March 17, 1882.J 



• KNOWLEDGE 



419 



But now notice how in the rules for rowing in the old- 

 fashioned racing boats this principle shows itself. 



Oarsmen were told in those days, and very soundly, to 

 row in the following way : — A good reach forward was to 

 be taken, and tlic water cauglit squarely Ijy tlie oar, not by 

 a pulling action of tlie arms, but by the action of the body 

 and legs ; the arms were to remain perfectly straight, acting 

 only as " stretchers " until the body was a little past the 

 perpendicular ; then the stroke was to be finished by the 

 conil>ined action of the arms, body, and legs — the body 

 slanting back, tlie hands drawn well in to the chest. The 

 " recovery" followed, the body being thrown rapidly forward 

 from the hips, the arms being at the same time extended, 

 so that, the liandle of the oar being thrust forward by both 

 motions simultaneously, the blade passed with exceeding 

 rapidity to the proper position for beginning the ne.\t 

 stroke. 



If we consider the dynamical eflects of this action, we 

 shall see how admirably suited they were to produce a 

 motion as uniform as possible in the racing boats of those 

 days. (Such directions are gi\en in " Principles of Rowing 

 by Oarsmen," somewhere about 18-10, by Bob Coombes, 

 who became champion in 1816, and by other excellent 

 authorities of that time.) First, the strength was applied 

 with gradually increasing effect from tlie beginning to the 

 end of the stroke, so that there was no undue strain in 

 increasing the motion of the boat from the velocity to 

 which it had fallen during the '" recovery " to its maxi- 

 mum just before the "feather."' Then the work was care- 

 fully distributed between arms, legs, and body, the body 

 and legs doing the work first, then tlie arms joining them 

 to give that extra lift at the finish which was meant 

 to counteract as much as possible the tendency to lag 

 between the strokes, — so marked a characteristic of the 

 old-fashioned racing boat. Lastly, that this tendency 

 might have as little chance as possible to give the oarsmen 

 extra or waste work, there was a very rapid recovery, so 

 that the next stroke might begin under as favourable 

 conditions as possible. 



All these rules are admirable for the heavier class of 

 boats, or for tliosc which in old times were called racing 

 boats. They served to obviate what, from our present 

 point of view, may be called the great defects of those 

 lix)ats, their breadth of beam, and the (relative) clumsiness 

 of their structure. 



These rules were carefully enjoined at both the Uni- 

 versities ; but they were more perfectly carried out at 

 Cambridge than at Oxford. The sway back of the Cam- 

 bridge crews and their rapid " recovery, " were things to be 

 marvelled at in some of the great races which preceded 

 the introduction of light, outrigged racing boats. And 

 those who adopted this system had their reward. Of six 

 races rowed on the Thames in the old-fashioned craft, 

 Cambridge won five. Not only did they win as a rule, but 

 they often won in that hollow fashion which means that 

 superior style has won the race, and not mere superiority 

 of strength, or even of pluck (in both which. University 

 crews are likely to be pretty evenly matched.) Cambridge 

 won by a full minute in 1836, by a minute and three- 

 quarters in 1839, by more than a minute in 1841, by half 

 a minute in 1815, the last race rowed in the old-fashioned 

 inrigged boats. 



From 1846 to 1856 the University race was rowed in 

 lioftts which had a sort of intermediate position between the 

 heavy lap-streaked inrigged boat and the present light keel- 

 less outrigged craft. We should consider the boats used 

 during those ten years quite unsuitable for racing purposes 

 in our time. The old style of rowing suited them well 

 enough — perhaps as well as the modern style : a style 



between the two would probably have suited them better 

 than either. In the seven races between Oxford and Cam- 

 bridge rowed in these earlier specimens of the outrigged 

 racing boat, success was pretty equally divided between 

 Oxford and Cambridge — counting one race won by Oxford 

 on a foul as a real win (which it certainly would have 

 been, Oxford showing the better speed), each University 

 won three. But the Oxford wins were better, especially 

 in the latter years. Cambridge won bv two lengths in 

 184G, by four in 1849, by half-a-length in 1856 (when 

 Cambridge liad an exceptionally powerful crew). Oxford 

 won by eight lengths* in 1852, bj- about five in 1854, and 

 would probably have won the race of 1849 by many 

 lengths, apart from the foul. However, si.x years are not 

 enough to judge by. 



So soon, however, as we turn to the races rowed since 

 the introduction of the modern racing-boat in its present 

 form (except as to sliding-seats), we find the University 

 which had been almost always successful in long races with 

 the heavy craft, and which had seemed able, very fairly, to 

 hold its own in the keeled outiiggers, beaten, not only in 

 the great majority of races, but also by much the greater 

 distances. Let us consider the twenty-five races which 

 have been rowed between Oxford and Cambridge since 

 1857:— 



Of these twenty-five races, fifteen have been won by 

 Oxford, nine by Cambridge, and one was a dead heat If 

 we count the race of 1859 as one which Cambridge would 

 have won had not the Cambridge boat been half full of 

 water at starting, we niaj' put fourteen races to Oxford and 

 ten to Cambridge ; but then, in fairness, the dead heat of 

 1877 should be counted as an Oxford win.t The mishap 

 to Thorley's outrigger in the Oxford boat in 1858 may lie 

 regarded as fairly matched by the accident to Dick's 

 stretcher in the Cambridge boat in 1875. This dispro- 

 portion is too great to be probably due to mere cliance. 

 But when we examine the circumstances under which the 

 various races were lost and won, we find the existence of a 

 determining cause still more clearly indicated. Take for 

 this purpose the following table, in which, to eliminate as 

 much as possible the effect of mere chance, all the races 

 since the introduction of outrigged craft are considered : — 



Oxford won Cambridge won 



In 1846 by 2 lengilis 

 1849 5 



In 1852 by 8 lengths 

 1S54 5 



1856 i 



1858 7 



1860 1 



1870 li 



1871 1 



1872 2 



1873 3 



1874 2> 

 187G 8 

 1870 24 



107 lcr{,'llii.. Total 



36 lengths. 



Average per race ... 7-fTj lengths. Average per race... 3 lengths 



* The number of lengths corresponding to any given number of 

 seconds by which the race was won, may be obtained by regarding 

 6J lengtlm as equivalent to as many seconds as the race itself lasted 

 minutes. 



t The reader will underetand that we are only regarding either 

 race as .afferting our opinion of Oxford and Cambridge style. The 

 race of 18");) was unquestionably an Oxford win, though every one 

 who knows the circumstances is aware that Cambridge never had a 

 chance from the beginning; and, in like manner, the race heat of 

 1877 must be regarded as a dead heat, though it is certain Oxford 

 would liavo won but for an accident. 



