interesting and profitable as a private study, but can be of no benefit or authority to a single individual till Dr. Sargent discloses the measurements of the "typical man."
The real question with regard to athletics in the colleges, as far as measurements are concerned, is this: "What effect do athletics have upon the growth of athletes, as compared with the growth of those who are not athletes, but who are otherwise under similar conditions?"
To throw light on this question, the writer obtained from Dr. Seaver, of Yale College, two sets of measurements of members of one class, so as to ascertain the growth for one year. The first set of measurements was made soon after the class entered college, and the second set was taken in its sophomore year. Complete double measurements were procured from one hundred and two men, the remainder of the class—between twenty and thirty men—having neglected to submit to the second measurement. Of these, twenty-two were out-of-door athletes, and eighty were not, though they were under instruction in light gymnastics during a large part of their freshman year. The question, therefore, was considered under conditions as favorable as possible to Dr. Sargent's point of view. The results are presented graphically on page 729 and in numbers on page 730.
In the table, the items of strength of back and legs, and of weight, are given in pounds. Capacity of lungs is given in cubic inches. The other figures denote millimetres and tenths of millimetres.
The chart gives the average growth of the athletes as compared with the growth of the non-athletic men. The lighter parts of the chart indicate the excess of growth of one class above the growth of the other.
Of the twenty-two athletes two were base-ball players, six foot-ball players, six rowing-men, and eight were track-athletes. Of the football men five were also rowing-men. The averages are given for the four sets of men, as well as for the two classes (non-athletic and athletic), that the reader may see for himself how each kind of exercise has affected those taking it. The figures for the special athletes are derived from so small a number of men that they can hardly be taken as conclusive. They are merely significant. The small gain in the average of "strength of legs" of the foot-ball men was due to the loss of strength on the part of one man. Without him the remaining five gained an average of forty-eight pounds.
The growth of girth of neck of the athletes, in comparison with the same item for the non-athletic men, is worthy of attention. The gain in strength of back of the track-athletes, and their gain in strength of arm, ought to be noticed.
To test the question of symmetry of growth, the differences between the sizes of right arm and left arm, of right forearm and left forearm, of right thigh and left thigh, of right calf and left calf, were
