Burnley Grammar School

Rachel - Why would they have been spared from stripping to the waist ? In my grammar school, PE was done shirtless right trough to Sixth Form. Never did i see a boy wear a top for PE be it inside or outside. There just were no excemptions made at all, neither for the boy with bad acne, nor the one whose mom wrote him a note asking the teacher to allow him a top or for the boy whose severe father punished him leaving welts on his bare back. Why would à hairy chest be a reason to be allowed a top anyway?

Rachel - not at my school - why would they be? All boys were treated the same. Even those who had notes from home asking for them to be excused p.e. had to change into shorts and sit on a bench in the gym to watch or watch from the side of the field if outside. I think they may have been allowed to stay inside if it was particularly cold.

Hi, hope no one minds me asking were lads with hairy chests exempt from stripping off. Just curious.

Bernard and Andrea.
Partly in answer to your query about jock straps I can relate an amusing story.
When I was at school back in the 60s we had a college student taking us for PE for a couple of weeks. One day our lesson was straight after assembly. The student came to the gym and after we had done several excercises he gave us a slightly complex one to do.
Someone asked quite reasonably if he could demonstrate. H.e hesitated for a moment then said;
'Not sure, I haven't put my jock strap on this morning' which caused great mirth. He disappeared for a short while and came back and proceeded to demonstrate the excercise.
As I have stated here a few times, and others have reported the same, we usually wore our swimming trunks underneath for support. Perhaps that helps explain.

Andrea - I too am confused about the value of a jockstrap on its own. For games like cricket I can see that an insert like a box or cup could prevent painful and possibly damaging accidents but for other physical activities a jockstrap by itself seems unnecessary.
I never played cricket at school - in the summer those of us who were not so good at p.e. would play games such as volleyball or softball or go off on cross country runs which were common all year round. We were not allowed to wear anything other than our shorts - certainly nothing under them. I found this generally very comfortable and quite liberating though a quick adjustment was sometimes required to ensure nothing became too prominent. We must have looked quite comical running through the streets on the way to and from the countryside especially in winter though I don't remember any-one ever staring at our shorts. A few boys may have preferred to wear plimsolls for the first few weeks but I was never aware of any-one wanting to wear anything under their shorts let alone any-one doing themselves a mischief.

I must say I am somewhat perplexed by the amount of discussion on the board about the usage of one specific item, the jockstrap, which has reappeared once more as a topic. The reason I say this is because in all my years in teaching Phys.Ed that item as far as I can best remember was scarcely mentioned if ever at all. I've no memory of ever being approached on that attire by anyone or even feeling the need to do so. That applies both here in Britain and in the overseas locations I was seconded to in my career.
I can't help but wonder why this item therefore seems to generate so much interest as a talking point considering it never generated any notable discussion between lads I took eleven plus up to late teens or amongst my actual colleagues in any way either over so many years.

Although I never worked in any school environment in Phys.Ed that asked for it, I'd cite the fixation with the non allowance of underwear under shorts as similar to the jockstrap one. But I can only speak for myself in my own world and neither of these things crossed my path in anyway at all in four decades from the 1970's onwards.

A few weeks ago someone called Robert asked some questions, such as what do I think about Phys.Ed today. Well quite simply there is not enough of it and it's been sidelined and diminished. But what can be more important than physical wellbeing? It's not all about academic pen to paper. I don't think two or three lessons per week is unreasonable. I think having just an hour per week in one Phys.Ed lesson is very poor indeed.

It would be quicker to say what I didn't take in Phys.Ed over the years, all the curriculum activity anyone would expect although I tended to specialise in athletics. I read on this forum about Phys.Ed teachers favouring the talented kids who excelled at sporting activity and neglected the strugglers almost as lost causes. Not my experience at all. Nothing is greater than trying to make someone with a lack of natural ability improve themselves and their esteem with encouragement. I can only speak for myself and all the places I worked and those I worked with. I don't for a moment doubt those with poor experiences surrounding their Phys.Ed school life. Those who used to frequently show up with the school Phys.Ed note from mum were a hard nut to crack and I always thought they were their own worst enemy and if they'd just allow themselves to get fully stuck in they'd surprise themselves and improve esteem far more than realised.

It may surprise some of you on here but some of the kids I remember the most and were fondest of were not the high achievers whom everything came easy to them on the football team or the athletics track but those who were quite obviously not born to be the sporting type but who I could see made immense effort to try their very best. These were the qualities that I and many of my colleagues appreciated. So just remember when you think about that nasty Phys.Ed teacher having a go or making you do sports and maybe yelling a bit that he was in the majority of cases not setting out to be unkind but the encourage. I do wonder how many misinterpreted their Phys.Ed teachers.

Chris G and Edward
I can see how a jockstrap and box would protect against getting hit in that area, but would a jockstrap without a cup (box) offer much protection?
My Ex said they were told that they needed support to prevent them 'doing themselves a mischief' as they matured, although the exact nature of the threatened injury wasn't really specified - hernias maybe? Anyway the message stuck as he continued to wear one for sport as an adult.

Before you started wearing jockstraps, did you start to feel uncomfortable or embarrassed having to go without underwear for PE as things started to mature (much the same as doing PE without a bra became uncomfortable and embarrassing for us girls)?

Did your mothers know what a jockstrap was when you first purchased one, or was it a mystery (as it was to me when I first saw my then husband's)?

Edward

I agree with you that plain "everyday" jockstraps are hard to find these days, and have been for a number of years. The last ones I was able to get on the high street were from Debenhams, who included jocks anad thongs in their mens "Active Sport" range. This was ten years or more ago, and the two jocks that I bought back then have long since gone to the locker-room in the sky. I still have a small and waning supply of the thongs from the same range - these seem to have lasted better than the jocks for some reason, and are definitely more durable than Debenham's more recent thong ranges, now, alas, also unavailable.

I agree with Chris G. When we were about 14 at school our PE teacher advised us to wear a jockstrap after one of us took a painful "hit" during a game of rugby. Until then we had to go commando under shorts for PE and games. We had never heard of a jockstrap before, but gradually each of us started to get one. It took a bit of courage to ask my mum for the money to buy one. We felt very manly going into a sports shop to buy them. They were so comfortable to wear. Many of us continued to wear one for sports even after we had left school. They were so much cooler to wear in the summer than briefs, particularly under shorts. I still do so in the hot weather even though they are not easy to buy now. I bought my last couple on line.

Chris G, interesting what you say about jock straps. From going to grammar school aged 11, at the first PE lesson we were told that we must take off our underpants when changing, that was never rescinded right up until I left school at 18 and at times there were checks - wearing white shorts, we might all be ordered to bend over so it was obvious if a lad was wearing underpants because the shorts were fairly thin.

Nothing else was ever suggested, I didn't back then know what a jockstrap was and no one had one. I first saw one when I joined the rugby team at university but I didn't buy one and stayed commando. We did have swimming trunks but they were not allowed under shorts either and only worn for sports day pool things - it was a boys school and we swam naked.

You might say, what you never had you never missed.

Andrea - the advisability of wearing some form of support for PE/games was first mentioned when I was about 13 or 14, when one of my class received an accidental kick in a rather tender area. The PE master took the opportunity to suggest that we all ought to be wearing something under our shorts, and he specifically mentioned a jockstrap, a garment that none of us had heard of at that time. Most of us took the hint, and appeared at the next PE class in our underpants or swimming trunks. I changed schools a couple of years after that, and soon discovered what a jockstrap actually looked like, as most of the boys in the class that I joined already wore them religiously for PE and rugby. the remainder opting for the aforementioned swimming trunks. I soon acquired a couple for myself, and found them most practical for strenuous activities, not to mention comfortable for everyday wear in hot weather, particularly under shorts.

Chris G,
My son didn't wear a jockstrap for PE, but I did have to buy him one and a 'box' when he started to play junior cricket at a local club.

Were you and your classmates advised to wear a jockstrap by your PE teacher. My Ex said they were advised to do so by their teacher when they were about 13.

Michael - the situation was different at my old grammar school in the 60s. Our p.e. teachers were generally much more kindly disposed to those of us who were less able. If we were seen to be trying our best then they were happy - indeed, I remember there were many occasions when the least capable boy was cheered by teacher and boys alike when he achieved something he found very difficult.
Our kit was basic - I only ever wore shorts, no shirt or shoes, inside or outside all year round. It was practical and healthy - very few boys ever seemed to catch colds in those days.

My main regret with games or PE at my old grammar school, was that the teacher very soon made up his mind as to which individuals were any good at sports.

The pupils who were deemed to be adept at sports (generally the less academic type) were given every plaudit and support, whilst the rest of us were simply sidelined, often ridiculed and left to 'wither on the vine'.

I always felt this arrangement was unjust. Surely it should have been the less confident who received the encouragement, in order to help develop their skills and hence foster their involvement in healthy sporting activity?

I'm only telling it like it was at my old school - I hope the situation was different elsewhere.

George G - At the first secondary school I was at, cricket was generally limited to Wednesday afternoons, which were dedicated to sport throughout the school, depending on the season. Just like you, we had no special kit, and generally wore just our PE shorts and a top. When I moved on to a different school at age 15, cricket was taken a bit more seriously, with whites and cricket boots being generally worn, and this was where I first encountered protective equipment such as jock-straps and boxes, Most of my class wore jockstraps for PE and games, but as I chose tennis in preference to cricket as my summer sport, I never had any need for a box, and it was usually only batsmen and wicket-keepers who used them regularly.

George G,

Like you the PE kit rule was shorts ( no underpants allowed) and plimsolls. It didn’t do either of us any harm and I don’t see why the rule needed changing.

Ah, yes, cricket.

I was dreadful at it. I couldn't bat and I couldn't catch but I enjoyed being outside running about in summer. I did used to try, I wanted to be good at it. My older brother was captain of the school team and so it was expected that I would be good at it too but no matter how hard I tried, I never got any better.

At university, I decided I would like to try squash so found a mate to play with and got kitted out. I was hopeless at that too and kept breaking the racquets. As a poor student, I had to give up on that because I just couldn't afford to buy them at the rate I was breaking them.

Some time later I went to see my GP about something else and somehow we got talking about squash and I told him of my plight. He sent me to do some tests and I discovered that I have no hand/eye coordination which explained why I couldn't play either cricket or squash!

I still enjoyed running around the cricket pitch though but I was much better at athletics.

Chris G The fielding position of silly mid on was once explained to me it was so called because of it's proximity to the batsman. Even for cricket because it was "only a games lesson" we just wore our shorts and top no cricket whites, and I had no idea that there was such a thing as a cricket box that could be worn for protection and we were never told about them by our sports/P E teacher.

Chris. Like yourself I wasn't particularly good at cricket although I seemed to be able to frustrate bowlers without scoring many runs. When it came to bowling and fielding I was absolutely useless and so had a sense of dread when called upon to bowl to someone who was a very good batsman. My over consisted of a number of wides and anything he could reach was dispatched far and wide including a couple into the gardens of neighbouring houses. To his, and my surprise, my last ball was straight and he hammered it straight back at me. I can't remember all my thought processes in the split second it took bnut I realised I had to protect a tender part of my anatomy and managed to get my hand in the appropriate area where much to my surprise the ball stayed even though I was knocked flat by the force of the shot. As the batsman in question later went on to play for England and scored a double hundred in a test match, I have tried to claim that I must have been better than the bowlers he was facing on that occasion.

George - talking of cricket, While i tried to avoid it because i wasn't generally very good at it, much preferring tennis which I rather enjoyed, I have two lasting memories of my exploits on the cricket field. First, having been placed at silly-mid-on or something like that, no one was more surprised than I was when i reached out to catch a rather fast moving ball and actually found it in my hand. On a second occasion, when called up on to bowl, something e;se I was utterly hopeless at, I successfully bowled five wides in quick succession. This mustshave utterly confused the batsman because on my sixth ball, iI actually took the wicket.

I was at secondary school in 1961 to 66. As was a lot of schools it was single sex. With regards to the comments about P E and games, I cannot say that I actually hated P E no more than a lot of us would say we did not like maths or English.
Just as the school uniform was blazer shirt and tie black shoes(the normal I should think for most people) so for P E the "uniform" or kit was shorts(no pants to be worn) topless and plimsolls without socks. That was accepted by parents and scholars alike. For out door games we would wear a t shirt of some sort. I must say my preference for games was in the summer when we did cricket which like me you were not brilliant you would be put deep into the filed with very little to do except enjoy the sunshine.
As for the rest of schooldays, keep your head down follow the rules and all in all it was not too bad.

Matthew - there is and they do:
https://www.historyworld.co.uk/photo.php?page=2&sort=0&l1=Childhood&l2=Schools&id=1608

I take the point about innocent memories and hope others will get back to posting and discussing theirs.

I remember gym classes just like this and loved every minute of it. What we wore or didn't wear was secondary to the challenges that were put to us by the PE teachers who in the 1960s had all done national service and the head of PE had been an army PTI. These guys were demanding and required that we did no less than our best and more.

To a point I think we were being prepared for WW3 which fortunately never happened back then (take a deep breath about that today though) and as such fitness and strength were to be developed and worked at.

We had three PE sessions a week one of which was at lunch time and that was always cross country running. Then there was one of team games, usually rugby in season and cricket or softball in the summer. The third session was in the gym so gymnastics, circuit training and sometimes it was turned into a game like pirates which I loved.

Our kit for rugby was shorts, socks, boots and shirt, for cricket, whites and for everything else, just like the lads in the picture, white shorts and plimsolls. When changing we had to take off our underpants and go commando. After each class there were showers which were compulsory, communal and cold, possibly preparation for life in the military.

The PE teachers always encouraged us and worked with us, demonstrating and helping us to achieve - their kit was normally just black shorts and plimsolls so no shirts for them either so bare chests all round was normal - it was a boys school.

Discipline was strict, there might be a warning but breaking a laid down rule, forgetting kit or doing anything deemed dangerous or stupid led to a minimum of six very hard whacks with an ever ready large plimsoll which left you with a very red, very sore bottom lasting a couple of days. I don't think any of us escaped a few doses of that over the years but the approach from all the masters was consistent and fair. A repeat offender would sometimes get the cane, I got it once after forgetting my kit for two consecutive sessions and six over a pair of shorts from the spares box that were very thin made sure I never forgot my kit again.

Happy days - absolutely, I really enjoyed my time at school and PE was a great part of it.

The memories on here are, for the most part, credible and I think many of us can identify with them. I think we can all reccognise the contributions which are fictional. and they are best ignored.

However, one aspect of the site does bother me and that is the contribution of women. If such a site existed where women reminisced about their PE classes, wouldn't it be strange for men to show an interest and post comments?

I post here and read here for the innocent, almost all, happy memories not for the fantasies which I find quite sick, so I'll join with TimH, James and Andy and decline to respond to the post by Robert.

Like James, Andy & probably others I will continue to call out what seems to be bullying of people whose views you disagree with.

Also: I won't be answering your questions because it is in the realms of fantasy land rather than an innocent memory.

James on 26th February 2022 at 15:44

+1

Robert on 26th February 2022 at 09:42

Interesting question however I think some needed to call out the bad behaviour that has tainted this board for some time and no doubt will again. I think it should continue to be called out too so that anyone stopping by should see it's not what this place is about which is innocent memories, not fantasies about things that never happened.

On the same basis, I won't be answering your questions because it is in the realms of fantasy land rather than an innocent memory.

All this sniping doesn't make good reading guys. William, Tim, Andy, Andrea, Philip and rest can we get back to some more positive comments. How about if I ask a question to you all.

If you were the headteacher/owner of a fully independent private prep-school (let's say 9 to 12 year olds) what would your policy be for boys indoor PE. Dress, lesson content and hours per week. Ideally justify your decisions.

I should begin. I think I would emphesise practicality over modesty and encourage a more serious approach to PE and physical fitness. My preference would be for just shorts allowing tops only for those boys with a good reason such has birthmarks, obesity and the like. Barefeet are easily preferably for indoor work. For content I would begin with fitness training and calasthetics in the first term , move onto gymnastics in the second term after the boys have achieved some conditioning, and only move to team games like basketball and volleyball in the third term. I would schedule two, two hour lessons per week so PE makes a real difference to the boys attitude and actual phyisical fitness and also allow them to truly learn a team sport and become accomplished in it so they have the oppotunity to enjoy the satisfaction that brings.

I hope you will all take me up on this and I look forward to reading your replies.

Matt, Andrea, Philip, Tim, James and David - I too agree. We really don't need to be attacked over our memories and views.