Shortly after I wrote last monthÕs entry, I was contacted by a club coach who was seeking to write a new mission statement for his club. Specifically, he wished to find a balance between the competitive rowers and the recreational rowers - often a source of conflict in many rowing clubs. I suppose the real question - at least from the point of view of us competitive rowers - is where do recreational rowers fit into a club?

 In many clubs, rec rowers - that is to say, those rowers who do the sport for fun or exercise, but who do not have competitive goals - make up the majority of the membership. Rec rowers come at almost all levels - just as there can be competitive rowers who are complete novices, there can be some quite experienced recreational rowers who have been rowing for many years and with a good deal of skill, but do not race seriously. Competitive rower tend to shun these rec rowers as somehow not serious, and the rec rowers tend to think of the competitive rowers as elitists who live off the subsidies of the rec rowers. If left to fester, it can be an ugly scene, and can also drive down the overall enjoyment of the sport for everyone concerned.

 Rowing is - or should be - by definition an inclusive sport. It has always been my experience that we all benefit the more people are brought into the fold. In my competitive rowing life, I have been fortunate to be part of large programs which prided themselves on their size. I think that it made for successful rowing at all levels.

 My columns have been biased towards seriously competitive rowing, for obvious reasons. Recreational rowing is hinted at, but is not really specifically discussed. The closest I have come to discussing rec rowing was something I wrote about two years ago about non-varsity rowing at Harvard in which I spoke approvingly of Dan BoyneÕs empire.

 Yes, I do believe in recreational rowing, and I have even been involved in somewhat-less-than-serious rowing myself. Personally, I enjoy a nice scull from Cambridge to Watertown during my periodic sojourns in the Boston area. I have only tried racing a single once - when I lived in London - and that was a disaster: I sank. No, the sculling I have done has been non-competitive.

 A rec program can go hand in hand with a competitive program. When I was coaching at Wolfson College, we ran a recreational rowing program in the late Spring and Summer months - May through September. We generally had two evenings a week after work set aside, and we invited college members and their friends who were hanging around Oxford over the Summer to give rowing a try. If the weather was too wet, we often canceled - it had to be fun, after all. All we asked was that people let us know if they were not going to be available. It was informal, in the sense that it was not meant to be competitive and there was no pressure on the people involved to do any more than they wanted. Most of them just thought they would try rowing at a time of year when the river was hardly crowded and there was no pressure on the college crews to follow training routines they would normally follow during the competitive year.

The Summer rowers came in two forms: athletes who thought rowing was silly but who were willing to give it a go when there was no pressure, and non-athletes who also wanted to give it a try but felt intimidated by serious athletic training. What I found is that, set in this environment, many of them decided to continue once the term started up in the Fall (October in Oxford). Non-athletes became athletes and non-rowers became rowers. Not everyone liked it, but no one had to stick with it - we were not training a competitive squad (not everyone we taught to row even came from our college), we were just doing it for fun. And we attracted new people into the sport this way.

 In mid-August, one of the local rowing clubs hosts a relatively major end-of-Summer regatta (the Oxford City Royal Regatta). We sometimes entered the fun crews in this - even though they would get thrashed, it gave them a chance to see what racing was like. The only thing we had to consider was that, by league rules, entering a race prior to the start of term disqualified them from rowing collegiate novice in the Fall (there is no collegiate novice category beyond the Fall season). My opinion was that it was ok - the important thing was for them to gain experience and to enjoy themselves. If that meant missing the collegiate novice regattas in the Fall and that they would have to train with the senior crews, then so be it. We usually left it up to them to decide what they preferred, since it was all for their enjoyment anyway.

 I think this is where clubs have a luxury over collegiate teams. When collegiate programs start up in the Fall, there is seldom any time to worry about non-competitive rowers. People who just do not think it is all for them may get intimidated in one way or another. A rowing club can use a different pitch - the purpose of a club is to provide a venue for rowing, it is not, per se, to provide a competitive squad. So learn-to-row programs can be more laid-back. In colleges, novice learn-to-row programs are designed to feed the competitive squad - and, indeed, to get the novices into racing form by their first Spring. In clubs, that is not necessarily the case. Certainly, it can be made clear that most rowers in America start after they turn thirty, but even someone who starts late can become quite good. There are Olympic rowers from several countries who never rowed before they were twenty-five. The US has someone in Sydney this year who started at 33 and is not 37. Belvoir, where I currently coach, has a British rower who took her first stroke at 37 and started her elite international racing career at 39. The point is that if a rower in a learn-to-row program thinks this might be something theyÕd like to do competitively (not necessarily internationally, just seriously), it should be clear that the option is always available. But the learn-to-row program is not specifically designed to produce national champion club rowers but rather to teach people to do the sport at whatever level they want.

 Switzerland is quite funny. In this country, it is almost impossible for people who do not start at 14 to become competitive rowers. Those who do usually learned their rowing in another country while studying or working abroad. They have what they call "hobby" rowers (yes, they use the English word) - what we might call inexperienced rec rowers. If someone wants to start later in life than as a teenager, they usually get passed into this category. There really is not much between these hobby rowers and the competitive squads. Once a novice hobby rower has completed a certain number of months in a once-a-week learn-to-row course, he can continue to row once or twice a week with any other informal rowers, including ex-competitive rowers. There donÕt seem to be many of these - the good ones would rather not row with virtual novices, and the virtual novices donÕt really get the exercise they are looking for. And there is no real way for a hobby rower to graduate onto the competitive squad.

 I think my club, Belvoir, is rare in that we do have several rowers on the competitive squad who started late. But the distinction is even clear at Belvoir. I do not have much regular contact with the hobby rowers, so I do not know what makes them tick. We have a few who were good once, and they will sometimes head off to regattas on road trips. Of course, we did just have a 80-something-year-old win his category at the FISA Vets, coached by one of our under-23s.

 At Belvoir, our club president started as a rec rower in the club about a dozen years ago and has never been a competitive rower in the traditional sense (although she has competed for fun at masters regattas and other periodic events of interest to her, she has not done any serious competition on a regular basis that I am aware of). She has actually told me that she thought that aspect was important for our club - the majority of the clubÕs executive board are rec rowers or had their origins in rec rowing. Therefore, there is no perceived bias towards competitive rowers, which makes potential disputes of that nature a non-issue.

 Meanwhile, the club ethos is such that the competitive rowers make the rec rowers feel like human beings. As it should be, rec rowers are greeted in a friendly fashion, regularly invited to parties and events held by competitive members of the club, and made to feel welcome in general. There is no arrogance, and, from what I can gather, this has been a distinctive attribute of the club for many many years.

 In the Fall in Switzerland, there are a bunch of non-serious regattas. It is not uncommon for competitive rowers to enter events mixed in crews with non-competitive rowers - the club president herself raced in a 2X with one of our top athletes at a recent regatta, for example. Every Easter, the competitive squad goes on a training camp for a week (our current camp destination is Aiguebelette in Savoy, home of the 1997 World Championships). The rec rowers are, of course, invited - and some, indeed, do come! The club has a huge dinner to celebrate the night of the National Championships, with all the crews which raced there, but a large number of the rec rowers - many of whom come to Luzern to cheer - are also at the dinner. It is a very nice atmosphere. Likewise, the rec rowers sponsor a "club championship" (just for our club) regatta in late October using the big fat boats, to which the competitive rowers are invited. I have not been around for one yet, but I believe there are separate events for each skill level, to be fair, as well as events for composite crews made up of both competitive and rec rowers. Afterwards, there are cocktails and a fondue dinner.

 One potential sticking point which comes to mind: the issue of equipment. This is solved in Belvoir by having two sets of equipment, both with turnover when necessary. The Zuerisee (our lake) is not an ideal place to row due to the wind and waves. Therefore, it is actually more productive for the rec rowers to row in fat boats with keels. There are days when the rec rowers can get out and the competitive rowers cannot, simply because the bouncy water makes rowing in racing craft impossible, but the fat boats are fine. We have several different non-standard sizes from 3X to 6X, with and without cox, wood and composite. There is no stigma attached to these boats, and they are replaced when necessary and always well-maintained to the same standard care as the racing boats.

 Even if we did row on protected water, it would still be unwise to place a stigma on the boats the rec rowers use, which would only invite the rec rowers to feel second-class. I think most people will understand that the better they are, the "better" the boat they will use, in the sense that the boat is faster. But that does not mean that the fatter boats should be bad quality or left unmaintained. Dan Boyne, the Director of Recreational Rowing at Harvard, keeps a large fleet of singles of all shapes and sizes, and keeps them all well-maintained for as long as they can last.

 Certainly, the learn-to-row people are not going to get the best boats anywhere. I have indeed seen what novices - even well-intentioned, mature, and careful novices - can do to a boat. The emphasis, though, cannot be on that they cannot use good boats because they are not good enough, but rather on safety and care for the equipment. If the novices see the best rowers dinging their riggers and then laughing about it, then no one will take care of equipment. Some of the more experienced crews do get a little lacksidaisical about taking care of the equipment or putting everything in the right place - this is a common enough by-product of becoming good. It is easy to think that you know what you are doing and take less care. But the truly good crews are the well-disciplined crews, and they do not tend to damage their equipment.

 I think a healthy rowing club should have a good rec program. It brings in income, certainly - in Switzerland, the hobby rowers subsidize the competitive squads. At Belvoir, membership fees are the same for competitive and recreational rowers; the difference is that the competitive rowers get more for their money: coaches, top-of-the-line racing shells, travel, regatta entry fees and so forth. But the rec rowers have to feel like they are getting something, and that something has to be just what they want.

 What does a rec rower want? Well, that would depend on the person. So options should be available. In terms of rowing, intra-club regattas complete with barbecue in Summer or mulled wine in Winter could be a draw. Going to regular regattas is also nice - if there is none of a competitive standard, then maybe a bunch of clubs in the geographic area can arrange an informal gathering of rec rowers. Crews can either train for their own clubs, or - if this makes things too pressurized and could encourage ringers - then crews could be drawn out of hats from the several clubs before going on the water. The idea is fun, not competition. For those rec rowers who want a taste of real competition, there is always some sort of regatta available, and they do not have to win or even be competitive as long as they realize they are just going for a glimpse. The point is to be responsive to their desires, not to force anything, and to let them have fun.

 On a final note, the person who wrote me about this topic came away from my body of writings on the sport with comments regarding my sense of "team." I think that one of the great things about this sport is that it has a sense of team far greater than any other sport. And I think that many of the folks who come to rowing find it attractive for that reason. There are lots of ways to keep fit, including erging in a gym - if we are going to attract people to the sport, we need to emphasise the issues which make this sport special.

 However defined, the team concept is the most important. This does not have to come from having set boats going out and racing. Sure, that is the pinnacle, but there is a lot to be said for squads promoting a better sense of team. Most of the successful collegiate programs feed off the squad mentality rather than whittling numbers down early and focussing efforts on a select few.

 Although there are plenty of good rowers who were never involved in collegiate rowing, and many of them can be good coaches in the technical sense, I think that having a solid collegiate background, and especially some collegiate coaching experience, would help make a more team-oriented club coach. I can understand why some coaches would prefer to coach at a club than at a college, mostly because there is less baby-sitting, less admin, so I do not think that somehow a college coach is superior to a club coach. I just think there is something to learn from coaching collegiately, even for one year, that would provide a great deal to a club program that club programs do not generally get to experience.

 Novice should feel that they are part of the same team as the best rowers, and the reverse is also true. Everyone should support everyone else. I mentioned before how at Belvoir the competitive and recreational rowers interact and support each other. I might add that the elite-level rowers take the time to row with the club rowers who will never be good enough to compete internationally (but who can, in this context, become very solid club rowers), and they also take an interest in the juniors who may likewise never develop - although they are certainly more likely to develop in the context of a solid club than on their own, and the success of juniors coming out of BelvoirÕs program is likely due to this atmosphere. Actually, one of the things which has amazed me the most over here is that the older rowers do regularly interact with the teenagers socially in the context of the club.

 Likewise, even with a bunch of scullers, it is still important to instill in them the team mentality. Their work or study schedules may be such that they cannot get out in crew boats regularly and have to train in their singles, but they should still be coordinated and see their single training as part of the whole. If they do not, then there is no point in them being part of a club - they might as well just find a place willing to store their boat from where they can carry it to the water.

 If I have had success as a coach, it is not because I have necessarily had the greatest athletes nor have I have I been the most talented teacher. Only once was I really truly blessed with a magical group. Instead, my main objective has been to get the most out of the people I do have, and that means making the whole be greater than the sum of the parts. I think people play off each other (and the more who are around, and the more fun they are all having together), the better they are going to do as a whole which will be greater than what they could have achieved individually. This goes for all levels, all abilities, and all degrees of seriousness. I have been involved with non-serious competitive crews before as well. With them it has just been a matter of determining what the objectives were. But because the objectives are different does not mean the approach should be.
 
 

 Back to Charles Ehrlich's Letter from America.