Layback on the ergo
Henry Law
http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper522/stills/no0c03n3.jpg
are a good 15 degrees further back than I think I ever get. (They're
from Syracuse University.)
Joseph Meehan
I don't know if you have it, but they sure don't. I see several
apparent errors.
--
Joseph Meehan
26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Andy Nield
the handle higher, but I found getting the hands away quick was more
effective.
Forget leaning back more, and concentrate on fast hands away would be my
advice.
And definately don't grow a beard!
"Henry Law" <lawshous...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
news:7fdnv0t36t41mogus...@4ax.com...
Henning Lippke
Funny... look at their hand heights. That's definitely not what I see in
boats, and there is a very simple way to show that it's not the best way
to apply arm/shoulder force...
-HL
Steven M-M
Well, Syracuse is not too far south of the Canadian border - maybe
their emulating those laid back Canadians.
A few sessions feet out will cure that bad form!
Steven M-M
anto...@aol.com
Another coach looking for the magic answer and missing the point.
ho hum
rowdoc
I don't know about the body position, but the guy on the left has taken the
early lead in the "Gilette" Award for Dodgy Facial Hair Growth, 2005...
Last years winner? "Desparate" Dan Ouseley - as nominated by Liz..
Makes my chin itchy.
Lwt Sculler
As a short fella I also find myself 'sway-backing' and you do have to
be careful about hand-heights.
But they did not look too short....
I also find 'sway-back' works for me in my single.
Steven M-M
Anton,
(a) I'm not a coach (except perhaps to my grad students) but a so-so
masters sculler;
(b) What point did I miss?
Steven M-M
Jon Anderson
> Last years winner? "Desparate" Dan Ouseley - as nominated by Liz..
>
> http://213.130.36.61/BIRO2001/biophoto.asp?bio_image=Ouseley_Daniel.jpg&bio_id=55&bio_name=Dan+Ouseley
That's not Dan Ouseley that is Obi-Wan Kenobi.
The best beard has to belong to the guy who appeared for many years in
the rowers' insurance add in Regatta. A really great
beard-without-moustache.
Jon
--
Durge: j...@durge.org http://users.durge.org/~jon/
OnStream: acco...@rowing.org.uk http://www.rowing.org.uk/
[ All views expressed are personal unless otherwise stated ]
anto...@aol.com
oarsman
You are all missing the point. The further back you go, the more your
abs bulge when you sit back up, the more they bulge, the stronger you
look, and we know is all about the look...
sue t
better erg split I'll layback further and "pull to the chin". However, I
would never do so in my single.
To better my erg time, I'll also focus on a ridiculously fast hands away at
the finish. Again, something I would not do in my single.
Yesterday, I watched many of the competitors at the Monster Erg in Victoria
BC ... the faster fellows usually had plenty of layback. My hubby commented
that the rowing technique looked bad, but that's not the point when you're
trying to have best time on a rowing machine.
So, do you want to practice on-water technique, or get faster times on the
erg? If you're after faster times, try the layback. Also a great ab
workout.
BTW, also picked up a new C2 Model D yesterday. Nice! Much quieter and
smoother than my Model C. DH figured I wasn't doing a hard erg session it
was so quiet. Although gave me some new blisters on my hands.
carol...@aol.com
To be honest, I was too appalled by their dreadful technique to notice
either the beards or the abs. Don't go there!
I like to get people into the habit of erging with their feet out, so
they have to get the hands away and body over quickly. The result is
better technique in the boat, and with a bit of practice they achieve
identical ergo scores.
Caroline
anto...@aol.com
the heels are not restrained its an impossibility. Which is the case in
fact. I know where you are coming from however and the "feet out"
exercise does make for a smooth and continuous motion in and around the
finish and does force the weight back onto the toes.
My comment was misinterpreted. The whole concept of the lean back for
Spracklen athletes is to inspire acceleration, not length as such and
momentum on thr recovery swinging back over. As discussed in many
threads, lean back does not contribute a whole lot to length and this
is demonstratable on the ergo.
I just question the need to copy this technique. The majority of
international programs row a similar technique. And as regards the USA.
Surely the magnificent examples of the Mens and Women's eights should
be the inspiration.
Matt Jensen
As being an athlete that is a true believer in layback, I see no problems.
I think what it comes down to is, are you erging to get stronger on the
water, or erging to have better technique on the water. I feel the reason
we row with such layback is so that we can get as strong as possible for
the whole stroke. I am sure you have noticed how much longer us canadian
row per stroke. I'm a little lightweight, rigged at 158, 289/89, and race a
2km at 33 right now, in january. Nobody will disagree that Mike S does not
know what he is doing. We train to get strong, and the erg is a great
machine to do that on. You don't get medals for looking pretty.
MPJ
anto...@aol.com wrote in news:1107268361.314330.301590
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
paul_v...@hotmail.com
Matt Jensen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> As being an athlete that is a true believer in layback, I see no
problems.
> I think what it comes down to is, are you erging to get stronger on
the
> water, or erging to have better technique on the water.
Exactly! Notice the "OR" in your own words. It just may be possible
to be stronger with that better technique if you practiced it on the
Erg. When I asked "Why do you let them row so crappy on the Erg", the
response was, "Because they score better that way.", fair enough.
> I feel the reason
> we row with such layback is so that we can get as strong as possible
for
> the whole stroke. I am sure you have noticed how much longer us
canadian
> row per stroke. I'm a little lightweight, rigged at 158, 289/89, and
race a
> 2km at 33 right now, in january.
So you are either short stroking or rushing the hell out of the
recovery (good thing you're a small lwt), but damn, you must be in good
shape. Now knowing that 2k time would be more convincing. Then we
could determine what it takes for us to achieve such speed, if we
could, of course.
> Nobody will disagree that Mike S does not
> know what he is doing.
Really?! I will. I don't think he's that far off, it was only the
Olympic Year for goodness sake, don't throw the baby out with the
bathwater! [;o)
> We train to get strong, and the erg is a great
> machine to do that on. You don't get medals for looking pretty.
That's right! Apparently it's for wild Hair....
- Paul Smith
anto...@aol.com
Lwt Sculler
it works the core too...
Apparently - some of the Canadian chaps are going almost horizontal...
Each person is different - it is our job as athletes (esp 1x scullers)
to 'think' and 'explore' and ultimately find what works (i.e. makes us
faster) for us as individuals. I found 87/188 span of 158 works for me
- rating 28/30. But I'm still on the lookout for more.
I also think training with Macons is beneficial.
(Im not impressed when people's egos get the better of them and resort
to trashing other well meaning contributors to RSR.)
paul_v...@hotmail.com
Lwt Sculler wrote:
> Swayback works for me - and after talking to a visiting Canadian
coach
> it works the core too...
What is "swayback"?
> Apparently - some of the Canadian chaps are going almost
horizontal...
>
> Each person is different - it is our job as athletes (esp 1x
scullers)
> to 'think' and 'explore' and ultimately find what works (i.e. makes
us
> faster) for us as individuals. I found 87/188 span of 158 works for
me
> - rating 28/30. But I'm still on the lookout for more.
I suppose that if you are faster than everyone else, that's fine, but I
think the way to move boats, with the particular implements at our
disposal, has been well settled over the centuries. Fads will crop up
again and again, heck I saw the widest bellbottom pants I'd ever seen,
recently. I've only seen one cycle of that fad, but am a mere
youngster. [;o)
Even the "asynchronous rowing" that was being touted as "a new idea",
was apparently tried in the early days of "moving pictures" and was
thus documented. Just because people have forgotten something, or did
not know about it, does not make it a better idea now. "Lady Margaret"
come to mind. (and I've only heard stories about that)
> I also think training with Macons is beneficial.
Absolutely! And the "meatcutters" just hate it when you are passing
them by. "A macon planted in the water, is worth more than a hatchet
rowing in." Now get that hatchet planted early and you may really have
something to take advantage of. [;o)
- Paul Smith
> (Im not impressed when people's egos get the better of them and
resort
> to trashing other well meaning contributors to RSR.)
(Unfortunately the world is not a perfect place, so I dub you the judge
of everyone else's ego, so we will stay in proper form. Thank you.)
[:o)
Rob Collings
> Lwt Sculler wrote:
> > Swayback works for me - and after talking to a visiting Canadian
> coach
> > it works the core too...
>
> What is "swayback"?
Leaning back a very very long way at the finish. I've erged with lwt
sculler and he sits back what seems to me to be an incredibly long way.
I imagine he sculls like that too and I can see how it might work for
some individuals, but if you want to do anything in crew boats, it
becomes more complex. I can't see it having nearly the same effect in
rowing as sculling due to the different finishes.
Single scullers can sort out what works best for them - you don't have
quite the same luxury in a crew boat. If you only ever do singles, then
do what works. If you scull/row with others then you need to come to
some sort of technical "comprimise" which may involve doing crew boats
differently to the single. The four fastest scullers don't necessarily
(rarely?) make the fastest quad. I came across one sculler a few years
back who single sculled right over left and crew sculled left over
right. Very odd, but it was the way he did it.
lwt sculler wrote:
> > Apparently - some of the Canadian chaps are going almost
> horizontal...
Yes, but what about the rowing...
Cheers,
Rob.
peter...@hotmail.com
> Lwt Sculler wrote:
> > Swayback works for me - and after talking to a visiting Canadian
> coach
> > it works the core too...
>
> What is "swayback"?
i'd guess it's meant to imply that you're leaning back because you're
generating a lot of power through the hips, as opposed to flopping back
because your finish timing is poor or whatever. the former may or may
not be good for boat speed, i've not seen any really convincing
arguments either way; some fast crews have done it (CAN HM8 2003), some
have definitely not (GB HM8 2000). the latter, however, is certainly
going to slow you down.
Pete
Carl Douglas
>
>Lwt Sculler wrote:
>> Swayback works for me - and after talking to a visiting Canadian
>coach
>> it works the core too...
>
>What is "swayback"?
>
>> Apparently - some of the Canadian chaps are going almost
>horizontal...
>>
>> Each person is different - it is our job as athletes (esp 1x
>scullers)
>> to 'think' and 'explore' and ultimately find what works (i.e. makes
>us
>> faster) for us as individuals. I found 87/188 span of 158 works for
>me
>> - rating 28/30. But I'm still on the lookout for more.
>
>I suppose that if you are faster than everyone else, that's fine, but I
>think the way to move boats, with the particular implements at our
>disposal, has been well settled over the centuries.
Here we go again! Kersplosh!
Sliding seat rowing on long slides has been around for a bit over 100
years, hardly centuries. During that last century or so we've seen
long, short & nil laybacks. Crews have gone fast, versus their best
contemporaries, with all versions of layback. These last few years
we've had some very fast crews, including Canadians, Australian women
scullers, et al, with long laybacks.
I don't think there is yet a rational verdict on layback. One problem,
as with other technique & equipment issues, is the difficulty of
measuring which particular aspect of a crew's overall training,
motivation, fitness & technique have been of net benefit & which others
may have seemed right but been merely decorative. Then there's our
tendency to fixate on something because "it seems right" or because a
current very fast crew happens to be doing it. Then it becomes an
orthodoxy. Which brings the defenders of the faith, who hound those who
do it slightly differently.
It is also a fact that coaches have less chance than some might like to
experiment & objectively assess, being driven forward always by lack of
time & a desperate need to achieve, plus the ever-present pundits who
will lambaste them for doing it "wrong" if they don't then win
everything. In any case, to evaluate a "radical technique" you may have
to allow a large chunk of the year to adapt the body & its conditioned
responses enough to maximise the return, maybe suffering a dip in
performance in the interim.
> Fads will crop up
>again and again, heck I saw the widest bellbottom pants I'd ever seen,
>recently. I've only seen one cycle of that fad, but am a mere
>youngster. [;o)
So, no, I don't think any particular layback is necessarily a fad, nor
do I know how much is best, or even good. But I do know that some
extremely fast movers of fixed-seat traditional rowing boats (Thames
skiffs) who lacked a shell rowing background have used long laybacks
with great success, beating top class shell rowers who preferred to
skiff with sit-up finishes.
The slide was introduced to allow the rower to row a longer stroke as
the boats became narrower & faster, but its development was bedevilled
by those who dictated artificial limits for the "right" length of slide
which we have now rejected. Yet the slide still contributes only about
24"/62cm to the overall stroke length, which is much the same as most
rower's body swing. Since some extra degrees of swing at the finish (we
tend to limited at the catch by legs, etc.) can add 2 - 4 more inches to
the stroke it would not seem unreasonable to accept a bit more layback.
>
>Even the "asynchronous rowing" that was being touted as "a new idea",
>was apparently tried in the early days of "moving pictures" and was
>thus documented. Just because people have forgotten something, or did
>not know about it, does not make it a better idea now. "Lady Margaret"
>come to mind. (and I've only heard stories about that)
And some crews using that technique (they called it style) were - in
their time - the fastest anywhere.
>
>> I also think training with Macons is beneficial.
>
>Absolutely! And the "meatcutters" just hate it when you are passing
>them by. "A macon planted in the water, is worth more than a hatchet
>rowing in." Now get that hatchet planted early and you may really have
>something to take advantage of. [;o)
>
>- Paul Smith
>
>> (Im not impressed when people's egos get the better of them and
>resort
>> to trashing other well meaning contributors to RSR.)
>
>(Unfortunately the world is not a perfect place, so I dub you the judge
>of everyone else's ego, so we will stay in proper form. Thank you.)
>[:o)
>
One has to get used to Paul's aggressively judgmental style. To quote
Lewis Carroll: "He only does it to annoy/ because he knows it teases"
:^)
Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1784-456344 Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
Ewoud Dronkert
I think Lwt's comment was aimed at Anton.
--
Firefox Web Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/
anto...@aol.com
paul_v...@hotmail.com
Me, aggressive? Ha! [:oD
I debated myself over using Centuries or Decades and decades just
didn't seem long enough as the fads can last more than one of them.
We were as fast in the early 80's as they seem to be today, and in much
heavier boats, with wooden Tulip blades. I'm certain there are some
fantastically more well conditioned athletes, with all the modern
technology, and the equipment can hardly be called sub-standard, so the
remaining defect causing a lack of progress in speed seems to be
technique. At least as far as I can calculate on the back of this
napkin. [;o)
I've given a bit of a try to rowing "fixed seat", not technically fixed
since I was on a sliding seat but more or less minimizing it's
movement. The thing I noticed most was the ease at which check was
eliminated, obviously due to the very small momentum exchange while not
cycling the hull beneath. I could easily see how the early skeptics
might have a view that the sliding seat was not an "improvement" as it
complicates a relatively simple motion. It was quite instructive, in
that, if you miss the beginning, it is very obvious that you have
missed a significant part of your available length, something that is
less obvious and even more important when shuttling our bums back and
forth. I've never read any account of fixed seat boats beating the
sliding seat couterparts, but surely it must have happened for some
time after the introduction of the slide. Likewise, in the GDR Rudern
text, the asynchronous rowing appeared to be tested and shown to be of
no advantage, but if you have another source that has it as being the
"fastest of the day", so be it, maybe I can talk all of my competition
into doing it if you can point me at the source.
Adding 24" with the slide would require some pretty darn long legs, but
I suppose there are some out there built strangely enough.
Looking forward to the pictures of the QE2, hopefully next to a
"regular size" boat for perspective.
Cheers!
- Paul Smith
David Biddulph
news:2Py7ROEv...@rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk...
> paul_v...@hotmail.com writes
...
>>... Just because people have forgotten something, or did
>>not know about it, does not make it a better idea now. "Lady Margaret"
>>come to mind. (and I've only heard stories about that)
> And some crews using that technique (they called it style) were - in their
> time - the fastest anywhere.
Hence those of us from LMBC were delighted to see Mike Spracklen's recent
Canadian crews doing so well with a long(ish) layback.
I hasten to add that by my time at LMBC the club had adopted a more
"conventional" style (and other new-fangled inventions like longer slides,
and Macon blades). We did do Lady Margaret style on special occasions, such
as when rowing back along the boathouses having won our oars. :-)
--
David Biddulph
Rowing web pages at http://www.biddulph.org.uk/
and http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/david_biddulph/
Allan Bennett
<URL:mailto:paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Carl,
>
> Me, aggressive? Ha! [:oD
>
> I debated myself over using Centuries or Decades and decades just
> didn't seem long enough as the fads can last more than one of them.
>
> We were as fast in the early 80's as they seem to be today, and in much
> heavier boats, with wooden Tulip blades. I'm certain there are some
> fantastically more well conditioned athletes, with all the modern
> technology, and the equipment can hardly be called sub-standard, so the
> remaining defect causing a lack of progress in speed seems to be
> technique. At least as far as I can calculate on the back of this
> napkin. [;o)
Not like you, Paul, to overlook more obvious reasons before grasping at
a solution which would be difficult to substantiate...
(Hint: research the diets prevalent in the 'early 80s')
Allan Bennett
Not a fan of dopes
--
paul_v...@hotmail.com
do not understand what your point is here. Please elaborate.
Diets in the 80's somehow relate to rowing technique? This will be
fascinating, I'm sure.
-Paul Smith
Fanning the flames
James Elder
David Biddulph wrote:
> I hasten to add that by my time at LMBC the club had adopted a more
> "conventional" style (and other new-fangled inventions like longer
slides,
> and Macon blades). We did do Lady Margaret style on special
occasions, such
> as when rowing back along the boathouses having won our oars. :-)
In my undergraduate days (94-97), "Lady Maggie paddling" was still
common practice for many of the college crews on the way back from
races. Probably still is.
At Churchill we also had our own self-parodying "Churchill paddling"
for such occasions - bow pair and stern pair in antiphase, middle four
banging their blades on the water.
paul_v...@hotmail.com
Jon Anderson
> At Churchill we also had our own self-parodying "Churchill paddling"
> for such occasions - bow pair and stern pair in antiphase, middle four
> banging their blades on the water.
Did anyone notice the difference?
Jon
PS. Sorry you asked for it ;)
James Elder
> Did anyone notice the difference?
Tish boom.
Off-topic:
In fact this was at the (very) tail end of the glory days of women's
rowing at Churchill. Ahem. Although I understand that after a very
rough period, Churchill rowing seems to be (relatively) on the up again.
Jay L
J
paul_v...@hotmail.com
Nice try, but I was sitting in the boat with the guys doing the times
mentioned, and I'm quite sure that there were no Steroids being used.
Not part of the East German team, just a group of USA college kids.
- Paul Smith
Christopher Anton
time on the Cam. Is it still going on?
Saul H. Stashower
"sue t" <Shawnig...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:b3ELd.241590$6l.73911@pd7tw2no...
> Henry, those fellows are competing. And, I have to admit, if my goal is a
> better erg split I'll layback further and "pull to the chin". However, I
> would never do so in my single.
>
> To better my erg time, I'll also focus on a ridiculously fast hands away
> at the finish. Again, something I would not do in my single.
Oh Hogwash! I spend an inordinate amount of time on the erg, and can tell
you that correct rowing = faster erging. AND Fast erging with correct
technique = faster rowing. I've been wroking at trying to do both for 20
years now (yes I'm old enough to have been rowing training on a
genuineConcept II Model "A").
And another thing, fast hands away is one of the reasons for the big balde
oars. One of the concepts behind going to a bigger blade with shorter
length, was to reduce the moment of inertia in order to allow for quicker
hands away, and thus reduced boat check.
So there!
> Yesterday, I watched many of the competitors at the Monster Erg in
> Victoria BC ... the faster fellows usually had plenty of layback. My
> hubby commented that the rowing technique looked bad, but that's not the
> point when you're trying to have best time on a rowing machine.
Try watching a great sculler/erg monster and you'll see fine technique. Xeno
Muller come to mind. Around Seattle you might check out my bud Matt
Crouthamel (who won at Ergomania). He's another pretty rower/erger.
> So, do you want to practice on-water technique, or get faster times on the
> erg? If you're after faster times, try the layback. Also a great ab
> workout.
See above. But you're right about the ab workout.
> BTW, also picked up a new C2 Model D yesterday. Nice! Much quieter and
> smoother than my Model C. DH figured I wasn't doing a hard erg session it
> was so quiet. Although gave me some new blisters on my hands.
I'm jealous. I only recently moved up to a model "C".
CaptStash....
Saul H. Stashower
"Rob Collings" <robin.c...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107445363.0...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> paul_v...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Lwt Sculler wrote:
>> > Swayback works for me - and after talking to a visiting Canadian
>> coach
>> > it works the core too...
>>
>> What is "swayback"?
>
> Leaning back a very very long way at the finish. I've erged with lwt
> sculler and he sits back what seems to me to be an incredibly long way.
> I imagine he sculls like that too and I can see how it might work for
> some individuals, but if you want to do anything in crew boats, it
> becomes more complex. I can't see it having nearly the same effect in
> rowing as sculling due to the different finishes.
>
> Single scullers can sort out what works best for them - you don't have
> quite the same luxury in a crew boat. If you only ever do singles, then
> do what works. If you scull/row with others then you need to come to
> some sort of technical "comprimise" which may involve doing crew boats
> differently to the single. The four fastest scullers don't necessarily
> (rarely?) make the fastest quad. I came across one sculler a few years
> back who single sculled right over left and crew sculled left over
> right. Very odd, but it was the way he did it.
Fair enough about rowing a quad, but in my experience, four single scullers
will almost always row a four faster than four guys whgo only train in a
four. Even more true in eights. Maybe it's because us singles guys are such
contrary characters we just can't stomach losing. Or maybe it's just because
scullers have to pull or their boat won't move.
Opinionated aren't I?
CaptStash....
(Hope no sweep rowers stalk me after this post)
Saul H. Stashower
<paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107461803....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Carl,
>
> Me, aggressive? Ha! [:oD
>
> I debated myself over using Centuries or Decades and decades just
> didn't seem long enough as the fads can last more than one of them.
>
> We were as fast in the early 80's as they seem to be today, and in much
> heavier boats, with wooden Tulip blades. I'm certain there are some
> fantastically more well conditioned athletes, with all the modern
> technology, and the equipment can hardly be called sub-standard, so the
> remaining defect causing a lack of progress in speed seems to be
> technique. At least as far as I can calculate on the back of this
> napkin. [;o)
Hey Paul, check out US college times in eights from the 80's (my ers) and
now. BAck then a sub six minute 2K was smoking fast. with modern equipt.,
I've done it in a master's crew. Look at top college crews now, they're a
good 15 to 20s faster than in the 80's.
Cheers
CaptStash....
paul_v...@hotmail.com
Come on Cap'n, I'm not expecting a lot here, how about making it all
the way to page 4 of "Rowing Faster" to see that since 1983 the race
times for the M8+ at Lucerne have been flat.
Looks like we both come from the same era, and yes, I agree that sub-6
2k's for college crews were smoking fast, nonetheless they were
accomplished. We only came within 15 seconds of the Internationals at
that time too; Let's see, 5:43.0 - 5:28.0 = 0:15.0, Yep, 15 seconds.
[;o)
Sounds like you've been in some good Masters Crews, maybe the
combination of better equipment and your Old School Technique is making
it easier to go fast, even without the "knockdown dragout" power of
youth.
- Paul Smith
Saul H. Stashower
<paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107891331....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Paul Smith wrote:
> Looks like we both come from the same era, and yes, I agree that sub-6
> 2k's for college crews were smoking fast, nonetheless they were
> accomplished. We only came within 15 seconds of the Internationals at
> that time too; Let's see, 5:43.0 - 5:28.0 = 0:15.0, Yep, 15 seconds.
> [;o)
>
> Sounds like you've been in some good Masters Crews, maybe the
> combination of better equipment and your Old School Technique is making
> it easier to go fast, even without the "knockdown dragout" power of
> youth.
>
> - Paul Smith
Actually I row with a pretty modern technique that maximizes the advantages
of the big blade/ultralight oars. But that's another story. I checked out
all of the Olympic results from day one, and there is a lcear, marked
increase in speed at around 1992. There are of course exceptions, and
remember that everything is subjects to the whims of the weather. The
increase in speed is most noticeable in the small boats.
Check it out yourself at: http://www.hickoksports.com/history/olrowing.shtml
Cheers,
CaptStash....
Neil Wallace
> Fair enough about rowing a quad, but in my experience, four single
> scullers will almost always row a four faster than four guys whgo
> only train in a four. Even more true in eights. Maybe it's because us
> singles guys are such contrary characters we just can't stomach
> losing. Or maybe it's just because scullers have to pull or their
> boat won't move.
There's no doubt in my mind that the single scull is the best (though not by
any means perfect) way of assessing big boat moving potential.... but I
think Rob's point is valid.
Surely some fast single scullers have neither the timing or disposition to
gel in a crew situation.
Rob Collings
> Fair enough about rowing a quad, but in my experience, four single
scullers
> will almost always row a four faster than four guys whgo only train
in a
> four. Even more true in eights.
But realistically, how many decent crews only train in a four? If you
could take the top four scullers from national team trials and race
that four against another made up of the top two pairs, I know which
boat my money would be on.
No doubt that starting to scull was probably the single best thing I
did for my rowing, though.
> Opinionated aren't I?
Life would be boring if we all agreed all the time.
Rob.
Jon Anderson
> There's no doubt in my mind that the single scull is the best (though not by
> any means perfect) way of assessing big boat moving potential.... but I
> think Rob's point is valid.
You're right - the single scull is a great way of assessing who's moving
the best. It doesn't necessarily improve big boat moving potential per se.
That depends on other factors, but it's good for assessing who's where
in the rankings.
Jon
paul_v...@hotmail.com
That would leave a certain J Tomkins at the bottom of the rankings
(from what I have heard), which doesn't seem to bode well for that
theory. [;o)
- Paul Smith
Jon Anderson
> That would leave a certain J Tomkins at the bottom of the rankings
> (from what I have heard), which doesn't seem to bode well for that
> theory. [;o)
It's not a theory. It's a reasonable idea with a track record.
I've never seen M Pinsent in the 1x GB trials results but this doesn't
mean the idea has no credibility.
On the contrary I understand it has had considerable success in a number
of programmes, at least in my country.
paul_v...@hotmail.com
Jon Anderson wrote:
> paul_v...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > That would leave a certain J Tomkins at the bottom of the rankings
> > (from what I have heard), which doesn't seem to bode well for that
> > theory. [;o)
>
> It's not a theory. It's a reasonable idea with a track record.
> I've never seen M Pinsent in the 1x GB trials results but this
doesn't
> mean the idea has no credibility.
Remember, we were discussing ranking "big boat" moving ability, and
relating that to 1x ability.
While the "idea" that a very good sculler will also be useful in a
sweep boat would seem quite plausible (small skill set to learn), a
very good Rower may have never been in a 1x (larger skill set to
learn).
At best, the "idea" works in one direction, possibly to the detriment
of your countries "programmes". [;o)
Don't imply that I'm claiming any superiority of any countries program.
The USA (my Country) has been criticized for heavy reliance on Erg
Scores (IMO, fair criticism.), but even they manage some success from
time to time.
We need a more unified theory of creating fast boat movers, after all
this time, I'd think that it would be more nailed down. Well, it is
actually, but few seem to be able to focus on the larger picture, in
favor of pet excersizes. i.e. Statements like "Everyone looks good
when winning." almost make the point, but seem to be misinterpretted in
the end. OTOH, there is a book called "winning ugly", by a tennis
player, so once again, it's all a matter of how we choose to look at
it.
- Paul Smith
anto...@aol.com
The British made a positive move to trialing everyone in singles from
the mid 90's onwards and i feel it without doubt benefitted the teams
final performances. Sure some people don't like singles, Pinsent being
one of them by all accounts but they can still do a good performance.
1979 saw a bunch of scullers row an eight in the Eights Head in London
stroked by a young S Redgrave. It tanked the Rowing squad eight and
without doubt single sculling creates a better athletes for all boats.
Jon Anderson
> The British made a positive move to trialing everyone in singles from
> the mid 90's onwards and i feel it without doubt benefitted the teams
> final performances. Sure some people don't like singles, Pinsent being
> one of them by all accounts but they can still do a good performance.
I wonder if the British move was spurred on a bit by the success of NCRA?
David Biddulph
news:1107972192.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
...
> 1979 saw a bunch of scullers row an eight in the Eights Head in London
> stroked by a young S Redgrave. It tanked the Rowing squad eight and
> without doubt single sculling creates a better athletes for all boats.
Wasn't 1979 the sinking year, and didn't the squad eight win?
Lenny Robertson, Henry Clay, Sean Campbell, Colin Seymour, Mark Bathurst,
Gordon Rankine, Jamie Macleod, John Roberts, and Alan Inns?
I thought I remembered a good sculling squad crew at some stage, but having
glanced though the Almanack I can't spot a winning one with Steve around
that time. Perhaps someone else can nail it down, but I believe that a
sculling squad crew came second in 1979, so perhaps it was about them that
you were thinking?
David Biddulph
news:cudd3b$n3p$1...@heisenberg.grid-zero.net...
> paul_v...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> That would leave a certain J Tomkins at the bottom of the rankings
>> (from what I have heard), which doesn't seem to bode well for that
>> theory. [;o)
>
> It's not a theory. It's a reasonable idea with a track record.
> I've never seen M Pinsent in the 1x GB trials results but this doesn't
> mean the idea has no credibility.
> On the contrary I understand it has had considerable success in a number
> of programmes, at least in my country.
He has been there, though perhaps not recently.
In one of the races in 1997, for example, the order in M1x was:
Cracknell, Searle J, Thatcher, Kettle, Wilson P, Hunt-Davis, Greenaway,
Smith (LC), Wake, Smith (UL), Obholzer, Trapmore, Pinsent, ...
anto...@aol.com
could be 81?
Redgrave Sims Whitwell Scrivener? I think they were in it.
David Biddulph
news:1107988150.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Crew rowed as Thames Tradesmen. I could easily have the year wrong
> could be 81?
>
> Redgrave Sims Whitwell Scrivener? I think they were in it.
Yes, it could well have been '81; well remembered! I'd seen in the Almanack
that TT won the HoRR that year for the first time, but I'd not initially
thought of Steve as a TT man. They beat the Squad eight by nearly 9
seconds.
The Almanack isn't crystal clear, but it looks as if the crew was:
Andrew Cusack, Julian Scrivener, Alan Whitwell, Charlie Wiggin, Andrew
Justice, Tim Crooks, Eric Sims, Steve Redgrave, and Alan Sherman.
[Hopefully the latter, as a regular contributor to the group, will be able
to confirm it?]
Dave Henderson
> The Almanack isn't crystal clear, but it looks as if the crew was:
> Andrew Cusack, Julian Scrivener, Alan Whitwell, Charlie Wiggin, Andrew
> Justice, Tim Crooks, Eric Sims, Steve Redgrave, and Alan Sherman.
> [Hopefully the latter, as a regular contributor to the group, will be able
> to confirm it?]
TT members every one (??).
At least they didn't just use the name but did some training out of TT
because I remember watching them go afloat ('Hey, Charlie, Eric, isn't
that Dave Henderson over there?')