their faces against them for Eights. The advocates of swivels contend that by their use the hands are eased on the recovery, and the jar that takes place when the oar turns on a fixed rowlock is absolutely abolished. These advantages seem to me to be exaggerated, for, though I have carefully watched for it, I have never seen an Eight or a Four retarded in her place for even a fraction of a second by the supposed jar due to the turning of the oar on the feather in fixed rowlocks. On the other hand, I am convinced that for an ordinary eight-oared crew the fixed rowlock is best, and for the following reasons:—
The combined rattle of the oars as they turn constitutes a most valuable rallying-point. The ears are brought into action as well as the eyes. This advantage is lost with swivels. In modern sculling-boats a man must use swivels, for the reach of the sculler extends to a point which he could not reach with fixed rowlocks, as his sculls would lock before he got there. As he moves forward he is constantly opening up, his arms extending on either side of his body; but in rowing, one arm swings across the body, and unless you are going to screw the body round towards the
rigger, and thus sacrifice all strength of beginning, you cannot fairly reach beyond a certain point, which is just as easily and comfortably attained with fixed rowlocks as with swivels. Moreover—and here is the great advantage—you have in the thole-pin of a fixed rowlock an absolutely immovable surface, and the point of application of your power is always the same throughout the stroke. With a swivel this is not so, for the back of the swivel, against which your oar rests, is constantly moving. To put it in other words, it is far easier with a fixed rowlock to get a square, firm, clean grip of the beginning, and for the same reason it is easier to bring your oar square and clean out at the end of the stroke. A really good waterman can, of course, adapt himself to swivels, as he can to almost anything else in a boat, but his task will not be rendered any easier by them. For average oars, and even for most good oars, the difficulties of rowing properly will be largely increased, without any compensating advantage, so far as I am able to judge. In the case of novices, I am convinced that it would be quite disastrous to attempt to make them row with swivel rowlocks.
Measurements of Racing Four built by J. H. Clasper.
(In this boat Leander won the Stewards' Cup, 1897.)
| ft. | ins. | |
|---|---|---|
| Length over all | 42 | 3 |
| Greatest breadth of beam, exactly amidship | 1 | 8⅜ |
| From centre of seat to sill of rowlock | 2 | 8½ |
| Length of play of slides | 1 | 3⅞ |
| Height of sliding-seat above skin of boat | 8⅞ | |
| Height of heel-traps above skin of boat | 1⅝ | |
| (This would make the heels about one inch above skin of boat.) | ||
| Height of sill of rowlock above seat | 6¾ | |
| Depth forward | 6⅛ | |
| Depth aft | 5 | |
Measurements of Oars used.
| ft. | ins. | |
|---|---|---|
| Length over all | 12 | 0½ |
| Length in-board | 3 | 8½ |
| Length of blade | 2 | 8 |
| Breadth of blade | 5¾ | |
This boat is some three feet shorter than the average of Fours nowadays.