April 7, 1882.] 



KNOWLEDGE 



491 



further stand int<-niiciliate between existent classes of 

 living beings. 'Die existence of these 'links,'' to argue 

 backwards, is inexplicable, save on the theory of evolution, 

 or on that of the production of "freaks " by nature : and 

 this last idea, I appn-hend, is put out of court, by every 

 consideration worthy the name of a scientilic thouglit. 



NOTES ON ROWING. 



By an Old Club Captain. 



THE race is ovei-, and the despised crews of " inefficient 

 mediocrities" liave somehow managed to take their 

 boats over tlie course from Putney to Mortlake (on a good, 

 but not wonderfully good, tide), in the very good times of 

 20 rain. 12 sec. and 20 min. 32 sec. for winners and losers 

 respectively. I was able to watch both crews under singu- 

 larly favourable conditions as they rowed past the White 

 Hart, at Mortlake. With an excellent field-glass by 

 Browning, 1 had each crew in succession about half a 

 minute in view, as distinctly as if the}' were at an oar's 

 length from me. For a minute or two before and after 

 this, I was able to see both crews together, foreshortened, 

 so that the nature of the swing, and the time of stroke and 

 recovery could not only be well seen, but readily compared. 

 [I had before only se<>n the crews in practice, and always at 

 the beginning of their spins. Oxford, in particular, I had 

 seen under very favourable conditions.] At Mortlake on 

 Saturday, there was a difference naturally arising from the 

 circumstance that Oxford were rowing out to the finish a 

 race already won, while Cambridge — though they could not 

 be so sure of the hopelessness of their position as the Oxford 

 men were sure of victory — were nevertheless ver}* obviously 

 rowing a losing race. There was not seen that liveliness 

 O.i the feather, after rather sluggish disengagement of the 

 oar, which had been characteristic of the Cambridge 

 style. On the other hand, the Oxford men showed 

 the good features of their style very markedly. The 

 swoop down of th(- oars upon the water was splendid 

 at tliis stage of the race (I am told that earlier there was 

 occasionally some little trace of flurry). As for the way 

 in which the work was done — a question which I left not 

 tjuite decided in my last — I am as certain, after my obser- 

 vations last Saturday, as I am of my own existence, that 

 nearly all the arm work was done in conjunction with 

 body aid leg work, and not, as some persistently assert, 

 afterwards. I am eijually certain that in the Cambridge 

 boat the arm work followed the sway back of the body. 

 The sluggish look of the Cambridge style was in 

 singular contrast to the sfiarp slash of the Oxford 

 oars throigh the water; and this sluggish look was 

 entirely die to the inert condition of the arms during the 

 first pai-t o' the stroke. The slow disengagement of the 

 oar by the Cambridge, again, was in decided contrast with 

 the clean, qiiek disengagement by Oxford. On the other 

 hand, I caniot say that the swing forward by Cambridge 

 was anything like so sharp as I had expected to find it, or 

 as it appeared in practice. But this was only natural in a 

 crew which hal been rowing so hard a stern race. More- 

 over, the Camb-idge style is, as every one knows who has 

 ever tried it, e>ceedingly wearing iii a hard race ; and the 

 lightning feathe-, which is its one theoretical advantage 

 (more than counerbalanced by disadvantages), is very apt 

 to be exchanged tnvards the end of a long race for a much 

 less lively movenent. This circumstance, which I have 

 noticed myself in owing races (I suppose every reader of 

 these lines has alnady come to the conclusion that the 

 writer is a Cantab) s well described by Mat Bradwood, in 



a passage which deserves to be quoted at full length, so 

 apt and instructive is it " Every day of practice on the 

 Cam," he says, "you hear the coaches of the difl'erent 

 racing-boats giving their crews certain directions, some 

 absurd, and nearly all from some accitlental reason useless. 

 The chief of these is to ' keep it long,' and if you object to 

 the results of this teaching, you arc told that ' length ' is 

 the great requisite of good rowing, and that 'Oxford, 

 sir, always beat us, because they are longer than we 

 are.' Now this is true and yet untrue. At Cam- 

 bridge, ' length ' is acquired by making the men ' finish 

 the stroke,' that is by making them swing well back 

 beyond the perpendicular. Of course the oar remains 

 longer in the water, but we maintain that the extra time 

 it is kept there by the backward motion of the body is 

 time lost. The ' swinging back ' throws a tremendous 

 strain on the abdominal muscles, the weakest rowing 

 muscles in the body ; very soon the men feel this strain, 

 become exhausted and unable to ' get forward,' and, 

 finally, lose time and swing and ' go all to pieces.' Length 

 obtained by going backwards is of no possible use. A crew 

 ought to be coached to go as far forward as they can, to 

 finish the stroke by bringing their elbows past their sides, 

 and their hands well in to their bodies, and then complaints 

 about ' wind ' and ' last ' will be fewer." 



It may be asked wliy, if the repeated victories and the 

 nature of the victories of Oxford result from an inherent 

 superiority of the Oxford over the Cambridge style, 

 Cambridge does not adopt the Oxford style 1 It is well 

 known that Cambridge club captains try to introduce 

 what they believe to be the style of (Oxford. The passage 

 above quoted indicates very accurately the feeling of 

 Cambridge men on this point. But a radically wrong idea 

 is entertained at Cambridge as to what the Oxford style 

 really is. Oxford men are apt, as I have already 

 mentioned, to assert (and doubtless they believe, though 

 erroneously, as close observation and theory alike show) 

 that they do not use the arms till the body is nearly 

 upright. Thus, Mr. Ske)-, F.E.C.S., in writing on the 

 movement of the muscles and the body in rowing, 

 gives as the result of inquiry which he had made, the 

 following entirely incorrect account of Oxford rowing : — 

 " The prominent and distinctive feature of the O.xford 

 .system consists, I believe, in this that the action of the 

 glutei (the great muscles of the buttock), in drawing the 

 trunk backwards to something beyond the vertical, is nearly 

 exhausted before the agents of flexion of the forearm 

 commence their work. The O.xford authorities consider 

 that they row with their trunk, while others more pro- 

 minently row with their arms. In truth" (here his 

 anatomical knowledge sets Mr. Skey right) " the muscular 

 system of both trunk and arms is indispensable in all 

 cases, the only distinction being that in the case of Oxford 

 oarsmen the greater part of the retraction of the trunk, 

 by the action of the glutei is accomplished with rigid 

 unbent arms, while in other cases the retractors 

 of the shoulders, and the flexors of the fore- 

 arm are somewhat more in unison, or rather, they 

 share the time occupied by the former action." Mr. 

 Skey is " unwilling to express a positive opinion as to the 

 relative excellence of the two styles in rowing," but is 

 inclined to think that some advantage is obtainable from 

 the two actions being rendered consecutive, inasmuch as 

 the superior power of the retractors of the trunk, on 

 which the great efibrt in rowing depends, should be exerted 

 singly, without the physical action of the system being 

 hampered by two actions at the same moment of time." 

 As this was written in October, 1869, when Oxford had 

 been for nine successive years successful against Cam- 



