...and the article:
Incorporating Strong Endurance, the Fighter Pullup Program and Grease the Groove have been an enormous success at Prescott. We have seen noticeable physical improvements throughout the year and a half we’ve been implementing these programs.
www.strongfirst.com
What a fun article - judging from the photos these kids seem never to touch the ground from one bell to the other. Every time there's a new article I read it right away and it's rarely not worth the time. I miss the podcast though...
In 1960, JFK wrote an article for Sports Illustrated titled " The Soft American ." Worth reading, IMO.
On Dec. 26, 1960, President-elect John F. Kennedy penned a piece for Sports Illustrated touting the importance of “physical soundness” for Americans — for kids and grown-ups alike. A precursor to today’s America’s Great Outdoor Initiative, which encourages families to get outdoors, it hit the...
www.recreatingwithkids.com
So was every US child of the 1950s as fit as cultural memory holds, or did 60% fail the trivial-seeming Kraus-Weber test? The two can't go together which suggest there is some selective or wishful memory of the "back in my day" type going on ?
There was a simple explanation for why the comparatively well-nourished and sporty American kids did worse than European ones in the KW test. In Europe PE classes were more based on group calisthenics which made the kids better at adopting the essentially gymnastic poses in the KW test. If it had been a bleep test or something else then the American kids, doing less gymnastics or calisthenics but more running and team sports, may have done better.
Who knows, but also does it matter? A brief test could never really assess all-round athletic development. Even tests carefully designed to do that (eg the NFL combine) can be manipulated when success in the test becomes an important goal in its own right. Likewise the President's Fitness Test adopted some of the KW tests and mixed in a few more, but without any real systematic research justification. What you'd naturally find is that people have bodies that excel at some parts and struggle at others, and those who train to succeed at a partial and incoherent test may pass the test without really becoming any healthier. Likewise we here prize those who achieve the rare versatility in strength to become a Beast Tamer, but would never expect them to be the healthiest people just as a result of doing so!
In short these tests caught on because they supported a narrative of cultural decline or decadence which is great for making political points. Naturally Eisenhower was personally concerned with the question of future US military fitness too. But they have been a pet concern of many presidents since.
The sad thing is that the very early recommendations of the President's Council for Youth Fitness actually revealed a much more holistic view of childhood health, advocating open-ended and self-guided play and hobbies; more sport options for girls; resources for children who weren't naturally athletic stars but enjoyed fishing, bowling, other active pursuits; mental and emotional fulfilment; playgrounds and open areas; even closing roads (this in the car-mad late 50s!!!) to promote active transport and play.
There was even early resistance to a bureaucratic testing regime, but as the other stuff all
cost money and rigorous testing suited the Fordist tendencies of the time, that was what kids were left with...
Nostalgia for a pre-lapsarian past tends to blind people to the fact that shame, fear, ranking and classification have always been a weak substitute for opportunity and motivation. Great physical fitness leaders understand this instinctively. I think it's revealing that when people consider who has inspired their journeys of physical improvement it's usually people like parents, peer role models, Scout leaders, team coaches... very rarely PE teachers and drill sergeants. With all due respect to the many great PE teachers who
do get it.