crity. In pair-oar rowing there is necded a je-ne-sats-guoé sort of mutual concession of style. One man is stroke and the other pow, but there is in good pair-oarsmen an indefinite and almost unconscious give-and-take action on the part of both men. ‘Lhe style of the two is a sort of blend.
Old Harry Clasper, when asked which stecred, of bimself and his son Jack, in a pair, said that ‘both stcered.’ To do this is the acme of homogeneous rowing. Of two partners one may, and should, act as chief ; but his colleague should he co-operating with him, and almost anticipating his motions and orders.
When two strange partners commence work, they should make up their minds not to row ‘jealous.’ If each begins by trying to row the other round, they will disagree like Richard Penlake and his wife. They had better each try to see who can do least work ; sit the boat, paddle gently, studying to drop into the water together, to catch the water together, to finish together, to feather together (and cleanly), and to recover to- gether. ‘The less work they try to do, while thus seeking to assimilate their motions to each other, the quicker will they settle down.
As to rowing each other round, such emulation should never enter their heads. ‘To row a partner round is no proof of haying done more work than he towards propelling the boat. One man may catch sharply and row cleanly, and in a style calculated to make a boat travel ; his colleague may slither the beginning and tug at the end, staying a fraction ofa second later in the water than the other, but rowing no longerin reach. The latter will probably row the boat round! A tug at the end of a stroke turns a beat much more than a catch at the beginning ; yet the latter propels the racing boat far more, Ofcourse, if two men row alike in style and reach from end to end, and one puts onail through the stroke a trifle more pressure, the ship will turn from the greater pressure. But, unless it can be guaranteed that the style of each partner is identical all through the stroke, ‘rowing round’ does not prove a superiority of work.
