News
After Court Restores Research Funding, Trump Still Has Paths to Target Harvard
News
‘Honestly, I’m Fine with It’: Eliot Residents Settle In to the Inn as Renovations Begin
News
He Represented Paul Toner. Now, He’s the Fundraising Frontrunner in Cambridge’s Municipal Elections.
News
Harvard College Laundry Prices Increase by 25 Cents
News
DOJ Sues Boston and Mayor Michelle Wu ’07 Over Sanctuary City Policy
The Crimson's criticism of conditions in crew has been variously received. But it is as true today as it was yesterday that these conditions exist and demand criticism. It is, of course, easy to point out faults that appear on the surface, but it is more important to discover the fundamental weakness that lies deeper.
In the past three years the University has had the benefit of three coaching systems, all of them directed by men of known reputation. During the same period the University has had its full share of good material. But so far Harvard has been almost invariably unsuccessful.
What then is the answer? If coaching staff and material are both of high calibre and a crew fails to win, where does the fault lie? Does it not consist perhaps in the unique relation in Harvard rowing between captain, and advisory committee and coach?
No one would reason that coaching in football is the same as coaching in crew. But it seems only reasonable that a system of organization which has proved successful in other sports, might solve the problem in crew. The other four major sports have had success under unified control; crew has failed under an anomalous system of control.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.