Left: Roger ‘Clouds’ Badham has filled the role of Admiral’s Cup team meteorologist on no fewer than 10 occasions, half of them with Australia. But here in 1993 he was working for the Italians with whom he would win the trophy two years later in 1995; Syd Fischer’s Ragamuffin, seen here, was big boat in Australia’s 1993 team, which lost out by 0.25pt to winners Germany. Maybe it was the weather. Above: Terry Hutchinson and American Magic-Quantum helm Harry Melges IV enjoying victory at the Super Series regatta in Baiona
44-90ft for yachts with one mast and 80-115ft for yachts with more than one mast. Originally the lower limit was 65ft; this was reduced to 44ft in 1956 to allow smaller yachts, including the 12 Metre class. The sixth paragraph specifies information about the challenging
yacht that must be included in the challenge: the name of the yacht and its owner; certain dimensions (load waterline, beam at load waterline and maximum beam); and the rig. When America raced at Cowes in 1851 the fastest British yachts were cutter rigged – single mast with topsail, staysail and yankee – such as Joseph Weld’s Alarm, which had dominated racing in the Solent for years. America was schooner rigged with two masts. Initially John Cox Stevens proposed matches against British schooners, but when no one accepted that challenge he expanded the challenge, offering to race against cutters. Stating the rig was important to Schuyler so that the defender would know what type of yacht they would face. The sixth paragraph also deals with dates and the notice period.
The Challenge must specify dates for the races, at least 10 months in advance, and avoiding the winter months of the hemisphere in which the match will be held. There is a joker in this paragraph: ‘Centreboard or sliding-keel yachts shall always be allowed…’ and the centreboard or sliding keel may not ‘be considered a part of the vessel for any purposes of measurement’. Recent protocols have finessed this by stating that centreboards or sliding keels may be used as long as the yacht meets the class rule – a contradiction in terms. Thankfully, no one has tested this possible loophole. The seventh paragraph provides for mutual consent. This allows
the creation of a challenger selection series. ‘The Club challenging for the Cup and the Club holding the same may by mutual consent make any arrangement satisfactory to both as to the dates, courses, number of trials, rules and sailing regulations, and any and all other conditions of the match, in which case also the 10 months’ notice may be waived.’ Mutual consent has been used for more or less strict crew nationality rules and to define ‘constructed in the country’.
The eighth paragraph tells how to run a DoG match. ‘In case the
parties cannot mutually agree…’ they must sail on ocean courses free of headlands practicable for vessels with 22ft draught. The match is best two out of three with the first race 20 miles to windward and return, the second an equilateral triangle with 13-mile legs, beginning with a beat to windward, and the third race (if needed) another 20 miles to windward and return. All races with a seven- hour time limit. In the DoG matches of 1988 and 2010 the yachts were interesting but the races were not. No one wants a repeat. The ninth paragraph provides some assurance that the Cup will
remain a perpetual challenge cup. It states that the Cup is held by the Club and not the owner of the yacht or the team. It also provides for transferring the Cup to another club if the holder is dissolved. The 10th paragraph prevents having a queue of challengers:
‘And when a challenge from a Club fulfilling all the conditions required by this instrument has been received, no other challenge can be considered until the pending event has been decided.’ Also – a yacht that has lost in the match may not compete again before two years or until another match has been held. This language was originally added to the deed to prevent repeat challenges from a yacht that was not competitive. The 11th paragraph obliges a winning challenger to agree in
writing to the terms of the DoG in order to take possession of the Cup. An ‘Assignment and Acceptance’ agreement has been signed every time a challenger has defeated the defender: by Royal Perth YC in 1983, by San Diego YC in 1987, by Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron in 1995 and again in 2017, by Société Nautique de Genève in 2003, and by Golden Gate YC in 2010. The New York YC agreed to the same terms when they executed the DoG on 24 October 1887, as the 12th and final paragraph notes. So what responsibilities did each of those six yacht clubs take
on? What are their fiduciary duties? They all agreed, first, to preserve the Cup for international competition; second, to accept valid chal-
SEAHORSE 13
NICO MARTINEZ
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150
