ft. ins.

Over all 12 3?

In-board 3 8

Length of blade 2 7

Greatest breadth 0 6

(These were barrel blades.)

In 1896 the Oxford crew rowed with oars measuring 12 ft. 2 ins. over all, with a leverage of 3 ft. 8 ins., and blade 6 ins. broad. With these, it will be remembered, they rowed down and defeated Cambridge, after a magnificent struggle, by two-fifths of a length, Cambridge using oars measuring some 3 ins. longer out-board. It will thus be seen that short oars have a very good record to support them--especially over the Henley course. This year, however, a reaction took place at Oxford in favour of longer oars with narrower blades. The Oxford Eight of this year rowed with oars measuring 12 ft. 6 ins. over all, the extra length being, of course, out-board, and their blades were cut down to a breadth of 5 ins. They were, by common consent, a very fine crew, but were unable to command a fast rate of stroke, and in the race against an inferior crew they hardly did themselves or their reputation justice.

This pattern of oar was used by New College at Henley, the blades, however, being further cut down to 5 ins. In the final heat of the Grand Challenge Cup, they met Leander, who were rowing with 12-ft. oars.

Leander, rowing a considerably faster stroke, at once jumped ahead, and led by a length in three minutes. New College, however, came up to them, still rowing a slower stroke, then picked their stroke up, and, after rowing level with Leander for about 250 yards, finally defeated them by 2 ft. The result of this race cannot be said to have settled the question as between long oars and short. In the Stewards' Fours, on the other hand, Leander, rowing with oars measuring 12 ft. in. over all, and blades 5 ins. in breadth, defeated New College, rowing with 12 ft. 6 ins. oars, and blades of 5 ins., the leverage in both cases being 3 ft. 8 ins. The advocates of the long oar maintain that they secure a longer stride, and are thus able to economize strength by using a slower rate of stroke. Those who favour the shorter ones believe that the extra lightness of their implement enables them to row a faster stroke without unduly tiring themselves. Personally, I found, after trying the experiment several times, that Leander crews I have coached invariably rowed better and commanded more speed in practice with 12 ft.

to 12 ft. 1 in. oars than with oars 3 ins. or 4 ins. longer.[8]

[8] Mr. S. Le B. Smith informs me that, to the best of his recollection, the oars used by the London Rowing Club, up to 1878, measured--for Eights, 12 ft. 2 ins. all over, and for Fours, 12 ft., the inboard measurement being 3 ft. 6 ins. My impression is that they used riggers shorter by 2 ins. than those now in use. Their blades were not quite 6 ins. broad.

It must be remembered, finally, that men, as well as measurements, have something to do with the pace of a crew, and that style and uniformity count for a good deal. The advocates of long or short oars will always be able to explain a defeat sustained by one of their crews by alleging causes that are totally unconnected with the measurement of the oars. On the other hand, such is their enthusiasm, they will attribute the victory of their crew entirely to their favourite pattern of oar.

CHAPTER V.

COMBINED OARSMANSHIP IN EIGHTS (_continued_).

Now that the novice has been safely launched in his racing-ship, we may hark back for a space and consider some important points connected with the organization and management of an eight-oared crew. And first as to its selection and arrangement.

As a general rule, it may be laid down that two middle-weights (men ranging from 11 st. 5 lbs. to 11 st. 10 lbs. or even to 12 st.) will be best at stroke and No. 7; three heavy-weights (12 st. 4 lbs. and upwards) will suit for No. 6, No. 5, and No. 4; then with two more middle-weights at No. 3 and No. 2, and a light-weight (10 st. to 11 st.

3 lbs. or so) at bow, your crew will be complete. This sounds easy enough, but in practice the matter is complicated by a hundred difficulties, such as (_a_) a superfluity or (_b_) a total absence of good heavy-weights; (_c_) the absence of any good middle-weights possessing the peculiar qualities necessary for stroke and No. 7; and (_d_) the inability of good oars to row on one side or the other of the boat, for you may find that of six valuable oars whom you may want to include in a crew, every one will tell you that he can only row on the stroke side or the bow side, as the case may be. In theory, of course, every man ought to be able to row equally well on both sides. In practice it will be found that most men, apart from any conscious preference on their own part, do better work on one side than on the other, while some are absolutely useless if shifted from the side they prefer. This last class is, however, not nearly so numerous as it used to be; and if, for instance, you consult the list of victorious Oxford crews from 1890 up to the present year, and compare it further with lists of Leander crews and Oxford College crews, you will see that a very large number of men have rowed and won races on both sides of the boat. I may mention specially Mr. Guy Nickalls, Mr. C. W. Kent, Mr. W.

A. L. Fletcher, Mr. R. P. P. Rowe, Mr. W. F. C. Holland, Mr. H. B.

Cotton, Mr. M. C. Pilkington, Mr. C. D. Burnell, Mr. T. H. E. Stretch, Mr. C. K. Philips, Mr. C. M. Pitman, and Mr. H. G. Gold. On the other hand, I cannot remember--to take only two instances of excellent heavies--that Mr. E. G. Tew or Mr. W. Burton Stewart ever rowed except on the bow side.

All such difficulties the captain and coach of a crew must overcome as best they can. In any case they will find it advisable to put their lighter men in the stern and the bows, dumping down their heavies in the waist of the boat, where they will have more room, and where it will be easier to correct the clumsiness which is often associated with great weight.

STROKE.

For stroke I like a man of not more than twelve stone. A few good strokes, _e.g._ the late Mr. J. H. D. Goldie, have topped this weight by a few pounds. But a real heavy-weight is almost invariably slow and lacking in initiative when placed at stroke, although, in the middle of the boat, with another man acting as fugleman for him, he may be able to row perfectly well at any rate of stroke that may be set to him. A long-backed, supple-jointed man is of course best, for the short-backed, long-legged man invariably has trouble in clearing his knees, and consequently develops faults of style which it is hard to eradicate or even to reduce when he has no model in front of him. These faults will therefore exercise a very deleterious influence on the rest of the crew. As to temperament, I should select a good fighter, a man, that is, who would rather die than abandon the struggle, and whose fiery determined nature does not exclude perfect coolness and mastery over himself when a crisis calls for resource. Let me cite some examples.

I may begin my list with Mr. H. P. Marriott and Mr. C. D. Shafto, the Oxford and Cambridge strokes of 1877, the dead-heat year. It is rare indeed to find two such splendid performers matched against one another.

Mr. L. R. West, the Oxford stroke of 1880, 1881, and 1883, was as good a stroke as ever came to the University from Eton. He only weighed eleven stone, but his style was simply perfect. The finest demonstration of his racing judgment was given when he took his crew off at the start in 1883, and left Cambridge, on whom odds of three to one had been laid, struggling hopelessly in the rear. More familiarly known to me was the rowing of Mr. F. I. Pitman. In the University Boat Race of 1886 both crews started at a very fast rate, and rowed little under thirty-eight to the minute all the way to Hammersmith Bridge, which was passed by Cambridge with a trifling lead. Immediately afterwards a strong head-wind and a rough sea were encountered; the rate of stroke in both boats dropped to about thirty-two, and Oxford began to forge steadily ahead, until at Barnes Bridge they led by nearly two lengths. Here the water was again smooth, and Mr. F. I. Pitman, the Cambridge stroke, nerved himself for a supreme effort. With a wonderful spurt he picked it up, and in the first half-minute after Barnes, actually rowed twenty-one strokes, and in the full minute forty. The result of the race in favour of Cambridge is a matter of history; but, even had Cambridge lost, the merits of that wonderful spurt would have remained as striking.

[Illustration: MR. C. W. KENT.]

Mr. C. W. Kent, of Oxford and Leander fame, is another remarkable instance of a born stroke. He rarely rowed as much as eleven stone, and his general appearance outside a boat hardly gave promise of his marvellous vigour and endurance in a race. He is a loose-limbed, long-armed man, with no superfluous flesh, and with very little muscle.

In any purely gymnastic competition he would stand no chance whatever.

Yet it is not too much to say that as stroke of an Eight or a Four no man has ever been of greater value, none has a more brilliant record of victories secured by his own courage and resource after desperate struggles. He was not a very easy man to follow in the early stages of practice, but when once he had got his crew together behind him, he had the most absolute control over them, and could always get the last possible ounce of work out of them, and yet leave himself with sufficient vigour to wind them up to a final extra spurt if the necessity arose. His crew behind him became a single living entity, on which he could play as a musician plays on an instrument over which he has perfect command. He seemed to have a sort of intuitive knowledge, not merely of the capacity of his own crew, but also of the capacity of his opponents, at any given moment in a race. And he had, moreover, the gift--inestimably valuable in a stroke--of taking his men along at their best pace while economizing his own strength, thus always leaving himself with a margin to put in extra work and pace when a close finish required them. For there is no crew, however hard the men may have worked, and however greatly they may be exhausted, that cannot screw itself up to follow if only their stroke will give them a lead. Mr.

Kent's record of brilliant achievements begins in 1889, when, as stroke of the Brasenose crew, with Mr. W. F. C. Holland at No. 7, he maintained his boat at the head of the river against the repeated attacks of a considerably stronger and faster New College crew. In 1890 he was stroke of a Brasenose four at Henley. In one of the preliminary heats of the Stewards' Cup, this crew defeated a strong Leander Four by two feet. In the final heat they had to meet the Thames Rowing Club. At Fawley Court, the halfway point, Thames had secured a lead of two lengths, and were apparently rowing well within themselves. From here, however, Mr. Kent began an extraordinary series of spurts. With a relentless persistence, his crew rowing as one man behind him, he drove his boat inch by inch up to the Thames boat, drew level with them about 300 yards from the finish, and then, reinvigorated by the sight of his rivals, sailed past them and won the race by something more than a length. In 1891, as stroke of the Leander Eight he still further distinguished himself.

Rowing from the unsheltered station against a strong "Bushes" wind, he just managed by a final effort to avert defeat at the hands of the Thames Rowing Club, and made a dead heat of it. On the following day, there being no wind, Leander beat Thames by two lengths, and in the final heat beat the London Rowing Club by a length. Again, in the final heat of the Grand Challenge Cup in 1894, he won another terrible race from the worse station by half a length against the Thames Rowing Club.

No one who saw that extraordinary race can forget the wonderful succession of efforts put forth both by Mr. Kent and by the Thames stroke, Mr. J. C. Gardner, a very fine and powerful oar, who had stroked Cambridge to victory in '88 and '89. Time after time did Mr. Gardner force his boat almost level with Leander, and time after time Mr. Kent just stalled him off and reasserted his crew's lead, until at the last he went in with horse, foot, and artillery, and won the furious contest.

I cannot forbear citing another instance which shows merit as great, though of a different order, in this remarkable stroke. In 1891 he stroked the Oxford Eight, a crew of very heavy metal, but not well arranged, and containing one welter-weight, who, in consequence of a severe attack of influenza during the earlier stages of training, could not be depended upon to last at top pressure over the whole of a course of four miles and a quarter. In fact, Oxford, considering their material, were unaccountably slow, and Cambridge, admirably stroked by Mr. G. E. Elin, were as unaccountably fast. The race, it will be remembered, was a very close one, and was won by Oxford by only half a length. During its progress there were many temptations to Mr. Kent, a man whose favourite rate of stroke was as a rule not less than forty, to increase the pace. He saw the Cambridge crew hanging doggedly on to him, and there were not wanting voices from his own crew to urge him to pick it up. But Mr. Kent knew the capacity of his crew, and knew that, though a fast spurt might give him a temporary advantage, it would leave him in all probability with a completely exhausted heavy-weight on his hands to struggle hopelessly against Cambridge's next effort. So he resolutely kept the stroke slow until he got to Chiswick, where he made his only effort, a slight one, it is true, but just sufficient to give him a margin on which he could win the race.

[Illustration: MR. H. G. GOLD.]

I have dwelt at some length on Mr. Kent's performances, because I think that he showed in the highest degree all the qualities that make a man a good stroke in spite of the absence of mere brute strength. Mr. C. M.

Pitman, who as a freshman stroked Oxford in 1892, was a worthy successor to Mr. Kent. The three Oxford crews stroked by him won with comparative ease, a result of which the credit in a very large share must go to Mr.

Pitman, who proved his judgment and coolness, not only in the races, but during practice against scratch Eights. Mr. H. G. Gold's remarkable victories are too recent to require any comment beyond the statement that they stamp him as one of the company of really great strokes.

Of non-University strokes, the best I have seen have been Mr. J. Hastie, of the Thames R.C.; Mr. F. L. Playford, of the London R.C.; Mr. J. A.

Drake-Smith, of the Thames R.C.; and Mr. G. B. James, of the London R.C.

The three last of these possessed, in addition to considerable natural strength and endurance, a rhythmical ease and finished elegance which made their rowing a pleasure to the eye, and rendered it easy for a crew to shake together behind them. Mr. Hastie had enormous power and perfect judgment, and no man ever knew better exactly how and when to crack up an opposing crew.

NO. 7.

This position is every whit as important as that of stroke. Indeed, I have known many crews that were made by a good No. 7, in spite of an inferior or an inexperienced stroke. Of the converse I cannot at this moment remember any instances. No. 7 is the keystone of the crew. If he fits perfectly into his place, the whole fabric remains firm; if he fits badly, it will crumble to pieces at the first shock.

It is the duty of No. 7 to weld the two sides of the crew into harmony, to transmit to the rest of the crew the initiative of the stroke-oar, to be ever on the watch to make stroke's task an easy one by following him implicitly and immediately. But, more than this, a good No. 7 can control and manage an inexperienced stroke, can check him when he attempts to hurry unduly, can inspirit him and renew his energies when he shows signs of flagging. The style and elegance of a crew depend even more upon No. 7 than they do upon stroke. Therefore select for this position a man whose movements are graceful, rhythmical and easy, who can show style in his own rowing, and thus instil it into the rest of the crew. It is important for No. 7 that he too should be able to economize his power in a race. I do not mean that he is to be a "sugarer" (a word we use to indicate a man who may show style, but who never works honestly), but he must row with judgment. I have seen many very big men row well at No. 7, but I should always prefer a man of the stamp of the late Mr. H. E. Rhodes, the late Mr. T. C. Edwards-Moss, Mr.

R. P. P. Rowe, and Mr. W. E. Crum. These were all born No. 7's, though the reputation of the first was chiefly gained at stroke. Still, I consider that his best rowing was shown in 1876, when he rowed No. 7 of the Cambridge crew behind Mr. C. D. Shafto. Those who can recall the marvellous flexibility and adaptable ease of Mr. T. C. Edwards-Moss, and who have seen similar qualities exhibited by Mr. Rowe and Mr. Crum, will realize what I mean when I insist upon the importance of grace, rhythm, and elegance, in a word, of style in a No. 7. You can rarely, of course, count upon such a paragon for your No. 7, but at any rate get a man who approaches more nearly than the rest to this ideal.

NO. 6.

This, again, is a very important place; for your No. 6 must back up stroke, and must, by genuine hard work, take as much as possible of the burden off stroke's shoulders. Choose for the position a man who combines great weight and power and endurance with a large share of experience, a man who can row every stroke hard, and by his swing can help to keep it long. Mr. S. D. Muttlebury, in the Cambridge crews of 1886 and 1887, was such a No. 6. Such, too, was Mr. W. A. L. Fletcher, in the Oxford and Leander crews of a later date, and such is the veteran Mr. Guy Nickalls at the present time. It must be an inspiration to the rest of the crew to have the broad back of this iron oarsman swinging up and down with an untiring vehemence, and slogging at every stroke as if he had no thought whatever of the strokes that had to come after. But then Mr. Nickalls is equally at home at No. 5 in an Eight; and as stroke-oar of a Four or pair--a position from which he invariably steers the boat--he is to my mind unapproachable. He would not himself assert that he was a model of elegance, but for power and endurance, and for the knack of infusing these qualities into the rest of the crew, no man has ever, in my experience, surpassed, and very few indeed have equalled, him.

NO. 5 AND NO. 4.

These two are places which require weight and power. The details of elegance and polish are not here so important, though it is, of course, well to secure them if you can. A No. 5 who swings long and steadily is of the utmost value, and the same may be said of No. 4. For instance, no small part of the merit of the Oxford and Leander crews in which he rowed was due to Mr. W. B, Stewart, their No. 5. A very tall, well-built, and extremely powerful man, he rowed, I think, with the longest swing I have ever seen. It was for this quality that we picked him out of his college crew, when he was a comparative novice, and gave him No. 5's seat in the Leander crew of 1893, and his rowing in that crew and in others subsequently proved the correctness of our judgment.

The late Mr. T. H. E. Stretch, too, was a remarkable No. 5, a position in which, however, he only rowed once, viz. in the Leander crew of 1896.

He was then certainly, for style and power combined, the best heavy-weight oar at Henley Regatta. Mr. Broughton, of the Thames Rowing Club, was another fine example of what a No. 5 ought to be--a really slashing oar of wonderful power. I might use the same words to describe Mr. R. S. Kindersley, of the Oxford crews of 1880, 1881, and 1882.

Amongst good No. 4's, I should specially select Mr. S. Swann, in the Cambridge crew of 1884; Mr. C. B. P. Bell, of the Cambridge crews of 1888 and 1889; and Mr. F. E. Robeson, of the splendid Oxford crew of 1892.

NO. 3 AND NO. 2.

Of these positions little need be said. Weight here ceases to be of great importance compared with briskness and liveliness of movement. Yet instances are not wanting of genuine heavy-weights who rowed at No. 3 in fast crews. Mr. E. F. Henley, in the Oxford crew of 1866, rowed at 12 st. 13 lbs.; Mr. P. W. Taylor, in the Oxford crew of 1885, and Mr. W. B.

Stewart, in the Oxford crew of 1894, were placed at No. 3 in spite of their weighing well over 13 st.; and Mr. Vivian Nickalls, in the Leander crew of 1891, was little short of this weight. But where these cases have occurred, they were generally due to the fact that the authorities had at their disposal a great number of really good heavy-weights, and, rather than lose one of them, they placed him at No. 3.

BOW.

Bow should be light, alert, compact, springy and cat-like, and a good waterman. Such discomforts as may exist in a boat seem to concentrate themselves at bow's seat. He has less room than any other man in the boat, and any unsteadiness affects him more. I can recall a long list of good bows, but none better than Mr. W. A. Ellison of Oxford, Mr. R. G.

Gridley of Cambridge, Mr. C. W. Hughes of the Thames R.C., Mr. W. F. C.

Holland and the late Mr. H. B. Cotton of Oxford, and Mr. C. W. N.

Graham of Leander fame. The last two rarely rowed as much as ten stone, but their work was remarkable. In their respective college crews, they proved that they could row at stroke just as well as at the other end of the boat.