in their first burst of disappointment, accused the judges of unfairness, picked up their weapons, and marched out of the hall singing Viva Mussolin!" By the next morning, of course, they had cooled down and had apologized, Yet there was a final ripple to the excitement that illustrates beautifully, considered themselves insulted by the Italians accusations-all, that is, save one American judge, who took the whole affair as a joke. Whereupon the Italian, hearing of his coolness, took that coolness toward their insults as an insult to themselves! A double-hitch on the problem of "honor" that goes far to explain, and laguh away, a great many of the dangerous "dissensions" that marred the Games! Far from being "mischieyous", such experiences, if regarded in the proper and unsensational light, will even aid in international appreciation of character and feeling. A man-or a nation-becomes very little of an enigma once you have seen him in anger.

Frenchman Bit An English Ear

There was the famous case, of course, of the Italian-Hungarian duel-and of the Frenchiboxer who bit the ear of his English opponent. But what can you expect, in all common-sense? It is not so very long ago that individual members of rival football team, both Americans, and both supposedly united by the bond of a higher education, would "fight it out" by themselves after the game, is it so harrowing that two strangers, who have spent years in preparation to stake their reputations on the swing of a blade, should do the same? And the biting incident ended amicably. I believe, through the coolheadednes of a French referee. There are times when every athlete. revering to type-and no one can understand the experience so well as mother athlete himself; which is why I insist that too much emphasis has been laid on such reversions by the men-athletic audience.

Difficuity Not "Man to Man" Contests

It has been suggested that a remedy for this top-personal difficulty lies in the abolition of the "man to man" contests, such as boxing, diving, and so on. Yes, that is one remedy-like burning the lights all night because you are afraid of the dark. But it would be much better to realize in the first place that in a competition so close as to cause any hesitancy in the judges' decision, a win is neither a thing to be puffed up over, nor is a loss any disgrace of how! about, it should also be remembered that those who take part in "man to man" contests are used to the matter of decisions, and that grumble as they may, it is not something altogether new and baffling to them; nor possibly, is it the first time they have damned a judge. In fact, the damning may be move a matter of habit than of irritation. In my own sport, if every judge that I have heard condemned to the bonfire here in America had gone his way then and there, there would be about three competent fencers left in America-and those merely because they have always been too canny to act as judges! No; rancor over a judicial decision is nothing for a "man to man" contestant to become greatly existed about nor, in that case, anyone else either.

The Olympic Games are by no means the millenium; but neither are thy free for-all brawls. And the sooner these facts are realized, and sentiment and hysterical sensationalism done away with the better they will be able to function as it was intended they should.