DR. G. C. BOURNE ON OARSMANSHIP
13n. Bournrm's exposition of oarsmanship will not easily, if ever, be superseded. He tells us in effect that he had intended to write his reminiscences of rowing and to make his discussion of the theory of rowing revolve round the performances of particular oarsmen and the drama of particular races. But his subject ran away with him—if the phrase may be used of an exegesis so orderly and so scholarly—and he found that his exhaustive examination of rowing from the point of view of mathematics and of the stresses on the human body had crowded out both his heroes and his anecdotes. So be it. The fame of contemporary oarsmen will pass but the learning of this work will remain. Rowing men know Dr. Bourne as an admirable coach and as one who was in his day in the first class of oarsmen ; but the public associates his name with a special design of boat. Let us first, then, say something on this subject of design.
In his intensely interesting pages on design Dr. Bourne is far from being dogmatic, and even those who disagree with him—and they will disagree with some trepidation in face of the erudition in the higher mathematics here displayed—will be grateful to him for providing the material of pertinent debate. The present writer, merely as an observer and not as a mathematician, ventures the opinion that what is known as the Bourne boat is undoubtedly fast when a high rate of stroke is being rowed and in smooth water. That is to say it is well suited to the shorter races (College races and those at Henley) but not to the course from Putney to Mortlake, especially when a "sea " is running. Of course, Dr. Bourne might be able to overcome the defects as they have so far appeared, but judging by the boat which he has actually produced we should say that the Oxford crew of this year were underboated and that the boat itself was too short. It should be remembered, however, that the boat was rather old and therefore weak ; she had lost her stiffness. The main principle of the design, however, has been long recognized as sound, and Dr. Warm was always in love with it to the point of exaggeration. The principle is that the greatest breadth should be as far forward as is practicable. Every sailor knows the truth of that and proves it by towing a tapering spar with the thick end forward. The thick end makes the hole in the water and has done with it ; and the tapering part follows like a streamline body with the least amount of friction.
Now to come to the oarsmanship. Dr. Bourne, sadly as a mathematician, but proudly as an oarsman, comes to the con- clusion that no settled theory of oarsmanship has yet been evolved. Mathematicians who were not oarsmen have pro- duced formidable theories that looked decisive on paper, but the oarsman, although he is a mere empiricist, knows them to be inadequate. No one has yet carried to its final stage the necessary study of the interaction of a number of variables. To the ordinary man the present issue is between two rival schools of oarsmanship. There is what may_ be called the mechanical school represented by the Thames Rowing Club, Jesus College, Cambridge, and some distinguished Continental and American clubs ; and there is what may be called the orthodox school of English rowing which follows the teaching of Dr. Warre (see his Grammar of Rowing).
Dr. Bourne is orthodox. The mechanical theory not un- naturally satisfies mathematicians who have never seen what can be done on orthodox lines by a really first-class crew. Orthodoxy has a refinement and delicacy of movement, extremely difficult to acquire, at the beginning of the stroke when the oar grips the water. Then the heels must be driven hard down while the body, by a swift and strong action of the loins, springs back to the perpendicular during the first four or five inches of the backward run of the slide. To get this right and to get it in unison with every other member of the crew—there is the chief difficulty of orthodox rowing. The mechanical school dispenses with the difficulty by driving back the slide (in the manner of a sculler) appreciably before the body springs back to the perpendicular. The body swing is also shorter. The mechanical style is easier to learn. Mr. Steve Fairbarn has proved over and over again that he can take indifferent material and in a few months turn out a crew good enough to row head of the river at Cambridge. But when the very best in style and in speed is necessary to win it is always the orthodox style that does win. The two styles cannot co-exist in the same crew.
Every oarsman—above all, every coach—should read this book. If he does not understand the mathematics and the anatomical studies he can take them on trust. He will find much else, for Dr. Bourne, like all good teachers, has a gift of simplicity.
Previous page
