Talk:Rowing (sport)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Separate article for ocean rowing?

Shouldn't ocean rowing have a separate article? Like who the first people to row the atlantic and pacific were and a short history of how it was achieved. Is this somewhere else in Wikipedia? I'll try writing something when I get a chance. --CharlieP 11:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Why should an article on rowing be entirely devoted to athletic rowing?

As of this writing the entire oar article is devoted to the oars used in the athletic rowing. It links to the article on rowing, and it too is entirely devoted to the athletic rowing. If all one had to go by was the oar article one would think that oars and rowing were a recent invention!

Surely the historical use of oars for marine propulsion deserves space in the wikipedia? Frankly, it seems to me, the use of oars for marine propulsion is more important than their use in the sport of rowing. Similarly the act of rowing is performed by far more than modern atheletes.

This current article has no room for serious mention of non-athletic rowing. Should there be a disambiguation page, that points to athletic rowing and rowing as marine propulsion? Should the main page on rowing be devoted to conventional rowing, with a link at the top to athletic rowing? Could the fans of athletic rowing be less parochial, and rewrite the article to make room for the long history of non-athleteic rowing?

I agree with this. I think we should move the existing page to Rowing (sport) and then rewrite the existing page with details about other kinds of rowing. We still need a few paragraphs on the sport on the page tho - with a link to the main article. Did some work in my userspace as a start User:Johnteslade/Rowing. If no one has any objections i'll make the changes and start disambiguating all the existing links to rowing that need to be altered. Johnteslade 17:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer the article be called Rowing (Sport), as suggested rather than Sport rowing, since that phrase is never used. Any objections? --Applesawz 16:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason given (see Talk:Rowing) when the article was named was that it is preferable to avoid the use parenthesis of article names. This fits with point 3 at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Specific_topic although i agree with you that "sport rowing" is not a commonly used phrase. johnSLADE (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the guideline discourages parentheses. "If there is a choice between using a short phrase and word with context, there is no hard rule about which is preferred. Both may be created, with one redirecting to the other. For example, Mathematical analysis and Analysis (mathematics)." Based on what I have seen on Wikipedia, parentheses are used often, especially when the alternative is awkward. There was a discussion in Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Parenthetical_disambiguation_.22deprecated.22.3F about this subject, the result being that parenthetical disambiguation is not "deprecated."--Applesawz 22:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Rowing as a sport

which take place from the fall season to spring. Races take place in mid-winter? Is that correct? Or should it say in fall and spring? Rmhermen 14:59, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

From autumn/fall to spring. There are races all year round in the UK, because the rivers don't freeze over. E.g. South Yorkshire Head this Saturday. http://www.drcweb.com/headrace/ User:Average Earthman 17:12 GMT Feb 12th 2004

Heh! Winter hiking can be considered a different sport from "three-season hiking" (even tho most winter hikers will grudgingly hike in summer); rowers, with their prodigious rate of expending energy, might well share the winter hiker's slogan "Summer is too damn long." --Jerzy (t) 14:26, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

"Crew"

"sometimes known as crew". Really? I've never heard this. Anyone know who and where calls it this? DJ Clayworth 22:25, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I believe it is a widely used term in rowing circles in the USA. I've heard the phrase a number of times myself from Americans. Average Earthman 11:49, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes I am an American and over here rowing is called crew. Alex Krupp 01:51, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Far as I know crew only refers to sweep-rowing. Also, crew refers to the group (a crew) or the sport, but never used as a verb. --Applesawz 16:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Oars/blades

In the UK we call the oars "blades" - if that is the case elsewhere should we add it to the entry?

In the US, we call the part of the oar that goes in the water the blade. The whole oar is referred to as an "oar". Yes, it would be less confusing based on which continent you were rowing on to know the difference.

Rowing Clubs/Organizations

I know it is tempting for everyone to add their rowing club or school to this section. However I think we should keep it to only the best known clubs in each country. For example in the US the famous clubs are NYAC, Vesper, Penn AC, and maybe a couple others like Nereid and such. In England I know of Leander. In general I think the links to the clubs should all go to pages within Wikipedia since most clubs' webpages are generally biased, uninformative to outsiders, and very POV. Alex Krupp 16:36, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

• I'd agree with the listing only of significant clubs in this section - i.e. ones that either have significant historical influence, or significant modern influence (i.e. provide lots of Olympians, or are the top rowing club in their country. Average Earthman 08:45, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Just note that I deleted some external links, in line with the above logic. Average Earthman 09:53, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Feel free to add as many clubs as you like and a (relatively) un-biased blurb according to the standard format on Rowiki.com John Bartucz 16:11, Nov 21, 2006 (UTC)

Terminology Section

Currently this is very long and perhaps somewhat intimidating to the non rower. It could be split into three sections, "The Equipment", "The Boats", "The Commands" but I wanted to ask before changing anything. Also I added a pic of a boathouse I saw while traveling in Israel a few years back because there currently aren't any pics at all of racing shells, though if anyone else has a better pic feel free to add or replace.

I agree this section sould be split up into those sections. I have some photos of my single that could illustrate the parts of the boat (riggers, shoes etc.). Boat house photo is good - i think the main picture on the page should be of a racing shell as well (i have some pics i took at henley that might look good). I'll have a look at my photos when i get home from work. Johnteslade 13:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I went ahead and the terminology list into logical sections. However the whole piece still feels like more of a list than an article to me. Perhaps some of these sets of terminologies could be incorporated into paragraphs, especially "The Athletes", "The Stroke", and "Miscellaneous". However I'm not a good enough writer to do this so I'll leave it to someone else to have a try at. Something I would also like to see is the difference between the training, technique, and elite athlete selection principles for each country that is a rowing powerhouse. There are huge differences between the way things are done in the US, Canada, UK, Italy, Russia, Germany, Australia, Balkans countries, etc and it would be good if these methodologies could be documented, perhaps in sub articles. Alex Krupp 03:48, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Photos

I have uploaded two photos of crews at Henley - Harvard 8 and the GB Pair. Think we need some racing photos on the page - which one do you think we should use? Johnteslade 10:48, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the pair picture is great and we should use that. I know the harvard 8 was really good and has sentimental value to most rowers, but since this article is aimed at people wanting to know what rowing is I think we can probably find a better picture of an 8. In that pic the guys are flopping around a bit and just aren't really as impressive looking as the GB pair. Also is this picture copyrighted? Alex Krupp 19:34, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I took the photos and released them into the public domain so no they aren't copyrighted Johnteslade 20:51, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Great, I think we should definitely put that pic of the pair up as it really demonstrates what rowing is all about. Alex Krupp 00:35, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Note the 8 pic was in the terminology section & i blindly included it in the move to Rowing terms, without any judgement as to where it really belongs.

(Especially in case it comes back here:) as i noted at Talk:Rowing terms, i changed the 8's caption; i also criticized the composition.

As with the 8, there's too much info in the captions of the boat house and the c-less pair, that should be with the image descriptions (for someone with experience doing that; i just made old captions into comments), e.g. the pair are not notable enuf to have WP bios & probably should not be named in the caption. If it's worth the article discussing styles of boat house that vary to a significant degree between countries, then the "in Israel" becomes of interest; if not, add the word "typical" to my (clueless) new caption.
--Jerzy (t) 14:49, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

Why, I wonder, is terminology described as "X (or Y in the UK)" as if it is terminology in the UK that is at variance to the general English norm. If this is true, then fine - but in most of Wikipedia, it is often American usage that is at variance to the norm and all the other flavours of English use the so-called "UK term". If so, perhaps amendments are necessary to remove the incorrect appearance in this article that many terms are specific to the UK in usage, when this is not (if I am correct) true.--jrleighton 04:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Johnteslade

I like most of the changes you made on Nov. 4th. However I think you should add the difference between sweeping and sculling back to the intro paragraph because one of the requirements for a featured article is a full paragraph lead that provides an overview of the article. --Alex Krupp 18:13, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Point taken, the intro paragraph did get rather small. Have made the changes. Johnteslade 20:11, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nomenclature

I have removed the following from the Nomenclature section. It's specific to US clasification of events so don't feel its appropriate. Perhaps someone could explain them in the USRowing article.

• • N - novice
  • V - varsity (collegiate)
  • 2V - junior varsity (collegiate)
  • 3V - third varsity (collegiate)

Johnteslade 10:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Noun Scull (not a form of oar)

The caption "Single scull" may be an appropriate use of "scull" as a type of boat, or in the sense of "[A guy performing the act of] single scull", or the work of another ignoramus like i, who thot "scull" and "shell" were synonyms. I had almost decided the boat is always a shell and never a scull or racing scull. What's the truth? Should Scull become a Dab among sport rowing (for the verb scull), Oar (the noun scull meaing the thing the rower holds), and Racing shell for scull, the thing she sits in? In any case, some material in Sport rowing, specific to the vessel rather than the task of propelling it, should be moved to Racing shell. --Jerzy(t) 20:47, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

Casually, the boat and the oar is known as a scull. It seems to me that originally scull referred always to the oars.--Applesawz 22:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Notable Rowers

This section seems unnecessary in the main article, though I wouldn't be opposed to it becoming its own article. Alex Krupp 07:34, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

• It does seem a bit odd. It would be like having a section 'notable people who played football' in the Football (soccer) article. Average Earthman 10:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I've boldly reduced it from a trivia list to those notable both for rowing and otherwise. The old list was of interest on a rowing site, but not encyclopedic. --Jerzy (t) 14:15, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

Wilde was at Magdalen, not Christ Church. Did he deliver his speech to the Christ Church boat club?14:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Competition

The topic of high power outputs is relevant, but it would be interesting to read how much power has been measured. That would enable comparison with the extensive power-related information available in the cycling entry (these two sports are often quoted in discussions of the highest measured human power outputs)EdX20 23:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Which cycling entry? As for power in rowing, rowing ergometers generally have a power measurement option, so power output over a 2000m ergo test is out there on the web. Average Earthman 13:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Im not sure there is a standard distance for a race. As stated in the article, races range from the very long, ie 31 miles for the Boston Marathon, to sprint races that are 500m. 2k I guess would be a standard lane race, but it is far from the norm in the amateur sport, at least in the UK. BenJury 21:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Why anyone would want to race either 500m (too short) or 31 miles (too long) eludes me. But BenJury is right. 2k is the Olympic distance and is the one that most competitive oarsmen aim to excel at, but there are a multitude of other distances raced. I'll try to do a little rework. ;) Swlenz 21:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Bumps races

I've never heard of this kind of race (I was a coxswain in college)! Wouldn't that be extremely dangerous, making "physical contact" with another shell? If you hit an oar (which I can't see how you wouldn't getting that close) someone could get seriously injured and/or thrown out of the shell! How do they avoid this? Or is that the point? Kind of a Demolition Derby for rowers? —simpatico ^hi 07:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not really a demolition derby. The chasing crew must hold it up as soon as contact has taken place, or the cox of the boat ahead has conceeded by raising an arm. Umpires/bank parties usually help the chasing crew's cox to tell them when to hold it up. The crew which has just been bumped is under strict instructions to continue rowing hard for at least 3 or 4 strokes to get clear of the chasing crew. Each division has quite a few umpires and all coxes must undergo a full safety talk and briefing prior to the races. As a result, it's actually pretty well controlled. Of course it's not always possible to avoid damage/injury, but it's pretty uncommon. Crews can (and do) get fined if they do not follow the safety rules. In addition, if a cox feels threatened that a bump is inevitable, they can conceed a bump by raising an arm before physical contact has occured. The reason why many do not, is that crews can escape from significant amounts of overlap, especially in the top divisions. Richard B 14:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Big pile-ups have been know to happen though (but not that regularly afaik)... Willkm 21:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Most "pile-ups" I've seen have basically been where one or two crews end up blocking the river - and all others behind have to stop - before they've hit anything. Not the same kind of pile-up you'd associate with a motorway collision. Richard B 23:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

British vs American vs Canadian Terminology

This article is getting difficult to read as it mixes terminology from America, England, and Canada. I think we should stick with one set of terminology, with variants noted in the terminology section. I would propose using American since Wikipedia is hosted in America, although I know there are many contributors to this article throughout the world and rowing is actually bigger in England than in the US. What do others think?

I think that although there are some discrepancies, for myself (being Canadian) all of the terminology is fairly easy to understand and it should be kept the way it is.

"women's rowing" as a derogatory term

It's not just 'politically incorrect', it's bad coaching. The crew well-trained in technique will be superior to the bunch of meatheads who think they can just bully the boat along. Or in other words, ergs do not float. Average Earthman 17:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"it's bad coaching" -Opinon "The crew well-trained in technique..." - Opinion, validitiy "ergs do not float" - relevance TheSuit 09:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• • So is your opinion that a man being lazy is "rowing like a woman". Ergs do not float - patently relevant if you know anything about rowing. Pure physical strength doesn't win races if you don't have technique. Average Earthman 16:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"So is your opinion that a man being lazy is "rowing like a woman"" I did not say that.

Correct. technique does help. BUT its not relevant. Doesn't change the facts that women are intrinsically disadvantaged in most sports. Oh, nice chliche by the way. Clearly you do know 'the chat'. Further, I don't think you should be casting aspersions as to my understanding of rowing unless you can substantiate them. (TheSuit 18:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC))

• • I wasn't casting aspersions, I was stating the blatantly obvious to anyone who knows about rowing - just because someone is physically stronger, that doesn't mean they are the better rower, or more capable of taking crticism. Average Earthman 19:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Also the statement about "less banter and emphasis on shortcomings; more praise and other supportive comments." applies to less experienced rowers, not gender. Judge a rower by their experience, not their sex. Average Earthman 17:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Also your statements about "less fit" apply to less fit rowers, not women intrinsically. Average Earthman 16:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

But women are, in general, intrinsically less fit than men. So the statement is correct, if not exclusively to women. It's biology. Just because you may not like it doesn't stop it being true. Im sorry, but the world does not conform to you own fantasy. Unless of course you're a US senator, in which case we can say whatever you like. (TheSuit 18:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC))

• No, women on average are less physically strong. They are not intrisically less fit, which means more than what you appear to think it means. Your blanket sweeping statement that women should be treated like novices was just simply incorrect - you treat novices like novices and judge the fitness of rowers by their actual ability, not some preformed prejudice about their sex. The top women are just as professional, just as serious, just as capable of taking criticism as the top men, they don't need "more praise and other supportive comments" just because they've two X chromosomes. Average Earthman 19:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"which means more than what you appear to think it means" perhaps you have got the wrong impression. But it is a important factor, though to a certain extent how important is open for discussion. My opinions are, again, irrelevant. If there are facts that should be mentioned, please mention them.

"They are not intrisically less fit" please provide evidence to sport you claim: in most endurance ports women's record are behind those of men. Is there any evidence for your position? If not, kindly do not assert your intuition of equality in potential fitness as fact.

"The top women are just as professional, just as serious, just as capable of taking criticism as the top men" The comments to which you refer were clearly directed at lover level. Please do not twist my words. If you have a rational argument or factual comment to make do so, but dont just criticize because it's not what you want to believe. (TheSuit 20:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC))

• It's not "what I want to believe" or not, you are still not seeing the point I was originally trying to make - physical strength is not the sole component of fitness to row. Flexibility and core stability are also critical, and a novice male rower who lacks them may well pull a faster ergo than a squad woman, but it won't be productive to put him out in the boat for as long. You don't expect the women to beat the men down a 2k course, but that doesn't mean you also have to cut short their training sessions and avoid criticising their technique in the way you would the men. Yes, they won't cover as much distance in a one hour training outing, but that doesn't make women intrinsically less capable of a one hour training outing as men.

This section is garbage and should be deleted. For more detailed reasons, see my comments on the discussion page of "womens' rowing." --Swlenz 19:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Barring a serious objection, I move that this section be deleted. Rowing is similar to most other sports where men enjoy a physical advantage: Men are on average faster. But so what. Men and women compete in separate categories. The premise of the section, that women's rowing is inferior to men's, and that there is a "substantial difference in standards and technique" is false. (On an elite level, women's crews row at the same cadence as men's crews, and they employ the same technique. There is no significant fitness deficit (Note: women rowers have close to the same VO2max as men on a per Kg of lean tissue basis, and they can handle just as much O2 deficit. Like an elite runner, an elite women's rower may not be able to beat an elite male, or even a good college or great high school rower, but she can put to shame a lot of us has beens or never weres. See http://home.hia.no/~stephens/gender.htm )).

Furthermore, the section appears to be written as some sort of joke. At the same time the author created this section, he created an article on Womens' rowing which reiterated the claims made in this section, he also created a second article entitled "Assisted Drifting" which is just a redirect to "Women's Rowing." The author thereby infers that Women's Rowing = Assisted Drifting.

A good article on Women's rowing could be written, i.e., how it has evolved (see rowinghistory.net -- the gals have been rowing awhile), the slowness to be included in the Olympics (last major endurance sport to include women), etcetera--maybe later when I have more timeSwlenz 23:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Regatta (book)

There is a coffee table book called Regatta that was written by Benjamin Ivry in 1988. It documents a few cultural things that aren't in the article, so I am going to go through and add them.

According to the book, "Rowing has inspired a number of writers. Charles Dodgson, the Oxford mathematician better known as Lewis Carroll, first came up with the story of Alice in Wonderland while rowing with the little girl of his dreams, Alice Liddell. A third person in the boat recalled that with little Alice as coxswain, Dodgson called the narrative over his shoulder while he rowed. His friend finally asked him if he was making it up as he went along. Indeed he was, replied Dodgson, who continued to labor away as stroke."

Coastal and ocean rowing

I agree with CharlieP that 'ocean rowing' should be separate. It has a long history and a lot of activity in it's own right.

Also, given that 'coastal rowing' (European) and 'open-water rowing' (US) are one and the same, should the article not be 'Coastal and open-water rowing'?

Cristofa

Ocean rowing has its own article - see Ocean rowing. If coastal and open-water rowing are the same thing then feel free to rename the Coastal and ocean rowing article and text in sport rowing. johnSLADE (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

If coastal rowing already has an article, why is so much information included in the sport rowing article? I do not consider it a subset of the kind of rowing here, but a separate sport.--Applesawz 16:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you please note;

Generally in Britain , Coastal Rowing refers to short distance [1-2k] races run in 'lanes' parallel and close to the shoreline .Very popular in the South East .

Open Water competition is just that . Off from the shore towards a marker , buoy or rock whatever , and return . They are definitely NOT the same thing. Sea going boats are all weather craft , coastal boats tend to be variations of the 'classic ' sliding seat flat water class.

Sea Races can be anything from 5k to 50 k . [Welsh Leagues races average about 5 . The Welsh island series about 10 while the Eddystone Challenge is an epic 45k French Open Water races are usually 6 and 12k for women and men respectively.]

Paul Brant ,Welsh Sea Rowing Association

Listing of clubs

There is no way whatsoever we can list all the clubs on this page, it'd be far too long a list. We have categories anyway. The list of notable clubs should be just that - notable ones, with a major history of producing top international rowers, being the leading club in their country and/or producing multiple olympic medallists. Not ones that started three years ago for the local community. I've pruned the list of ones that don't have articles stating their level of achievement. I've left Penn as they have a long history, including olympic gold medal winning crews. Average Earthman 21:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This is starting to get rather long as well. Maybe its time to tighten up the conditions for adding to the list? BenJury 10:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Would any club worth listing prob. at least have it's own article? This could be used as a rule of thumb even if there are some exceptions. Nate1481 00:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I've pruned all the links that dont have a Wikipedia entry...

Coastal Rowing

Could you please note;

Generally in Britain , Coastal Rowing refers to short distance [1-2k] races run in 'lanes' parallel and close to the shoreline .Very popular in the South East .

Open Water competition is just that . Off from the shore towards a marker , buoy or rock whatever , and return . Races can be anything from 5k to 50 k .

[Welsh Leagues races average about 5 . The Welsh island series about 10 while the Eddystone Challenge is an epic 45k French Open Water races are usually 6 and 12k for women and men respectively.] Paul Brant ,Welsh Sea Rowing Association

Boat Race "first intercollegiate sport"

Much as I hate to admit it, the first Varsity Cricket match was in 1828, beating us rowers to it by one year.Gingekerr 15:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Duly noted.--Applesawz 22:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Head to Head

Here in Cambridge, a Head-to-Head involves doing a head race, waiting for everyone else to finish, and then doing another head race in the opposite direction over the same course, with the times added together to give the final ranking. I would call what is described here a regatta. Gingekerr 15:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Head-to-head" in the Cambridge sense is more like a pun on the more usual use of the expression, which is that used in the article. "side-by-side" racing is the only alternative expression that I can think of.

Proposed move to Rowing (sport), October 2006

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move. Duja 08:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

---

I've no idea what the WP:MOS guidelines were back in January 2005(?) when this page was originally moved, but I came across this after User:Judzillah repaired a disambiguation link on an article I watch. Clearly, Rowing (sport) adheres to current WP standards better than Sport rowing - even disallowing "XXX (year)" or "XXX (film)", I count about 15-20 Featured Articles which have parentheses in their titles. With apologies to Judzillah if it means his work was wasted, I really think this should be renamed. --DeLarge 10:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Vote with '''* Support''' or '''* Oppose''' followed by an optional brief comment; sign with --~~~~~.

• Support per nom. Also, note that if the title is Rowing (sport) references can be made with the following "short cut" syntax: [[Rowing (sport)|]] which generates: Rowing. --Serge 20:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Never heared the phrase 'sport rowing' & the simplification of links would alos make more sence Nate1481 00:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Makes sense! BenJury 07:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, but change name to "Rowing," not "Rowing (sport)". Having had 24 hours to contemplate, I believe that Sport Rowing should be changed to simply Rowing, and the existing Rowing, which is just a disambiguous redirect, which should be named "Rowing (disambiguous)". A little note uptop of this article should inform readers of "Rowing (disambigous)." Swlenz 22:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I just reviewed the Rowing disambiguation page and disagree. It's fine. Rowing for sport is but one of the common uses of the term. The line referring to this article simply needs to be slightly altered after this page is moved to Rowing (sport). --Serge 22:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, per nomination--NPswimdude500 02:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support and we probably ought to look at the other types of rowing, too. -- Beardo 18:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I was going to suggest it myself, but you beat me to it!.Richard B 18:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support as per nom. johnSLADE (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Unless someone objects i'm going to do this tommorow as all the votes so far have supported it. Nate1481 00:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Done! Nate1481 20:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That was nice of you, but the capitalization was wrong: should be ...(sport), not (Sport). I'll fix it. Duja 08:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lists

Someone removed the govening bodies, i've replaced as removing them & keeping clubs & companies makes no sense. but tidying all to only notable might clean up a bit (wiki article it on is prob a good standard) coments? Nate1481 21:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The Crew section

This seciton has been edited so it is now based almost entirly on eights, it origanlly tried to describe all boats some replacment of the old materal may be a good idea. Nate1481 23:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've done some rewriting of the section myself, but I am reluctant to remove stuff to avoid offending contributors. It has become too long and too 'eight' specific. Baring an objections, I'll try pruning the section down next week. Swlenz 19:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Head races

Anyone else think this is turning into a list of head races? Also should there be a mention somewhere of 'Tour du Léman', which I think is the longest rowing race in the world at 160k? See http://www.worldrowing.com/display/modules/news/dspNews.php?newid=324046 . (Well longest event in a single day...) BenJury 14:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree a couple of major ones as examples. the rest is intresting but should be reformated as a list an made into a sub.

Not heard of 'Tour du Léman' 160K would hurt a subsection for unusual races like this might be worth while.Nate1481 15:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There already is a sub-catagory named Head race. Any Head race besides the Head of the River and Head of the Charles should be moved there.

'Tour de Leman' deserves mention, but it is not the longest, there is one in Oregon. Also, although long distance, it has a mass start. Distance, alone, does not make a head race, otherwise, the Oxford-Cambridge, Havard-Yale, and all thoughs old IRAs would be considered head races. Swlenz 18:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The CPR in Oregon is over two days but longer, so I guess it depends on your measure. I was only mentioning the Tour du Léman as it probably deserves a mention. I agree its not a head race. (My bad, just thinking and typing...) As for Head races, I agree, the Head of the River and the Head of the Charles are definitely worth mentioning.

Suggest: Archive Talk Page

I suggest that we archive this talk page and start anew.Swlenz 21:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded --The Spith 17:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)