Medallist

What am I to say of Dave Mummery, the winner? I thought, to start with, that he had an extraordinarily difficult subject. An economist sounds too coldly calculating a person to arouse much emotion, and I felt, when Dave had finished, that we had had a mathematical analysis of the man, rather than an oration.

I thought his opening was faulty—he seemed to sidle into his speech before the audience was expecting him His material, though good, lacked highlights, and seemed all Very much the same.

While it is true that there was no attempt to stir the emotions in Dave's delivery, he did appear quite enthusiastic. In an unobtrusive way, towards the conclusion.

In manner he was hesitant and often stumbed over words, I thought that he did not have the platform presence that he ought to have had. Constantly speaking from an angle, he spoke to his audience with his head resting coyly, first on one shoulder, and then the other

I don't want to appear unfairly critical of Dave, but I commenced this report by saying that I thought the judges were wrong, and it is therefore my duty to give my reasons. I think, that had Dave not won the Medal this year, he would have done so either next year or the year after, with a much better subject and a much better speech, because I know that he is capable of it. In this respect he has my sympathy; he will never know how well he might have spoken.