“SYNCOPATED” ROWING IS TOO MECHANICAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18959, 3 January 1930, Page 10

“ SYNCOPATED” ROWING IS TOO MECHANICAL.

Lack Of Rhythm Causes Deterioration In Form.

There has lately been a stir in the rowing world because of the invention of “syncopated’* rowing (writes “An Old Blue” in a London journal). The derision with which it was at first greeted has sobered down almost to a puzzled kind of respect since a firstclass Metropolitan club started to give this new idea a serious trial. Ten days ago I happened to go to Putney and was astonished to find a large crowd at the London Rowing Club. The syncopated eight was taking to the water surrounded by Press photographers and movie cameras. The inventor, Mr F. E. Hellyer, an old Cambridge “blue,” stood, by and gave a lecture down a “talkie” microphone, while the crew obligingly posed for “close-ups.” It was an historic occasion, and the pioneers of the rowing revolution were “shot” for all time. Then came a demonstration of the rowing, which I was privileged to see, and I have since seen the crew at work several times, and observed it from the coach’s launch. Scientific Principle. Syncopated rowing is an attempt to apply a scientific principle to the very human and subtle art of rowing. The scientific principle is the well-known one which every engineering student at Cambridge is invited to prove for himself. The exact form of the problem I forget, but it is something after this style: Take a given boat which has to be propelled at a speed of 15 miles per hour. With certain data concerning resistances the horse-power necessary to drive the boat at this speed can be calculated. Now imagine the boat to have the same mean speed of 15 miles per hour, but superimpose a tiny fluctuation of, say, halfmile per hour either way 30 times a minute. The average speed will still be 15 miles per hour, but 30 times a minute it is just boosted up to 15* and alowed to fall to 14*. This is very roughly the case of a rowing boat, whose speed fluctuates in such a manner, though, of course, the figures I have taken are quite imaginary. It will be found that the horse-power required is slightly larger—not much, but nevertheless something quite definite. The Human Factor. From this it follows that a given horse-power would propel a boat at a greater speed if the fluctuations could be eliminated. Hence syncopated rowing. Instead of eight men striking the water together the stroke is divided into four, and each pair rows a quarter of a stroke “late” on the pair in front. The boat receives four smaller impulses where before it received one large one. Hence the fluctuations in its speed should be much reduced, and it should travel faster. So much for the theory; but rowing a boat at speed is less a question of theory than of practice. There is a

wise old waterman who invariably sums up a new idea concerning oars or rig as follows: “It may be all right according to the scientists, but what they overlook is the unknown human factor. You are not dealing with machines but with flesh and blood.” This may sound like the usual die-hard’s reluctance to admit new methods, but there is more in it than that. Since the introduction of the sliding seat in 1873 no improvement has been discovered by which, the speed of a racing eight could be in- ' creased. The record for the Grand Challenge Cup at Henley, made in 1891, still remains unbeaten to-day. The hundreds and thousands of experiments that have been made in boats, oars, rig, and methods of rowing have not been able to improve on the orthodox system and the standard rigs, which presumably were found by experience to be best suited to the human machine. I think it is the human factor which is again being overlooked in syncopated rowing, and which will cause it shortly to be looked upon as only another interesting experiment. And the particular aspect of the human factor in this case will be boredom. Syncopated rowing is so mechanical that it is almost impossible to raise enthusiasm in the men—and, of course, no boat will travel fast without enthusiasm. Perhaps my remark sounds strange to many people who already regard rowing as the height of mechanical dullness. The whole zest in rowing is the rhythm of it—the timing of the different parts of the stroke and the contrast between “slow forward” and “sharp back.” But there can be no rhythm in syncopated rowing. Just when one pair starts to slide forward, feet firm on the stretcher, they are thrown off their balance by some other pair shooting their hands away at the finish. Just when the pair is trying to “gather” over the stretcher preparatory to springing back another pair takes the water, and again the balance or rhythm is spoilt. One might imagine that the absence of rhythm would lead to deterioration of individual rowing form, and such, indeed, seems to be the case. The members of the London crew were individually rowing badly, each man being well below his par. Mr Hellyer also informed me that for racing purposes the crew will be required to row fifty-two strokes a minute. But if this is expected the human factor is again being overlooked. It is hard enopgh to average thirty-five strokes a minute over the Henley course, and, even as a blade of a paddle wheel, it seems asking a lot of a man to expect him to flap the water half as many times again. A crew that could row fifty-two strokes a minute would no doubt win, whatever method of rowing it adopted.