THE CHRISTCHURCH REGATTA.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXIX, Issue 9969, 23 February 1893, Page 6

THE CHRISTCHURCH REGATTA.

TO THE EDITOR. Sis,—l read with much, astonishment a letter in your issue of to-day signed “ A. L, Smith,” for I understand that as far aa the actual start is concerned, Mr Smith knows no more than does the man in the moon. He was not r.t Kaiapoi on the occasion of the race, and all interested in aquatic matters in Christchurch of course arc fully aware to.which quarter Mr A. L. Smith would go for any information he desired on the subject. As to the angle of the starting flags I know nothing, but at any rate f am assured that the starter utterly failed to get the boats on the angle as defined by the stakes, and that they started aa near as possible across the stream. For my part, I have always been opposed to angles for starts and finishes, bub I would respectfully point out to these disappointed gentlemen who are making themselves so energetic over thio matter that they must not neglect the angle at the finish, which, as I know for certain, was all against the inside boats. It is to be hoped that the dissatisfaction expressed over this race will bo the means of making Regatta Committees discard angles wherever possible.—l am, &c., BOW-OAR,

TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —Your correspondent A. L. Smith in calling attention to what he terms the “ gross injustice which was done to some of the crews in the race for the Pour-oared Championship,” makes soma assertions which* he entirely fails to prove. There were five crews in the race, namely, Lyttelton, Union, Wellington, Canterbury and Star. The Star crew admitted that they had no show of winning the race—merely starting to represent their Club i Union and Lyttelton were perfectly satisfied with their respective positions, and the Wellington crew expressed no dissatisfaction with the place allotted to them. Mr Smith’s “ some ” is therefore reduced to “one,” namely, Canterbury, and it is perfectly well known that this crew in the absence of any better excuse assigned as the reason for their losing the race the unfairness of the positions of the boats at the starting point. It may be stated that the Canterbury men looked upon the race as a foregone conclusion, and their supporters openly stated that there was no other crew in it. Nothing was heard about the unfairness of the course on Friday night when Canterbury won, and I have been told by one whose statement I have no reason to doubt that, notwithstanding Mr Smith’s assertion to the contrary, there was no difference in the positions at the start on Friday and Saturday evenings. Many of those who saw the race on Friday assert that Lyttelton would have won with ease had they not been steered off the course when bolding a leading position ; and the manner in which Wellington pushed Canterbury the whole way, and this notwithstanding a foul at the start, and that they were bored on to the shallows by the latter crew, cannot lead us to any other conclusion than that Wellington was quite as good as Canterbury, if not better. On tbia occasion the Union boat was half full of water, and her crew consequently had no chance of winning. On the following day the probabilities suggested by the race oa the previous evening were fully confirmed. Lyttelton won, Union finished second, and Wellington beat Canterbury for third place. Mr Smith would doubtless claim that Canterbury was a better crew than Wellington. How then doss he account for the fact that, although these two orewa being next to eaob other at the start, there could have been very little advantage (if any) on either side, Wellington was so close up at the finish and Canterbury hopelessly in the rear P In the face of these facts, Mr Smith’s statement that the southernmost boat had an advantage of about 200 yards over that on the northern shore is absurd; so also is the invitation which he holds out for some one to accompany him to Kaiapoi and see that what he states ia correct. If Mr Smith can so accurately distinguish the difference in a two-mile course oa a river by merely looking at it, I doubt whether anyone else can do so, or would be foolish enough to make an attempt. Mr Smith is a strong Canterbury supporter, and one of the recognished coaches of that Club, and that he should pose as their champion (judging from his letter he can be considered in no other light) is not a matter for surprise.—l am, &c., A.E.C.