Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Coaching nonsense!
1,068 views
Skip to first unread message
Carl
Apr 20, 2013, 1:25:22 PM4/20/13
to
I've just received this plaintive message from a friend who prefers to
remain anonymous:
"Desperately need advice! In BR L2 coaching course they're telling me
that boat will run forward of its own accord underneath rower during
recovery , and rower shouldn't pull feet. That's not right is it? All
moving at same velocity. Instructor hates me right now!"
I do try on occasions to explain the dynamics of the rowing stroke, but
there continues an abundance of those who assume that the drag is all on
the rower while there is none on the boat - which is the only possible
meaning of the utter drivel of which my informant is rightly complaining.
Why do they let people write these coaching instructions when they have
such fundamentally deficient grasp of the elementary physical principles
which govern the rowing action & every other movement we make? Next
they'll tell us the sun moves round the earth & the world began in 4004 BC
Clearly there is drag on the boat, which continues to decelerate due to
fluid friction if there is no other force to keep it moving forwards.
As clearly, there is no fluid drag on the rower, so they must (Newton's
first Law tells us) continue moving towards the finish line without
deceleration.
So how does the rower get from back-stops to front-stops, except by
pulling with their feet on the stretcher? Otherwise the would certainly
remain indefinitely at back-stops.
Oh dear! As Greg Searle suggested after the 2012 games, it wouldn't be
a bad idea for British Rowing to take a leaf out of British Cycling's
book & start applying a bit more science to the business of moving
rowing shells.
If you have a new wave of rowers all being told that the boat will
simply run forward underneath them & they mustn't pull it forward, that
hardly suggests the existence of a scientific approach towards rowing in
official circles. I am entirely sure that this ridiculous belief is
held dear by a very large proportion of rowers, most of whom are clearly
too polite to tell me I must be wrong. Let's see if that supposition
proves right.
Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: carldouglas.co.uk & now on Facebook @ CarlDouglasRacingShells
remain anonymous:
"Desperately need advice! In BR L2 coaching course they're telling me
that boat will run forward of its own accord underneath rower during
recovery , and rower shouldn't pull feet. That's not right is it? All
moving at same velocity. Instructor hates me right now!"
I do try on occasions to explain the dynamics of the rowing stroke, but
there continues an abundance of those who assume that the drag is all on
the rower while there is none on the boat - which is the only possible
meaning of the utter drivel of which my informant is rightly complaining.
Why do they let people write these coaching instructions when they have
such fundamentally deficient grasp of the elementary physical principles
which govern the rowing action & every other movement we make? Next
they'll tell us the sun moves round the earth & the world began in 4004 BC
Clearly there is drag on the boat, which continues to decelerate due to
fluid friction if there is no other force to keep it moving forwards.
As clearly, there is no fluid drag on the rower, so they must (Newton's
first Law tells us) continue moving towards the finish line without
deceleration.
So how does the rower get from back-stops to front-stops, except by
pulling with their feet on the stretcher? Otherwise the would certainly
remain indefinitely at back-stops.
Oh dear! As Greg Searle suggested after the 2012 games, it wouldn't be
a bad idea for British Rowing to take a leaf out of British Cycling's
book & start applying a bit more science to the business of moving
rowing shells.
If you have a new wave of rowers all being told that the boat will
simply run forward underneath them & they mustn't pull it forward, that
hardly suggests the existence of a scientific approach towards rowing in
official circles. I am entirely sure that this ridiculous belief is
held dear by a very large proportion of rowers, most of whom are clearly
too polite to tell me I must be wrong. Let's see if that supposition
proves right.
Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: carldouglas.co.uk & now on Facebook @ CarlDouglasRacingShells
Richard du P
Apr 20, 2013, 2:44:14 PM4/20/13
to
Carl, I can't quarrel with that in any way.
One difficulty I think I see in promoting your message, has something to do with the school system in England and Wales ..... far too many of the good people [and they ARE generally good] who run things around here, were encouraged to abandon maths, physical science, quantitative reasoning and empirical methods when they were about sixteen years old. Far more, I think, than in many countries of the world?
I don't think it's entirely fanciful to see a shortage of scientific thought behind the use [which better people than I have identified] of "policy-based evidence" rather than evidence-based policy, in various aspects of UK public affairs at this time.
So, how do we find a common language in which to persuade [in the present case] teachers of coaching EITHER to set about measuring the physical effects which must underly efficiency and effectiveness in rowing and sculling OR at least generally to grasp and accept what "Scotty" used to call "the laws of physics". Get more respected people talking as you say Greg Searle does?
We must keep our hopes up. Remember, a large "faith group" did ultimately give official acceptance to the Copernican/Galilean model of the solar system ..... though I believe they waited until the twentieth century to do so.
Richard du P
One difficulty I think I see in promoting your message, has something to do with the school system in England and Wales ..... far too many of the good people [and they ARE generally good] who run things around here, were encouraged to abandon maths, physical science, quantitative reasoning and empirical methods when they were about sixteen years old. Far more, I think, than in many countries of the world?
I don't think it's entirely fanciful to see a shortage of scientific thought behind the use [which better people than I have identified] of "policy-based evidence" rather than evidence-based policy, in various aspects of UK public affairs at this time.
So, how do we find a common language in which to persuade [in the present case] teachers of coaching EITHER to set about measuring the physical effects which must underly efficiency and effectiveness in rowing and sculling OR at least generally to grasp and accept what "Scotty" used to call "the laws of physics". Get more respected people talking as you say Greg Searle does?
We must keep our hopes up. Remember, a large "faith group" did ultimately give official acceptance to the Copernican/Galilean model of the solar system ..... though I believe they waited until the twentieth century to do so.
Richard du P
Carl
Apr 20, 2013, 5:40:38 PM4/20/13
to
but even so....
BR is run by folk some of whom are as "mature" as you & I & may
therefore have undergone a more formal education than you imply. Yet
the myth of the ever-running boat is at least a century old, so we must
contend not just with fools & older fools, but with fools of long ago.
With them, & with the simple gullibility of folk.
It's not that people won't question, more that they won't think, or at
least not rationally. It's easier to assume than to ponder, & easier to
accept the easy answer. What's odd about that, however, is that once
the wrong but easy answer has been swallowed, the swallower will fight
tooth & nail to defend that which they had swallowed with so little thought.
When writing of "policy-based evidence", you'll be aware of the recent
exposure of the serious economic consequences of a financially insulated
politicians' gullibility when he's presented with a case for fiscal
brutality which, particularly, appeals to one such in the UK with,
allegedly, a certain fondness for flagellation:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22223190
Based of an apparently flawed academic paper not subjected to detailed
challenge, an economic strait-jacket was tied upon national economies,
impoverishing many. I suspect that's because the paper was on
economics, the so-called dismal science (often more dismal than real
science?). Had it been a ground-breaking paper on physics or maths, be
sure that others would have been crawling all over it to uncover any
buried flaws. Being on economics, the masters of our universe, lacking
the wit or patience to challenge it, swallowed it whole as a new
orthodoxy. It sounded good ("if it ain't hurting it ain't working") so
it must be good, they thought.
Which has little to do with rowing, except that this slipshoddery
inculcates into each year's new intake of rowers an inane interpretation
of what happens during recovery, giving them another reason to row less
well.
Charles Carroll
Apr 20, 2013, 10:43:28 PM4/20/13
to
Carl,
Doesn’t science begin with careful observation?
Whenever I remember to draw my shell underneath me, my SpeedCoach shows an
average of 4 strokes-per-minute increase in rate.
But first I have to overcome muscle memory and make a conscious effort to do
it.
And second whenever I manage to remember and do it, it is always a bit
unsettling. It is unsettling because I not only see an increase in rate and
a corresponding drop in my splits, but it also feels as if I am not working
as hard. There is something in me that struggles with the idea of being
rewarded for not working “as hard.” Maybe there is something left in me of
my old Huguenot forebears …
Cordially,
Charles
Doesn’t science begin with careful observation?
Whenever I remember to draw my shell underneath me, my SpeedCoach shows an
average of 4 strokes-per-minute increase in rate.
But first I have to overcome muscle memory and make a conscious effort to do
it.
And second whenever I manage to remember and do it, it is always a bit
unsettling. It is unsettling because I not only see an increase in rate and
a corresponding drop in my splits, but it also feels as if I am not working
as hard. There is something in me that struggles with the idea of being
rewarded for not working “as hard.” Maybe there is something left in me of
my old Huguenot forebears …
Cordially,
Charles
Charles Carroll
Apr 20, 2013, 10:44:52 PM4/20/13
to
Carl
Apr 21, 2013, 9:09:47 AM4/21/13
to
If you do positively draw your feet towards you during recovery you'll
be doing work in an organised way to keep the boat moving forwards at a
more constant speed.
Otherwise you'll do it in the less organised manner of those who think
that what they must do is whip the hands away towards the stern (wrongly
imagining such localised haste makes for a faster recovery when all it
does is create a nasty rush & a shortened finish), then press the feet
against the stretcher to (as they like to suppose) slow themselves down
on the slide towards front-stops.
Well, if you do the latter (or some variant or compromise on same),
isn't it entirely likely that you'll do some extra work against yourself
& less work in moving the boat?
As I indicated, these ingrained misconceptions of the dynamics of the
rowing stroke really do matter. So those getting nice salaries to spin
that entangled yarn in the faces of would-be new coaches to which my
correspondent drew our attention are actively holding back their
students through their own unthinking adherence to official dogma. Nice
set of clothes, Emperor!
s...@ku.edu
Apr 21, 2013, 5:43:42 PM4/21/13
to
1. A coach, who understands well the physics of rowing, observes a rower who aggressively pulls himself (always a guy) to the catch introducing noticeable check. Perhaps it was after too many months on the erg or perhaps he, like many strong, young men, tends towards a brutal style of rowing.
2. The knowledgeable coach knows this is not the time for a physics lesson; in coaching less is more, keep it simple, [add nostrum here]….
3. So the coach (knowing full well this doesn’t happen) tells the rower to let the boat come to him during the recovery. The rower’s brutal style lessens and the boat runs more easily.
4. 10 years later the former rough rower is now a coach and takes this bit of coaching simplification as the model of rowing and proclaims confidently “that the boat will run forward of its own accord underneath rower during recovery , and rower shouldn't pull feet.”
blac...@gmail.com
Apr 21, 2013, 10:34:07 PM4/21/13
to
As an illustration of this process, we can probably now expect generations of coaches to pass on the gospel truth that "there is no fluid drag on the rower".
James HS
Apr 22, 2013, 2:31:36 AM4/22/13
to
I am not in my first flush of youth, had been taught that I should float up the slide (rather than actively control the draw of it) and that the time to take the catch was when the boat had finished coming to me.
The only saving grace was that most of the potential coaches on the course knew what was and was not correct, but it is a pity to have to know this 'despite' the instruction as one is expected to be seen demonstrating the BR Rowing Technique during practical coaching sessions.
It is not all bad - there was lots of good in the sessions - but it would be good to get the basic physics right (some of the other(s) being big back splash and that the most efficient part of the blade stroke is in the middle)
The sessions are run on a timetable, discussion and/or questioning are not really encouraged - my advice is to grin and bear it and get through the process.
James
A3aan
Apr 22, 2013, 5:54:17 AM4/22/13
to
What about the angle of the slides? I think they are tilted in order to help the rower recover without having to pull too much on his stretcher...right?
Apart from that, many rowers don't relax enough during the recovery (which is partially caused by rowing on static ergometers methinks). Telling rowers to 'let the boat run underneath them' is more of a mantra towards relaxation than a scientific accuracy. At least I use it often and notice that rowers start rowing more fluidly and with more solid strokes.
Apart from that, many rowers don't relax enough during the recovery (which is partially caused by rowing on static ergometers methinks). Telling rowers to 'let the boat run underneath them' is more of a mantra towards relaxation than a scientific accuracy. At least I use it often and notice that rowers start rowing more fluidly and with more solid strokes.
johnf...@gmail.com
Apr 22, 2013, 7:32:06 AM4/22/13
to
A3aan, I too was wondering about tilted slides and/or seat deck. In most boats I have seen the seats tend to roll to stern stops when the boat is empty at the dock (assuming the tracks and wheels are in good condition!!). Of course the bow is pressed down a bit at the release, so the tilt of the tracks may be intended to compensate for that?
I also wonder, if one must pull with the feet to arrive at the catch, how is it possible to row (albeit at a moderate rating) with feet out of the shoes, a common drill?
It also strikes me as an oversimplification to consider the system as just two masses: body and boat. It might be more fruitful to think in terms of multiple masses (torso, head, legs, arms, oars, hull) elastically linked? And to make sure one is thinking in terms of a single frame of reference. Perhaps the hull rather than the water in this case, though either can be confusing when thinking about the forces and their directions. For example, would rotation of the head and torso towards the stern around the end of the stroke generate momentum (with respect to the hull) towards the stern? And I'm not sure what the effect of the acceleration of the handles towards the stern (and hence the outer shafts and blades towards the bow) would be WRT the hull.
I suspect that the reality is that there IS some pull by the feet to reach the catch, but that it combines with other forces. And that perhaps pulling with the feet naturally happens during the last half of the recovery as the knees rise, so that it isn't necessary to consciously think about it. As A3aan points out, the recovery should be a relaxation phase (a mini-vacation, I sometimes use "Aruba" as a code word), and focusing on pulling oneself to the catch may lead to prematurely lifting the knees and/or rushing.
I also wonder, if one must pull with the feet to arrive at the catch, how is it possible to row (albeit at a moderate rating) with feet out of the shoes, a common drill?
It also strikes me as an oversimplification to consider the system as just two masses: body and boat. It might be more fruitful to think in terms of multiple masses (torso, head, legs, arms, oars, hull) elastically linked? And to make sure one is thinking in terms of a single frame of reference. Perhaps the hull rather than the water in this case, though either can be confusing when thinking about the forces and their directions. For example, would rotation of the head and torso towards the stern around the end of the stroke generate momentum (with respect to the hull) towards the stern? And I'm not sure what the effect of the acceleration of the handles towards the stern (and hence the outer shafts and blades towards the bow) would be WRT the hull.
I suspect that the reality is that there IS some pull by the feet to reach the catch, but that it combines with other forces. And that perhaps pulling with the feet naturally happens during the last half of the recovery as the knees rise, so that it isn't necessary to consciously think about it. As A3aan points out, the recovery should be a relaxation phase (a mini-vacation, I sometimes use "Aruba" as a code word), and focusing on pulling oneself to the catch may lead to prematurely lifting the knees and/or rushing.
Carl
Apr 22, 2013, 8:08:07 AM4/22/13
to
On 22/04/2013 10:54, A3aan wrote:
> What about the angle of the slides? I think they are tilted in order to help the rower recover without having to pull too much on his stretcher...right?
>
Unfortunately wrong. Slope is typically 1.5 in 80, or about 1 degree.
> What about the angle of the slides? I think they are tilted in order to help the rower recover without having to pull too much on his stretcher...right?
>
That's enough to give you an acceleration of only 9.8 x 1.5/80 m/sec^2
under free fall (frictionless) conditions. In such ideal conditions,
over 1 second your average velocity would be only 9cm/sec & in reality
you'd have moved much less than 9cm towards frontstops.
But that supposes your slides are stationary. In fact the boat will
decelerate at close to 1g (that 9.8m/sec^2) under hull friction, which
is very much more rapidly than you'd move down static slides under
gravity, especially if not pulling on your feet. So you'd remain firmly
stuck at backstops.
Simple, really.
> Apart from that, many rowers don't relax enough during the recovery (which is partially caused by rowing on static ergometers methinks). Telling rowers to 'let the boat run underneath them' is more of a mantra towards relaxation than a scientific accuracy. At least I use it often and notice that rowers start rowing more fluidly and with more solid strokes.
>
for anyone presenting gibberish as coaching fact ;)
johnf...@gmail.com
Apr 22, 2013, 8:28:39 AM4/22/13
to
OK, so then why are slides sloped at all?
Is there a difference between sculling and sweep in terms of slide sloping? The Pocock 8+'s I've worked with have very substantial wedges under the tracks. As I recall roughly 1cm at the max end, so maybe 1 in 34??? The 1x's and 2x's I'm familiar with don't have wedges but of course I don't know if the seat decks are sloped. Certainly the seats move to the stern stops when the boats are put into the water.
Is there a difference between sculling and sweep in terms of slide sloping? The Pocock 8+'s I've worked with have very substantial wedges under the tracks. As I recall roughly 1cm at the max end, so maybe 1 in 34??? The 1x's and 2x's I'm familiar with don't have wedges but of course I don't know if the seat decks are sloped. Certainly the seats move to the stern stops when the boats are put into the water.
Carl
Apr 22, 2013, 9:37:48 AM4/22/13
to
While that hints at an argument that's not relevant to the present
topic, might it be that raising your seat by ~1/2" from catch & finish
was once found to be better for your finish? Otherwise, it's no big deal.
1:80 slope - unless you've mixed imperial with metric, as when a US Mars
probe landed just a tad below the planet's surface.
Whichever way you cut it, slide slope is of minimal assistance with the
recovery. Perhaps just that it's not a hindrance? Or that someone felt
sure, without bothering to do the maths, that it did the job?
topic, might it be that raising your seat by ~1/2" from catch & finish
was once found to be better for your finish? Otherwise, it's no big deal.
>
> Is there a difference between sculling and sweep in terms of slide sloping? The Pocock 8+'s I've worked with have very substantial wedges under the tracks. As I recall roughly 1cm at the max end, so maybe 1 in 34??? The 1x's and 2x's I'm familiar with don't have wedges but of course I don't know if the seat decks are sloped. Certainly the seats move to the stern stops when the boats are put into the water.
>
Not as far as I know. And 1cm at 1 end is only going to give you about
> Is there a difference between sculling and sweep in terms of slide sloping? The Pocock 8+'s I've worked with have very substantial wedges under the tracks. As I recall roughly 1cm at the max end, so maybe 1 in 34??? The 1x's and 2x's I'm familiar with don't have wedges but of course I don't know if the seat decks are sloped. Certainly the seats move to the stern stops when the boats are put into the water.
>
1:80 slope - unless you've mixed imperial with metric, as when a US Mars
probe landed just a tad below the planet's surface.
Whichever way you cut it, slide slope is of minimal assistance with the
recovery. Perhaps just that it's not a hindrance? Or that someone felt
sure, without bothering to do the maths, that it did the job?
s...@ku.edu
Apr 22, 2013, 9:47:49 AM4/22/13
to
Not sure I would describe the recovery as a "mini-vacation." To me the period from finish to catch is the most athletically demanding phase of the stroke when you need to stay poised, feel the run of the boat, find just the right amount of effort to get to the front stops and get pressure on the blade before the drive. As a natural slouch, breaking the bad habit of collapsing at the release is a continual struggle, so "Aruba" isn't the right metaphor for me.
johnf...@gmail.com
Apr 22, 2013, 10:07:43 AM4/22/13
to
On Monday, April 22, 2013 9:47:49 AM UTC-4, s...@ku.edu wrote:
> Not sure I would describe the recovery as a "mini-vacation." To me the period from finish to catch is the most athletically demanding phase of the stroke when you need to stay poised, feel the run of the boat, find just the right amount of effort to get to the front stops and get pressure on the blade before the drive. As a natural slouch, breaking the bad habit of collapsing at the release is a continual struggle, so "Aruba" isn't the right metaphor for me.
Good point. I guess that's why a coach needs a variety of ways of expressing things in her/his arsenal. And the flexibility to accommodate different body proportions/physical abilities/neuromuscular wiring rather than insisting on a single ideal "style".
> Not sure I would describe the recovery as a "mini-vacation." To me the period from finish to catch is the most athletically demanding phase of the stroke when you need to stay poised, feel the run of the boat, find just the right amount of effort to get to the front stops and get pressure on the blade before the drive. As a natural slouch, breaking the bad habit of collapsing at the release is a continual struggle, so "Aruba" isn't the right metaphor for me.
johnf...@gmail.com
Apr 22, 2013, 10:41:49 AM4/22/13
to
Sorry for the bad math. We measure almost everything else in cm, I forgot that tracks are still measured in quaint inches.
To be scientific, "doing the maths" is only half of the process, empirical testing is the second part. Carl, do you still tilt the tracks in CD boats? Have you tested (or do you know anybody who has) to see what happens when the tracks are tilted positively, zero, or negatively, and by different amounts in the first and last cases? Or do builders still blindly follow orthodoxy?
To be scientific, "doing the maths" is only half of the process, empirical testing is the second part. Carl, do you still tilt the tracks in CD boats? Have you tested (or do you know anybody who has) to see what happens when the tracks are tilted positively, zero, or negatively, and by different amounts in the first and last cases? Or do builders still blindly follow orthodoxy?
James HS
Apr 22, 2013, 11:00:09 AM4/22/13
to
On Monday, 22 April 2013 15:41:49 UTC+1, johnf...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sorry for the bad math. We measure almost everything else in cm, I forgot that tracks are still measured in quaint inches.
>
>
>
> To be scientific, "doing the maths" is only half of the process, empirical testing is the second part. Carl, do you still tilt the tracks in CD boats? Have you tested (or do you know anybody who has) to see what happens when the tracks are tilted positively, zero, or negatively, and by different amounts in the first and last cases? Or do builders still blindly follow orthodoxy?
It could equally be that the tracks are sloped to get the seat to the most useful position for getting in the boat - if my seat was always at the far reach of its slide when I was getting into my single, as opposed to where I want it be be (under my descending bum) then I would be, more often than not, sitting on the deck! :)
> Sorry for the bad math. We measure almost everything else in cm, I forgot that tracks are still measured in quaint inches.
>
>
>
> To be scientific, "doing the maths" is only half of the process, empirical testing is the second part. Carl, do you still tilt the tracks in CD boats? Have you tested (or do you know anybody who has) to see what happens when the tracks are tilted positively, zero, or negatively, and by different amounts in the first and last cases? Or do builders still blindly follow orthodoxy?
Carl
Apr 22, 2013, 11:45:48 AM4/22/13
to
On 22/04/2013 15:41, johnf...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sorry for the bad math. We measure almost everything else in cm, I forgot that tracks are still measured in quaint inches.
>
> To be scientific, "doing the maths" is only half of the process, empirical testing is the second part. Carl, do you still tilt the tracks in CD boats? Have you tested (or do you know anybody who has) to see what happens when the tracks are tilted positively, zero, or negatively, and by different amounts in the first and last cases? Or do builders still blindly follow orthodoxy?
>
>
Would we experiment on our clients? Perish the thought!
> Sorry for the bad math. We measure almost everything else in cm, I forgot that tracks are still measured in quaint inches.
>
> To be scientific, "doing the maths" is only half of the process, empirical testing is the second part. Carl, do you still tilt the tracks in CD boats? Have you tested (or do you know anybody who has) to see what happens when the tracks are tilted positively, zero, or negatively, and by different amounts in the first and last cases? Or do builders still blindly follow orthodoxy?
>
>
On the unfounded assumption that everyone doing the same thing is doing
the right thing, I fear we've held to the craven path of sloping the
slide-bed. As indicated, my belief is that we might be a bit happier at
backstops for sitting 10mm or so higher than at front-stops, but I have
no objective evidence to that effect. Our policy is to change things
when we see a sound reason to do so but otherwise to leave well alone.
In that respect, I guess the only thing we haven't done differently
might be the slope under the slides :)
johnf...@gmail.com
Apr 22, 2013, 12:38:38 PM4/22/13
to
Testing it doesn't seem very onerous:
- If seat deck is presently level and wedges are being used to slope the tracks, try reversing them. And for 0 degrees substitute a shim half the thickness of the thickest end of the wedges, maybe 5mm
- If seat deck is presently sloped, 0-10mm wedges inserted with the 10mm end under the stern end of the tracks will get you to zero degrees.
You could do a rough test this way.
Or simply ship me a CD 1x and I'll do the testing for you, no charge!!
@James HS, having the seat against the back of the heel that it on the seat deck is only slightly better than having it at the bow end of the tracks. It's not wonderful because setting my butt down next to my heel forces a tight bend of the knee. A mechanism which would allow one to lock it in the optimum position (sort of like a parking brake) might be an interesting enhancement?
- If seat deck is presently level and wedges are being used to slope the tracks, try reversing them. And for 0 degrees substitute a shim half the thickness of the thickest end of the wedges, maybe 5mm
- If seat deck is presently sloped, 0-10mm wedges inserted with the 10mm end under the stern end of the tracks will get you to zero degrees.
You could do a rough test this way.
Or simply ship me a CD 1x and I'll do the testing for you, no charge!!
@James HS, having the seat against the back of the heel that it on the seat deck is only slightly better than having it at the bow end of the tracks. It's not wonderful because setting my butt down next to my heel forces a tight bend of the knee. A mechanism which would allow one to lock it in the optimum position (sort of like a parking brake) might be an interesting enhancement?
Sarah Harbour
Apr 22, 2013, 3:53:53 PM4/22/13
to
On Sunday, April 21, 2013 10:43:42 PM UTC+1, s...@ku.edu wrote:
>
> The evolution of mindless coaching:
>
> 1. A coach, who understands well the physics of rowing, observes a rower who aggressively pulls himself (always a guy) to the catch introducing noticeable check. Perhaps it was after too many months on the erg or perhaps he, like many strong, young men, tends towards a brutal style of rowing.
>
> 2. The knowledgeable coach knows this is not the time for a physics lesson; in coaching less is more, keep it simple, [add nostrum here]….
>
> 3. So the coach (knowing full well this doesn’t happen) tells the rower to let the boat come to him during the recovery. The rower’s brutal style lessens and the boat runs more easily.
>
> 4. 10 years later the former rough rower is now a coach and takes this bit of coaching simplification as the model of rowing and proclaims confidently “that the boat will run forward of its own accord underneath rower during recovery , and rower shouldn't pull feet.”
I think that sums it up pretty well. Most coaches don't explain exactly why they say certain things/do certain exercises, and then others who observe them get the wrong end of the stick and then put out the wrong message themselves. You see it all the time where I am.
>
> The evolution of mindless coaching:
>
> 1. A coach, who understands well the physics of rowing, observes a rower who aggressively pulls himself (always a guy) to the catch introducing noticeable check. Perhaps it was after too many months on the erg or perhaps he, like many strong, young men, tends towards a brutal style of rowing.
>
> 2. The knowledgeable coach knows this is not the time for a physics lesson; in coaching less is more, keep it simple, [add nostrum here]….
>
> 3. So the coach (knowing full well this doesn’t happen) tells the rower to let the boat come to him during the recovery. The rower’s brutal style lessens and the boat runs more easily.
>
> 4. 10 years later the former rough rower is now a coach and takes this bit of coaching simplification as the model of rowing and proclaims confidently “that the boat will run forward of its own accord underneath rower during recovery , and rower shouldn't pull feet.”
Another good example is the backsplash issue. Most novice rowers don't put the blade in at the front end early enough, so the common solution is to tell them that they must make backsplash (because if they're backsplashing, they'll be getting the blade down to the water for the catch before it changes direction). Unfortunately, once they've mastered that part, they're then not taught how to time the entry properly and they then propagate the misguided understanding that all forward splash is wrong and that one must always try to soak the rower sat immediately behind as much as possible!
Sarah
Carl
Apr 22, 2013, 4:07:15 PM4/22/13
to
On 22/04/2013 17:38, johnf...@gmail.com wrote:
> Testing it doesn't seem very onerous:
> - If seat deck is presently level and wedges are being used to slope the tracks, try reversing them. And for 0 degrees substitute a shim half the thickness of the thickest end of the wedges, maybe 5mm
> - If seat deck is presently sloped, 0-10mm wedges inserted with the 10mm end under the stern end of the tracks will get you to zero degrees.
> You could do a rough test this way.
I could indeed. Our slide-bed has an inbuilt slope, no wedges, but I'm
> Testing it doesn't seem very onerous:
> - If seat deck is presently level and wedges are being used to slope the tracks, try reversing them. And for 0 degrees substitute a shim half the thickness of the thickest end of the wedges, maybe 5mm
> - If seat deck is presently sloped, 0-10mm wedges inserted with the 10mm end under the stern end of the tracks will get you to zero degrees.
> You could do a rough test this way.
not sure it's my top priority right now. You see, if I tried it and
thought it was better I'm almost certain to end up banging my head
against a wall of disbelief since surely (they'd say) you need that
slope so's you can get forward without pulling on the feet. I think I
recognise a mug's game...
>
> Or simply ship me a CD 1x and I'll do the testing for you, no charge!!
Now there's a deal. I can supply you the single for a very reasonable
> Or simply ship me a CD 1x and I'll do the testing for you, no charge!!
charge - e.g. a very elegant Custom model for GBP6,500 + freight &
packing? I'll even add in a couple of wedges for free ;)
>
> @James HS, having the seat against the back of the heel that it on the seat deck is only slightly better than having it at the bow end of the tracks. It's not wonderful because setting my butt down next to my heel forces a tight bend of the knee. A mechanism which would allow one to lock it in the optimum position (sort of like a parking brake) might be an interesting enhancement?
>
Until it activated during a race?
> @James HS, having the seat against the back of the heel that it on the seat deck is only slightly better than having it at the bow end of the tracks. It's not wonderful because setting my butt down next to my heel forces a tight bend of the knee. A mechanism which would allow one to lock it in the optimum position (sort of like a parking brake) might be an interesting enhancement?
>
Henry Law
Apr 30, 2013, 1:37:22 PM4/30/13
to
On 22/04/13 15:07, johnf...@gmail.com wrote:
> Good point. I guess that's why a coach needs a variety of ways of expressing things in her/his arsenal.
I think this in turn is the most important point in the whole thread.
> Good point. I guess that's why a coach needs a variety of ways of expressing things in her/his arsenal.
The coach needs to _say_ things that when transferred to the mind of the
rower will help her or him to _execute_ the right motions. What the
coach says doesn't need to be accurate in physics terms. "Float
forward" is nonsense in real terms, but it conveys the right idea.
So "let the boat come to you" is fine, if it encourages the rower to
leave the legs down the proper length of time, and come smoothly along
the slide so as not to disturb the motion of the boat or to arrive at
front stops too early. Perhaps better would be "pretend the boat is
going to come to you, and imagine you don't have to exert any force to
make it do so"; but that takes too long to say!
Teaching in a formal lecture that the boat _will_ come to you without
any effort on your part, that it is possible to recover without such
effort, and indeed that effort to bring yourself along the slide is
actually wrong: that's not going to help anyone.
--
Henry Law Manchester, England
wmar...@gmail.com
May 1, 2013, 9:53:24 AM5/1/13
to
On Monday, 22 April 2013 08:28:39 UTC-4, johnf...@gmail.com wrote:
> OK, so then why are slides sloped at all?
>
>
>
> Is there a difference between sculling and sweep in terms of slide sloping? The Pocock 8+'s I've worked with have very substantial wedges under the tracks. As I recall roughly 1cm at the max end, so maybe 1 in 34??? The 1x's and 2x's I'm familiar with don't have wedges but of course I don't know if the seat decks are sloped. Certainly the seats move to the stern stops when the boats are put into the water.
I've actually tried rowing in a boat with no slope to the slides. While at the Saskatoon Rowing Club, the club purchased two 1990s "FISA" singles.
> OK, so then why are slides sloped at all?
>
>
>
> Is there a difference between sculling and sweep in terms of slide sloping? The Pocock 8+'s I've worked with have very substantial wedges under the tracks. As I recall roughly 1cm at the max end, so maybe 1 in 34??? The 1x's and 2x's I'm familiar with don't have wedges but of course I don't know if the seat decks are sloped. Certainly the seats move to the stern stops when the boats are put into the water.
NOBODY liked to row in them. I couldn't see, by looking, why not. Spans, pitches, heights, boat length, etc., all seemed OK. Then I got on the river in (on?) one of them. It was VERY hard to recover - it was painful to start the recovery. Caveat.. I have a tender lower back, and those days it was doing very poorly. Much better of late.
So I had a closer look - the decking to which the slides were attached was level - parallel to the design waterline. I got a club member to cut a couple of wedges, 80 cm long, from about 0.5 mm to about 10.5 or 11 mm. drilled some holes, put the wedges under the slides (fat bits toward the bow) and went out again. The boat felt like a "normal" single. People started using them, and stopped complaining.
Here's what I think... When you "finish" - because of the movement of the body mass of the sculler - particularly in a single - the boat "pitches" down at the bow a cm or two.. or three.. When the boat is pitched down at the bow like this, if the slides are "level" - parallel to the DWL - the bow-end of the slides is lower than the stern-end of the slides, and you have to pull yourself uphill with your hip flexors and hamstrings.
If the slides are sloped, you can initiate the recovery and draw the boat forward under you without having to pull yourself up hill - because you're not pulling yourself uphill.
And you DO pull on the foot stretcher. Smith (U of New South Wales, I believe) has shown approx. 100 N of force toward the finish line (pulling the boat) during the recovery in a single which was instrumented to measure 3-D foot-stretcher force.
You do NOT "slide towards the stern". If you actually let the boat 'run out under you' you'd sit there at the finish and never take another stroke. The forces are small - 100 N distributed on your two feet is 50N per foot, or ABOUT the force it takes to move 5 kg per foot. Consider that when you run, you're putting forces equivalent to more than twice your body mass through your foot each stride, you'll realize that the reason people don't think they're pulling on their feet is that the forces are so small.
Your body mass does not change direction when you finish the stroke and take your oars out of the water - if nobody noticed, you continue in the direction of the bow of the boat - toward a "finish line" - and the boat has to get past your body so you can take the next stroke. The hull of the boat is what experiences the resistance to progress - the hull has to move all that water out of the way, there's form, wave, and viscous drag on the hull. Don't pull with the feet, you don't get the boat to the next stroke. Take the feet out? sure, the forces on the recovery are so low that you can recover the boat just with your heels. If you don't believe that you pull with your feet - row with NO heel cups.
Coach based on evidence - but pay attention to what the evidence actually tells you.
Cheers,
Walter
stew...@gmail.com
May 1, 2013, 4:57:31 PM5/1/13
to
As a cox I feel embarrassed when I have to repeat bad instructions from ill-informed coaches. I'm an engineer(ing student) and my understanding of rowing stroke dynamics is reasonable - it pains me to hear people whom we employ for their insight and experience in the sport munging the laws of physics to suit their worldview. One of our coaches is currently convinced that when pressure is first applied at che catch, it should be impossible to move the blade handle - and if you can move the handle, you aren't connected properly. This is awful bullshit - but he has spent hours blocking up the Isis, doing stationary exercises in an eight, trying to create a feeling that doesn't exist - except for when doing stationary exercises or start strokes!
Stewie
Henry Law
May 15, 2013, 9:27:16 AM5/15/13
to
On 22/04/13 07:31, James HS wrote:
> having completed BR my level 2 just in January I can confirm this dogma is being pushed
Rowing and Regatta (BR's house magazine), issue #70 of May 2013. Page
> having completed BR my level 2 just in January I can confirm this dogma is being pushed
57, in an article by Robin Williams. "The hull speed should carry you
up the rest of the slide".
Carl
May 15, 2013, 9:55:56 AM5/15/13
to
On 15/05/2013 14:27, Henry Law wrote:
> On 22/04/13 07:31, James HS wrote:
>> having completed BR my level 2 just in January I can confirm this
>> dogma is being pushed
>
> Rowing and Regatta (BR's house magazine), issue #70 of May 2013. Page
> 57, in an article by Robin Williams. "The hull speed should carry you
> up the rest of the slide".
>
All together now: "Oh no it won't!"
> On 22/04/13 07:31, James HS wrote:
>> having completed BR my level 2 just in January I can confirm this
>> dogma is being pushed
>
> Rowing and Regatta (BR's house magazine), issue #70 of May 2013. Page
> 57, in an article by Robin Williams. "The hull speed should carry you
> up the rest of the slide".
>
Carl
May 15, 2013, 9:58:03 AM5/15/13
to
On 15/05/2013 14:55, Carl wrote:
> On 15/05/2013 14:27, Henry Law wrote:
>> On 22/04/13 07:31, James HS wrote:
>>> having completed BR my level 2 just in January I can confirm this
>>> dogma is being pushed
>>
>> Rowing and Regatta (BR's house magazine), issue #70 of May 2013. Page
>> 57, in an article by Robin Williams. "The hull speed should carry you
>> up the rest of the slide".
>>
>
> All together now: "Oh no it won't!"
>
> Cheers -
> Carl
>
I think we all want one of those negative-friction shells which move
> On 15/05/2013 14:27, Henry Law wrote:
>> On 22/04/13 07:31, James HS wrote:
>>> having completed BR my level 2 just in January I can confirm this
>>> dogma is being pushed
>>
>> Rowing and Regatta (BR's house magazine), issue #70 of May 2013. Page
>> 57, in an article by Robin Williams. "The hull speed should carry you
>> up the rest of the slide".
>>
>
> All together now: "Oh no it won't!"
>
> Cheers -
> Carl
>
forward of their own accord with no physical means of propulsion.
Or perhaps we need a few more well-informed cynics?
Charles Carroll
May 15, 2013, 2:21:54 PM5/15/13
to
> Or perhaps we need a few more well-informed cynics?
What? Just because you question what someone thinks — that makes you a
cynic?
Mike Sullivan said it a year or two ago if memory serves me. Freedom of
Speech means freedom to express you opinions.
But does Freedom of Speech mean that your opinions are beyond questioning?
No!
Carl, I do agree that we all too often encounter people who believe that
only cynics question what others think. But that’s nothing new. Wasn’t
Socrates put to death for corrupting the youth of Athens — that is, for
encouraging them to question found truths?
If there is anything I have learned over the last six decades it is this —
if you are not questioning what you think, you are not thinking.
Berend van wachem
May 15, 2013, 4:05:19 PM5/15/13
to
Dear Charles,
Obviously we all agree with freedom of speech and nobody should be penalized for putting forward his/her opinion.
However, science based research is not an opinion. If you do a "first-principles" scientific approach, in this case setting up a momentum balance, then the result of this, if done correctly, is not an opinion - it's a fact.
In this case, I think it is our duty to put this forward. Obviously in a polite manner without offending anyone.
Best wishes,
Berend.
Obviously we all agree with freedom of speech and nobody should be penalized for putting forward his/her opinion.
However, science based research is not an opinion. If you do a "first-principles" scientific approach, in this case setting up a momentum balance, then the result of this, if done correctly, is not an opinion - it's a fact.
In this case, I think it is our duty to put this forward. Obviously in a polite manner without offending anyone.
Best wishes,
Berend.
Alistair
May 15, 2013, 5:44:21 PM5/15/13
to
Henry Law wrote:
> On 22/04/13 07:31, James HS wrote:
>> having completed BR my level 2 just in January I can confirm this
>> dogma is being pushed
>
> Rowing and Regatta (BR's house magazine), issue #70 of May 2013. Page
> 57, in an article by Robin Williams. "The hull speed should carry you
> up the rest of the slide".
>
A couple of years ago I wrote this about being coached by Robin and Harry:
> On 22/04/13 07:31, James HS wrote:
>> having completed BR my level 2 just in January I can confirm this
>> dogma is being pushed
>
> Rowing and Regatta (BR's house magazine), issue #70 of May 2013. Page
> 57, in an article by Robin Williams. "The hull speed should carry you
> up the rest of the slide".
>
http://goo.gl/4V2An
I thought calling it "voodoo coaching" would make that point that
sometimes coaching is more about planting an idea than being literally
accurate; unfortunately it was a bit too subtle and it actually had the
opposite effect to what I'd intended, to the extent that it literally
ended up being quoted back to me....
Rebecca Caroe
May 15, 2013, 6:01:16 PM5/15/13
to
Alistair
Harry was a flat mate of mine for a couple of years and he told me that he often asks a crew to do one thing knowing that what they actually do is different - but IS the effect he's seeking.
His example was to tell them to row with no body swing. What would happen was for 3-4 strokes they'd be bolt upright and then they'd start swinging their bodies with the movement of the boat and achieve the perfect range of forward and backward swing that he wanted.
Voodoo? Possibly.
I use the same technique a lot. But afterwards I tell the crew that what they did was right but it was a trick I play on them to get the correct outcome.
Harry was a flat mate of mine for a couple of years and he told me that he often asks a crew to do one thing knowing that what they actually do is different - but IS the effect he's seeking.
His example was to tell them to row with no body swing. What would happen was for 3-4 strokes they'd be bolt upright and then they'd start swinging their bodies with the movement of the boat and achieve the perfect range of forward and backward swing that he wanted.
Voodoo? Possibly.
I use the same technique a lot. But afterwards I tell the crew that what they did was right but it was a trick I play on them to get the correct outcome.
sully
May 15, 2013, 6:16:09 PM5/15/13
to
On May 15, 3:01 pm, Rebecca Caroe <rebe...@creativeagencysecrets.com>
wrote:
It's a common point, the things we say to cast an image
are not necessarily exactly what is happening.
Also, to change somebody's motions to do something
different than what feels comfortable to them (and might
not be effective) often involves exaggerating a new motion
that you don't necessarily want as the end result.
Like your example, to get ppl to catch more effectively
often means getting them to catch really badly a bunch
of strokes where they are actually 'backing the blade',
certainly not the desired result, but it gets them to
modify their accustomed motion.
wrote:
are not necessarily exactly what is happening.
Also, to change somebody's motions to do something
different than what feels comfortable to them (and might
not be effective) often involves exaggerating a new motion
that you don't necessarily want as the end result.
Like your example, to get ppl to catch more effectively
often means getting them to catch really badly a bunch
of strokes where they are actually 'backing the blade',
certainly not the desired result, but it gets them to
modify their accustomed motion.
Henry Law
May 16, 2013, 7:01:03 AM5/16/13
to
On 15/05/13 23:01, Rebecca Caroe wrote:
> Harry ... told me that he often asks a crew to do one thing knowing that what they actually do is different - but IS the effect he's seeking.
That's absolutely the right thing to do. The coach needs to find the
right words to get the rowers to do the right thing, whatever the words
are, and even if the words imply or assume that the laws of Newtonian
dynamics are completely ignored.
For example, "I want you to imagine that no force is required to get you
along the slide, as if all you had to do was sit still and let the
forward motion of the boat underneath you bring you from back stops to
front stops" is wholly defensible, especially if it achieves the desired
end.
What's wrong is mis-describing what's going on, and holding
categorically to it as if it were fact.
We as coaches do not help the rowers if we allow, or encourage, them to
get the wrong idea about the mechanics of the sport, because if they do
the "self coaching", which takes place every stroke and is a vital part
of improving, will be wrong and potentially self-defeating.
Worse still, if some of those mis-instructed rowers themselves become
coaches, it's possible that they will allow the /analogies/ used by the
wise coach of their youth to morph into /literal descriptions/.
This is particularly true if the crew contains people with precise and
enquiring minds, who ponder on what's going on and what's been said.
> Harry ... told me that he often asks a crew to do one thing knowing that what they actually do is different - but IS the effect he's seeking.
That's absolutely the right thing to do. The coach needs to find the
right words to get the rowers to do the right thing, whatever the words
are, and even if the words imply or assume that the laws of Newtonian
dynamics are completely ignored.
For example, "I want you to imagine that no force is required to get you
along the slide, as if all you had to do was sit still and let the
forward motion of the boat underneath you bring you from back stops to
front stops" is wholly defensible, especially if it achieves the desired
end.
What's wrong is mis-describing what's going on, and holding
categorically to it as if it were fact.
We as coaches do not help the rowers if we allow, or encourage, them to
get the wrong idea about the mechanics of the sport, because if they do
the "self coaching", which takes place every stroke and is a vital part
of improving, will be wrong and potentially self-defeating.
Worse still, if some of those mis-instructed rowers themselves become
coaches, it's possible that they will allow the /analogies/ used by the
wise coach of their youth to morph into /literal descriptions/.
This is particularly true if the crew contains people with precise and
enquiring minds, who ponder on what's going on and what's been said.
Carl
May 16, 2013, 7:35:37 AM5/16/13
to
& had therefore left unwritten. Thank you.
For a respected coach to have stated as fact what is actually a physical
impossibility, & to have done so in a technical article for a
nationally-circulated magazine, can only cement that fallacy as a
genuine fact in the minds of present rowers & future coaches.
Charles correctly collared me for misusing the term "cynic". I should
have said we needed more sceptics. Berend was right to underline the
point that opinion should not be confused with demonstrable fact. But
rowing is largely a faith-based rather than evidence-based activity. So
the demonstrable fact that, during recover, the boat _has_ to be pulled
forward by the rowers' feet against the fluid drag acting on the hull
will now, more than ever, be trumped by the untested, demonstrably false
& thus unscientific opinion of a leading coach.
This will inhibit a better understanding of the science of rowing & thus
put a brake on progress but, by holding back the herd, it does increase
the chances of success for those (sceptics) less easily misled.
sully
May 16, 2013, 1:49:18 PM5/16/13
to
On May 16, 4:01 am, Henry Law <n...@lawshouse.org> wrote:
> On 15/05/13 23:01, Rebecca Caroe wrote:
>
> > Harry ... told me that he often asks a crew to do one thing knowing that what they actually do is different - but IS the effect he's seeking.
>
> That's absolutely the right thing to do. The coach needs to find the
> right words to get the rowers to do the right thing, whatever the words
> are, and even if the words imply or assume that the laws of Newtonian
> dynamics are completely ignored.
>
> For example, "I want you to imagine that no force is required to get you
> along the slide, as if all you had to do was sit still and let the
> forward motion of the boat underneath you bring you from back stops to
> front stops" is wholly defensible, especially if it achieves the desired
> end.
>
> What's wrong is mis-describing what's going on, and holding
> categorically to it as if it were fact.
I go along with this. But I back off from blaming a coach for
> On 15/05/13 23:01, Rebecca Caroe wrote:
>
> > Harry ... told me that he often asks a crew to do one thing knowing that what they actually do is different - but IS the effect he's seeking.
>
> That's absolutely the right thing to do. The coach needs to find the
> right words to get the rowers to do the right thing, whatever the words
> are, and even if the words imply or assume that the laws of Newtonian
> dynamics are completely ignored.
>
> For example, "I want you to imagine that no force is required to get you
> along the slide, as if all you had to do was sit still and let the
> forward motion of the boat underneath you bring you from back stops to
> front stops" is wholly defensible, especially if it achieves the desired
> end.
>
> What's wrong is mis-describing what's going on, and holding
> categorically to it as if it were fact.
propagating nonsense to other coaches who had rowed for
them, I put the responsibility on those coaches to figure out
why they're teaching something rather than rote repeating what
they have been taught. "Splash to bow" comes to mind as
the typical lesson in teaching catches.
When I have new rowers, I tend to not push them toward
any front-end length. I like them to learn the concepts
of catching before they try to press out. I have told a sculler
who asked me to watch them row to stop worrying about
trying to be long at the catch for now, that she needed first
to learn good recovery discipline - she was coming out of
bow altogether and as she approached the catch, her seat
slowed and stopped while she reached with body and arms
to get long. I had her drill a bit to build some recovery
discipline, and told her work on that for about 300 miles before
you start thinking about being long at the catch again.
She attends a monthly group sculling session on Sundays
with a coach. She came back to me later and told me
that the coach asked why she was rowing shorter and she
told the coach that I had said that length wasn't important.
I just laughed.
Similarly, when I teach newer people to control their slides, one
of the helpful things I have them think about is to come out
much slower than they think they should, creep and roll
out of bow, and simply catch when the stroke catches, even
if they haven't made it to full slide. Keep doing that for a little
while, and then gradually extend your length. Your stern pair
will thank you.
That has been misconstrued, "sully says to control
your slide, just row shorter.'
I am a very effective teacher at getting rowers longer in
the water and more effective at the ends, so find it
interesting to be accused of telling people to row
short!! :^)
Of course the problem is that most of these incidents are
not people I actually coach, but that I will help out for a
couple sessions or a clinic. I invite our members that
if they have been good club citizens, they can come by
and stick a single in the water when I'm teaching beginners
and row by and I'll give them some sculling "tips".
This is generally where the telephone game goes badly
for me! :^)
Charles Carroll
May 17, 2013, 1:56:39 PM5/17/13
to
Dear Berend,
Are you certain that no one should be penalized for putting forward his/her
opinion? I am not sure I can agree � leastwise, not whole-heartedly. Some
opinions are so goofy that they invite ridicule. I confess that I harbor
certain sympathy for anyone who makes an effort to expose folly set in great
dignity.
But I do agree that if ever you feel the need to mention to someone that you
cannot concur with his/her opinion, it should be done with civility. Attend
to the idea. Never attack the person, however tempting. Simple good
manners � or as you say, ideas put forward in a polite manner without
offending anyone � can get you very far in this world.
But then, of course, �to everything there is a season, and a time �� A time
to be polite, and a time to be impolite!
�Qui�n sabe?
The only thing I know is that opinions are not necessarily knowledge. This
was true twenty-five hundred years ago when Socrates said it to Gorgias, and
it is just as true today.
But enough with the rumination. I am going sculling.
Warmest regards,
Charles
Are you certain that no one should be penalized for putting forward his/her
opinion? I am not sure I can agree � leastwise, not whole-heartedly. Some
opinions are so goofy that they invite ridicule. I confess that I harbor
certain sympathy for anyone who makes an effort to expose folly set in great
dignity.
But I do agree that if ever you feel the need to mention to someone that you
cannot concur with his/her opinion, it should be done with civility. Attend
to the idea. Never attack the person, however tempting. Simple good
manners � or as you say, ideas put forward in a polite manner without
offending anyone � can get you very far in this world.
But then, of course, �to everything there is a season, and a time �� A time
to be polite, and a time to be impolite!
�Qui�n sabe?
The only thing I know is that opinions are not necessarily knowledge. This
was true twenty-five hundred years ago when Socrates said it to Gorgias, and
it is just as true today.
But enough with the rumination. I am going sculling.
Warmest regards,
Charles
Berend van wachem
May 17, 2013, 4:28:42 PM5/17/13
to
Dear Charles,
I think we should be very careful with penalizing people for putting forward their opinion. For instance, in Europe it is a criminal offense to publicly deny the holocaust. I think this is counter productive. But I agree, there are instances, such as inciting hatred or calling for violence which may form an exception.
Coming back to rowing - I agree there could potentially be a "productive" mismatch between what a coach says to a rower and the basic laws of physics. But at the end of the day I think it's good if coaches and rowers are educated to understand the basic principles of rowing. And I find it counterproductive if books or coaches claim things which challenge our current understanding of physics. An example of this is given in the GB Rowing magazine I received today, on page 56, coaching advice, it says about a good recovery: " [The rower] is feeling in control, relaxed and in a good position and letting the hull do the work on the slide.". In my boat (hopefully) the hull and the slides cannot create displacement between them and I do not see which body position can make the hull do work on the slides.
Some things in rowing I find simple to understand and some things are very complex. I too learned to row with often heard dogmas and opinions. But the more I have thought about rowing, the less I am convinced there is a "holy grail" style. Of some things I have learned in rowing as a junior, I am no longer sure they are really so beneficial (e.g. very fast into the recovery with the hands). This is further exemplified by the available data: since the 1970's we do not row any faster than can be contributed due to more serious training, although since this time rowing styles have changed significantly.
So I would be very interested in a more scientific approach to rowing, understanding why specific technical features work well and why specific technical features do not work so well. Applied both to the athlete and the material we use.
I realize this is a very difficult task because of a number of factors. One important factor is "personal inertia". If you try to convince someone whom has been rowing in a certain way for 10 years to change something which on paper is beneficial - it may not feel very beneficial to that rower. Another factor may be that although a specific technique may theoretically make a boat go faster, it makes the rowing significantly more difficult and therefore not achievable for some athletes. A third factor is that trying to really understand all the variables in the rowing stroke may lead to a less secure feeling for the coach/rower than to hold on to a dogma/opinion.
But in the end, I really do hope for a more serious, scientific approach in developing rowing insight. Although I do not often post in this group, I very often enjoy the contributions from most of you - they make me think.
I hope you had a great scull, thanks for your nice note.
Best wishes,
Berend.
I think we should be very careful with penalizing people for putting forward their opinion. For instance, in Europe it is a criminal offense to publicly deny the holocaust. I think this is counter productive. But I agree, there are instances, such as inciting hatred or calling for violence which may form an exception.
Coming back to rowing - I agree there could potentially be a "productive" mismatch between what a coach says to a rower and the basic laws of physics. But at the end of the day I think it's good if coaches and rowers are educated to understand the basic principles of rowing. And I find it counterproductive if books or coaches claim things which challenge our current understanding of physics. An example of this is given in the GB Rowing magazine I received today, on page 56, coaching advice, it says about a good recovery: " [The rower] is feeling in control, relaxed and in a good position and letting the hull do the work on the slide.". In my boat (hopefully) the hull and the slides cannot create displacement between them and I do not see which body position can make the hull do work on the slides.
Some things in rowing I find simple to understand and some things are very complex. I too learned to row with often heard dogmas and opinions. But the more I have thought about rowing, the less I am convinced there is a "holy grail" style. Of some things I have learned in rowing as a junior, I am no longer sure they are really so beneficial (e.g. very fast into the recovery with the hands). This is further exemplified by the available data: since the 1970's we do not row any faster than can be contributed due to more serious training, although since this time rowing styles have changed significantly.
So I would be very interested in a more scientific approach to rowing, understanding why specific technical features work well and why specific technical features do not work so well. Applied both to the athlete and the material we use.
I realize this is a very difficult task because of a number of factors. One important factor is "personal inertia". If you try to convince someone whom has been rowing in a certain way for 10 years to change something which on paper is beneficial - it may not feel very beneficial to that rower. Another factor may be that although a specific technique may theoretically make a boat go faster, it makes the rowing significantly more difficult and therefore not achievable for some athletes. A third factor is that trying to really understand all the variables in the rowing stroke may lead to a less secure feeling for the coach/rower than to hold on to a dogma/opinion.
But in the end, I really do hope for a more serious, scientific approach in developing rowing insight. Although I do not often post in this group, I very often enjoy the contributions from most of you - they make me think.
I hope you had a great scull, thanks for your nice note.
Best wishes,
Berend.
davie...@gmail.com
May 28, 2013, 11:29:29 AM5/28/13
to
I'll present a counter-argument and say I think he is justified in using the word "speed" here, even if he is factually incorrect.
1. The word "momentum" would be better. The argument is that the rower accelerates the boat at the start of the slide, and its momentum carries it forward underneath the rower in the 2nd half of the slide, without any further force needed from the rower. S/he can then achieve frontstops with legs and hips relaxed and ready to drive back.
2. The word "speed" can be substituted for "momentum" because that is really how the rower experiences the momentum, particularly if they are not imparting any force on the boat or carrying its weight. And the thrust of the article was that a coach may need to use words and phrases which, though not technically correct, tally better with the rower's own experience of rowing the boat, transferring the mental image that the coach wants him/her to have.
Of course, it is important to clarify off the water the actual mechanics of what is going on, and if the coach cannot do that, then they need to read RSR a bit more IMHO. I'm happy to believe that Robin Williams isn't that sort of coach though.
Kit
Charles Carroll
May 28, 2013, 12:46:23 PM5/28/13
to
> When I have new rowers, I tend to not push them toward
> any front-end length. I like them to learn the concepts
> of catching before they try to press out.
Mike,
> any front-end length. I like them to learn the concepts
> of catching before they try to press out.
You’re in good company.
“Rowing is an endless chain movement. The diameter of that movement varies
according to the oarsman’s proficiency and fitness. I call it diameter to
accentuate and possibly exaggerate the importance of circular movements. The
length of the oarsman’s endless chain movement is what I call rowing to his
strong point. Rowing true is the only way to learn, and to do this the
oarsman must work the oar correctly and only row to his strong point. That
is the point from which he can row his blade through with a springing hit,
and elastic draw, without feeling any heaviness or effort.” (“Steve
Fairbairn on Rowing,” p. 360)
Fairbairn goes on to say that a coach needn’t worry about someone’s getting
long. An oarsman will get length as he or she becomes more proficient, fit,
and confident.
Years ago Carl once asked me what was meant by “strong point.” It seems to
me that the “strong point” isn’t a theoretical spot in the water, or about
the geometry of the boat or the rigging. It has nothing to do with the
physics of boat moving.
On the contrary, the strong point is about the rower or sculler. It is that
at which he or she is most effective at the catch and during blade entry.
What is the point of getting longer and rowing more efficiently, if the
stroke itself is less effective?
I see this all the time in rough water when shortening up is more effective
than trying to get long the way I would in calm water.
But I am sure you know all this.
Cordially,
Charles
johnf...@gmail.com
May 28, 2013, 1:55:21 PM5/28/13
to
On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 11:29:29 AM UTC-4, davie...@gmail.com wrote:
> Of course, it is important to clarify off the water the actual mechanics of what is going on...
>
> Kit
I respectfully disagree with this part. While the coach should make every effort to understand the mechanics/physics/physiology/biochemistry of rowing, it is not always useful to impart all of this to the rowers. And doing so may be counterproductive. The goal is simply to get the boat from A to B as quickly as possible (without injuring the rowers in the process or in training of course!). No points are awarded for a post-race test on the mechanics of rowing, any more than points are awarded for style.
Telling somebody what they should do with their body is often much less effective than giving them a sensation or a mental image to strive for. And this goal may vary from rower to rower or from boat to boat. So the coach must vary prompts to suit as needed.
A good example is videotaping. It is often used to show people what they are ACTUALLY doing, which is usually quite different from what they THINK they are doing. But that takes you only halfway, it does not correct the problem. Yelling at them to stop dropping their hands before the catch, for example, may be far less effective than giving them a positive image of what the correct motion feels like.
One particularly effective coach I know simply gives people a drill to work on without confusing matters with the whys and wherefores. Afterwards, he may show video of the session before and after the drill to demonstrate what the drill does, to prove its effectiveness and imprint it on the rowers' minds.
And at times a coach may have to abandon the ideal model of the rowing stroke to accommodate limitations of build, flexibility, injury, mental wiring, etc presented by a particular rower or crew. As I said, the goal is to get the best performance possible from that particular rower or crew, not an optimal performance from an idealized rower or crew. This may entail deviations from the ideal mechanics.
> Of course, it is important to clarify off the water the actual mechanics of what is going on...
>
> Kit
I respectfully disagree with this part. While the coach should make every effort to understand the mechanics/physics/physiology/biochemistry of rowing, it is not always useful to impart all of this to the rowers. And doing so may be counterproductive. The goal is simply to get the boat from A to B as quickly as possible (without injuring the rowers in the process or in training of course!). No points are awarded for a post-race test on the mechanics of rowing, any more than points are awarded for style.
Telling somebody what they should do with their body is often much less effective than giving them a sensation or a mental image to strive for. And this goal may vary from rower to rower or from boat to boat. So the coach must vary prompts to suit as needed.
A good example is videotaping. It is often used to show people what they are ACTUALLY doing, which is usually quite different from what they THINK they are doing. But that takes you only halfway, it does not correct the problem. Yelling at them to stop dropping their hands before the catch, for example, may be far less effective than giving them a positive image of what the correct motion feels like.
One particularly effective coach I know simply gives people a drill to work on without confusing matters with the whys and wherefores. Afterwards, he may show video of the session before and after the drill to demonstrate what the drill does, to prove its effectiveness and imprint it on the rowers' minds.
And at times a coach may have to abandon the ideal model of the rowing stroke to accommodate limitations of build, flexibility, injury, mental wiring, etc presented by a particular rower or crew. As I said, the goal is to get the best performance possible from that particular rower or crew, not an optimal performance from an idealized rower or crew. This may entail deviations from the ideal mechanics.
Carl
May 28, 2013, 2:18:20 PM5/28/13
to
It would be much better, however, that the coach also has a clear
understanding of the mechanics & dynamics of the rowing stroke. While
working to instil all the different & necessary mental images in each
rower to enable them to do what coach requires, that's but half of the
story if what coach requires runs counter to the dictates of the
underlying science.
davie...@gmail.com
May 28, 2013, 2:47:16 PM5/28/13
to
At an early stage, it may be most effective to tell an athlete to do A to get him to do B without resorting to the whys or wherefores. But ultimately, the coach should be doing himself out of a job by transferring his knowledge to the athlete and allowing him to self-coach, which is why the coach must have it right himself first. I don't think he is helping his athlete if he is just going to leave him with no (or worse, downright false) understanding because, as has been mentioned, all those mantras get passed on like Chinese whispers.
So I think the scientific facts do need to be explained eventually, though not necessarily right from the beginning.
Kit
Carl
May 28, 2013, 3:12:06 PM5/28/13
to
If you take the drag on the boat as being ~15kg force (a single) & the
mass of the boat + blades as something around 15kg or a bit more, then
the immediate deceleration of the boat, if not pulled along by the
momentum of the (much heavier) rower, would be ~1g. We've said that the
rower's pelvis remains travelling forwards at fairly constant velocity
so, far from the momentum of the boat carrying it forward past the
rower's pelvis, if it was unaided the boat would be 40-50cm _further_
astern of the rower after just 1/10th of a second. That can't happen
'cos it'd leave the rower sitting well for'd of backstops.
johnf...@gmail.com
May 28, 2013, 4:27:53 PM5/28/13
to
On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 2:47:16 PM UTC-4, davie...@gmail.com wrote:
> I think athletes develop in their understanding as much as in their physical ability.
>
> At an early stage, it may be most effective to tell an athlete to do A to get him to do B without resorting to the whys or wherefores. But ultimately, the coach should be doing himself out of a job by transferring his knowledge to the athlete and allowing him to self-coach, which is why the coach must have it right himself first. I don't think he is helping his athlete if he is just going to leave him with no (or worse, downright false) understanding because, as has been mentioned, all those mantras get passed on like Chinese whispers.
>
> So I think the scientific facts do need to be explained eventually, though not necessarily right from the beginning.
>
> Kit
I agree that the athlete-coach relationship changes drastically as the athlete progresses, but the concept of "self-coaching" is belied by the reliance on coaches at the highest level of the sport. For example, at no point in their autobiographies do either Pinsent or Redgrave so much as hint that they did not need Grobler's guidance any more. My memory may be defective, but I think one of them even suggested that coaches be awarded medals alongside their crews.
> I think athletes develop in their understanding as much as in their physical ability.
>
> At an early stage, it may be most effective to tell an athlete to do A to get him to do B without resorting to the whys or wherefores. But ultimately, the coach should be doing himself out of a job by transferring his knowledge to the athlete and allowing him to self-coach, which is why the coach must have it right himself first. I don't think he is helping his athlete if he is just going to leave him with no (or worse, downright false) understanding because, as has been mentioned, all those mantras get passed on like Chinese whispers.
>
> So I think the scientific facts do need to be explained eventually, though not necessarily right from the beginning.
>
> Kit
And if you are an athlete at the Olympic level and you find it helpful (i.e., it makes you faster with less effort) to rely on the feeling that you are floating effortlessly down the slide to the catch, by all means you should do that. Even if you know it is incorrect from a scientific point of view. In fact, that knowledge can be an impediment at first, until you can set it aside and go with the sensation for guidance.
A simple example: I sometimes do yoga. When I started, the apparently absurd statements the instructors were making seemed outrageous. Such as "breathing into tight areas". The lungs go nowhere near the hamstrings, so how could that be? Then one realizes that the point is to feel as though one is breathing into tension, that sensation produces relaxation, and one suspends disbelief while still aware that it is physically incorrect.
I neglected to say in the previous post that the coach's role also includes assessing the strengths of an athlete as well as their limitations. And the weighty task of deciding whether to try to work on reducing the limitations or changing the game plan to rely more on the athlete's strengths.
With an eye to the competition's strengths and limitations.
davie...@gmail.com
May 29, 2013, 4:54:58 AM5/29/13
to
I am happy to accept that "relax the legs" is one of those "feely" terms and that the truth is that a much reduced pull is required from the rower at that stage. But I am sure that the rower does not need to be pulling on the feet as hard, if at all, at the finish of the slide as at the start.
I also suspect this varies a lot depending on whether you are doing the old-school quick-hands/controlled-slide, or the "Aussie-style" slow-hands/quick-slide.
Time to put on my fire-proof coat, methinks ... :)
Kit
Carl
May 29, 2013, 6:04:54 AM5/29/13
to
> That AIUI is immediately after the finish? The rower then accelerates the boat during the slide. It is the increased boat momentum at that stage I am thinking about. We are only talking about fractions of seconds but there is a point at which the rower can relax their legs and allow the momentum of the boat (relative to the decreased rower momentum) to complete the slide. This is what I understood Robin Williams to be talking about.
>
The problem (not the fire-proof coat one - if we disagree is it surely
>
only over the science, not friendship?) does not go away so easily, just
transfer itself a short way down the slides, or maybe not even that far.
You don't/shouldn't actually accelerate the boat during the recovery,
just limit its deceleration by the force that you apply through having
to pull on your feet to reach front-stops. And still the boat, being
light, has no useful amount of momentum within itself & will rapidly
decelerate unless you do pull.
> I am happy to accept that "relax the legs" is one of those "feely" terms and that the truth is that a much reduced pull is required from the rower at that stage. But I am sure that the rower does not need to be pulling on the feet as hard, if at all, at the finish of the slide as at the start.
>
> I also suspect this varies a lot depending on whether you are doing the old-school quick-hands/controlled-slide, or the "Aussie-style" slow-hands/quick-slide.
>
trivial effect. Sorry :( The core of the problem is that the boat will
never surge past you & will always, if left to "run", run backwards from
you under the fluid drag which (except in a strong headwind) it alone
suffers.
> Time to put on my fire-proof coat, methinks ... :)
> Kit
>
popular & popularised view of how the rowing stroke works. How strange
that we work so darned hard to row faster yet merrily ignore all the
relevant physical science? You couldn't have fire-proof coats if those
who design them thought it was all about art & nothing about science,
but we like to see our rowing in that blinkered way.
gsl...@gmail.com
May 29, 2013, 12:34:50 PM5/29/13
to
Just some more clarity that I think Carl will not disagree with...
On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:04:54 AM UTC-7, Carl wrote:
>And still the boat, being
> light, has no useful amount of momentum within itself & will rapidly
> decelerate unless you do pull.
But the boat is always attached to the rower. If you do nothing at the finish but sit there you will feel pressure on the top of the shoe. One has no choice but to pull on the boat, otherwise the boat would slow down and the rower (more mass and less drag) would continue out of the cockpit and over the bow of the boat.
> I fear that what you do with your hands at the finish has only the most
> trivial effect.
Agreed, but one does with the body does has a significant effect. I think the over emphasis on quick hands, is a way to get people to move the body out of bow quickly. But the same coaches often will teach waiting arms then body instead of starting to move the body immediately.
On a slightly different topic, I rarely have seen or heard of coaches, teaching people to have relaxed faces. One often sees pictures of crews grimacing, puffing up their cheeks, and gritting their teeth. All that tension translates in to the neck and in some cases the shoulders. Compare that with the say 100m sprinters where the skin on the face just bounces with each step.
On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:04:54 AM UTC-7, Carl wrote:
>And still the boat, being
> light, has no useful amount of momentum within itself & will rapidly
> decelerate unless you do pull.
> I fear that what you do with your hands at the finish has only the most
> trivial effect.
On a slightly different topic, I rarely have seen or heard of coaches, teaching people to have relaxed faces. One often sees pictures of crews grimacing, puffing up their cheeks, and gritting their teeth. All that tension translates in to the neck and in some cases the shoulders. Compare that with the say 100m sprinters where the skin on the face just bounces with each step.
sully
May 29, 2013, 7:49:13 PM5/29/13
to
On May 29, 9:34 am, gsle...@gmail.com wrote:
> Just some more clarity that I think Carl will not disagree with...
snip
> Just some more clarity that I think Carl will not disagree with...
>
> On a slightly different topic, I rarely have seen or heard of coaches, teaching people to have relaxed faces. One often sees pictures of crews grimacing, puffing up their cheeks, and gritting their teeth. All that tension translates in to the neck and in some cases the shoulders. Compare that with the say 100m sprinters where the skin on the face just bounces with each step.
I coach ppl to breathe, it accomplishes the same thing. You can see
> On a slightly different topic, I rarely have seen or heard of coaches, teaching people to have relaxed faces. One often sees pictures of crews grimacing, puffing up their cheeks, and gritting their teeth. All that tension translates in to the neck and in some cases the shoulders. Compare that with the say 100m sprinters where the skin on the face just bounces with each step.
their
faces relax when you them to breathe when they're taking hard strokes,
AND
gets them to breathe which they need to do anyway.
It's a back/forth thing, you can coach ppl to row harder. In the act
of doing so,
I don't mind if they recruit more muscle mass than they need
initially, then get
them to relax and exert with the same passion.
that said, there are sprinters out there who are pretty fast and they
have tense faces:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-invites-usain-bolt-to-address-religious-liberty-conference/
LOL.
James HS
May 30, 2013, 3:42:26 AM5/30/13
to
Not that we were forgetting to breathe, but that we were busting a gut, and needed to remember the relaxation in the stroke.
It is a call we now use mid race as one of the equivalents of 'settle'.
Again - a coaching 'metaphor' that has a 'meaning' not attached to the literal word. (Please no biological analysis of which comes first - the CO2 depletion or the need for Oxygen :))
SingleMinded
May 30, 2013, 4:06:13 AM5/30/13
to
On Thursday, 30 May 2013 00:49:13 UTC+1, sully wrote:
sully
May 30, 2013, 1:13:49 PM5/30/13
to
On May 30, 1:06 am, SingleMinded <agut...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 May 2013 00:49:13 UTC+1, sully wrote:
> > On May 29, 9:34 am, gsle...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Just some more clarity that I think Carl will not disagree with...
>
> > snip
>
> > > On a slightly different topic, I rarely have seen or heard of coaches, teaching people to have relaxed faces. One often sees pictures of crews grimacing, puffing up their cheeks, and gritting their teeth. All that tension translates in to the neck and in some cases the shoulders. Compare that with the say 100m sprinters where the skin on the face just bounces with each step.
>
> > I coach ppl to breathe, it accomplishes the same thing. You can see
>
> > their
>
> > faces relax when you them to breathe when they're taking hard strokes,
>
> > AND
>
> > gets them to breathe which they need to do anyway.
>
> > It's a back/forth thing, you can coach ppl to row harder. In the act
>
> > of doing so,
>
> > I don't mind if they recruit more muscle mass than they need
>
> > initially, then get
>
> > them to relax and exert with the same passion.
>
> > that said, there are sprinters out there who are pretty fast and they
>
> > have tense faces:
>
> >http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-invites-usain-bolt-to-...
> On Thursday, 30 May 2013 00:49:13 UTC+1, sully wrote:
> > On May 29, 9:34 am, gsle...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Just some more clarity that I think Carl will not disagree with...
>
> > snip
>
> > > On a slightly different topic, I rarely have seen or heard of coaches, teaching people to have relaxed faces. One often sees pictures of crews grimacing, puffing up their cheeks, and gritting their teeth. All that tension translates in to the neck and in some cases the shoulders. Compare that with the say 100m sprinters where the skin on the face just bounces with each step.
>
> > I coach ppl to breathe, it accomplishes the same thing. You can see
>
> > their
>
> > faces relax when you them to breathe when they're taking hard strokes,
>
> > AND
>
> > gets them to breathe which they need to do anyway.
>
> > It's a back/forth thing, you can coach ppl to row harder. In the act
>
> > of doing so,
>
> > I don't mind if they recruit more muscle mass than they need
>
> > initially, then get
>
> > them to relax and exert with the same passion.
>
> > that said, there are sprinters out there who are pretty fast and they
>
> > have tense faces:
>
>
> > LOL.
>
> Of course, that's a difference between rowing and the 100m. Top sprinters don't breathe during their race (or so I've heard).
I've been out of track/field for many years, so that would be
> > LOL.
>
> Of course, that's a difference between rowing and the 100m. Top sprinters don't breathe during their race (or so I've heard).
something new.
true, sprinters don't need oxygen for fuel, but they do breathe, it
helps relaxation and explosion.
Swimmers sprinting a 50 won't take a breath, the head movement creates
a bit of extra drag.
sully
May 30, 2013, 1:35:12 PM5/30/13
to
On May 30, 12:42 am, James HS <jholmessie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 May 2013 00:49:13 UTC+1, sully wrote:
> > On May 29, 9:34 am, gsle...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Just some more clarity that I think Carl will not disagree with...
>
> > snip
>
> > > On a slightly different topic, I rarely have seen or heard of coaches, teaching people to have relaxed faces. One often sees pictures of crews grimacing, puffing up their cheeks, and gritting their teeth. All that tension translates in to the neck and in some cases the shoulders. Compare that with the say 100m sprinters where the skin on the face just bounces with each step.
>
> > I coach ppl to breathe, it accomplishes the same thing. You can see
>
> > their
>
> > faces relax when you them to breathe when they're taking hard strokes,
>
> > AND
>
> > gets them to breathe which they need to do anyway.
>
> > It's a back/forth thing, you can coach ppl to row harder. In the act
>
> > of doing so,
>
> > I don't mind if they recruit more muscle mass than they need
>
> > initially, then get
>
> > them to relax and exert with the same passion.
>
> > that said, there are sprinters out there who are pretty fast and they
>
> > have tense faces:
>
> >http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-invites-usain-bolt-to-...
> On Thursday, 30 May 2013 00:49:13 UTC+1, sully wrote:
> > On May 29, 9:34 am, gsle...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Just some more clarity that I think Carl will not disagree with...
>
> > snip
>
> > > On a slightly different topic, I rarely have seen or heard of coaches, teaching people to have relaxed faces. One often sees pictures of crews grimacing, puffing up their cheeks, and gritting their teeth. All that tension translates in to the neck and in some cases the shoulders. Compare that with the say 100m sprinters where the skin on the face just bounces with each step.
>
> > I coach ppl to breathe, it accomplishes the same thing. You can see
>
> > their
>
> > faces relax when you them to breathe when they're taking hard strokes,
>
> > AND
>
> > gets them to breathe which they need to do anyway.
>
> > It's a back/forth thing, you can coach ppl to row harder. In the act
>
> > of doing so,
>
> > I don't mind if they recruit more muscle mass than they need
>
> > initially, then get
>
> > them to relax and exert with the same passion.
>
> > that said, there are sprinters out there who are pretty fast and they
>
> > have tense faces:
>
>
> > LOL.
>
> Recently preparing our MX4X- for a final 1K piece before racing the next day we had a new coach follow us for the 4 minutes - first 500m we were going extremely well - he simply called "breathe" and suddenly we went even better!
>
> Not that we were forgetting to breathe, but that we were busting a gut, and needed to remember the relaxation in the stroke.
>
> It is a call we now use mid race as one of the equivalents of 'settle'.
I'm pretty good with starts. When I teach starts, I have athletes
> > LOL.
>
> Recently preparing our MX4X- for a final 1K piece before racing the next day we had a new coach follow us for the 4 minutes - first 500m we were going extremely well - he simply called "breathe" and suddenly we went even better!
>
> Not that we were forgetting to breathe, but that we were busting a gut, and needed to remember the relaxation in the stroke.
>
> It is a call we now use mid race as one of the equivalents of 'settle'.
think and cox's call english language terms rather than length of
stroke.
My start lengths are a 3/4 length stroke, a quick 1/2 slide, about
the same or a bit more on stroke 3, then add slide length a little to
full slide by 4-5.
But instead of "3/4 1/2 3/4 3/4 full" as commonly stated, I'll have
the sculler
think or cox call something like:
"DEEP.. quick.. breathe.. Swing... legs.... long"
The triggers are meant to remind that a solid finish and release are
more important on the first stroke than how hard you push, make
sure that second catch establishes the rating you want and the blade
is getting in the water quickly, third stroke is the 'relax'
signal, the
last few calls can be reversed, but to make sure you're still
finishing
your stroke, that you are using full track and that you are engaging
your legs rather than muscling upper body.
Obviously you want to do all those things, but these are key calls
at what I think are key times.
>
> Again - a coaching 'metaphor' that has a 'meaning' not attached to the literal word. (Please no biological analysis of which comes first - the CO2 depletion or the need for Oxygen :))
big differences in how we get people to row correctly vs describing
what
is really happening.
communication is an 'art' part of rowing for me.
0 new messages