The tenor of Dan Jenkins' article, Punt, John, Punt! (Nov. 13), is exquisite. It clearly captures the essence of John Pont's positive personality, the delirious dilemmas of Indiana's magnificent sophomores and the bubbling, nervous anticipation of Hoosier fans across the nation. Congratulations. Really.
PHILIP M. MCGARR
I thoroughly enjoyed Dan Jenkins' wonderfully entertaining article. His description of the numerous weird incidents that have assisted the Hoosiers was particularly captivating. My reaction, however, is that it is about time the Hoosiers got an assist from fate. During the years I attended Indiana University, the just-as-weird incidents that went against the Hoosiers were myriad. Indiana has built up so large a backlog of bad breaks that we alumni can accept a few fortuitous gifts without making any apologies.
I'm glad the law of averages has finally shown that the IU football team is not being discriminated against. The Supreme Court should be proud.
Rancho Cordova, Calif.
As an addition to Indiana Athletic Director Bill Orwig's poem (SCORECARD, NOV. 6) concerning the plight of John Pont's punter, I propose the following: "Pont pouts as punter picked procedure poorly."
November 27, 1967
In the future: "Pacify Pont by properly punting when proposed."
GREGORY H. STONE
East Lansing, Mich.
WHAT'S THE POINT?
That "curious California scoring system that allows the maximum of five points to the winner of a round and none to the loser" (They're Still Waiting for Jerry, Nov. 6) is, despite Mark Kram's skepticism, quite equitable and, in essence, quite venerable. This system is simply the reverse of the five-point-must system that has been used in a number of states (e.g., Illinois) for quite some time. The latter method gives the winner of a round five points and the loser four or less, depending on his performance.
The equity of the California point system is easily demonstrated by the first Patterson-Johansson fight in which Patterson was downed seven times in the third round. Assume Floyd won the first two rounds. This would have given him a two-round advantage, to none for Johansson, in New York (where, in fact, the bout was held), a 2-0 point advantage in California and a 10-8 point advantage in Illinois. Assume now that Patterson managed to survive the seven knockdowns in the third round and kept away from Johansson for the rest of the round. In California the three-round totals would have read five points for Johansson, two for Patterson. In Illinois Johansson would have been leading 13-10, but in New York it would have been two rounds to one in favor of Mark Kram's hero.
ROBERT J. CHANDLER
The misguided practice of withholding scores in the last quarter of the NFL telecasts in an effort to hold the viewers over to the postgame score shows (SCORECARD, Nov. 13) has turned many people into AFL watchers. Our Nashville station does not air the score show, preempting it for a program of local news that does not give the scores. Therefore, we here in the Nashville area must watch the AFL game if we are to get the scores before the Monday papers.
Maybe CBS should buy up all the newspapers to keep the scores out of the Monday papers, too. Surely we should not allow the fans' interest to run rampant over advertising revenue.
BERNARD L. VARNEY
Your articles on France and the Winter Olympics in the November 13 issue leave me absolutely breathless. On the other hand, Jack Olsen's article on Grenoble (A Shook-up Town's Great Shape-up) gave me a few shudders, but it, too, is indeed the result of fine research and a twitting sense of humor.
French Government Tourist Office
New York City
In reference to the article concerning the new NFL divisions (SCORECARD, Nov. 6), it certainly appears that the powers that be used little forethought. Maybe now that they have the opportunity they will use some hindsight. How about this proposal? Simply rearrange each of the four divisions each year. Take the teams that finish fourth and put them in one division, put the teams that wind up third the previous year in another division, etc.
Certainly the winners of a Saints-Falcon-Steeler-Viking loop wouldn't stand much of a chance in a playoff against the winner of a Packer-Colt-Cowboy-Card race, but with the constant realignment no one team will be able to continually dominate its division as Green Bay will in the present Central Division.
ACE IN THE WRONG HOLE
I wish to take exception to an article that appeared in your SCORECARD section (Nov. 6). You correctly reported that Red Hill Country Club held a Champagne Open and that one of the participants scored a hole in one on a par-4 hole. However, the article incorrectly implies that the host club refused to award a new car as advertised and further states that the reason for the refusal was that the club had purchased protective insurance for only par-3 holes.
I played in that tournament, and it was quite clearly indicated that a new automobile would only be awarded for aces on the par-3 holes. In fact, four new automobiles were parked on the first tee, and each car was designated as the prize for a specific par-3 hole. We were all sorry that the ace was scored on the wrong hole, but there was never any question that the hole in one did not fall within the rules established by the host club.
The tournament was an enjoyable event, and I regret to see its success marred by the false implication that the club had reneged on its offer.
MICHAEL H. CLEPPER
Emmett Watson's article on grizzlies (Menace in Our Northern Parks, Oct. 30) was an articulate and accurate statement. He recorded the situation as it occurred, without resorting to sensationalism.
However, Mr. Watson omitted one person in his article. Seasonal Park Naturalist Joan Devereaux had led an overnight hiking party to Granite Park Chalet on Saturday, August 12. She was substituting for another naturalist, who was on fire duty. During the night Miss Devereaux quickly assumed the leadership so necessary to prevent panic at the chalet. She was in control at all times, and her calm, courageous attitude inspired others and helped to bring order out of chaos.
The next morning Miss Devereaux led a party of 59 from the chalet through known grizzly country to the highway. By singing and whistling as she led her party through the brush, she helped to calm the fears of her group. Throughout the night and during the next day Miss Devereaux's leadership markedly impressed all. She certainly was one of the heroes.
RICHARD T. GALE
Emmett Watson's story pertaining to the killing of two girls by grizzlies reminded me of our vacation in Yosemite last summer. While these two girls did nothing to provoke the bears, such was certainly not the case at our camp. I saw about 50 screaming lunatics chase a bear into the river. When the frightened bear emerged on the other side he was again chased, this time by boys on bicycles.
Another bear entered the camp about dark to poke around a garbage can. A tourist ran up to him and shot off a flashbulb about eight feet from the bear's face. The flash lit up the entire Yosemite Valley, and it was a miracle the bear didn't knock the guy's head off.
Black bear, grizzly or whatever, when a bear is sighted it is wise to head in the other direction—and fast.
The grizzly bear is a wild animal, and no amount of research will change that fact. Whether or not the Park Service has ever been negligent in warning people of the dangers, I cannot say. However, several times I have seen people feeding wild animals within 20 feet of a sign warning them not to do so. When easy meals are presented in the form of handouts the bear will overcome his fear of man long enough to become a nuisance or, unfortunately, a menace.
I question Dr. Craighead's statement that "grizzlies were unaffected by weather." All wild animals are affected by weather changes.
I have often wondered why an old guide I knew never zipped his sleeping bag. Now I know. Looking at it from a bear's point of view, there is not too much difference between a pack of food—a regular source of supply—and a sleeping bag filled with meat. Accidents are to be regretted, but let's hope that the outcome is sound, not based on hysterics. Should we close the old swimming hole because of a drowning?