ABSTRACT
In his efforts to expand upon the thoughts, Ward needs to consider the wider impact and symbolism of sport. His next contribution to this discussion, furthermore, cannot be afraid to directly challenge specific historians and publications. Without these particulars, his essay exhibits little more than a hitand-run approach towards criticising sports history, rather than a thorough analysis of the sub-discipline’s strengths and weaknesses. Ward might furthermore seek to depersonalise the argument. Undoubtedly, most historians, and indeed all academics, have their own personal stories to tell, and this no doubt influences their approach towards subject matter, but interest in a subject is not necessarily a slippery slope towards becoming uncritically immersed in it. One cannot damn an entire discipline of academics, practitioners and (by implication) users simply because of a few bad experiences in school. Ward’s further inability to display a more nuanced understanding of sports history, leisure history and their interrelationships with other disciplines shows that, while he criticises sports historians for ascribing undue importance to sport, he himself is privileging a ‘mainstream’ history that might exist only within his mind. Ward’s position is indeed a balanced one, and thankfully he acknowledges the value and potential of sports history, stating that: ‘Mainstream historians . . . do need to recognise the high quality of much work from the field of sport history’. Most reputable historians of sport have very little to apologise for, however: Ward’s warnings on the wider cultural relevance of sports history might be important ones to keep in mind for certain sporting enthusiasts, but they are already ones widely observed by historians. At the same time, sport cannot and should not be sold short as a subject worthy of historical study.
