3.8 Review

The first German congress of sports physicians in 1912 - Program for a century

Journal

DEUTSCHE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SPORTMEDIZIN
Volume 55, Issue 12, Pages 310-314

Publisher

W W F VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT MBH

Keywords

History of Sports Medicine; sports-medical congress; sports-medical association; sports physician

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Contemporary reports in 1911 considered the presentation of a medicochemical laboratory for sports at the International Hygiene Exhibition in Dresden to be a milestone in the development of sports medicine as a discipline. In that very year, the scientific commission of this sports exhibition resolved to convene a scientific congress on sports medical themes, and to found an association of sports physicians. The first sports medical congress was convened in Oberhof, the Thuringian centre for winter sports, from September 20 to 23, 1912, all renowned pioneers of German sports-medicine participating. On the same occasion, the first sports medical organization was founded: Deutsches Reichskomitee zur wissenschaftlichen Erforschung des Sportes und der Leibesilbungen (German national committee for scientific research in sports and physical exercises). It is the predecessor of the German Association for Sports-Medicine and Prevention. That congress can be regarded as the first central scientific event, dealing even then with the still-relevant problems of physical activity and its attendant circumstances. Topics discussed in 1912 are still significant today: e.g. cases of overdoing sport, physical training of women, influence of permanent physical activity on the heart, sport for recreation and as a remedy, sport and sexuality. The supporting programme of the congress offered among other items a slide show on sport in Thuringia, a sightseeing tour of the golf course and the new facilities for winter sports as well as a social gettogether.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available