“Think of the oar as a lever,” Prof. Mark Schiefsky of the Harvard classics department said. “Think of the oarlock as a fulcrum, and think of the sea as the weight.”
This is false. An oar is a second degree lever, meaning the fulcrum is somewhere along the shaft a few inches above where it meets the blade. Thinking of the oarlock as the fulcrum is incorrect because the goal is to move the boat, not the oarlock. Ideally the oar shouldn't move in the water at all, but in reality it actually moves forward somewhat over the course of the stroke. This actually creates a small pocket of water vapor in front of the blade which is a form of cavitation; if this weren't the case then the blade would be very difficult to feather.
An oar is a first degree/class lever because the rowlock is not at the end of the oar, but somewhere between my hand and the blade. But perhaps we learnt different definitions of first/second class levers.
I found this by searching for fulcrum on rec.sport.rowing:
"where the fulcrum lies depends on your point of view. If your POV is moving along with the boat (say looking down on the pin) then the fulcrum is indeed at the pin. If your POV is stationary with the water, then the fulcrum would be at the point which you describe (on the loom of the oar, right before the blade). It's all relative, and the forces and equations will work out, if you stay consistant, no matter where you assign the 'fulcrum' to be."
I still actually think the NYTimes description is very misleading though. The length of the stroke the rower takes in the boat is the same regardless of how long the distance between the pin and the hands is, which means you aren't moving the boat as much with a longer inboard. So the reason it feels easier isn't because you're doing the same amount of work with a longer lever, it's because you're doing less work.
One theme taken from the article is that, for the most part, practice came before theory. Only later were likely (and even unlikely) explanations given for the practice.
I think the turning point between practice/theory could've actually happened within the 20th; black holes were thought to exist using available data and were then later discovered.
This is false. An oar is a second degree lever, meaning the fulcrum is somewhere along the shaft a few inches above where it meets the blade. Thinking of the oarlock as the fulcrum is incorrect because the goal is to move the boat, not the oarlock. Ideally the oar shouldn't move in the water at all, but in reality it actually moves forward somewhat over the course of the stroke. This actually creates a small pocket of water vapor in front of the blade which is a form of cavitation; if this weren't the case then the blade would be very difficult to feather.