EDITORS HERALD-CRIMSON, -Dear Sirs: -The writer has been much interested in the late discussion of regulations for athletics. In giving close attention to the principles which have governed the actions of the faculty, both during the discussions of last year and during the present controversy, it has seemed to me that the question of competition in athletics has had considerable underlying influence in the formation of regulations. This is one of the points upon which the faculty and the undergraduates seem to differ. It is perhaps desirable, as the faculty appear to wish, to lessen the element of competition. But can the faculty do this and at the same time accomplish what is generally accepted as their aim, viz.: promote athletic interests, or perhaps, rather, to save them? Is there not a direct opposition in the two ideas, lower the competitive element, and support the interests of athletics? It has always seemed to me that competition is the very coundation upon which all athletics rest. Any thrust which diminishes competition will diminish in exact ratio the amount of interest taken in our sports, and as a direct result the amount of exercise taken by our undergraduates. We hardly like to realize this perhaps, but it is a fact too important to overlook and too evident to contradict. Twenty years ago the students of Harvard College took practically no exercise in comparison with today. The greater majority of our sports have sprung up since then. Foot-ball, base-ball, lacrosse, tennis, track athletics, etc, have passed up through deferent stages of development; they started with the school boy's idea of playing "for the fun of the thing," in which stage little interest was taken, and soon received the instigation of competition which has been the making of them. Men will not train hard for the mere interest in the sport. There must be something to win, whether glory, or a medal, or a record, or all combined. And it is a mistake to suppose that it is only those that have been successful enough to enter the contest that have been benefited. The eight men who train for our greatest competitive event-the Yale race-are the ones who advance our boating interests the most throughout college in general. Do away with this Yale race, and our class races would feel the effect materially, and might possibly, in the course of time, themselves drop out. As the University crew is the keystone to all boating interests, so in each branch we can find a competing body which gives life to the rest. Thus the faculty, in making regulations which materially hurt the element of competition, in our athletics, are aiming a home thrust at physical training itself under the mistaken idea that they are benefiting it.

Another evil in athletics, which is the result of competition, is said to be unequal development produced by training for specialities. In answer to this we need only look at the prominent athletes in the different branches. They are almost without exception healthy, and well developed men. Athletes are beginning to see that the best training for a specialty is the thorough development of the whole body, and not the abnormal development of particular muscles. When this idea has become generally accepted, as it seems probable under Dr. Sargent's teaching that it will, then this objection to specialities may be thrown aside. As to competition, it may be an evil, but it is a necessary evil. We must accept our athletics with this evil or not at all. '83.