What moves the boat?

[Zeebee]

Ergs don't float. We've heard it so many times. So what does?

Please watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jyckodTY8k
Just for a moment forget about names, colors of blades, nationalities.
If you don't know the final result, don't look up right now. Just
watch it.

Camera is focusing mostly on a boat from lane 5. Aren't they
magnificent? Beautiful, textbook technique, beautifully executed, with
such a power. No wonder that at 500m mark they are waaaaay ahead of
the rest. They could row circles about any other boat in a field.
Sometimes -- panning between the boat from lane 5 and the rest --
camera catches a boat from lane 6. What a poor rowing! One could
wonder, how did they qualify to the final with such a lousy technique.
One can easily see they barely hold on to their oars, they struggle
with each stroke. No wonder they are dead last at 500m.

OK, ok, sarcasm mode off from now on. Promise! ;-)

So, please, somebody tell me... What happened through the next 1500m?
Did any of these crews change their technique? Can someone explain,
please?!

--
Yours Virtually, Zibi

[Henry Law]

On 26/01/12 20:45, Zeebee wrote:
> So, please, somebody tell me... What happened through the next 1500m?
> Did any of these crews change their technique? Can someone explain,
> please?!

The guys in lane 6 pulled harder, at a higher rate, for longer and wore
the other guys down. Maybe lane 5 went off faster than their fitness
would sustain?

Interesting film; I've not seen much rowing from that era, when they
could finally get a decent camera in a chase boat.

--

Henry Law Manchester, England

[mruscoe]

Unless I've mistimed, split times for the race pretty odd:

1:34.6 1:30.0 1:48.1 1:31.0 for the winners
1:31.0 1:30.5 1:49.3 1:34.5 for 2nd place

[Charles Carroll]

Zibi,

Let’s confuse things even more with a quote from Steve Fairbairn:

“Mat Taylor—a very great coach in the 1860 period—always said, ‘So long as
the oarsman gets a good beginning, I don’t care what enormities he commits.’
Hastie and Taylor both no doubt knew and believed in a good style, but
style is to be judged by its effect; neither wished an oarsman to let off
the work to maintain his appearance. The Pretty-Pretty Brigade try to
polish the body and hope the work will come; I say, Never sacrifice the
work.”

The lesson seems to be that even with a good beginning, you cannot
sacrifice the work. The work must precede, not follow, the polish.

But this is pretty much what Henry said, isn't it?

Cordially,

Charles

[sully]

at about 1200 meters the norwegians (in 6) jacked it up about 3
spm. They
came off the line very conservatively and understroked ppl in first
700.
Looked to me like the Easties were out of gas, Norwegians ran
a masterful race plan of cruising first 1100 then putting the
hammer down.

Thorsen, the Norwegian bowman has beautiful catches.

What's surprising about that race was the E germans (5) attacked
the early part of the race so hard. The typical E german race plan
was to be as even split as possible. It's not that they felt they
had to steal the race, I think Dreifke was in that boat. Lange
was in the double somewhere in that time range, maybe next year,
they were winning all the time.

Look who's stroking the Finn boat! I'd forgotten about that, it's
Karpinnen.

[Charles Carroll]

When all is said and done, isn’t racing really about power? Isn’t it about
applying as much power as you can as quickly as you can for as long as you
can? So who applies the most power the fastest and longest wins. Sometimes
it is pretty. Sometimes it’s not.

[IPS]

It's something to do with sculling right over left, with the left hand
leading. Unstoppable.

[Fordmeister]

My wife and I have argued many times that it is not necessarily the fastest crew that wins races.

[Phil]

Moves the boat does what?:

http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Tutaminis&image=YodaCatch-hd-jpg

Self-evident, is.

Phil.

[Stelph]

On Jan 26, 8:45 pm, Zeebee <zbychobikeri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Looks very much like the crew in Lane 5 went off too hard and blew,
the crew in lane 6 paced it a lot better and obviously had enough
trust in their own abilities to not panic when they were that far down
all the way through the race, and to keep pushing in the last 250m to
get infront and win, the rest of the field just looked to quit and
race for silver once Lane 5 had gone, shows how important Psychology
is and not letting other crews race plans/positions throw your own
plan.

Also with respect to the comments on technique, obviously I realise
they are tongue in cheek, but really how "pretty" a technique is isnt
related to how well or how fast a boat moves, so an "ugly" but
"committed" crew will more often than not meet a "pretty" but "soft"
crew

[Charles Carroll]

> Also with respect to the comments on technique, obviously I realise

> they are tongue in cheek, but really how "pretty" a technique is isn't

> related to how well or how fast a boat moves, so an "ugly" but
> "committed" crew will more often than not meet a "pretty" but "soft"
> crew
>

Well said!

Too many of us are blinded by the idea that “technique” makes us fast. We
forget the true aim of good technique, which is to reduce the risk of
injury.

[Carl]

May I venture to differ, Charles?

One aim of good technique is to maximise power output without personal
injury, but good technique's prime objective is to enable you to apply
that power in the most efficient manner to the task of boat moving.

That prime objective ought to mesh a clear understanding of how the body
works with the same for:
a) how the boat works with the body
&
b) how the tools we use interact best with the water.

The tools are both the boat & the blades, as well as everything that
moves relative to the boat. The interactions with the water include:
a) how the boat runs through the water, how the water flows around the
boat, how the variations in boat speed during the stroke cycle influence
those water flows & are influenced by them
&
b) how the blades handle & generate the flows in the water resulting
from the possible choices of paths & loadings, & how to combine high
work input with the low energy dissipation to apply the greatest
possible net propulsive energy work. And rating also forms part of that
mix.

So, I would submit that technique is not to be so narrowly defined.
And, further the very last way to judge technique is by how "good" it
looks. After all, rowing may be an art form but it offers no prizes for
artistic performance. Indeed, the desire to look good may be no more
than a bear trap for the deeply confused.

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: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

[Zeebee]

On Jan 27, 12:59 am, sully <sulsn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Looked to me like the Easties were out of gas,  Norwegians ran
> a masterful race plan of cruising first 1100 then putting the
> hammer down.
>
> Thorsen, the Norwegian bowman has beautiful catches.

Oh, i,m so glad you mentioned this!

I started this thread with a hope to provoke some more discussion
about pretty/not pretty technique vs. effective/ineffective technique.
Too bad that the thread about Olaf Tufte\s technique died
prematurely.

I'll come back to it as soon as possible. Right now just a short
reply, ok?
In a meantime, in order to confuse things even more, i porpose to
watch a race that happened only half an hour later.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KLrRiGFEmo
Any resemblance to the prevoius race is purely coincidental. ;-)

> What's surprising about that race was the E germans (5) attacked
> the early part of the race so hard.  The typical E german race plan
> was to be as even split as possible.   It's not that they felt they
> had to steal the race, I think Dreifke was in that boat.

In a bow was Kröppelien, Dreifke's clubmate from a military club in
Rostock, and partner from a quad and double. This race in Luzern was
Kröppelien's first silver after straight three golds.

> Look who's stroking the Finn boat!   I'd forgotten about that, it's
> Karpinnen.

Two Karpinnens! Father and son!
I have completely forgotten this, cause every time the camera went in
their direction i was looking at the boat next lane, my team mates
from Poland.

--
Yours Virtually, Zibi

[Zeebee]

On Jan 27, 6:15 pm, "Charles Carroll" <charles_carr...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>
> Too many of us are blinded by the idea that “technique” makes us fast. We
> forget the true aim of good technique, which is to reduce the risk of
> injury.

Oh, really?
So how come we have guys who are super strong on ergs and their boat
is not fast at all?
(Hence mantra "Ergs don't float".)

Does the name Maciej Siejkowski (AKA Matthias) ring a bell?
--
Yours Virtually, Zibi

[Charles Carroll]

> > Too many of us are blinded by the idea that “technique” makes us fast.
> > We forget the true aim of good technique, which is to reduce the risk
> > of
> > injury.

Carl,

Both you and Zibi are calling me to task. I must have said something very
wrong.

Let me ask a question. Would you say it would be ethical for a coach to
maximize power output if this increased the risk of personal injury?

I have had a coach tell me that he has listened to coaches having
discussions amongst themselves talking about the depth of their various
programs, and that he has actually heard coaches say, “My program is so
deep that I can afford to waste athletes.”

To me that is simply unethical. It violates the very precept of a coach’s
responsibility to his athletes, who have placed their trust in that coach.

So on this matter it seems that we do indeed differ about the prime
objective of “good technique.” I really do believe that it is to maximize
power output without risk of personal injury. If you can do so, and apply
that power in the most efficient manner to the task of boat moving, all
fine and well. But if you cannot, then go for a technique that reduces the
risk of personal injury, even if the price you pay is less power output in
your stroke. Wasn’t it you who said that a losing a race is a one time
loss, while a bad back if for life?

Warmest regards,

Charles

[sully]

On Jan 27, 11:57 am, Zeebee <zbychobikeri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 27, 12:59 am, sully <sulsn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Looked to me like the Easties were out of gas,  Norwegians ran
> > a masterful race plan of cruising first 1100 then putting the
> > hammer down.
>
> > Thorsen, the Norwegian bowman has beautiful catches.
>
> Oh, i,m so glad you mentioned this!
>
> I started this thread with a hope to provoke some more discussion
> about pretty/not pretty technique vs. effective/ineffective technique.
> Too bad that the thread about Olaf Tufte\s technique died
> prematurely.
>
> I'll come back to it as soon as possible. Right now just a short
> reply, ok?
> In a meantime, in order to confuse things even more, i porpose to

> watch a race that happened only half an hour later.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KLrRiGFEmo

> Any resemblance to the prevoius race is purely coincidental. ;-)

Looks like the Easties came to Lucerne with a new race plan!

The Nor pair waited another couple hundred meters, but you
can see at about 750 to go, they cranked up about 3-4 beats.
I don't have a stroke watch but looked like 34 > 38.

What was good in both the pair and the double, was as they
cranked up the rate, the blades buried quickly. Often
the rate comes up and the catch speed slows relatively,
causing a bit of a hang. It looked like they sacrificed an
inch of length in the process, but it's the effective
length that counts, not how far you reach.

This was more evident in the 2X race, but it looked
to me that the Eastie double was just out of
gas, that's why it looked so heavy and
catch-sluggish, very unlike their crews.

>
> > What's surprising about that race was the E germans (5) attacked
> > the early part of the race so hard.  The typical E german race plan
> > was to be as even split as possible.   It's not that they felt they
> > had to steal the race, I think Dreifke was in that boat.
>
> In a bow was Kröppelien,  Dreifke's clubmate from a military club in
> Rostock, and partner from a quad and double. This race in Luzern was
> Kröppelien's first silver after straight three golds.
>
> > Look who's stroking the Finn boat!   I'd forgotten about that, it's
> > Karpinnen.
>
> Two Karpinnens! Father and son!

ok, you got me! I thought they were brothers. That's unreal!

Did you row w/ Kudja and Babrej? I don't know their full history,
I thought they came to US after 1984 Olys, or stayed here?

[Charles Carroll]

Carl,

I was thinking about the raison d’etre for sport on the first walk this
afternoon with the children. I did not realize my feelings were so strong.

It seems to me that anyone who accepts a coaching position places himself
under the same obligation as a physician. Just as a physician takes an oath
to do no harm, so should a coach. And every decision a coach makes, every
instruction he gives, every encouragement, every inspiration should be
subordinate to this oath.

Otherwise why not just say to hell with it and give your athletes
performing enhancing drugs, etc? Wouldn’t this be an example making
maximal power output the primary objective?

Cordially,

Charles

[Carl]

I think, my friend, that you have misunderstand me, so please review
what I wrote.

Ethics in sport is paramount.

So no coach should injure their charge & you know that I have, for many
years, argued that we see too much "wastage" (as some choose to call it)
through failure to observe or care about the vital need to understand
each athlete's physiological vulnerabilities. That an athlete may be
vulnerable to certain types of injury does not make them less useful,
nor define them as a wimp, but it does demand a good understanding of
how such problems are caused, how they affect some & not others, & how
problems can be caught before damage is done.

In this regard, I've on several occasions drawn attention here to the
nuttiness of coaching for "perfect" posture in rowers who simply aren't
built to achieve such poses. And wasn't that 1982 2x race a perfect
example of how supposedly poor posture can win gold?

My point was that, unless you can also show your rower the best way to
move the boat itself (hence my discussion of understanding the ways to
use boats & blades), however much you protect them from harm you are not
a good coach if their target in the sport is to win races.

The job description of the coach has many chapters. A coach's brief is
pretty complex.

[Carl]

On 27/01/2012 19:57, Zeebee wrote:
> On Jan 27, 12:59 am, sully<sulsn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Looked to me like the Easties were out of gas, Norwegians ran
>> a masterful race plan of cruising first 1100 then putting the
>> hammer down.
>>
>> Thorsen, the Norwegian bowman has beautiful catches.
>
> Oh, i,m so glad you mentioned this!
>
> I started this thread with a hope to provoke some more discussion
> about pretty/not pretty technique vs. effective/ineffective technique.
> Too bad that the thread about Olaf Tufte\s technique died
> prematurely.
>
> I'll come back to it as soon as possible. Right now just a short
> reply, ok?
> In a meantime, in order to confuse things even more, i porpose to
> watch a race that happened only half an hour later.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KLrRiGFEmo
> Any resemblance to the prevoius race is purely coincidental. ;-)

Thanks, Zibi!

It's those hunchbacked Norwegian trolls, up to their wicked old tricks
again!

In any orthodox rowing team those with such postural deficiencies would
surely have been drummed out of the squad - & 2 gold medals would have
gone to the DDR instead.

Someone may be able to show us a film with Tim Foster (GBR) also rowing
with a somewhat curved back, but what a boat-mover he has been.

<snippage>

[IPS]

On Jan 27, 11:57 am, Zeebee <zbychobikeri...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 27, 12:59 am, sully <sulsn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Looked to me like the Easties were out of gas,  Norwegians ran
> > a masterful race plan of cruising first 1100 then putting the
> > hammer down.
>
> > Thorsen, the Norwegian bowman has beautiful catches.
>
> Oh, i,m so glad you mentioned this!
>
> I started this thread with a hope to provoke some more discussion
> about pretty/not pretty technique vs. effective/ineffective technique.
> Too bad that the thread about Olaf Tufte\s technique died
> prematurely.
>
> I'll come back to it as soon as possible. Right now just a short
> reply, ok?
> In a meantime, in order to confuse things even more, i porpose to

> watch a race that happened only half an hour later.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KLrRiGFEmo

> Any resemblance to the prevoius race is purely coincidental. ;-)
>
> > What's surprising about that race was the E germans (5) attacked
> > the early part of the race so hard.  The typical E german race plan
> > was to be as even split as possible.   It's not that they felt they
> > had to steal the race, I think Dreifke was in that boat.
>
> In a bow was Kröppelien,  Dreifke's clubmate from a military club in
> Rostock, and partner from a quad and double. This race in Luzern was
> Kröppelien's first silver after straight three golds.
>
> > Look who's stroking the Finn boat!   I'd forgotten about that, it's
> > Karpinnen.
>
> Two Karpinnens! Father and son!
> I have completely forgotten this, cause every time the camera went in
> their direction i was looking at the boat next lane, my team mates
> from Poland.
>
> --
> Yours Virtually, Zibi

Pretty sure they were Karpinnen brothers. In fact, I know they were
(I was there!).

[Zeebee]

On Jan 28, 6:28 am, IPS <roco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Pretty sure they were Karpinnen brothers.  In fact, I know they were
> (I was there!).

Oh, mea culpa, sorry for misinformation.
I jumped into conclusion too quickly, thinking about Karpinnen's arch-
rival P.M. Kolbe who used to scull a double with his son. But 1982 was
obviously too early for that.
Below is a robot translated note from a Finnish wikipedia:

Reima Juhani Karppinen (born 27 january 1958 Vehmaa) is a former
Finnish kilpasoutaja.
Karppinen rowing career, competing at the Olympic Games kolmissa
pariairokaksikossa. Los Angeles in 1984, he was ranked Aarne Lindroos
with the eighth, in Seoul in 1988, Jorma Lehtelän with the 12th, and
in Barcelona in 1992, Esko Allah Brandt as a pair of 13 th place.
His career as the only championship medal Karppinen won the World
Championships in Munich in 1981 on receipt of his brother, Pertti
Karppinen with silver. The brothers' other appearances Championships
pariairokaksikossa produced the fifth place in Lucerne in 1982, fourth
place in Duisburg in 1983 and eighth place in Vienna in 1991. Mr.
Lehtelän pair became the seventh place in Nottingham from 1986 and 12
place in Copenhagen in 1987.
Nordic Championship Reima Karppinen, Pertti Karppinen won with
pariairokaksikossa in 1981. Finnish Championship title he won in
different boat classes for more than twenty.
Reima Karppinen coaches operate Matti Heikkilä, and his brother
Mohammad Karppinen. His wife, Tuula Karppinen (nee Stone) has won the
Finnish championships in shot put, and rowing.

[Tinus]

If you talk about the top level or levels where coaches have a deep
program then I believe a certain risk is a part of the game and the
winning sportsmen will often be the ones which can take a lot of hits
(or at least on average they win a bit more). Injuries are common in
sports. Some of them are due to stupidity but also some are simply due
to the heaviness of the exercise. Overloading of rowers is common when
these rowers try to row at the maximum level.

I have the idea that technological advancements and improvements in
knowledge of biomechanics has improved the situation for athletes. The
control of athletes is much better. Also while training at the highest
possible level can be an advance in competition, being able to waste
less athletes is an advance as well.

[Tinus]

On 01/27/2012 10:04 PM, Charles Carroll wrote:

[Tinus]

In a similar way we may wonder why an excellent weight lifter is not a
good rower. There are differences between rowing and erging. Because of
that being good in one thing is not automatically a reason to be good in
the other. You need to be strong in rowing instead of strong in erging.

Of course technique plays a role. That's the answer to your question.
However I don't believe this is a good argument against the point which
Charles was trying to make. He was more like saying that technique is
less important than sometimes propagated. Also you may have different
definitions of technique. You have the type of technique of coaches
trying to get rowers into a perfect of model and you have the type of
technique which is more loosely defined as simply the movement pattern
which makes the boat go as fast as possible.

[master of rythmn]

A lot has been talked about technique in this thread but what struck
me about every double I could watch in the video was that the bow
scullers were beating the stroke men in by a half blade or more.
Taking the catch at different times is a mistake. The crew that won
were as ugly as all the others.
Steve.

[Charles Carroll]

> I started this thread with a hope to provoke some more discussion
> about pretty/not pretty technique vs. effective/ineffective technique.

Zibi,

Too often rowers talk about effective vs. ineffective technique without
talking about what technique actually is.

So when you discuss technique what are you thinking of? How do you define
technique? What are the components of technique? For example, is technique
different from bladework? Or is bladework a part of technique?

And then of course there is the big question. Is there a single ideal
technique that all rowers should learn? Or should rowers try to develop a
technique that is particularly suited to the individual needs?

We tend to discuss technique in terms of good technique and bad technique.
But the idea of “good technique” carries with it the suggestion of “a
single ideal technique.”

Steve Fairbairn avoided the trap of using terminology such as good or bad.
Instead he discussed technique of technique in terms of its purpose. If the
boat stayed level and moved fast in the right directions, the technique
could be considered effective. So for Fairbairn bladework and boat movement
were the evidence of effective technique.

Furthermore Fairbairn had a particular disdain for showy movements,
especially if such movements increased the risk of injury to his rowers.
Fairbairn even went so far as to suggest that the most effective technique
was in and of itself invisible. You could only know it through boat
movement.

Aren’t bladework and boat movement governed the laws of physics? For
example, won’t the laws of physics tell us how a blade should work in the
water? Carl says don’t drive off the stretcher until you feel an essential
tensile connection between the mass of water behind the backs of the blades
and the backs of the blades themselves. This is just physics, isn’t it?
Doesn’t it hold true for all blades of all shapes and sizes.

Body movement, on the other hand, strikes me as a very different thing, if
only because our bodies are so different from one another. A body movement
that places primary emphasis on the use of legs might suit a rower with
particularly strong legs very well. Yet the same movement might be
unsuitable for someone with short legs and significant upper body strength.

Anyway, these are just random thoughts on effective vs. ineffective
technique …

And I am going sculling …

Warmest regards,

Charles