How Strongmen Lied to the Public and the Case of Gus Hill

Strength performers have, historically, been somewhat shady individuals. For every Arthur Saxon who tried their best to be as honest as possible, there were hundreds of individuals seeking to deceive the public. Typically during the late 1800s and early 1900s, strength performers deceived the public in one of three ways

• Lying about an object’s weight: This one was simple enough. Have a barbell weighing 200 lbs. on stage but pretend it weighs 300. In some cases they even painted the heavier number on the weight… so it must be true then.
• Smoke and Mirrors: This method was subtler and involved the use of precise stage lightening and visual optics to appear more muscular and lean than in reality. This was oftentimes done for photographs but, we know that Eugen Sandow was the master of lighting when it came to making his body appear more lean on stage.
• Insider Knowledge: There was a wonderful series of articles written by physical culturist and weightlifting coach Josef Szalay in the early 1900s about the ‘tips and tricks’ of strongmen in Health & Strength magazine which I will someday write about. Szalay effectively shows use behind the curtain and exposes how strength performers often used unusual angles or sleight of hand to lift objects. A typical scenario would involve an object (say a modified dumbbell or barbell) which had a specific ‘knack’ to lifting it – this could mean picking it up at a certain angle, positioning the body unusually or shifting its weight in subtle ways. When audiences members tried to lift the object – ignorant of its ways – they would fail. The strength performer, knowing the correct technique, would subsequently lift it with ease.

Note, however, that these scenarios usually involved strength athletes who lifted heavy obects. During the research for my book on Indian club swinging (obligatory plug here),  I came across US performer Gus Hill who hoodwinked members of the public using Indian clubs. Below is an extract from the book on Hill’s dastardly ways.

Gus Hill and the Long Con

Born Gustave Metz in Bowery, New York in 1858, Gus Hill was a vaudeville performer and athlete who, like Burrows, proved skilled in club swinging, boxing and wrestling.[1] Over the course of his public career, Hill won dozens of Indian club competitions, medals and cups. He was considered by many to be America’s champion club swinger.[2] Unlike Tom Burrows, Hill’s fame did not stem from endurance club swinging feats but rather the large Indian clubs he wielded.

Much like Professor Harrison and his American imitators, Hill preferred instead to swing heavy Indian clubs as part of his vaudeville performances. He also understood the importance of showmanship, perhaps more so than Burrows ever did. During the late 1800s and early 1900s, a common tactic used by Hill’s travelling shows was to challenge local men from the audience to best him in a club swinging contest. Hill would deliberately lose these contests, and then award the local men a medal or honorary title for their efforts. The next time Hill returned to the town, he would challenge the men to a contest once more, thus ensuring a full house, and then defeat them legitimately.[3] This was just one of the many underhanded ways that Hill forged his career. Another common approach was to use false bottoms in his heavy Indian clubs which allowed him to lighten the load of his clubs after members of the audience struggled to lift them.[4] Later commenting on Hill’s numerous methods of chicanery, Felix Isman remembered Hill leaving his heavy clubs

In the lobbies where men and boys tugged and hauled at them to little result. Only a donkey engine could have hoisted them freely. On-stage Gus toyed with these same clubs as airily as if they had been bamboo walking sticks … the explanation lying in the false bottoms that disgorged the lead weights …[5]

Lessons?

Nothing is ever as it seems in fitness!

More seriously I should note that Hill was an accomplished athlete and club swinger in his own right. His chicanery (which is my word of the day meaning deceitful) ways stemmed from his precarious position as a strength performer.

One of the things we tend to forget about when talking about the lies and cheating ways of those pesky strength performers is how difficult it was to make a living in this area. It didn’t matter if you were a good athlete, you needed to be entertaining. You also needed to be entertaining on a regular basis. In the case of Hill, his antics ensured that people would go to his shows. In the case of strongmen who fabricated the weight they lifted, it was easier on the body lifting a 100 lbs. dumbbell but claiming it was 200 lbs. every night than actually lifting the thing. It also would have saved on travel costs and hassle.

I am, I suppose, something of a strength performer apologist. This is in part driven by my well known love of professional wrestling (wherein economic and physical pressures largely forced athletes to take part in scripted combat) and an acknowledgement that the strength contests created by Hill and performers were entertainment rather than strict sport. A positive viewing may suggest that their antics were akin to theatre or an immersive film rather than sport. Cheating in sport is bad… cheating at a made-up contest? I’m not as militant…

What are your thoughts?

As always… Happy Lifting and here’s to lying!

References

[1] Anthony Slide, The encyclopedia of vaudeville (Jackson: Univ. Press of Mississippi, 2012), 239.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Frank Cullen, Florence Hackman, and Donald McNeilly, Vaudeville old & new: An encyclopedia of variety performances in America (New York: Psychology Press, 2007), 510.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Felix Isman, Weber, and Fields: Their Tribulations, Triumphs and Their Associates (New York: Boni and Liveright, 1924), 88.