dpp18

which is, after all, a muscle test pure and simple. In the latter case, where a man raises, once only, a heavv weight, all that lic proves himself to possess is muscular control and great contractile power, but this does not guarantee sound internal organs, nor does it prove that a man would eonie out wcll in an endurancc test. The man capable ot łong feats of endurancc should live longest, and such a man will find his powers of morę avail in ever_v-day life than the man who has sacrificed vital strength for an extra few eighths of an inch of muscle, and perhaps the ability to raisc a few pounds morę in a certain position in a weiglit-lifting test.

I think the above will causc sonie of my critics, perhaps. to admit that, after all. 1 havc broadminded views on tliis important ąuestion, f. c., ''Wh.it is real strength?” Therefore, if a weight-lifting competition were lield, I should like to sec quite a number of lifts attempted, as is the method on the Contincnt, and to sec cach man go on with the lifting without too many opportunities for rest, so that we should not only ascertain who is possessed of greatest momentary strength but also who is possessed of endur-ing strength as well, and it is a combination of tliese two which makes real strengtli.

Neitlier tlo I consider a man a really strong man if he is in certain parts deyeloped out of proportion to otliers. If a man has tremendous arms and cliest and weak legs then he is only half a strong man. If he should have strong legs and arms and weak lungs or a weak heart, then again he is by no means entitled to lic callcd a strong man, and sonie day the incyitable breakdown will occur which will cause carping critics, always ready to attack physical culture, to point to such a broken-down athlete and say, “Hcre is proof of the harm done by physical culture and weight

18