Boating Part 18

12. The committee, on the occasion of a club race or other special event, shall appoint a member of the club to take charge of and conduct all arrangements connected with the same.

13. The member pulling the stroke-oar in any club boat shall have command of the crew.

14. Upon the arrival of a crew at the place appointed for stopping, the captain of the boat shall (if required) fix the time for returning; and, if any member be absent at the appointed time, the crew shall be at liberty to hire a subst.i.tute at the expense of the absentee.

15. Every member, on landing from a club boat, shall be bound to a.s.sist in housing such boat, and in doing so shall follow the direction of the captain or other officer.

16. Any member using a private boat without the consent of its owner shall thereby render himself liable to a vote of censure, and, if need be, expulsion.

Clubs are often but ephemeral. Some leading spirit founds one, and, when his influence vanishes with himself, the club wanes; perhaps it pales before a rival, perhaps it amalgamates with another. From various causes many minor clubs have risen and set on the Thames within the writer's memory during the last two decades; others which were in full swing when he was at school or college have ceased to exist. In the summer of 1886 this question of extinction of small clubs became a subject of correspondence in the aquatic columns of the 'Field.' Subsequently the writer of this chapter discussed the question in the following leading article, published in the 'Field' on July 17, 1886, and now reproduced by the courtesy of the proprietors. It is given _in extenso_ for the sake of the history and reminiscences embodied in it.

_The Extinction of Small Rowing Clubs._

We published a fortnight ago a letter of complaint on this subject from a correspondent who signed himself 'Senior Oarsman.' We quite admit the fact that the tendency of the great rowing clubs of the Thames has been to absorb the numerous petty clubs which at one time abounded on the tideway, but we entirely fail to agree with his view that this consummation is to be deprecated, either in the interests of oarsmanship or of regattas. Our own opinion is, that four or five strong clubs raise the standard of rowing and the prestige of regattas to a far greater extent than if these same societies were split up into a dozen or more minor a.s.sociations. We can remember when there were a large number of petty clubs of that description, many of them hailing from Putney. The ground-floor doors of the annexe to the 'Star and Garter' at Putney still commemorate the names of some of them, though the clubs have been extinct for ages. 'Nautilus' and 'Star' are among the t.i.tles which are still painted on the doors. Prior to the founding of the London Rowing Club in 1856, the rowing talent of the Thames was split up into many such small sections. None of them, save the 'Argonauts,'

were fit to man one decent four between them. The L.R.C.

consolidated these small societies for the time being; but there are always to be found oarsmen who prefer to pose as leaders of small-fry clubs rather than play second or third fiddle in first-cla.s.s clubs. Hence, no sooner had the L.R.C. consolidated one batch of small clubs than others sprang into existence. At the date of the founding of the Metropolitan Regatta in 1866 there were once more a host of these minor societies on the Thames, and one of the causes of weakness in the executive of that regatta arose from the recognition of these small clubs by the L.R.C. as factors to be consulted in its organisation. These petty clubs had no chance of winning the open prizes, but they were keen to distinguish themselves and have a hand in the gathering, and accordingly the 'metropolitan' eights and pairs for local second-raters had to be established, in order to induce the small clubs to join the undertaking. The result of this policy was, that before long the L.R.C. provided by far the larger proportion of the funds for the regatta, and yet had to defer to the majority of votes of the small clubs in the matter of executive. At that date Kingston was the only other club (except those of the U.B.C's.) which was up to Grand Challenge form, like the L.R.C. Since that date there has been an expansion of other strong clubs, and, as a necessary corollary, a gradual decay of minor ones. Thames has grown to be a worthy rival of London, and has done much to raise the standard of oarsmanship. Leander has been revived, and Twickenham, which at one time (in the sixties) was quite a small local club, now comes out also in Grand Challenge form. This club have not yet actually landed the great prize, but they have more than once been good enough to win it, had they been fortunate enough to draw the best station. Besides these clubs, there has been the Molesey Club, which in 1875 and 1876 was capable of making the best crews gallop at Henley, and won the Senior fours at sundry minor Thames regattas later in the season. Its later absence from Henley is due to the retirement from active oarsmanship of Mr. H. Chinnery and others, whose personal energies alone sufficed to combat the difficulty of distance from London.

Meantime, clubs like the Ariel, Corsair West London, Ino, and others have become 'fine by degrees and beautifully less,' until they expired of inanition. There are, and always will be, sundry ambitious second-cla.s.s oarsmen who regret the extinction of societies of this sort, and who recall with regret the pot-hunting for junior prizes which sometimes fell in their way.

But when we recollect that clubs of this stamp were conspicuously absent from the winning roll, and usually even from the compet.i.tion in senior races in minor Thames regattas, we fail to see wherein rowing science suffers by their absorption. Junior oarsmen obtain far better instruction in the ranks of the crack clubs than they could hope to find in the small-fry inst.i.tutions, and they have found this out. When men have matriculated as oarsmen in weak clubs, they constantly contract insidious faults of style, the result of being put to race in light boats before they have mastered the first principles of oarsmanship. If such men subsequently aspire to join the better clubs, they have a worse chance of attaining a seat in a first or even a second crew than if they had joined the big club at the outset, and had been carefully taught in tubs till they were fairly proficient. They have to be 'untaught' from a bad style before they can be moulded in a good one. The Thames cup eights at Henley are of a higher order now than they were seven or eight years ago, and we are inclined to ascribe this fact to the 'absorption' system, which not only strengthens the large clubs, but also provides better instruction for the rising generation than was the case when talent was more split up. Oarsmen of good standard who are really desirous of distinguishing themselves, and are not too proud to serve in the ranks of a big club after having held office in a smaller one, freely gravitate from minor to leading clubs. The juniors of their clubs follow their leaders, and so the minor clubs become gradually depleted.

We do not consider that regatta entries are practically injured by the development of the large clubs at the expense of the smaller ones. We have already said that these small clubs are of little or no use for senior races, whereas their ingredients, consolidated in larger bodies, create one or two more strong clubs which are good enough to produce competent senior crews, and so swell senior entries. We admit that to some extent junior entries may fall off in numbers, in consequence of the breaking up of petty clubs; but, even allowing this, we hold that the quality of junior entries increases in proportion as those juniors hail from a good club endowed with scientific coaching.

Clubs whose powers are limited to the production of junior crews do not contribute much to the standard of oarsmanship, and at the same time they divert material which in good hands might attain a good standard. The many petty clubs of fifteen or twenty years ago used to labour, each by itself, through a whole season to produce just one junior crew; and this possibly won a race at last, on a sort of tontine principle, through the gradual victories of former opponents in junior races, which on each occasion removed a rival from the field of the future. The modern strong and first cla.s.s clubs turn out one junior crew after another in the season; so that batch after batch of juniors are thus taken in hand, and competently coached during the season. Besides regatta rowing, there are club contests, and these are to be found in even greater abundance and variety under the management of the leading clubs, and afford more scope for rising oarsmen, than ever was the case in the expiring and expired minor clubs. We gave publicity to our correspondent's complaint, as a matter of fair play in a subject that might be of interest to many; but, all things considered, we come to the conclusion that his deductions break down in every respect, and that rowing and regattas alike benefit rather than lose by consolidation of material in the first-cla.s.s clubs of the day.

[Ill.u.s.tration: EARLY AMATEURS.]

CHAPTER XIV.

THE AMATEUR, HIS HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION.

The old theory of an amateur was that he was a 'gentleman,' and that the two were simply convertible terms. The amateur of old might make rowing his sport, so long as he did not actually make it his ostensible means of livelihood. The Leander oarsmen who matched themselves against University crews between 1830 and 1840 did not consider that they lost caste by rowing for a stake.

In 1831 Oxford and Leander rowed at Henley for 200_l._ a side, with watermen steering them. Much later than this it was not considered improper for two 'gentlemen' to row a match (or race one) for a mutual _stake_ (not a bet). Until 1861, when the conditions of the Wingfield Sculls were remodelled at a meeting of ex-champions and old compet.i.tors, it had been the custom for all entries for that prize to pay a fee of 5_l._, and the winner swept the pool! No one dreamed of suggesting that this was in any way derogatory to the status of an amateur.

But as rowing became more popular, and more widely adopted as a pastime, it began to be felt that it was invidious to leave the question 'Is he an amateur?' to the local opinion of the regatta committee, before whom such a question might be raised. Oarsmen came to the conclusion that some written definition of the qualification was necessary; some hard and fast rule, prospective, if not retrospective. Till then, various executives had adopted various opinions as to what const.i.tuted an amateur. One year, about 1871, the Henley executive declined to recognise one of the local crews engaged in the 'Town Cup' as 'amateurs;' and on this ground refused to allow them to start for the Wyfold Cup. It was not alleged that any of this crew had ever laboured as a mechanic, or rowed for money. The allegation of the Henley executive was that this crew were not 'gentlemen amateurs,' and as such they declined to admit them. A few days later another regatta executive freely admitted this same crew, and none of the recognised amateur clubs opposed to them raised any objection to the local crew's status.

This variety of opinion led to consultation among certain old amateurs whose ideas were universally respected, and as a result, on April 10, 1878, a meeting was held at Putney, at which there were present--

FRANCIS PLAYFORD, L.R.C., _Chairman_.

T. EDMUND HOCKIN, Secretary, C.U.B.C.

T. C. EDWARDES-MOSS, President, O.U.B.C.

F. S. GULSTON, Captain, London R.C.

HENRY P. MARRIOTT, for Secretary, O.U.B C.

C. GURDON, President, C.U.B.C.

JAMES HASTIE, Captain, Thames R.C.

M. G. FARRER, Captain, Leander B.C.

C. D. HEATLEY, Captain, Kingston R.C.

ROBERT W. RISLEY, O.U.B.C.

FRANK WILLAN, O.U.B.C.

J. G. CHAMBERS, C.U.B.C.

EDWARD H. FARRIE, C.U.B.C.

JNO. IRELAND, L.R.C.

H. H. PLAYFORD, Vice-President, L.R.C.

E. D. BRICKWOOD, L.R.C., _Secretary_.

These gentlemen drew up and pa.s.sed the following:--

_Definition of an Amateur._

An amateur oarsman or sculler must be an officer of her Majesty's Army, or Navy, or Civil Service, a member of the Liberal Professions, or of the Universities or Public Schools, or of any established boat or rowing club not containing mechanics or professionals; and must not have competed in any compet.i.tion for either a stake, or money, or entrance-fee, or with or against a professional for any prize; nor ever taught, pursued, or a.s.sisted in the pursuit of athletic exercises of any kind as a means of livelihood, nor have ever been employed in or about boats, or in manual labour; nor be a mechanic, artisan, or labourer.

In the following year the Henley executive drew up a definition of their own, much to the same effect, but slightly different in phraseology (this was on April 8, 1879). It read thus:--

No person shall be considered as an amateur oarsman or sculler--

1. Who has ever competed in any open compet.i.tion for a stake, money, or entrance-fee.

2. Who has competed with or against a professional for any prize.

3. Who has ever taught, pursued, or a.s.sisted in the practice of athletic exercise of any kind as a means of gaining a livelihood.

4. Who has been employed in or about boats for money or wages.

5. Who is or has been, by trade or employment for wages, a mechanic, artisan, or labourer.

This definition, with a further slight verbal alteration, will be found still embodied in the rules of Henley regatta, which are given at p. 48.

This new definition was adopted by the 'Amateur Rowing a.s.sociation.'

This latter body arose in 1879. The original object of its const.i.tution was to found a general club which could comprise all the best amateur talent of Britain, and from which, in the event of any foreign or colonial crew, composed of the full force of its own country, coming to these sh.o.r.es, could be put forward to represent the honour of the mother country; so that the individual clubs of Britain should never hereafter be in danger of being attacked separately, with forces divided, by the concentrated resources of some foreign or colonial country. The a.s.sociation was first called the 'Metropolitan Rowing a.s.sociation,' but eventually it took its present name. The rules of this a.s.sociation are here given _in extenso_, and sufficiently explain the _raison d'etre_.

RULES OF THE AMATEUR ROWING a.s.sOCIATION, LATE METROPOLITAN ROWING a.s.sOCIATION.

_Committee._

The President of the Oxford University Boat Club. } The President of the Cambridge University Boat Club. } The Captain of the Dublin University Boat Club. } The Captain of the Dublin University Rowing Club. } _Ex_ The Captain of the Leander Boat Club. } _Officio._ The Captain of the London Rowing Club. } The Captain of the Kingston Rowing Club. } The Captain of the Thames Rowing Club. }

JAMES CATTY, T.R.C. F. S. GULSTON, L.R.C.

H. J. CHINNERY, L.R.C. JAMES HASTIE, T.R.C.

F. FENNER, L.R.C. Rev. R. W. RISLEY, O.U.B.C.

J. H. D. GOLDIE, C.U.B.C. S. LE BLANC SMITH, L.R.C.

_Hon. Secretary._ S. LE BLANC SMITH, Esq.

_Head Quarters, pro tem._ LONDON ROWING CLUB, PUTNEY.