(Ed. Note--The Crimson does not necessarily endorse opinions expressed in printed communications. No attention will be paid to anonymous letters and only under special conditions, at the request of the writer, will names be withheld.)

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

In reference to your editorial of May 15 entitled "Good Sports" it seems to me that your stand is not only confusing but hardly rational.

You attribute the difference between major and minor sports to the fact that "Because football attracted more spectators than soccer or lacrosse, and therefore gave its players more publicity, the idea arose that football was a nobler sport, and that its devotees were to be honored above the run of ordinary men." Is it not more probably true that the stiffer competition involved in major sports should of itself evoke a greater reward? After all a man who has one or two competitors for a position is less deserving of recognition than one who is successful in winning out over 20 or 30.

Playing the game for the game's sake is a very worthy ideal, but competition is the spice of all sports and if something as ephemeral as a letter adds to the zest why seek to cast it out?

As for the distinction between minor sports I agree with you that a uniform minor insignia would be a great improvement, but let the requirements for obtaining it be higher than they are for the present minor sport letter.

Let participation in a stated number of victorious games, or a total of so many points in wrestling, golf, tennis etc. be required for an insignia and a great many of the present unfairnesses will be eradicated.

I agree with you on the benefit of a uniform minor sports insignia, but let us not do away entirely with the symbol of a prowess other than scholastic unheeded as it is.

(Name withheld by request.)