Lightweights can certainly compete with heavyweights. Individual lightweights can win seats in heavyweight crews, and lightweight crews can defeat heavyweight counterparts. There is certainly a legitimate argument for saying that the little people should suck it up and play with the big boys. I think that argument misses the point.
Lightweights often get lost in the heavyweight world. Many potential rowers are turned away before they ever get going because of their size. In the wrong conditions, lightweight crews are more likely to get smooshed. There is something nice about having a level playing field. Lightweight rowing has a different character to heavyweight rowing as a result of these two factors: because lightweights are smaller, they have to be craftier with their oars and make the most of what they have, and because they are all roughly the same size, they can row differently both technically and mentally. Lightweight rowing has an entirely different mental outlook than heavyweight rowing, something more spontaneous and, in many ways, fun.
There are also far more small athletic people than there are large athletic people. Having a separate lightweight category opens the sport up to the smaller people. And, as my regular readers will know, the more people who row the better for the sport. Some lightweights will indeed push their way into heavy crews, and some lightweight crews will challenge heavyweight crews. In programs I have known which have completely separate heavyweight and lightweight squads, rather than weakening the program by diluting talent they foster a greater amount of talent to the program through increased numbers.
With that introduction, I must add that men’s lightweight rowing, although still the often-neglected younger brother to men’s heavyweight rowing, is nevertheless in pretty reasonable health. Women’s lightweight rowing, the focus of this month’s letter, lives the life of an abandoned orphan. Indeed, rowing is often simply classified as "heavyweight," "lightweight," and "women." I do not think this is a slight of women’s rowing that men’s rowing does not have "men’s" appended in front of its categories. What this tells me instead is that people see no need to put the possessive "men’s" before the two categories, because it is obvious that those two categories refer to men, since the women have but one category.
Where are all the lightweight women? Merely looking around, just about anyone could surmise that there are more 135-pound athletically inclined women than there are 165-pound athletically inclined women. Seems to me like a natural market for the sport. So why aren’t they rowing?
Well, women’s lightweight rowing was born fourth of the four categories, so it is only natural that it would take some time to develop. What scares me, however, is that the trend to expand the sport has gone into reverse in this one area. The international culprit is FISA, which has made some inexplicable decisions in recent years. In the United States, we will have the NCAA to blame (surprise, surprise!).
First, briefly, let me discuss FISA. In recent years, FISA has become a bit loopy in its decisions. Historically (at least in recent history), the organization has supported any and all ways to expand rowing into countries which do not traditionally row. Many of these countries which have received support from FISA have been in Asia and Latin America, which have relatively smaller men and women. As a result, FISA’s initiative in those countries has helped lightweight rowing more than heavyweight. The chances of, say, Japan challenging in the heavy eight are slim, but increase in the lightweight eight. Rowing has actually become quite popular in Japan. Men’s lightweight events at worlds are now generally fully-subscribed.
The lag in women’s athletics has played out detrimentally in rowing. Not only have women trailed men historically, but those countries which encouraged women’s athletics often placed a premium on large athletic women, purpose-built, and not simply athletic women in general. This has resulted in the under-subscription of lightweight women’s events internationally. FISA has spent much of the 1990s consolidating its events, in part because of pressure from the International Olympic Committee (I suppose that will have to be a future topic). Since FISA never gave women’s lightweight rowing a chance to grow to maturity, consolidation at this point has meant scrapping most events for lightweight women. All sweep events have been axed, on the logic that no country could field enough lightweight women to justify having both a sweep and a sculling squad, and that forcing all lightweight women to scull would result in stronger competition. All the decision is doing, though, is limiting opportunities for women’s lightweight rowing and stifling growth in that area which had been imminent. Just when FISA should have been pushing to have as an ultimate goal a women’s lightweight eight event to match the big crew in the other three categories (no, we aren’t ready for such an event yet, but it should be an objective), we now see fewer lightweight women on the international stage.
Messages like this one from FISA trickle down to each country in different ways. In the United States, women’s lightweight rowing had been a growth area. Just when it looked like it might take off, it now finds itself in danger. Enter the evil NCAA, which has recently taken over collegiate women’s rowing.
One of the many problems with the NCAA take-over of women's rowing is its refusal to recognize the potential of women's lightweight rowing. There are far more athletically-minded lightweight women than heavyweight. Since most rowers come to the sport in college anyway, that means there should be a natural pool of women who can be attracted into the sport who otherwise might be scared away. Indeed, this past Summer I was looking through some old scrapbooks in Harvard’s Newell Boathouse. Reading newspaper clippings from the 1970s, when women’s rowing first properly took off at American colleges, many lightweight women flocked to the new opportunity. The top women’s programs raced two or more women’s lightweight eights in addition to the heavyweight squads.
Something happened in the 1980s - I have no idea what. But by the time I got to college, most places had scrapped their women’s lightweight programs. When I was an undergrad, the only Div I women's lightweight program in the country was at Radcliffe. Unable to find much in the way of competition, Radcliffe’s lightweight squad itself became subsumed into the heavyweight program in a rather bizarre fashion which is not worth going into here. But, come springtime, Radcliffe alone of the Div I programs turned out lightweight crews.
Rather predictably, Radcliffe has won the national championship every year since I can remember, with two exceptions: once in the late 1980s in dreadful weather conditions, and then not again until this past season, when Villanova (Div III in rowing, but races a mostly Div I schedule) came away with an upset win. Indeed, Villanova’s win in the pre-season at San Diego a few years ago in and of itself was a shock, since no one had challenged Radcliffe’s sovereignty in so long. Indeed, I clearly remember one year when I was an undergrad, when Radcliffe went to the nationals and captured first, second, and third, with fourth place about thirty seconds back of third.
This predicament was not one Radcliffe was particularly happy with. For many years, Radcliffe has taken the lead in encouraging women’s lightweight rowing. In recent years, this has resulted in several places finally adding the weight class. Sorry as I was to see Radcliffe lose this year, I am glad that several programs are finally offering competitive programs, with more on the way. But the NCAA wants to stifle this new trend.
That said, I do not have any hang-ups about lightweights rowing in heavy crews. I myself usually weight-adjust erg tests - even if I don't have time to do all the calculations, I still take weight into account and let everyone know I am taking weight into account. I chose not to have any lightweight crews at William and Mary last year, in fact, for men or women, simply because it made more sense at this point in the development of our program not to. We did not have a sufficiently large number of people on the squad to make the split practical. This year, my men have raced the Fall in a split squad and are likely to remain split in the Spring (although I am reserving a final decision until the Spring so I can decide what will result in the most competitive crews overall). By 1999-2000, this team should be able to have the numbers and talent to fully support lightweight rowing.
This underlines the simple fact that although combined programs were officially "openweight" not "heavyweight," lightweight women were not making the grade. The big programs which could have supported separate lightweight squads as Radcliffe did, were not so much lumping lightweights into heavyweight programs as they were excluding lightweights from the sport.
It also underscores why women’s lightweight rowing did not die out at the Div III level. Programs such as Villanova could attract only a certain number of women, and if they happened to be smaller in size it made sense to push for lightweight events. Villanova’s lightweights remain to this day faster than its heavyweights.
Besides the emergence of reasonably strong women’s lightweight crews at the Div II and Div III levels, several Div I programs have added separate lightweight squads, notably Princeton, Wisconsin, Georgetown, and UVA (more on UVA in a minute). This has not hindered the success of the heavyweight squads, it has opened up more athletic opportunities to women, and more opportunities for people to come to this sport who otherwise might not be here.
Into this climate came the NCAA. The NCAA expressed concern about the image of women making weight. These are athletes we are talking about, but what would the NCAA know? Lightweight women rowers are not a bunch of anorexics and bulemics. They do not present a negative image of women to society. They are highly motivated athletes with great appreciation for their bodies. The NCAA’s concern is misguided, especially when contrasted with its unconcerned approach to men’s wrestling and what many grapplers do to make weight. In part as a result of this (there were other issues, too, of course), the NCAA failed to sponsor a national championship for women’s lightweight crews.
One is not strictly necessary, of course, since a national championship already exists for women’s lightweight rowing, currently at the IRA regatta. But the lack of NCAA sanction has its drawbacks.
The problem is that the NCAA has officially taken over "women's rowing" not "women's heavyweight rowing." There is a big difference there - it means that women's lightweight rowing is now governed by the NCAA just as heavyweight rowing is, but the NCAA doesn't accord the events full recognition. That makes women's lightweight rowing second-class. It also means that athletic directors with limited budgets and no understanding of rowing will begin to question the use of supporting women's lightweight rowing, and that means fewer opportunites for women's athletes down the road - not more. As a corollary, it means that even sensible rowing coaches such as Kevin Sauer, Head Women’s Coach at UVA, have been forced to cut out their women’s lightweight squads as not making any sense under the NCAA-governed sport. So UVA, a Div I program which did recently add lightweights, will now lose them as of next Fall.
Now think about that. How many lightweight-sized women will be rowing for programs such as UVA within a few years? A handful, no doubt. But will it be proportionate to the number of athletic women at the college as a whole who weigh under 140 pounds? If other Div I programs without lightweight squads are anything to go by, I doubt it. So, that implies that the door has either been shut on all lightweight women who might wish to try the sport at, or that the program will give the impression that the door is shut. That's sad, because I am sure there are a lot of women out there who would love the sport and the opportunity to take part in intercollegiate sports who may even become great rowers if given the opportunity.
The prophecy becomes self-fulfilling. With fewer opportunities for lightweight rowing, fewer women will turn out. The overall standard will remain low, which in itself is a justification for governing bodies to restrict events in the class, which in turns makes programs interested in excellence less likely to push the class, and so forth. That's why it was so frustrating for Radcliffe for all those years.
More colleges should be adding lightweight women's rowing. Indeed, one hot topic in the US is the issue of "gender equity" (unfortunate word-choice, but since when could politically correct people speak English?). Considering this issue, it seems odd that so many places have only three separate programs (men's heavies, men's lights, women) and not four. Even some of the places which have instituted lightweight rowing for women have done so under the auspices of the overall women's program (not at Princeton, but certainly at Villanova, GW, UVA, Wisco, and many other places). It seems to me like an overdue idea to give women's lightweights equal billing. That would be an easy way to increase funding for women’s athletics, something athletics departments are eager to do (and the law arguably mandates).
So ends another rant.
Several years ago I coached a crew with an average weight of 120 pounds. They were pretty novicy, and they also were not particularly athletic previously, beyond wanting to be reasonably fit. I have no idea why they decided to row in the first place. One day they were leaving their boathouse together. As they passed another boathouse, they were approached by some guy from another college. His crew’s coxswain had failed to turn up, and he needed a cox. He looked at them, told them he assumed that they were just coming back from a coxswain’s meeting, and asked if one of them would cox his practice. They got offended and told him to bugger off. They told me the story the next time they saw me, demanding that I harden them into women readily identifiable as rowers. I know some programs which would have told them to go away or become coxswains, and who would benefit then? The women would not, the program would not (other than getting a potentially good cox or two for the men), and the sport would not. One of these women was perhaps the most natural rower I have ever coached. She came to the sport rather late in College, and her employment after graduation was not conducive to rowing. Had she gotten into the sport sooner, or had she gotten a job which was better-suited to rowing, she might have gone far. As a sport, we need to find ways to get people like this involved and to keep them involved.
Keep open the door. Women’s lightweight rowing is the future for growth in this sport.