CAMBRIDGE ROWING.
THE letter which we publish elsewhere from Mr. W. B. Close—a name justly famous in the records of rowing— offers a clear challenge to those who hold that the Cambridge style of rowing in recent years has been a declension from the true faith. It would not be easy to get a more positive vindication of that style, for it contains only such reservations as one would have to make as to the best crews in the world, which being the handicraft of man are necessarily imperfect. There never was a perfect crew, and there never will be,— hence perhaps the fascination of rowing. Mr. Close gives us, then, a situation netts, and we suspect that those whom he reproaches would be quite ready to take up the oars, if not the cudgels, in their own defence. The comments in our issue of March 26th to which he objects were certainly not written with any intention of unfairly depreciating Cambridge rowing of this or any former year. We said, indeed, of this year's crew that the race they rowed was "one of the pluckiest stern-chases ever seen." And the present writer (who was also the writer of the comments) may be allowed to remark that, being himself a Cambridge man, he said what he did about the Cambridge style of recent years because he believed it to be true, and not because it was gratifying to him to write it. Perhaps there is room for two opinions ; the advocacy of the recent Cambridge style by Mr. Close would alone make one slow to declare offhand that there was not; but at all events, a man cannot do more than express his opinion honestly for what it is worth, and it would be useless if he did less. As Mr. Lewis Sydney of " The Follies " says in his story : "Some says one thing, and some another, but I think—" and, after all, one cannot get beyond the assertion of a personal conviction. As to Mr. D. C. R. Stuart's reputation as an oarsman, we do not think it needs any support from us. There never was a more gallant stroke. The only man who is an " impostor " in rowing is the man who shirks his works In that case physical failure may be due to a moral defect, but a failure in style is due to nothing of the kind.
It is not easy to state the problem of principles implied in Mr. Close's letter without being too technical for the layman and too little technical to satisfy the rowing man. But it is worth while to try, if we may judge, on the one side, from the unwavering interest of the public in the Boat•Race, and, on the other, from the enthusiasm with which men who have studied the theory of rowing continue through life to concern themselves in it, so that Dr. Warre would probably place the preservation of sound rowing principles as second only in importance to the prosperity of Eton—perhaps rather consider it as an integral condition of that prosperity—and the First Lord of the Admiralty would rank it as a matter comparable with the maintenance of the command of the sea. There's the rub, indeed, in that very phrase ! For our command of the inland waters of England has been seriously threatened, and in the case of eight-oared rowing at Henley has been taken away from ns three times by the Belgians. When the Belgians beat us for the first time in 1906 their victory was thought of by most people as a fluke not likely to be repeated; but when it was repeated not once but twice the confidence of some English rowing men—with a few exceptions not, we think, those most competent to judge—in the correctness of their principles was shaken. The rest continued to believe that a first-class English crew, rowing in the traditional English style, could always have beaten the Belgians, but that our defeated crews were in every case untrue to their ancient principles, or else, though right in principles, were not up to " Grand Challenge Cup" form.
But what are the bare rudiments of rowing ? We must know these before we can begin to understand the present issue. They amount to this : that the arms are to be regarded not as the means of pulling the oar, but simply as connecting links between the back and the legs in which the driving-power resides; that the most vigorous part of the stroke must be at the beginning, at the very instant when the blade has been placed squarely in the water; and that the body of the oars. man is swung backwards and forwards in order to make the stroke as long as possible within reason,—the reasonable length of the stroke being determined by the fact that a man's shoulders are not in the best possible position for gripping the water hard if he " overreaches" at the beginning of the stroke, and by the fact that he falls into an exhausting attitude from which it is impossible to recover smartly if he leans too far back at the end of the stroke. It is obvious that as the blade of the oar describes an arc through the water it is not always in a position of such mechanical advantage as it is when it is at right angles to the boat, and yet it pays better to take long strokes, a considerable part of which is not being rowed at the greatest possible advantage, because the alterna- tive of short strokes would have to be performed by a pro- digiously quick and reiterated swinging forward of the bodies, and that would check the run of the boat. The traditional English stroke is supposed to embody the judo milieu which is as indispensable in this problem of conflicting considerations as in ail others. The novice in rowing is taught never to pull the finish of the stroke, but to let his hands come home automatically, as it were, on to his chest when his arms have done their work as connecting
bands. But for all those who are capable of receiving the higher knowledge there is such a thing—a very important reality—as a " hard finish," not to be confused with the jerking or "hoicking" of the arms with which every one is familiar who has watched a sailor rowing on the sea. The true " hard finish " is performed by keeping up a strong and steady pressure with the legs, which work in unison with the backward movement of the sliding-seat and of the body of the oarsman after the arms have begun to bend. There never was a first-class crew which had not a "hard finish."
Of course the Cambridge style of recent years, represented by Mr. D. C. R. Stuart, embodied all these elementary prin- ciples so far as we have stated them. But it differed from the tradition in this respect, that a good deal less attention than usual was paid to the " beginning " of the stroke,—to what Frenchmen vividly and appropriately call l'attaque. Experience has shown that the backs and legs of eight men working together are strong enough to put all their force into the beginning of the stroke, which should be sudden and violent, even though at that moment the boat is running more slowly through the water than at any other time. What is true of eight men, and even of four men, and in a lesser degree of two men, in a boat is not true of one man in a boat. Thus it is that a smiler has a habit of what is called " feeling " the water before he brings his whole driving-force to bear on the oar at the beginning of the stroke. He applies his work gradually because a very sudden " beginning " would be too great a strain. It was often said of the Cambridge oarsmen in Mr. Stuart's crews that they looked like eight scullers in a boat. The analogy was by no means exact, but it represented roughly enough for our purpose the difference in appearance between his crews and the best crews which have rowed in the traditional English manner. Mr. Stuart's crews had a magnificently hard finish, and used their legs finely ; but the opinion of those who think that Cambridge rowing deteriorated during the prevalence of this style is that the sacrifice of the notably hard beginning was a sacrifice of too much. Mr. Stuart has a splendid record, and he could well afford to be a law unto himself, but his style was an unfortunate one for weaker disciples.
The present writer agrees most heartily with Mr. Close that the Cambridge crews of 1906, 1907, and 1908 were fast; but it seemed to' hint that, through want of the extraordinary and almost indescribable liveliness which a very quick catch at the beginning of the stroke gives to a crew, they had not the resiliency—the power suddenly to call success- fully upon their reserve energy for a rally—which has been so noticeable and wonderfully effective in first-class crews which have rowed in the approved style. These Cambridge crews could row at a very high average of speed over the whole course, and they were all tremendously hard workers and full of pluck. He would be a malicious man or a poor judge who refused to recognise such qualities. It may seem a subtle criticism, then, to say that owing to the lack of reserve vivacity, for the reason we have mentioned, they were at a disadvantage in a supreme crisis requiring a high degree of adaptability ; but when it comes to very close racing that dis- advantage makes a very real difference. We shall not quote, to illustrate our point, the examples of notably good Oxford crews, but will be content to say that the recent Cambridge style was not that of the splendid Cambridge crews in which Mr. Dudley Ward or Dr. Etherington-Smith rowed. This year the Cambridge crew changed their style. A period of transition has its notorious dangers. But we still think that they were right to try the change. We do not know how far Mr. Close would press his argument to the contrary, but it would not have to be pressed very far to make all oarsmen shrink from changing from a bad style to a good because they were afraid lest they might not be fully off with the old love before they were on with the new. Mr. R. C. Lehmann had a disappointing experience in this matter once when he coached the Harvard crew, and yet we are quite sure that the style he taught them was better than the one they abandoned, and that he taught it to them as well as any man could. If they had persisted in their acquired style for another year they would probably have done well.
We do not know to what meddling and uncalled-for criticisms by Oxford men Mr. Close refers. There may have been some which we have not seen. All we happen to have read were, we think, legitimate expressions of independent
opinion on subjects in which every one is interested. And we trust Mr. Close will not run off with the notion that a criticism on rowing is of little value or dishonest because the author has been paid for writing it. Naturally the old rowing men of both Universities who are asked to write criticisms of the Oxford and Cambridge crew are paid for doing so. Mr. Close's implied scorn of the paid rowing correspondent is so unnerving that the present writer thinks it as well in the interests of candour to state that he writes this article in the definite hope that the editor of the Spectator will pay him for it, and will not be induced by Mr. Close's arguments even to deduct any part of the usual fee. Really it would be much worse if amateur rowing correspondents were not paid for their contributions. At present they are mostly well-known men who respond to an invitation to write, and who frequently sign their names. If there were no payment there would he more criticism by incompetent persons. Moreover, some of those who supplied articles for nothing would expect in return for this favour (as they would regard it) to be allowed to gratify private prejudices by glorifying rejected men and discarded principles.
Previous page
