THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON DYNASTY Orthodox-influenced crews would swing forward as far as +40° to +45°. On the pullthrough, “I want my man to just drop his blade into the water and start leg drive, back and arm pull. . . . I want all the power possible to bow of the oarlock – back, legs and arms. [Concurrency!] “The legs are the strongest muscle group we have, and I cannot for a moment see the advantage of the English style of slighting leg action in order to put greater emphasis on the work of arms and back. “Of course, in order to get the best out of the stroke I have described and to reap the full benefit of the leg drive, it is necessary for the oarsman to have a strong back and arms. “From the time the oarsman starts to pull when out for the long reach, he must pull with his back all the time. Elbows should be at the side at the same time the legs are straightened out. . . . “Don’t let up on the leg drive when you begin to increase the power applied from back and arms.”1628 [Schubschlag!] At the end of the stroke, the oarsman “will lay back until the beveling hand – the outboard hand – is over the knee, not past it or beyond it but exactly over it [which equals layback of about -20°].”1629 This amount of layback was less than the average of the time. As a point of comparison, Cornell and Syracuse employed 1628 Conibear, pp. 318-9 1629 Ibid. This quote can be confusing. Conibear was not suggesting that the rower should actually assume the described position at any time during an actual stroke. He merely meant that if you want to determine the correct amount of layback while sitting motionless in a boat, just lay back with your arms straight until your outside hand is even with your knee. That’s the correct angle for you to achieve while rowing. layback of -30°, and Yale, Harvard and Navy as much as -45°. Overall, Conibear’s crews swung through a total of 45°, considerably less than Cornell’s 60°, Penn’s 70º and Yale, Syracuse and Navy’s 75°. Mendenhall’s take on the Outing article: “Conibear stressed the importance of a smooth, flowing combination of the leg drive with a strong back and arms, and concludes with a lyrical description of the joys of single sculling, surely a reflection of the Pocock influence.”1630 The part about the single sculling surely does indicate the Pocock influence, but the part about the “smooth, flowing combination” of legs, back and arms gives the impression of being in complete contrast to the writings of George Pocock, which seem to recommend sequential use of legs first, then back and arms. Coordinated, concurrent use of legs and back seems to indicate the pivotal influence of Charles Courtney rather than George Pocock. However, we shall soon see that Pocock’s true position was in favor of a smooth, “one cut” pullthrough, very much like the one that Conibear adopted.1631 It is now possible to summarize in detail from the many sources available the fundamental features of the stroke that Hiram Conibear taught late in his career: • Leg compression was to 0° shin angle. • Body angle forward was limited to about +25°, visibly less than their competitors. • Layback was -20°, also quite a bit less than the -30° of Courtney and Ten Eyck and the -45° of Glendon and English Orthodoxy. 1630 Mendenhall, Coaches, Ch. IV, p. 12 1631 See Chapter 47. 433
