THE SPORT OF ROWING sternward, restoring the oarsman’s balance while the oar was still bent. “The skill with which this was accomplished related directly to speed. “The boat went fastest as the blades left the water, urged forward in part by the movement of the torsos in the opposite direction to that of the boat.”2262 Stan Pocock, describing his and his father’s technique: “I didn’t want them to be sitting in the bow as the boat slowed and the bow dipped. Rather, I wanted everyone out of there while the bow was still up. When they did that, the bow could come up even more, or at least stay up longer. “I can still see the bow of the UBC Canadian Olympic Eight of 1956 as it leaped up and forward during the beginning of each recovery.2263 This is something I never saw in a boat with its crew rowing the other way (that is, with the pause, rush, snatch and grab2264).”2265 The Bolles Approach However, Tom Bolles did not adopt completely the Pocock Stroke. Since the 1930s, he had coached use of the arms from the entry “in order to ‘flatten’ out the release by completing the arm pull simultaneously with the leg drive.”2266 Rowing historian Chuck von Wrangell recalls the Harvard crews in the late-1940s from his viewpoint, the 7-seat in the Cornell Varsity: “Tom Bolles’ crews were close, as I recall, to breaking their arms a wee bit at the catch. It was interesting.”2267 2262 Cunningham, op.cit. 2263 See photo, Chapter 162. 2264 Here Stan is describing a slow-fast recovery, for example the 1960s Harvard Stop & Shop. See Chapters 102 and 162. 2265 S. Pocock, p. 162 2266 Qtd. by Mendenhall, Coaches, Ch. XII, p. 9 2267 von Wrangell, personal correspondence, 2005 Ulbrickson’s and Bolles’ early desire to minimize vertical movement of the bodies during the stroke was largely continued, and upper body movement was for the most part horizontal. The direction that Bolles’ technique evolved can be predicted using Mike Spracklen’s three variables: strength of stroke, length of stroke and rate of stroke.2269 Bolles held steadfast to the principle of rowing low stroke ratings, even in the shorter races, which eliminated one of the Spracklen variables. Eliminating a second variable, Bolles insisted on no additional length through additional body swing. The only variable left was strength or aggressiveness of stroke, which is the direction toward which Harvard evolved. Bolles After the 1930 season at Washington, had been concerned with overaggressive entries leading to two-part pullthroughs. By 1950, his Harvard crews were becoming similarly aggressive simply because they had no other alternative. A couple of members of that crew threw their heads back at the entry, which conflicted with Bolles‘ intent to focus effort on a very strong but continuous Schubschlag entry-to- release motion “to keep the power ‘on’ unwavering and uniform, thus eliminating a 2268 Cunningham, op.cit. 2269 Spracklen, RCA Coaches’ Conference, 2005 Cunningham: “Bolles expected the arms to bend as the pullthrough began and did not ask rowers to hold them straight. This could give rise to a snatch with the arms at the expense of leg drive. “After college, I corrected this tendency in myself when I rowed under the eye of Stan Pocock, but it did characterize Bolles’ crews.”2268 626
