Evers-Swindell technique
daniel...@hotmail.com
the NZ twins take the catch and drive with the arms parallel to the
water (they also appear to be going very deep.
http://www.row2k.com/worlds/photo.cfm?action=pf&dir=2006Summer/Worlds/SundayHeats&start=97&offset=96&label=2006%20Worlds%20Sunday%20Heats&hi=yes
whereas othe doubles have the hands below the shoulder level
http://www.row2k.com/worlds/photo.cfm?action=pf&dir=2006Summer/Worlds/SundayHeats&start=103&offset=96&label=2006%20Worlds%20Sunday%20Heats&hi=yes
http://www.row2k.com/worlds/photo.cfm?action=pf&dir=2006Summer/Worlds/SundayHeats&start=93&offset=84&label=2006%20Worlds%20Sunday%20Heats&hi=yes
Any thoughts / comments on this as a technique ?
anto...@aol.com
They are right and your other examples are not the best to use.
paul_v...@hotmail.com
Yes, they miss no water and are a great example that the blade being
deep is not a hinderance to the advancing of the system. Perhaps "the
blade should be just under the surface" will go the way of "boat pinch"
eventually, both just myths.
Go as deep as you can manage without it messing up a clean release.
My thoughts on the twins are that they row in a way where they never
are waiting for anything to happen during the stroke, they are making
it happen all the way through every time, and that works very well
indeed.
Unless they have changed a great deal, the handle height is closer to
mid-sternum than shoulders through the drive, and it descends slowly
and uniformly so that a clean extraction can be made when the finish is
reached. I'll look forward to this WC DVD, just as in previous years.
It's alwasy fun to see the rage of techniques being employed.
- Paul Smith
KC
Why are they "right"?
I don't see any advantage to having the arms parallel to the water,
forcing the hands to be so high. A deep blade is hydrodynamically
preferable to a shallow one, but only if the rower can extract it
cleanly and quickly. But a deep enough blade can be achieved without
such high hands.
Looking at the kinesiology of it... If the arms are, as many coaches
teach, to be a simple connection between the torso and the handle
during the catch and early drive ("like ropes" is a common expression)
then they will roughly trace the force vector between the handle and
the shoulders. Since the shoulders do and must trace an arc in the
sagital plane as the torso opens, then to draw the handles level, one
must have hands higher at the catch, lower mid drive, and higher at the
finish relative to ones torso. Not that a level draw is necessary
really, but it is something many rowers and coaches strive for, for
whatever reason.
Anyway, if the NZ double are striving for a level draw of the handles,
then they'll need to have their release such that they are pulling the
handles up to their shoulders. I doubt they do this, so they must
catch deep, and finish shallow. Those excessively high hands in the
early part of the drive look to me to require quite a bit of upward
pressure on the handles. To me this is unnecessary and not really
beneficial, except maybe to enhance the hydrodynamics of the blade
(again deeper is better in that regard.) But it still seems excessive
to me.
The other possibility (which is hard to see in those photos) is that
they have a very extreme forward reach with their torso at the catch
and through early drive. This technique puts a high load on the low
back once the body swing to bow is initiated (either that or it results
in shooting the slide, or "bum-shoving" as the Brits call it.)
It would be interesting to see a series of three or four photos of
them, taken throughout the drive of one stroke, from the side. They
are obviously fast (2nd fastest in heats) so it works for them.
-Kieran
KC
paul_v...@hotmail.com wrote:
snip
> It's alwasy fun to see the rage of techniques being employed.
LOL... Interesting slip of the fingers there... ;^)
-KC
KC
KC wrote:
> The other possibility (which is hard to see in those photos) is that
> they have a very extreme forward reach with their torso at the catch
> and through early drive. This technique puts a high load on the low
> back once the body swing to bow is initiated (either that or it results
> in shooting the slide, or "bum-shoving" as the Brits call it.)
I added the above as almost an after-thought, forgetting that the
picture clearly showed a steep angle of the oars to the water,
indicating that the high hands are causing a deep blade, rather than
low shoulders creating the illusion of high hands. Sorry.
-KC
debe
it's not how pretty you row, if you pull hard enough
no one cares.
Of course technique is up to some point essential,
but there have been numerous Olympic Champions
that looked quite ugly while rowing.
Just my thoughts.
debe
Rookie
There's a big difference between having ugly technique and poor
technique though. Ugly Olympic champions may well have all kinds of
strange body positions but if you look at their bladework in slow-mo I
guarantee it will be at least effective if not stylish - i.e. very
little water missed at the catch, a good connection with the water
throughout the drive, a clean finish and in time with the rest of the
crew. Everything else is finetuning and/or cosmetic. It doesn't
matter how hard you pull if your blade's not doing the right things -
you won't be Olympic champion.
paul_v...@hotmail.com
Sounds like you are differentiating between technique and style. There
are crews that do well, even at the Olympics, that overcome a lot of
technical problems with extreme levels of fitness, and at least
matching up the flaws together (which counts for a lot, and blurs the
standard). Even the wrong thing done together is better than a mix of
right and wrong not working together. The 1x is very interesting
because there is no 'matching' to be done and all sorts of sylistic
differences can show up.
debe's attitude above is definitely common, but part of the problem in
rowing that seems to cause a sort of fickleness in technique. A style
is observed and copied, but what we see does not exactly match up with
the reality of what is going on. Why do you think most people think of
rowing as an "upper body" sport? They don't even realize that the legs
are being used. Secondly, they observe a rather slow, easy and
graceful Drive (hopefully), but that is only appearing that way due the
the resistance being overcome, internally it is anything but slow and
easy.
- Paul Smith
Carl Douglas
Actually, what those ladies do with their blades _is_ technique. Rob
Waddel got sniped at, too, for rowing deep while winning the 2000 gold,
so it's fortunate that one is allowed to go fast without losing points
for style faults.
I've often enough explained on RSR the sound fluid dynamic reasons for
getting those blades well below the water surface.
The free surface of the water is held level only by the combined effects
of gravity & a uniform pressure distribution. When you insert & pull a
blade, that creates tension in the water behind the blade which causes a
big fall in the local water pressure. The air pressure above remains
unaffected so, meeting less pressure in the water, the air pushed the
water surface downwards causing that affected volume of water to subside
- a hole develops behind the blade. Unfortunately, the fall in water
level exposes the back of the blade to the air. That severs the liquid
tensile connection between blade & water which was hitherto preventing
blade slip (no, water pressure on the face of the blade makes but little
contribution to moving the boat). So the blade slips instead of
remaining locked in, & a lot of your input work goes into stirring water
rather than propelling the boat.
When you bury deeper, the water surface can't fall far enough to expose
the back of the blade. So the tensile connection with between blade
back & weater is not affected. So less slip occurs. So less energy is
wasted in slip & turbulence generation. So more of your work is useful
& the boat goes faster.
But I'll guarantee that, decades into the future, we'll still get
coaches telling crews that the blade should run level with the
(undisturbed) water surface.
And why the high hands? Well, I have yet to see a way of getting deeply
covered blades during the stroke, plus good water clearance on the
recovery, without having your hands fairly high during the stroke.
Sure, it increases the load on the lower back, but there really is no
other way of doing it.
HTH
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1784-456344 Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
KC
Carl Douglas wrote:
snip
>
> And why the high hands? Well, I have yet to see a way of getting deeply
> covered blades during the stroke, plus good water clearance on the
> recovery, without having your hands fairly high during the stroke.
> Sure, it increases the load on the lower back, but there really is no
> other way of doing it.
>
> HTH
> Carl
I still think that their hands are higher than necessary to get a
sufficiently deep blade. It's too bad we can't do experiments on all
these technique discussions. I would find it interesting to see the
actual difference between rowing with blades 3" below the surface, vs.
blades 5" below the surface. Yes, hydrodynamically, deeper is better:
deeper => less slip. However, the work required by the rower to
acheive that deeper blade, IMO, is likely not worth the payoff of the
deeper blade's less slip. Or, maybe it's close to an even trade, in
which case, why bother with the risk of an un-clean blade extraction?
Not only does that high hand posture put a larger load on one's low
back, but you also must overcome an ever increasing bouyant force on
the blades the deeper you go, so this will fatigue the shoulder muscles
as well. We all know that if you square a blade and let it sit in the
water, it will float with the upper edge at the surface of the water
(by design, of course, so it could be changed) so anything deeper
requires upward force on the handle, which results in tension and
fatigue in the shoulders, neck and arms.
Plenty of coaches have spent plenty of hours trying to get their rowers
to not "dig deep" through the drive. But this deep blade "flaw" comes
from the swing of the torso, not from a deep catch. In my
observations, it takes quite a lot of effort to get the blade TOO deep
and keep it so deep through the initial leg drive (i.e. before the
torso swings to bow, easing the task of sinking the blade deeper).
I coach for a quick, solid catch achieved with the hands and arms (not
with torso/shoulder motion) and a "well burried" blade, but not an
excessively deep one. IMO ~2-3" below the surface is sufficient to
reduce slippage, yet allow a relaxed technique through the shoulders,
that is also not "a crab waiting to happen" come release time.
-Kieran
paul_v...@hotmail.com
> Carl Douglas wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >
> > And why the high hands? Well, I have yet to see a way of getting deeply
> > covered blades during the stroke, plus good water clearance on the
> > recovery, without having your hands fairly high during the stroke.
> > Sure, it increases the load on the lower back, but there really is no
> > other way of doing it.
> >
> > HTH
> > Carl
>
> I still think that their hands are higher than necessary to get a
> sufficiently deep blade. It's too bad we can't do experiments on all
> these technique discussions. I would find it interesting to see the
> actual difference between rowing with blades 3" below the surface, vs.
> blades 5" below the surface. Yes, hydrodynamically, deeper is better:
> deeper => less slip. However, the work required by the rower to
> acheive that deeper blade, IMO, is likely not worth the payoff of the
> deeper blade's less slip. Or, maybe it's close to an even trade, in
> which case, why bother with the risk of an un-clean blade extraction?
The required depth would depend on how much one is reducing the local
water pressure.
What risk? It's possible to be very deep during the majority of the
drive and still get a very clean release, though it also requires a
certain degree of patience along with some dexterity.
Perhaps the "acid test" for being Too Deep should be if the release is
clean. i.e. As long as the release is clean, the blade ain't too deep!
I've seen shallow blades with an unclean release, but that certainly
can't mean that they should try to go even more shallow, rather than
try a bit deeper and work on the release.
Though there are the "puddle posers" who like to show how much effort
they are putting in. [;o)
All we need is a robot and a boat for the experiment, along with many
other interesting things that could be investigated. Get busy... I
enjoy seeing the things I've said, shown to be true.
> Not only does that high hand posture put a larger load on one's low
> back,
Why would it do that? The lever arm to the lower back is at shoulder
height, at least until the hands go above the shoulder and I don't
think we're worried about them being quite that high.
> but you also must overcome an ever increasing bouyant force on
> the blades the deeper you go, so this will fatigue the shoulder muscles
> as well. We all know that if you square a blade and let it sit in the
> water, it will float with the upper edge at the surface of the water
Not Dreher blades, not sure on Croker, but you are right for C2
Cleavers (Which strangely enough are pitched -3deg as a standard.)
Even when illustrating a deep drive to a point just short of absurd, I
feel no particularly stressful effort being involved in raising the
hands, they seem to find a good height rather naturally.
> (by design, of course, so it could be changed) so anything deeper
> requires upward force on the handle, which results in tension and
> fatigue in the shoulders, neck and arms.
>
> Plenty of coaches have spent plenty of hours trying to get their rowers
> to not "dig deep" through the drive. But this deep blade "flaw" comes
> from the swing of the torso, not from a deep catch. In my
> observations, it takes quite a lot of effort to get the blade TOO deep
> and keep it so deep through the initial leg drive (i.e. before the
> torso swings to bow, easing the task of sinking the blade deeper).
>
> I coach for a quick, solid catch achieved with the hands and arms (not
> with torso/shoulder motion) and a "well burried" blade, but not an
> excessively deep one. IMO ~2-3" below the surface is sufficient to
> reduce slippage, yet allow a relaxed technique through the shoulders,
> that is also not "a crab waiting to happen" come release time.
>
> -Kieran
Sounds like a reasonable thing to coach. One thing I would certainly
like some help on is how to explain that the blade should be buried
adequately regardless of the set of the boat. The twins are
exceptionally good at this and a bobble in the set is always
accompianied by an adjustment in the catch height required to get the
blades buried and the boat returns to being set rather quickly. This
requires not only an awareness of the blade being buried (perhaps
sensed by the eventual buoyancy that occurs) but the dexterity to
adjust the handle height during the drive to achieve a level set for
the release. (This is where a rowbot might have a bit of difficulty in
anything less than calm conditions).
IME, the cause of a crab is rarely a blade that was too deep on the
drive, but rather a low release and over-feather which catches the top
edge of the offending blade, flipping it into it's favored squared
orientation against the oncoming water, then the bad things happen at
the handle end, especially if the hands try to fight the resistance.
- Paul Smith
Carl Douglas
All good points but relating more to matters of judgement of degree
rather than to precise measurements of substance. There'll undoubtedly
be a "too deep" but, just as there's a "too shallow", we can't easily
know where the (perhaps relatively flat) optimum lies.
There'll be a price to be paid in getting deeper immersion but IMHO it
is not going to be high. Concerns about backwatering are generally
misplaced - arising in mostly from a failure to understand that a global
optimum is a compromise with no single contributing factor at its best.
Thus, compared to the work to be done through the stroke, I'm not too
concerned over the work done to achieve better immersion, while the
contribution of backwatering on a circular oarloom is minuscule -
especially since for some of the stroke the apparent turning point is
inboard of the blade.
Another consideration arises:
Most rowers think of their stroke in almost 1-D terms, ignoring the
blade's lateral motion. I think of it in 3-D terms - well, 4-D to
include the transient time element - which does of course give rise to
the odd headache.
The easiest way to explain is to consider the dipping & lugging whaler
stroke. This looks painful but is in fact well evolved for rowing a
heavy boat. The blade motion in the water is diagonal in the vertical
plane, keeping a good enough flow over the diamond or elliptical blade
x-section to sustain good hydrodynamic lift as it cuts first down &
astern & then up & astern, with very little time to generate actual
stall during the reversal.
That's my point - vertical motion can reduce stall by maintaining flow
over the back of the blade. So I'd not advocate going deep right
through the stroke, but that the depth be greatest at about mid-stroke.
The blade will work best if spreading its influence over a greater
volume of water by working not just laterally (in 2-D), as you already
see it, but also vertically. That means you must go quite deep. How
deep is that? I really do not know, except that should be deeper than
most rowers go.
To row a deep stroke means that understanding the need to alter rating
not by rowing shallow to increase slip or by ripping out early but by
moving more smoothly through the recovery, because a deeper stroke
_will_ slip less & so take longer from catch to finish. A gain in
efficiency will always make it seem harder because less slip means
longer time in the water.
Cheers -
KC
Carl Douglas wrote:
copied to top:
> The blade will work best if spreading its influence over a greater
> volume of water by working not just laterally (in 2-D), as you already
> see it, but also vertically.
Beg pardon, Carl, but I most certainly *do* consider the stroke in all
four dimensions, not just 2!!! (or even one) Give me *some* credit!
:^)
> There'll undoubtedly
> be a "too deep" but, just as there's a "too shallow", we can't easily
> know where the (perhaps relatively flat) optimum lies.
Agreed.
> There'll be a price to be paid in getting deeper immersion but IMHO it
> is not going to be high.
Basically we agree on the fundamentals, just our oppinions on the
implications thereto differ. These oppinions as we've all said, can
not be easily proven.
As the expression goes, "oppinions are like a**holes, everyone's got
one and they all stink!" ;^)
>
> The easiest way to explain is to consider the dipping & lugging whaler
> stroke. This looks painful but is in fact well evolved for rowing a
> heavy boat. The blade motion in the water is diagonal in the vertical
> plane,
Which vertical plane? If +y is in the direction of boat travel, +x to
port and +z away from the water, both the y-z and x-z planes could be
described as "vertical". I'm just trying to see what you mean by
diagonal, as most of the blade motions are on arcing paths, as I see it
(relative to a CS fixed to the boat).
> keeping a good enough flow over the diamond or elliptical blade
> x-section to sustain good hydrodynamic lift as it cuts first down &
> astern & then up & astern, with very little time to generate actual
> stall during the reversal.
>
> That's my point - vertical motion can reduce stall by maintaining flow
> over the back of the blade. So I'd not advocate going deep right
True, but current blades (Crokers and C2 anyway) are designed to
optimize flow from tip to root and vice versa, not vertical flow.
Actually even macon and tulip blades are better designed for flow from
tip to root. Whether technique dictated oar design, or oar design
dictated technique, I'm not sure.
> through the stroke, but that the depth be greatest at about mid-stroke.
> The blade will work best if spreading its influence over a greater
> volume of water by working not just laterally (in 2-D), as you already
> see it, but also vertically.
I'm not so sure about that... again given current blade design. I
don't think that we're going to gain much lift at all from vertical
motion of the blade through the water, as the AOA is nearly zero
(thanks to the 4-6 degree negative pitch most people row with). Take
that pitch away, and you might have a nice AOA going in, but you'd have
a mess coming out. To facilitate a clean catch and release, you want a
near zero AOA in the vertical directions of flow.
> That means you must go quite deep. How
> deep is that? I really do not know, except that should be deeper than
> most rowers go.
Again, I agree, I just think those All-Blacks in the W2x were on the
excessive side.
BTW, an afterthought: I'm primarily a sweep rower and coach. When I
envision technique it is with sweep blades. I don't have a good
intuitive sense for the feel of sculls and their bouyancy or lack
thereof compared to a sweep oar. So it's possible that my comments on
how "hard" it might be to keep the hands that high with sculls are
misplaced, since I probably was thinking more about the feel of sweep
oars. Although I would think the "net" feel of bouyancy would be
similar... maybe not.
-Kieran
SwissSculler
reason for "digging deep". I am pretty sure the sisters don't have this
hand position and blade depth all the time.
KC
paul_v...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Not only does that high hand posture put a larger load on one's low
> > back,
>
> Why would it do that? The lever arm to the lower back is at shoulder
> height,
No, the lever arm is the minimum distance between the applied force
vector and the point of rotation.
> at least until the hands go above the shoulder and I don't
> think we're worried about them being quite that high.
You are right that the moment (lever) arm would be longer if the hands
went above shoulder height, but why then would it not be shorter if
they are below shoulder height? Answer: It would be (and is) shorter
in that case.
In the case that the force vector applied to the oar handle is
collinear with the arms (and therefore passes through the shoulders)
then the moment arm would be the distance from the hips to the
shoulders. But in this case, it would be the same distance regardless
of whether the hands were above or below the shoulders.
Most data indicates a generally horizontal force vector applied to the
handle during the rowing drive, except in the ends of the stroke. This
means the moment about the hips due to the load on the oar handle has a
lever arm equal to the (roughly vertical) distance from the handle to
the hip joint.
HTH,
-Kieran
KC
Good point.
-KC
KC
KC wrote:
> In the case that the force vector applied to the oar handle is
> collinear with the arms (and therefore passes through the shoulders)
> then the moment arm would be the distance from the hips to the
> shoulders. But in this case, it would be the same distance regardless
> of whether the hands were above or below the shoulders.
WRONG!!! You dummy!
In the case where the force vector applied to the oar handle is
collinear with the arms (and therefore passes through the shoulders)
the moment arm would STILL BE THE MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM THE VECTOR TO
THE POINT OF ROTATION. Which is not always the distance from the hips
to the shoulders.
(I'm allowed to YELL when replying to myself!) ;-)
-KC
Carl Douglas
> Carl Douglas wrote:
>
> copied to top:
>
>> The blade will work best if spreading its influence over a greater
>>volume of water by working not just laterally (in 2-D), as you already
>>see it, but also vertically.
>
>
> Beg pardon, Carl, but I most certainly *do* consider the stroke in all
> four dimensions, not just 2!!! (or even one) Give me *some* credit!
> :^)
Errr.... only now you tell me do I know that you, too, see the stroke
as having a necessary 3rd dimension rather than a 3rd dimension rolled
up insignificantly small ;)
>
>
>> There'll undoubtedly
>>be a "too deep" but, just as there's a "too shallow", we can't easily
>>know where the (perhaps relatively flat) optimum lies.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>>There'll be a price to be paid in getting deeper immersion but IMHO it
>>is not going to be high.
>
>
> Basically we agree on the fundamentals, just our oppinions on the
> implications thereto differ. These oppinions as we've all said, can
> not be easily proven.
>
> As the expression goes, "oppinions are like a**holes, everyone's got
> one and they all stink!" ;^)
>
>
>>The easiest way to explain is to consider the dipping & lugging whaler
>>stroke. This looks painful but is in fact well evolved for rowing a
>>heavy boat. The blade motion in the water is diagonal in the vertical
>>plane,
>
>
> Which vertical plane? If +y is in the direction of boat travel, +x to
> port and +z away from the water, both the y-z and x-z planes could be
> described as "vertical". I'm just trying to see what you mean by
> diagonal, as most of the blade motions are on arcing paths, as I see it
> (relative to a CS fixed to the boat).
The transverse section of the oar, projected onto the y-z plane, moves thus:
1. -z, -y
2. +z, -y
with the z components exceeding the y
>
>>keeping a good enough flow over the diamond or elliptical blade
>>x-section to sustain good hydrodynamic lift as it cuts first down &
>>astern & then up & astern, with very little time to generate actual
>>stall during the reversal.
>>
>
>
>
>>That's my point - vertical motion can reduce stall by maintaining flow
>>over the back of the blade. So I'd not advocate going deep right
>
>
> True, but current blades (Crokers and C2 anyway) are designed to
> optimize flow from tip to root and vice versa, not vertical flow.
Ummm. Are you _sure_ that "design to optimise" is the proper term?
> Actually even macon and tulip blades are better designed for flow from
> tip to root.
Not a lot wrong with the curved back of your typical cleaver, although I
might tend to agree that the shorter chord of the older blades might be
no bad thing.
Whether technique dictated oar design, or oar design
> dictated technique, I'm not sure.
>
The chicken is the egg's way of ensuring there will be future
generations of eggs.
>
>>through the stroke, but that the depth be greatest at about mid-stroke.
>> The blade will work best if spreading its influence over a greater
>>volume of water by working not just laterally (in 2-D), as you already
>>see it, but also vertically.
>
>
> I'm not so sure about that... again given current blade design. I
> don't think that we're going to gain much lift at all from vertical
> motion of the blade through the water, as the AOA is nearly zero
> (thanks to the 4-6 degree negative pitch most people row with). Take
> that pitch away, and you might have a nice AOA going in, but you'd have
> a mess coming out. To facilitate a clean catch and release, you want a
> near zero AOA in the vertical directions of flow.
You might have missed my subtle (?) point. Fluid dynamic lift is so
energetically economical as a means of providing a reaction because, by
moving chordwise through the fluid, the foil moves very large masses of
fluid by only small amounts, whereas a parachute influences smaller
masses of fluid by large amounts, disspipating lots of energy. Varying
the vertical displacement of the blade (& ignoring any resulting lift
contribution) will, as well as curing the ills of cavity formation,
allow it to influence a somewhat greater vertical thickness of water
even in the stall phase, with a similar if less striking benefit.
>
>
>>That means you must go quite deep. How
>>deep is that? I really do not know, except that should be deeper than
>>most rowers go.
>
>
> Again, I agree, I just think those All-Blacks in the W2x were on the
> excessive side.
When they start losing, I might become just slightly more persuadable.
>
> BTW, an afterthought: I'm primarily a sweep rower and coach. When I
> envision technique it is with sweep blades. I don't have a good
> intuitive sense for the feel of sculls and their bouyancy or lack
> thereof compared to a sweep oar. So it's possible that my comments on
> how "hard" it might be to keep the hands that high with sculls are
> misplaced, since I probably was thinking more about the feel of sweep
> oars. Although I would think the "net" feel of bouyancy would be
> similar... maybe not.
>
Sweep rowing makes it so much harder to sense what's going on when you
change anything, because what you do can only be felt for its full worth
if everyone else changes in unison from A to B - which never happens!
I think your oar will possibly be harder to hold deep than a pair of
sculls, partly because of the larger volume you might displace, but
possibly because you have less (effective) leverage due to hand
positions & are affected also by the lopsided rule in sweep, which can't
apply in scull, that one hand does this & the other does that. The
stroke arc is also shorter, giving less time to play with that
z-dimension than the sculler. And you'll piss of the coach & the rest
of the crew if you start digging, & upsetting the balance, & coming out
later ...... which does somehow inhibit experiment.
stan
has anyone else noticed that both Alan Campbell (GB 1x) and the E-S
twins (NZL W2x) appear to have a reduced overlap compared with the
perceived "norm". there are some photos of this from Dorney 5 and I'll
post the links up tomorrow when I've time to find them all again.
Apart from the obvious levering disavantage this gives would a shorter
inboard also result in higher hands required in order to cover the
blade in the first place??
s
KC
Haven't seen the pics, but to answer your question: just imagine
gripping your sculls further down the shaft toward the oarlock, rather
than at the grip. Would this tend to raise your hands or lower them,
relative to the boat? For any given blade depth & oar position, it
would tend to lower your hands.
It's interesting if true, that they use a shorter inboard. Usually
when a change is made to an oar design that decreases slip (i.e. going
from macons to big blades) the recommendation is to increase inboard,
IIRC. Their "deep" technique would, if we're all correct here,
decrease slippage, & so one would expect that they'd want to increase
their leverage if anything.
-KC
Carl Douglas
You're right that raised hands will reduce the apparent overlap.
That will not alter the leverage since the inboard/outboard ratio
remains the same. However the deeper blades will, by reducing slip,
make it seem that the leverage is more severe.
On your other point, a shorter inboard would need lower, not higher,
hands to achieve the same depth of blade immersion.
Rob
mind-boggling, but I can't deny the logic.
With regard to sorting out some of the less mathematical issues in this
thread, let me propose two paradigms or models for the stroke:
1. Legs then back then arms. Arms are like ropes to the very last.
What better way to maintain perfect connection: by the skeleton and
not with those relatively wimpy arm muscle tissues. The blade is
relatively deep. (For explanation see #2 below.) Connection is from
the shoulders, and the longer lever thereby arm puts pressure on lower
back, etc. (I'm not convinced that this is key. See below, after
#2.) You avoid "lift" (torso moving away from thighs too quickly),
but maybe to a fault! You shoot the butt, and the back and arms come
on at the end. The back is like a loaded spring. Crewmates comment on
the late power surge. At the end of a sprint race your glutes are
killing you, spinal erectors are feeling it, too. You have to adjust
your car's rearview mirror downward driving home from practice each
day, with those back muscles (or is it the glutes) undergoing a natural
tightening in response to the workload placed on them.
2. Legs back arms all at once. Maybe the arms a hair later. The elbow
bend from getting the arms on early puts a small downward vector on the
oar handle, bringing the blades closer to the surface. You may think
of yourself as opening the back sooner than with #1 (that is, if
you've previously been a #1 style rower), although coaches don't
like this terminology. You keep the butt home a bit and seek, at any
rate, the perfect balance that avoids both lift and bum-shoving! Your
power curve is more centered as to the timeline of the drive phase of
each stroke. Your blades have less pressure on them at the very end of
the drive, and they are closer to the surface, so your finishes are
cleaner. (Yes, you should accelerate the boat, implying pressure to
the end; but if you have a whole lot of pressure at the release maybe
you've lost an opportunity, hmmm? A little late to be getting that
boat moving.) At the end of a race your legs hurt, plus the glutes a
little. Neither kills you the way the glutes did rowing the other way!
Your rigging is lower and the force from the torso lever-arm is
centered more at the core. (IE "arms like ropes" imples the shoulder
socket as the end of the lever arm, whereas arms-pulling-sooner implies
pectorals or some other such end point.)
I used to row a la #1, and I have been getting more like #2. My rowing
style blends better in doubles and quads. I occasionally wonder
whether a person could row half of a race as #1 and the other half as
#2! But I have yet to even try one practice stroke in the #1 way,
since leaving it.
As to pressure on the lower back: it would seem logical (as per lever
arms) that the bum shove can do it, but IMHO the early lift can also be
a culprit inasmuch as you give up the range of motion of the back, and
so all the pressure is concentrated on a smaller part of the skeleton
or muscle structure.
Back to the paradigms, a corollary might be that any part of the body
you get into the action too soon is going to be under-utilized. Get
the legs on too early, without that foundation from the back opening
simultaneously, and they're going to be wasted, finished too soon.
Open the back early and likewise there is nowhere for it to go. If
there is some way of starting with the arms too strongly I think
you'd be giving up their usefulness, too.
Model for the arm-catcher: Katrin Boron. Model for the bum-shover:
bow of NZ 2+. Pretty good company! Dan Topolski has mentioned these
two, his only specific technique comments (I think) in the past several
years of Worlds/Olympics commentary.
I would go so far as to say that there are boats that respond better to
one model or the other. I used to row a Vespoli Matrix single, which
has a lot of rocker (so does Van Dusen Advantage). It's very
responsive at the catch. I now row an Empacher, much less responsive
at the catch and seemingly demanding the earlier power curve.
Or is this like dogs and their owners, where they start to look alike!
I am opining from a sculler's viewpoint, or is that obvious. In
general scullers have later power curves and maybe use their legs less
than sweep rowers. Let's not go there.
Cheers,
Rob Slocum
paul_v...@hotmail.com
So this appears that if the handle height were at hip level (or lower
back level) that the stress there would be "zero". Hmm, just doesn't
seem right, but hey, you're the "dummy". Perhaps you could put it in
more simple terms for me. If I picture the torso as vertical, and the
arms extended perpendicular to the torso it is obvious that the lever
arm (working on the lower back) is from that spot on the lower back to
the horizontal line that the arm is on. And as you agree, if the hands
go higher, that lever arm is made longer. But as the hands go down,
although the distance to the horizontal line at handle height
decreases does the pull at the shoulder somehow lessen (lowering the
force [torque I suppose]) the stress on the lower back? Or does it
simply shorten the time that the stress is applied? Which I suppose
would be "less stress" in a technical sense.
On another point, when the "new blade designs" that are supposed to
slip less are introduced, it's not the inboard that is increased, but
the overall length is decreased, making the ratio of outboard to
inboard smaller, in an attempt to keep loading the same. Which is kind
of funny really, since if we plan on moving boats faster, do we really
think it's going to happen with the same load?
BTW - The newer rounded bottom smoothies from C2 would appear to be
taking advantage of the possibility of the vertical blade movement
reducing stall that Carl eludes to. Though nobody but he really thinks
of it that way. [;o)
I saw some rounded Crokers in the WC pictures, it was just one so if
you want to see it for yourself you will have to hunt it down. Looked
a bit like a shop project gone wrong, but the intent was clear.
Cheers,
Paul Smith
stan
Carl Douglas wrote:
> You're right that raised hands will reduce the apparent overlap.
>
> That will not alter the leverage since the inboard/outboard ratio
> remains the same. However the deeper blades will, by reducing slip,
> make it seem that the leverage is more severe.
>
This indeed seems the more likely explanation
> On your other point, a shorter inboard would need lower, not higher,
> hands to achieve the same depth of blade immersion.
>
You are quite correct on this- I think I had automatically shortened
the outboards to maintain a similar gearing ratio- but as this had been
done subconciously I neglected to inform the newsgroup or myself. D'oh.
Pete
>
> I've often enough explained on RSR the sound fluid dynamic reasons for
> getting those blades well below the water surface.
you are, of course, neglecting the issue of the loom being below the
water's surface - that definitely does waste energy, since the loom is
moving through the water. Does this matter when the blade is 3'' below
the water surface? Probably not - there's just not much loom
underwater, and what is submersed isn't moving too much relative to the
water. But if you took this to extremes, and put the blades maybe a
foot under the surface of the water, then certainly you would lose
quite a bit of energy to moving the loom through the water.
generally, though, I certainly find I move the boat faster if I put the
blades a few inches below the surface.
Pete
Carl Douglas
I did actually discuss the drag contribution of the immersed looms in my
reply to KC's response to this same posting (but the thread is getting
knotty!) as follows:
"There'll be a price to be paid in getting deeper immersion
but IMHO it is not going to be high. Concerns about
backwatering are generally misplaced - arising in mostly from
a failure to understand that a global optimum is a compromise
with no single contributing factor at its best. Thus,
compared to the work to be done through the stroke, I'm not
too concerned over the work done to achieve better immersion,
while the contribution of backwatering on a circular oarloom
is minuscule - especially since for some of the stroke the
apparent turning point is inboard of the blade."
The relative velocities between immerse loom & water are so low (&
sometimes even in a helpful direction) that you pay a minimal price to
get quite a lot of extra immersion.
But actually we're in broad agreement, since I'm not proposing any of us
going so deep as to start dredging. Moderation in all things.
Cheers -
paul_v...@hotmail.com
See both:
http://www.biorow.com/RBN_en_2006_files/2006RowBiomNews03.pdf
http://www.biorow.com/RBN_en_2006_files/2006RowBiomNews05.pdf
It also depends on what "fast" is, is it Elite Fast, or is it Club
Rower Fast?
I've rowed along with folks that thought they were "going faster" doing
some strange things, and in fact they were "going faster", but it was
still quite slow.
- Paul Smith
ben
Hate to put a damper on this thread, but I think the blade looks deeper
because of the angle of the photograph. They're right at the catch and
it's a head on photo so it just looks like they're angled down. I'll
bet their blades aren't burried any more than than anyone else's and
their hands look high because they're leaning forward at the catch.
Walter Martindale
> Apologies if this has been discussed before...pictures from Dorney show
> the NZ twins take the catch and drive with the arms parallel to the
> water (they also appear to be going very deep.
> http://www.row2k.com/worlds/photo.cfm?action=pf&dir=2006Summer/Worlds/SundayHeats&start=97&offset=96&label=2006%20Worlds%20Sunday%20Heats&hi=yes
>
> and
> http://www.row2k.com/worlds/photo.cfm?action=pf&dir=2006Summer/Worlds/SundayHeats&start=99&offset=96&label=2006%20Worlds%20Sunday%20Heats&hi=yes
>
> whereas othe doubles have the hands below the shoulder level
> http://www.row2k.com/worlds/photo.cfm?action=pf&dir=2006Summer/Worlds/SundayHeats&start=103&offset=96&label=2006%20Worlds%20Sunday%20Heats&hi=yes
> http://www.row2k.com/worlds/photo.cfm?action=pf&dir=2006Summer/Worlds/SundayHeats&start=93&offset=84&label=2006%20Worlds%20Sunday%20Heats&hi=yes
>
> Any thoughts / comments on this as a technique ?
>
At the FISA coaches conference 1999 the Italian coach was asked if his
lightie crews were digging a bit deeper and if they were coached to do
this. He said yes.
Higher catches give longer catches (Nolte, in a coaching seminar and in
the Level 2 Technical manual of Rowing Canada)
All the reasons Carl gives for having a bit deeper blade work. Try this
with a novice - If you've coached one or two in sculling, you've seen
this. They dig deep on one side and have "perfect" depth on the other
side, but the deep side pulls the boat around - what do we do? (what did
I do but I've reversed myself?) - get the kid to row the deep blade a
bit shallower - should we get the kid to row the shallow blade a bit
deeper and learn to deal with the tough extraction? I believe the
latter - learning theory these days is showing that we should coach
harder exercises right from the start so that learning is "deeper" and
more robust, although initially a bit slower.
Looks like Dick Tonks knows a thing or two - Rob, the Twins, others...
must be something right about their technique, even if you don't like
the style.
Walter
Carl Douglas
Not sure you succeeded, Ben.
Measure up the inboard & non-immersed outboard on the image in the
second of those Row2k shots. You get a ratio of 0.47:0.53,
inboard:outboard. The distance looks plenty to eliminate significant
error due to the hands being nearer to the camera than the blades. If
the inboard is 87cm, then the loom submerges at ~98cm. If those sculls
are 287cm overall, then they are submerged right back to 102cm from the
blade tip, meaning up to 60cm of loom is under water.
anthony...@hotmail.com
There is an interesting sequence of photos of the twins on p.167 of
Rowing Faster (ed. Volker Nolte) in the chapter on leg drive written by
Richard Tonks. It is quite clear from this that their blades continue
downwards well into the drive, when the twins' arms are almost
horizontal and their blades are pretty deep. I don't know when these
pictures were taken, but presumably at least a couple of years ago, so
their current technique isn't a flash in the pan.
Cheers,
Anthony Jones
Carl Douglas
Thanks! I had not known that. It was good to hear that the truly 3-D
stroke, discussed elsewhere on this thread, has such an advocate as
Volker Nolte
ben
Carl Douglas wrote:
> ben wrote:
> > KC wrote:
> >
> >>SwissSculler wrote:
> >>
> >>>I think these fotos have been taking at the start. This being the
> >>>reason for "digging deep". I am pretty sure the sisters don't have this
> >>>hand position and blade depth all the time.
> >>
> >>Good point.
> >>
> >>-KC
> >
> >
> > Hate to put a damper on this thread, but I think the blade looks deeper
> > because of the angle of the photograph. They're right at the catch and
> > it's a head on photo so it just looks like they're angled down. I'll
> > bet their blades aren't burried any more than than anyone else's and
> > their hands look high because they're leaning forward at the catch.
> >
>
> Not sure you succeeded, Ben.
>
> Measure up the inboard & non-immersed outboard on the image in the
> second of those Row2k shots. You get a ratio of 0.47:0.53,
> inboard:outboard. The distance looks plenty to eliminate significant
> error due to the hands being nearer to the camera than the blades. If
> the inboard is 87cm, then the loom submerges at ~98cm. If those sculls
> are 287cm overall, then they are submerged right back to 102cm from the
> blade tip, meaning up to 60cm of loom is under water.
>
> Cheers -
> Carl
>
You definitely could be right. It just doesn't look much different
from other sculling crews to me enough to point it out as unusual.
It's different from the sweep oars certainly but the sculling blade
goes through a bit differently and the angles are different.
Hacker looks even deeper here and it doesn't look that strange:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H589160AD
I dont' know, could it be normal and we haven't looked at it that
closely?
spam.at...@gmail.com
My own impression from this picture and from watching video of them at
past races is that they are rigged higher than other crews, which of
course is a separate question from how deeply the blade is buried
during the drive with a given rigging. My interpretation of this
picture is that their hand heights at the finish (relative position
next to the body) are in a place where for many other scullers, the
blade would still be buried. But others may think differently? If
they are rigged higher, then during the drive their hands would need to
be even higher to achieve a deep blade depth (I think?). Another
question to throw in is whether any crews would bother to rig
themselves higher during a day of rough water to achieve cleaner
finishes, and whether these pictures would look different at a race
with flat water. Pictures of other scullers at the finish/near the end
of the drive from the same day of racing:
NZL M1x & GER M1x:
http://www.row2k.com/worlds/photo.cfm?action=pf&dir=2006summer/worlds/FridayRacing&start=34&offset=24&label=Friday%20Reps,%20Semis%20and%20Finals&hi=yes
SWE W1x (with roughly the same finish position and blade coverage as
the twins?):
http://www.row2k.com/worlds/photo.cfm?action=pf&dir=2006summer/worlds/FridayRacing&start=29&offset=24&label=Friday%20Reps,%20Semis%20and%20Finals&hi=yes
mpruscoe
>[snip]
>
> AUS W2x:
> http://www.row2k.com/worlds/photo.cfm?action=pf&dir=2006summer/worlds/FridayRacing&start=59&offset=48&label=Friday%20Reps,%20Semis%20and%20Finals&hi=yes
>
If you look at the NZ double in that picture you can see from the water
coming off the looms that they have been pretty deep in the first half
of the stroke, but that might have something to do with the rough
conditions.
ben
Carl Douglas wrote:
> anthony...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > There is an interesting sequence of photos of the twins on p.167 of
> > Rowing Faster (ed. Volker Nolte) in the chapter on leg drive written by
> > Richard Tonks. It is quite clear from this that their blades continue
> > downwards well into the drive, when the twins' arms are almost
> > horizontal and their blades are pretty deep. I don't know when these
> > pictures were taken, but presumably at least a couple of years ago, so
> > their current technique isn't a flash in the pan.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Anthony Jones
> >
>
> Thanks! I had not known that. It was good to hear that the truly 3-D
> stroke, discussed elsewhere on this thread, has such an advocate as
> Volker Nolte
>
> Cheers -
> Carl
> --
Volker used to rig our boats very high relative to other crews and it
seems to me that the idea was to keep the center of gravity on a more
horizontal plane. Less energy going up and down as currently seen with
a lot of the Canadian layback. We were supposed to get lots of reach
at the catch by pivoting out but not lunging forward and the hight was
meant to fasciliate that.
To be honest, I can't remember the numbers but the hight took a bit to
get used too. We once swapped partners with one of the Dutch pairs and
it was a disaster for both boats as ours was so high and theirs was so
low that it was really difficult.
Ewoud Dronkert
> We once swapped partners with one of the Dutch pairs and
> it was a disaster for both boats as ours was so high and theirs was so
> low that it was really difficult.
Generally, Dutch rowers rig too low. On the other hand, Italians a
little high sometimes.
--
E. Dronkert
Walter Martindale
?
W
mpruscoe
Not me this time, guvnor. The links all worked last week - I suspect
they were incorrect on Row2k and were corrected when Fridays pictures
were put up - the URLs all refer to Friday racing and obviously the
doubles semis were on Thursday.
The one I was referring to was this one:
donal...@gmail.com
Evers-Swindell digging deep?
Donal
Walter Martindale
everyone in the world has been hunting them - it's natural for someone
to beat them.
Something about this "digging deep" problem and the shafts (looms) being
a bit deep - the blades have to travel some distance towards the finish
line immediately upon entering, and then the blade pivots around some
slightly moving point in the water as the boat goes past that "point"
(area?) that people call the centre of blade pressure or something like
that. I didn't see the race, haven't actually been anywhere in POM land
except Heathrow airport, and that's more than 2 years ago.
Have they gotten just that little bit older? Have the rest of the world
gotten just that little bit faster? Did some rigging glitch happen? Does
their deep technique really harm them?
I've said it on rsr a few years ago - the "optimisation" study of
sculling and rowing is no trivial matter, with large numbers of degrees
of freedom, and we don't know just what is the "optimal" technique,
although many of us coaches think we know. Blade depth during the drive
and other rigging things are only a small part of the number of needed
equations, and that particular study is way too big for this tiny little
brain.
Walter
KC
Geeze, add a tinyurl.com button to your tool bar already, eh?
The stroke of this boat has her arms quite high (nearly parallel to the
water) and she rows for the USA, so it MUST be the correct technique,
right? RIGHT???
http://tinyurl.com/qhetl
Why do I hear crickets?
Anyway, despite my previous comments in this thread about the NZ twins
technique, I've decided deep blades and high arms aren't the worst
thing they're doing... those tense shoulders have just GOT to go. Bow
has got her shoulders up over her EARS nearly. Yikes! RELAX
already!!! (kinda hard when you're loosing the WC for the first time in
several years, I suppose...)
-Kieran
J Flory
KC wrote:
.. those tense shoulders have just GOT to go. Bow
> has got her shoulders up over her EARS nearly. Yikes! RELAX
> already!!! (kinda hard when you're loosing the WC for the first time in
> several years, I suppose...)
>
> -Kieran
I noticed that too and hoped it was due to the rough water. They
didn't appear to be losing at that point. I wonder if she shrugs in
smooth conditions.
donal...@gmail.com
precisely this approch which Id managed to more or less iron out. I
still lock on early at the catch and do relatively better in quads or
sprint sculling than 2000m or long distance sculling(oh and theres the
lack of fitness aspect which I have to take into consideration) Anyway
I today tried to lock on in such a way tonight and it seemed artificial
but achievable. Im more interested though as there is a young sculler
at the club who has similar blade depths and Id been trying to coax him
out of it..his mentor is Arnold Cooke who has a similar technique (and
much success) and Im now wondering if I should have kept stuhm.
Certainly you (I)can "dig " at the catch and let the blade drift to an
easily removed finish - it is however agains the general british
sculling technique that is being pursued and I would think would harm
someone progression in crew boats in this country though would not
necessarily harm their individual aspirations.
Thoughts please
Donal
donal...@gmail.com
Surely you can still work the shoulders at an appropriate point and
still be relaxed(I havnt had a detailed look at the race though did see
the last 500 from the bank - IMO the smoothest crew were the 4th placed
brits but without wanting to be offensive its a common coaches comment
that there have never been any points for dressage. Within limits raw
power fitness and determination and aggression with an effective means
of application are the things which govern races rather than simply
technical prowess.
If looking at technique perhaps its worth doing a study on relative
ergo scores to water times....perhaps we ought to look at the worst
relative ergo performers in relation to their water times as to the
best/most effective technique?
Donal
KC
donal...@gmail.com wrote:
> isnt the shoulder shrug cleans technique applied to a rowing stroke?
> Surely you can still work the shoulders at an appropriate point and
The picture I looked at had bow with her shoulders shrugged excessively
UPWARDS, not back. The middle trapezius (among others) will draw the
scapulae back toward the spine. This is fine and necessary at certain
parts of the stroke. I don't see any purpose for shrugging the
shoulders UP towards one's ears.
> Within limits raw
> power fitness and determination and aggression with an effective means
> of application are the things which govern races rather than simply
> technical prowess.
True, but the typical (and in this case my) response is that the
powerful but technically lacking winner could have gone even faster.
In this case the twins didn't win. So could they have done better if
they'd relaxed some of those unnecessary muscles?
>
> If looking at technique perhaps its worth doing a study on relative
> ergo scores to water times....perhaps we ought to look at the worst
> relative ergo performers in relation to their water times as to the
> best/most effective technique?
That same line of thought is what led me to ask what Redgrave's VO2max
score was... still have yet to hear from anyone in the know. I got a
couple of "I think I heard once at a pub that it was..." responses
though. Redgrave's erg scores were as impressive as his on water
skills though, were they not? It's his VO2max that I thought I
remembered reading was "only" 6.3 L/min or so.
But back to your point, yes I agree that it would be interesting to
cross reference on water success with erg scores, and then take a look
at technique. It would be interesting to look at the technique of
those who have the biggest disparity between ergo and on-water prowess
(at both ends of the spectrum... high erg/few water wins = poor
technique, low erg/many water wins = good technique or so we might
presume, anyway.)
I nominate Donal to do all the research and data mining. ;-)
-Kieran
David Biddulph
news:1157056861.8...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Its an interesting topic.. I was often criticised by my coaches for
> precisely this approch which Id managed to more or less iron out. I
> still lock on early at the catch and do relatively better in quads or
> sprint sculling than 2000m or long distance sculling(oh and theres the
> lack of fitness aspect which I have to take into consideration) Anyway
> I today tried to lock on in such a way tonight and it seemed artificial
> but achievable. Im more interested though as there is a young sculler
> at the club who has similar blade depths and Id been trying to coax him
> out of it..his mentor is Arnold Cooke who has a similar technique (and
> much success) and Im now wondering if I should have kept stuhm.
With the planned revival of the European Championships next year, it's worth
remembering that Arnold was in the last GB crew to win a silver (or better)
medal at the European Championships. The only GB European medal after that
1964 silver was Hart & Baillieu's bronze in 1973.
--
David Biddulph
Rowing web pages at
http://www.biddulph.org.uk/
donal...@gmail.com
donal...@gmail.com
Carl Douglas
> Its an interesting topic.. I was often criticised by my coaches for
> precisely this approch which Id managed to more or less iron out. I
> still lock on early at the catch and do relatively better in quads or
> sprint sculling than 2000m or long distance sculling(oh and theres the
> lack of fitness aspect which I have to take into consideration) Anyway
> I today tried to lock on in such a way tonight and it seemed artificial
> but achievable. Im more interested though as there is a young sculler
> at the club who has similar blade depths and Id been trying to coax him
> out of it..his mentor is Arnold Cooke who has a similar technique (and
> much success) and Im now wondering if I should have kept stuhm.
> Certainly you (I)can "dig " at the catch and let the blade drift to an
> easily removed finish - it is however agains the general british
> sculling technique that is being pursued and I would think would harm
> someone progression in crew boats in this country though would not
> necessarily harm their individual aspirations.
>
> Thoughts please
>
Just one: if a technique does improve a sculler's speed, what long-term
sense does it make to not apply it just because for some coaches actual
speed matters less than style? Seems we're back to awarding points for
style once more. Better that those who can do so & are either competing
or coaching should fully explore & discuss the benefits of rational but
non-U aspects of technique which appear to offer theoretical &/or
practical benefts. Those features that can regularly be shown as
beneficial ought then to come to influence the thinking of the wider (&
higher) coaching system.
If it is good for coaches to be charismatic & have a good understanding
of training methods & biomechanics, then it must be better that coaches
also have a good appreciation of the range & consequences of the various
hydrodynamic & mechanical interactions betwee blades & water. And
that's only for starters. In most other fields of human endeavour,
people seeking improvements don't deliberately close their minds to the
more advanced technical aspects just because they fear finding
themselves out of their depth. They roll up their mental sleeves &
study what had hitherto been a closed book to them. But rowing seems
rather special in the way people shun whole areas of existing mechanical
sciences.
KC
Carl Douglas wrote:
> donal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Thoughts please
> >
>
> Just one: if a technique does improve a sculler's speed, what long-term
> sense does it make to not apply it just because for some coaches actual
> speed matters less than style? Seems we're back to awarding points for
> style once more. Better that those who can do so & are either competing
> or coaching should fully explore & discuss the benefits of rational but
> non-U aspects of technique which appear to offer theoretical &/or
> practical benefts. Those features that can regularly be shown as
> beneficial ought then to come to influence the thinking of the wider (&
> higher) coaching system.
>
> If it is good for coaches to be charismatic & have a good understanding
> of training methods & biomechanics, then it must be better that coaches
> also have a good appreciation of the range & consequences of the various
> hydrodynamic & mechanical interactions betwee blades & water. And
> that's only for starters. In most other fields of human endeavour,
> people seeking improvements don't deliberately close their minds to the
> more advanced technical aspects just because they fear finding
> themselves out of their depth. They roll up their mental sleeves &
> study what had hitherto been a closed book to them. But rowing seems
> rather special in the way people shun whole areas of existing mechanical
> sciences.
>
> Cheers -
> Carl
THAT was "just one" thought? yikes...
;-)
-Kieran
Mike Sullivan
"Carl Douglas" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ed7pf6$1dd$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> donal...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
>> Thoughts please
>>
>
> Just one: if a technique does improve a sculler's speed, what long-term
> sense does it make to not apply it just because for some coaches actual
> speed matters less than style? Seems we're back to awarding points for
Because actually teaching it requires quite a bit of time
that may not pay off in the short term.
I'm out of the game at the elite level, but talking to the players I've
put out into the hunt, there's few places in the US where there's
going to be a long term program set up for the benefit of the athlete
achieving his/her ultimate.
Basicallly you have to prove yourself physiologically, then
adapt to the particulars of the specific program.
If I were coaching somebody for just a summer who jumped
into my club after they got cut from camp who just wanted to
race at trials, I would feel a pressure:
1. Not enough time to teach a couple things I do really well
and have them ready for trials.
2. Not enough depth in relationship to sell it well, teach it well.
This is most of the coaching relationships that exist at the elite and
competitive club level, I believe.
Surely there are exceptions.
I think it takes 3 years to take a very co-ordinated athletic who
is very fit and already in the national team hunt to teach them
to finish, apply power, and catch properly in the single.
The program for that requires lots of 'down time' lots of teaching
time and patterning that sometimes might appear to detract
from the training program. It takes 3 years because most of it
is mileage trying to reinforce specific lessons not directly related
to speed.
I just don't think there's that investment in coach/athlete relationship
anymore, that the coaches aren't paid for that, and that the athletes
have to move around to get their best opportunity.
Mike
Carl Douglas
But if we, with such effort as you state, teach rowers to do what is
less than ideal, & we could as easily teach them something rather
different (as with blade depth, just for example), then why do we not a)
explore the implications & b) apply the results?
At present we tend to teach what our forefathers taught & to treat that
as sacred doctrine. We tend not to apply engineering science, & not to
research variations. We keep emphasising work rate & "style", thus
perhaps teaching everyone similarly sub-optimal ways to row & thus to
waste similar & unnecessary amounts of that work. Why? There'd be no
cost to a training program if rowing as a whole, or just in one club's
program, cared to look a bit deeper. It just needs an intelligent study
& review of alternatives, followed by insightful application of the
lessons learned, rather than our preferred headless chicken mimicry of
some techniques & arm-chair criticism of others.
Doing this could be a whole lot of fun. There are some fantastically
well funded college programs across the world, not to mention national
squad programs. If a mere fraction of its funding were diverted into
fundamental research into the engineering science of rowing there could
be great competitive benefit to a student program, & that research could
be done by the same college's engineering departments - a win-win situation.
Mike Sullivan
> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>> "Carl Douglas" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:ed7pf6$1dd$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>>donal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
snip
> But if we, with such effort as you state, teach rowers to do what is less
> than ideal, & we could as easily teach them something rather different (as
> with blade depth, just for example), then why do we not a) explore the
> implications & b) apply the results?
Teaching blade depth does not come easily. It's extremely
rewarding when it's done well but requires an investment of
time before the patterning is complete. My sense is that
there is little investment in teaching, just training and fixing
gross things that stand out.
I'm not disagreeing with you, just answering why. No matter
what technical mechanics you want to apply, it takes an
investment of a coach to plan to teach it in a proper program
over a course of a year, and over multiple years. You might
get a sculler at an intermediate level to finish well one year,
move to the power application and catch the next, and find
the finishes degrading the next. The sculler gets faster every
year because of the training. A good coach can correct the
creep of bad strokes coming back, but often that athlete
(or coach) is somewhere else by then.
Scullers get told a hundred different things by a hundred different
coaches, most of it useful, but little of it is properly patterned in
and patiently taught.
To quote a complete idiot: "It's hard work!"
>
> At present we tend to teach what our forefathers taught & to treat that as
> sacred doctrine. We tend not to apply engineering science, & not to
Does THAT even get done?
Walter Martindale
> "Carl Douglas" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ed7pf6$1dd$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>>donal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> snip
>
>>>Thoughts please
>>>
>>
>>Just one: if a technique does improve a sculler's speed, what long-term
>>sense does it make to not apply it just because for some coaches actual
>>speed matters less than style? Seems we're back to awarding points for
>
>
> Because actually teaching it requires quite a bit of time
> that may not pay off in the short term.
> Surely there are exceptions.
>
> I think it takes 3 years to take a very co-ordinated athletic who
> is very fit and already in the national team hunt to teach them
> to finish, apply power, and catch properly in the single.
Um.. I've seen someone start rowing, and 23 months later win the 2- at
the Pan American Games. I've seen a former national team volleyball
player take up sculling and race in the LW1X final at the worlds - the
next summer. They were sisters, BTW, and I'll be the first to admit that
these are extremely rare cases. One thing that I never worried about
with the 2- rower was when her knees "broke", as long as they didn't
interfere with the oar handle and as long as she kept swinging forward
to the catch position after she started to draw her feet, and she
"broke" her knees early all through her rowing career, despite all the
conventional coaching not to do so - she later retired with a Tommy
Keller award...
Mike Sullivan
"Walter Martindale" <wmar...@telusblockspamplanet.net> wrote in message
news:qViLg.5791$0k7.3100@clgrps13...
> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>> "Carl Douglas" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:ed7pf6$1dd$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
snip
>> I think it takes 3 years to take a very co-ordinated athletic who
>> is very fit and already in the national team hunt to teach them
>> to finish, apply power, and catch properly in the single.
>
> Um.. I've seen someone start rowing, and 23 months later win the 2- at the
> Pan American Games. I've seen a former national team volleyball player
> take up sculling and race in the LW1X final at the worlds - the next
> summer. They were sisters, BTW, and I'll be the first to admit that these
> are extremely rare cases. One thing that I never worried about with the 2-
> rower was when her knees "broke", as long as they didn't interfere with
> the oar handle and as long as she kept swinging forward to the catch
> position after she started to draw her feet, and she "broke" her knees
> early all through her rowing career, despite all the conventional coaching
> not to do so - she later retired with a Tommy Keller award...
were they able to finish and catch properly, or did they
athlete their way down the course??
Notice I made no mention of boat speed, it has to do with
optimum efficiency. You can be efficient and slow or inefficient
and very fast.
a...@irow.com
Walter Martindale wrote:
> Mike Sullivan wrote:
> > "Carl Douglas" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:ed7pf6$1dd$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> >>donal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > snip
> >
> >>>Thoughts please
> >>>
> >>
> (snip)
I've seen someone start rowing, and 23 months later win the 2- at
> the Pan American Games. I've seen a former national team volleyball
> player take up sculling and race in the LW1X final at the worlds - the
> next summer. They were sisters, BTW, and I'll be the first to admit that
> these are extremely rare cases. One thing that I never worried about
> with the 2- rower was when her knees "broke", as long as they didn't
> interfere with the oar handle and as long as she kept swinging forward
> to the catch position after she started to draw her feet, and she
> "broke" her knees early all through her rowing career, despite all the
> conventional coaching not to do so - she later retired with a Tommy
> Keller award...
5 seat of this year's AUS W8+ started rowing August last year.
Basically, there are some incredibly talented athletes around who
aren't just hammers and actually pick up how to move a boat very
quickly. If more of them decided to change sports, hammers like me
would be stuffed.
I'd be interested in whether there's been any research done into
kinaesthetic sense and "feel" which I believe is analoguous to
co-ordination outside the boat. Generally, the people with the best
"feel" seem to be better athletes outside the boat.
Interesting.
Mike Sullivan
<a...@irow.com> wrote in message
news:1157519980.0...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> Walter Martindale wrote:
>> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>> > "Carl Douglas" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > news:ed7pf6$1dd$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> >
>> >>donal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > snip
>> >
>> >>>Thoughts please
> 5 seat of this year's AUS W8+ started rowing August last year.
> Basically, there are some incredibly talented athletes around who
> aren't just hammers and actually pick up how to move a boat very
> quickly. If more of them decided to change sports, hammers like me
> would be stuffed.
>
> I'd be interested in whether there's been any research done into
> kinaesthetic sense and "feel" which I believe is analoguous to
> co-ordination outside the boat. Generally, the people with the best
> "feel" seem to be better athletes outside the boat.
I don't know about studies, but after having taught
about a million very different ppl, old, young, athlete,
clutz, fat, skinny, and every shade of gender and
psyche, nothing surprises me anymore.
The sub-topic, though, was proper technique. Many outstanding
co-ordinated athletes never learn it.
Sometimes they're so much better than every one around
the coach spends no time with them, or sometimes they
don't understand the value of the lesson. Learning to change
something most often feels counter-intuitive, it feels wrong
initially, and good athletes have a good sense for body
mechanics, and have learned to trust themselves.
Lesser athletes like us are a little more used to not
'getting it' so we are willing to put up with something
not feeling right that our coaches have convinced us
will work.
It's a fun problem, I think. A different one than the
ppl who have like one nerve ending for each arm
and leg and use it just to trip over themselves.
I'm pretty cruel sometimes about it. Told a guy who
took about 3 months to get qualified in a single (usually
takes about 3-5 sessions) to stay away from
power tools.
Mike
Walter Martindale
>
> were they able to finish and catch properly, or did they
> athlete their way down the course??
>
> Notice I made no mention of boat speed, it has to do with
> optimum efficiency. You can be efficient and slow or inefficient
> and very fast.
>
Well, the sweep rower was stroke in an Olympic pair and then in an
Olympic double, winning both. I've been told by a head national coach
that if I only have video of her to use as a "here's how it's done" then
I'm pretty well off. My thoughts about the "athlete their way down the
course": Contrast Seijkowski (sp?) with Waddell - each at one time or
other world record holders in the 2000 m ergometer. Only one (who had
very good catch timing and control of his recovery) won 2 worlds and an
Olympics - the other couldn't make the national team in his country.
You can't 'Athlete' your way down the course in a small boat and go fast
- I know you think Rob was a hammer, but if he was a hammer, he wouldn't
have gone fast in a boat. Same as the Twins, Same as McBean and Heddle
in the 90's, The main thing (in my tiny little mind) that made or makes
them fast in boats is their timing at the catch and water feel - without
that, yes, they'd be hammers.
Walter
>
Mike Sullivan
Therefore you critique technique by result.
If it's fast, it must be good.
By the way, when I say 'athlete their way down the course' I
don't mean hammer, in fact very different.
When I call someone an athlete, they have a body control,
natural efficiency and co-ordination.
Technically though, they could still be doing things
not up to snuff. That's what I meant by good athletes,
people who look good rowing, make boats go fast, but
if you break down their technique you find things they
could do much better. Some of these ppl have not
been coached, and a few are not very coachable (I
had one of those!).
I saw only one vid of Waddell, it was the Oly final.
He most certainly did NOT have good catch timing,
he was abysmal.
He drove the stern of his boat underwater every stroke.
Some ppl here said he was taking advantage of 'porpoising'
his boat....
He washed his finish the last inches, but did have a very
relaxed recovery, an excellent mechanical connection, and
enormous power and stamina.
This is why I often say that excellent technique could be a waste
of time, though I do 'waste my time' teaching it anyway.
Mike
Walter Martindale
>(snip)
> This is why I often say that excellent technique could be a waste
> of time, though I do 'waste my time' teaching it anyway.
>
> Mike
>
Well, we seem to define athlete in similar ways. I'm of the school of
thought that differentiates between "technique" and "style". Technique,
being the mechanical things that one needs to do to make a boat go fast,
and Style being the outward appearance things that some call "good
technique". I like people to row technically well, too - in that
whether they're going for worlds, nationals, local competition, or 'beer
league' type of rowing, it's all more enjoyable if the movements are
clean, crisp, efficient, smooth. Waddell - well - 100+kg person, 14 kg
boat. Centre of mass moving fore and aft in the boat; the boat's going
to move up and down. Was the boat design partly responsible? Rout
(KIRS) did tell us at one point that he'd done a few mods to keep the
bow from being plunged by his weight transfer. Which video did you see?
I've watched him on Karapiro (July 2000) at 26, moving FAST at the end
of a 20 km row, and I couldn't figure out what was wrong - until I
realized that it was too darned smooth for that stroke rate.
Anyway - we probably both like similar things about "good technique",
but we discuss it differently in this forum.
W
Zbycho BikeRider
> course": Contrast Seijkowski (sp?) with Waddell - each at one time or
> other world record holders in the 2000 m ergometer. Only one (who had
> very good catch timing and control of his recovery) won 2 worlds and an
> Olympics - the other couldn't make the national team in his country.
You mean Matthias (Maciej) Siejkowski, a son of a famous Polish rowing
champion Marian Siejkowski?
I recommend to read an interview with Maciej, it sheds some light on him
"not making into national team"...
http://www.row2k.com/features/features.cfm?action=read&ID=5
--
Walter Martindale
go fast?
anto...@aol.com
As I understand it that article is sour grapes. He never really made
the grade in a boat.
paul_v...@hotmail.com
Do you have further information regarding this? It doens't read as
'sour grapes' to me. He is a rather large person, so it's possible to
be "too big" in a boat. IMO Pavel Shurmei suffers from this a bit,
though he'd hardly be considered lacking in Erg or Boat performance. I
was surprised to see him moved into the 2x from the 4x for the size
reason alone. I think it is far too often that people like to say
things like "ergs don't float", and use examples of some of the fastest
Erg performers not "making the grade" in a boat, but Jamie Schroeder
did quite well at the WC in a 1x, and Rob Waddell also had a bit of
success in his time. Schroeder and Waddell were quite a bit lighter
than either Shurmei or Siejkowski. OTOH we have Xeno, who is shorter
than all of them, heavier than some of them, not as fast on the Erg,
and also was successful. It would appear that Xeno is the exception in
this group, or was doing something very well indeed.
- Paul Smith
Mike Sullivan
<paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157647048.5...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> anto...@aol.com wrote:
>> Walter Martindale wrote:
>> > Zbycho BikeRider wrote:
>> > > Walter Martindale wrote:
snip
> and also was successful. It would appear that Xeno is the exception in
> this group, or was doing something very well indeed.
I didn't see the 2000 vid of him very well, mostly
Waddell, but I did watch Xeno doing miles in
Zooport when I was on a launch watching crews.
Xeno was excellent at finishing the stroke, keeping
blades buried thru to finish.
Mike Sullivan
> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>> "Walter Martindale" <wmar...@telusblockspamplanet.net> wrote in message
>> news:F9ILg.17109$rd7.6515@edtnps89...
>>
snip
> Well, we seem to define athlete in similar ways. I'm of the school of
> thought that differentiates between "technique" and "style". Technique,
> being the mechanical things that one needs to do to make a boat go fast,
> and Style being the outward appearance things that some call "good
> technique". I like people to row technically well, too - in that whether
> they're going for worlds, nationals, local competition, or 'beer league'
> type of rowing, it's all more enjoyable if the movements are clean, crisp,
> efficient, smooth. Waddell - well - 100+kg person, 14 kg boat. Centre of
> mass moving fore and aft in the boat; the boat's going to move up and
> down. Was the boat design partly responsible? Rout (KIRS) did tell us at
> one point that he'd done a few mods to keep the bow from being plunged by
> his weight transfer. Which video did you see?
2000 olys from the stern. It's not just the boat's stern buried
that caught my eye, certainly boats are different. A hudson moves
a lot more than a similarly sized Empacher for the exact same
athlete (I tested). A boat is going to move no matter what,
but I've been watching scullers sterns for 30 years
and can tell the diff between body weight shift and
stern check. Waddell's not the first beast who's ever
sculled!
Waddell doesn't need to compress extremely to get to an
optimum mechanical catch angle, yet he gets to full compression
and his blades are off the water. By the time he catches,
he's opened significantly. That missed catch is what buries
his boat. Waddell was not heavy for his frame size. Karpinnen
was far better at the catch, and he was bigger.
Waddell is physiologically superior to Karpinnen at his
best I bet.
> I've watched him on Karapiro (July 2000) at 26, moving FAST at the end of
> a 20 km row, and I couldn't figure out what was wrong - until I realized
> that it was too darned smooth for that stroke rate.
> Anyway - we probably both like similar things about "good technique", but
> we discuss it differently in this forum.
I'm extremely guilty of judging Waddell on way too small of
a data point. That's arm-chair criticism, not analysis, so I'm prolly
way off base.
BTW, I've seen some abominable sculling win lightweight
women's races too!!!
Gawd, I feel like I'm ol Quikhands.
remember him? :^)
Mike
KC
It's funny reading your comments throughout all this. I'm pretty sure
that one person to whom you've refered many times is probably a certain
fellow anteater you coached in the early 80's who now is working on a
ranch, right?
Here's the thing: I agree with your definition of athlete... someone
who has a natural sense and control of their body. I give the
"athlete" speach to my rowers every summer... because I want them to be
open minded about trying a new technique, so I underhandedly challenge
them to try my new styles by suggesting that a good athlete should be
able to adopt any style and still go back to their old style, etc. But
I digress...
To me, athleticism, if you boil it down, means being able to make your
body do what you want it to do. Whether that means pushing through
fatigue and pain in an endurance sport, or having the neuro-muscular
control to do a triple summersault with a twist from a diving platform,
or making a clean catch with an oar... a good athlete hears the
instructions from the coach, understands them, can visualize the
motion, and can make his body do it. Not necessarily perfectly right
away, but good athletes come close right away.
Anyway, the irony, the funny part, is that Greg is the one from whom I
initially got this idea of athleticism. He was trying to get Jed and
me to row some crazy style of his when we were in the pair, we balked
at it, and he told us that good athletes should be able to row any
style/technique for any coach, given a little time and practice. That
stuck with me. Did he get it from you?
-Kieran
Mike Sullivan
"KC" <kc_...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:1157657380....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Mike,
snip
> Anyway, the irony, the funny part, is that G*** is the one from whom I
> initially got this idea of athleticism. He was trying to get Jed and
> me to row some crazy style of his when we were in the pair, we balked
> at it, and he told us that good athletes should be able to row any
> style/technique for any coach, given a little time and practice. That
> stuck with me. Did he get it from you?
those are my words, but if he got it, he never got
it while he rowed.
I had big gaps in my understanding back then, basically I
had the idea but not the 'eye'. Later on, I was able to actually
see people move boats, rather than just see what looks
pleasing to my eye, or look to see the short strokes, bad
strokes to try and eliminate.
I had been guilty like a great many of us coaches, to
try and coach the weak link to catch up, instead of
trying to make the best ever better.
That's much more challenging.
Walter Martindale
(snip)
> Gawd, I feel like I'm ol Quikhands.
>
> remember him? :^)
>
> Mike
>
>
I've only been coaching since 1983, mostly N of the 49th(the N one) and
some S of the 42nd (the S one). I work in rowing, and do my recreation
either on the mats (aikido) or at the range (900 m target fullbore and
50 m pistol). So, I follow some things, but spend a lot of time running
around this province working with developing athletes and coaches. Pre
97, I could recite the names of pretty well all the crews representing
Canuck land. Now, having missed 3 years of Canuck stuff while in Kiwi
land, I realize that while it's nice to know, it's certainly not
necessary.
who?
W
Mike Sullivan
> Mike Sullivan wrote:
> (snip)
>> Gawd, I feel like I'm ol Quikhands.
>>
>> remember him? :^)
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
> who?
quikhands. He was an RSR character from the early
days.
> I've only been coaching since 1983, mostly N of the 49th(the N one) and
> some S of the 42nd (the S one). I work in rowing, and do my recreation
> either on the mats (aikido) or at the range (900 m target fullbore and 50
> m pistol). So, I follow some things, but spend a lot of time running
> around this province working with developing athletes and coaches. Pre 97,
> I could recite the names of pretty well all the crews representing Canuck
> land. Now, having missed 3 years of Canuck stuff while in Kiwi land, I
> realize that while it's nice to know, it's certainly not necessary.
You must not put the same importance in hanging around
over a beer and telling stories about ppl you know!!
:^)
Walter Martindale
the Big Rock Brewery in Calgary.. Most recent billboards - "Beer tasting
beer". I travel way too much in this coaching job - and the people I
sit around with having beers are usually the Aikido and target shooting
friends with whom I do my "recreation". for most people rowing is their
recreation, and they like to get together and talk about it. It's my
job, and sometimes I need to leave the 'office' behind.
The Aikido has given me a new perspective on coaching, and coaching has
given me a different way to learn Aikido. Oh well.