> In another thread paul_v_sm...@hotmail.com wrote: > > And a topical question:
> > Is it possible that something that provided a large advantage for a > > short distance sprint, not hold that advantage over the regular course > > distance?
> > I've noticed that between our Maas 2x and Emperorpacher that the Maas > > seems to be equal or perhaps better at sub-racing speeds as far as > > perceived effort was concerned, but when up at racing speeds the > > Emperorpacher clearly is sustainable more easily. And even a bit more > > strange, moving to a wider span/longer outboard/less overlap seems to > > have improved performance as well, i.e. faster paces at equal rates. > > Truly the opposite of what I was expecting. > And Carl Douglas replied:
> Right on the ball there, Paul.
> Boat design is a complex trade-off between many factors, calling for > (but rarely receiving) optimisation for a given crew (size, weight, > power), length of course, water temperature & depth, wave height, wind > direction & strength. So there can be no "absolute best" boat whatever > vendors may claim ;) .
> I'll give a simple instance from the world of single-paddle/Canadian > canoeing: > We used to make a very beautiful & effective 2-man open canoe (though I > say it myself). I designed it to be good to paddle, light &, in > competent hands, swift while meeting all the normal criteria for what > was actually a touring boat. I'm not too bad as a designer & builder, & > this boat soon attracted the attention of marathon racers in Europe (we > even sold one in the USA).
> Our boat was 18ft long, whereas US racers were 21ft. Some thought the > shorter length a disadvantage since, in general, longer allows faster. > But that view is simplistic, as longer also means more wetted surface & > wetted surface also affects hull drag (but less strongly than some wish > us believe). So for fixed crew weight there's a direct (if non-linear) > relationship between available power & optimum length for given design > characteristics.
> The longer your race, the lower your continuous power output (marathon > runners are slower than milers, who are slower than 100-metre > sprinters). So as a race extends & the power available falls you really > need a shorter boat - provided only that it is also well-designed. But > for the short print, take the longer boat.
This leaves me with two questions, one specifically for Carl and the other for the Group.
For Carl I want to ask: Are Carl Douglas shells designed for anything specific? Will they do better at racing speeds for short distances? Or sub-racing speeds for longer distances?
For the Group I want to ask: What shells do you prefer to row or scull? And why? If you were going to do a sprint, would you choose one kind shell; and a different shell if you were going to be in a longer race?
I think maybe the question you should be asking if there is a specific speed or rate. Distance might not necesserely make the difference, but speed through the water and the frequency of the strokes might change and with that you might look for different type of hulls. M
Charles Carroll wrote: > > In another thread paul_v_sm...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > And a topical question:
> > > Is it possible that something that provided a large advantage for a > > > short distance sprint, not hold that advantage over the regular course > > > distance?
> > > I've noticed that between our Maas 2x and Emperorpacher that the Maas > > > seems to be equal or perhaps better at sub-racing speeds as far as > > > perceived effort was concerned, but when up at racing speeds the > > > Emperorpacher clearly is sustainable more easily. And even a bit more > > > strange, moving to a wider span/longer outboard/less overlap seems to > > > have improved performance as well, i.e. faster paces at equal rates. > > > Truly the opposite of what I was expecting.
> > And Carl Douglas replied:
> > Right on the ball there, Paul.
> > Boat design is a complex trade-off between many factors, calling for > > (but rarely receiving) optimisation for a given crew (size, weight, > > power), length of course, water temperature & depth, wave height, wind > > direction & strength. So there can be no "absolute best" boat whatever > > vendors may claim ;) .
> > I'll give a simple instance from the world of single-paddle/Canadian > > canoeing: > > We used to make a very beautiful & effective 2-man open canoe (though I > > say it myself). I designed it to be good to paddle, light &, in > > competent hands, swift while meeting all the normal criteria for what > > was actually a touring boat. I'm not too bad as a designer & builder, & > > this boat soon attracted the attention of marathon racers in Europe (we > > even sold one in the USA).
> > Our boat was 18ft long, whereas US racers were 21ft. Some thought the > > shorter length a disadvantage since, in general, longer allows faster. > > But that view is simplistic, as longer also means more wetted surface & > > wetted surface also affects hull drag (but less strongly than some wish > > us believe). So for fixed crew weight there's a direct (if non-linear) > > relationship between available power & optimum length for given design > > characteristics.
> > The longer your race, the lower your continuous power output (marathon > > runners are slower than milers, who are slower than 100-metre > > sprinters). So as a race extends & the power available falls you really > > need a shorter boat - provided only that it is also well-designed. But > > for the short print, take the longer boat.
> This leaves me with two questions, one specifically for Carl and the other > for the Group.
> For Carl I want to ask: Are Carl Douglas shells designed for anything > specific? Will they do better at racing speeds for short distances? Or > sub-racing speeds for longer distances?
> For the Group I want to ask: What shells do you prefer to row or scull? And > why? If you were going to do a sprint, would you choose one kind shell; and > a different shell if you were going to be in a longer race?
>> In another thread paul_v_sm...@hotmail.com wrote:
snip
> For the Group I want to ask: What shells do you prefer to row or scull? > And > why? If you were going to do a sprint, would you choose one kind shell; > and > a different shell if you were going to be in a longer race?
I'm sure as s*** there will be ppl who will voice that preference. They ought to be shot.
Take down one of your club Aeros, and we'll take down that beautiful Empacher wood single that you have at your boathouse and put them in the water side by side and wait with a stopwatch.
hmm. they're tied.
The vast differences happen in athleticism, training, and basic technique. Lesser differences occur in more specific training and more advanced technique. Hardly any differences occur at any distance between various competent makes of boats in speed. Most of the time, decisions are best made on value, cost, reliability, customer service, ease of rig, and popularity most of all.
We had this discussion when I visited you, (I forgot to say, RSR, Charles and I finally hooked up!)
At a particular sculling ability, you will be as fast in an Aero or wherry as you will in a single, even while a racing single is a vastly superior hull to an Aero.
At an elite level with world class scullers, two different sets of sculls of the same make and same rig might feel different enough in a single for a sculler to prefer set A to set B.
You have to be sculling 20-30 miles daily to get to that sensitivity.
When you put them in a particular boat, once you get used to the feel and you're happy with it, the distance is irrelevant since every workout is always going to be longer than the longest race, and anytime you get beat in pieces will first cause you to question your equipment anyway.
It's the nature of single sculling.
By the way, great meeting you and checking out your digs, I'll share with RSR that you have beautiful body mechanics in the boat, but you need to learn some bladework, and especially some boat handling to consider yourself a complete sculler.
It caused me a firestorm of thinking about what I do and why. There's definitely a niche in the Bay Area for some sculling coach to pull in a pile of money in the various clubs who are begging for help. On the other hand, to me it seems a waste to spend time discussing nuances of proper catches and releases to people who row 8 hours a week. I know it makes a difference to them and they are excited and eager students, but they make their boat go from slow to slow+.5
Rowing is ultimately a vigorous physical sport to be raced by athletes and I can't get past that, and to apply time to lesser effort doesn't seem worth my time even if I am well paid.
Keep in mind, I love to teach brand new beginners sculling skills and will do so the rest of my life. I will help anybody that asks for specific help, I'm exceedingly generous.
I don't know how to reconcile that and I think at times I'm an idiot for not being able to.
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:26:43 -0800, Mike Sullivan wrote: > Rowing is ultimately a vigorous physical sport to be > raced by athletes and I can't get past that, and > to apply time to lesser effort doesn't seem worth my > time even if I am well paid.
> Keep in mind, I love to teach brand new beginners > sculling skills and will do so the rest of my life. I > will help anybody that asks for specific help, I'm > exceedingly generous.
Exactly! That's why I will never take a paid coaching job unless it were national team coach. But hey I'm not ambitious enough for that. Meanwhile, I spend most of my free time coaching 1st, 2nd or 3rd year rowers.
The point you are making is understood. However do you mean that people who row 8 hours per week are not doing much in rowing terms and cannot appreciate / grasp technical nuances ? 8 hours per week is a reasonable amount of activity and if used productively I would expect it sufficient to gain good technical proficiency.
Sure 8 hours per week won't get you to the olympics but I think that the slow / slow +5 vs fast thing will be as much dependent on an individual's training history, physiology and athleticism. In short, if you are an athlete, 8 hours per week over a long period ought to allow you to be a reasonably good sculler.
> > For the Group I want to ask: What shells do you prefer to row or scull? > > And > > why? If you were going to do a sprint, would you choose one kind shell; > > and > > a different shell if you were going to be in a longer race?
> I'm sure as s*** there will be ppl who will voice that > preference. They ought to be shot.
> Take down one of your club Aeros, and we'll > take down that beautiful Empacher wood single that > you have at your boathouse and put them in the > water side by side and wait with a stopwatch.
> hmm. they're tied.
> The vast differences happen in athleticism, training, and > basic technique. Lesser differences occur in more specific > training and more advanced technique. Hardly any > differences occur at any distance between various > competent makes of boats in speed. Most of the time, > decisions are best made on value, cost, reliability, > customer service, ease of rig, and popularity most of all.
> We had this discussion when I visited you, (I forgot to > say, RSR, Charles and I finally hooked up!)
> At a particular sculling ability, you will be as fast in an > Aero or wherry as you will in a single, even while > a racing single is a vastly superior hull to an Aero.
> At an elite level with world class scullers, two different > sets of sculls of the same make and same rig might feel > different enough in a single for a sculler to prefer set A to > set B.
> You have to be sculling 20-30 miles daily to get to that > sensitivity.
> When you put them in a particular boat, once you get used > to the feel and you're happy with it, the distance is irrelevant > since every workout is always going to be longer than the > longest race, and anytime you get beat in pieces will > first cause you to question your equipment anyway.
> It's the nature of single sculling.
> By the way, great meeting you and checking out your digs, > I'll share with RSR that you have beautiful body mechanics in the > boat, but you need to learn some bladework, and especially > some boat handling to consider yourself a complete sculler.
> It caused me a firestorm of thinking about what I do > and why. There's definitely a niche in the Bay Area for > some sculling coach to pull in a pile of money in the various > clubs who are begging for help. On the other hand, to > me it seems a waste to spend time discussing nuances > of proper catches and releases to people who row 8 > hours a week. I know it makes a difference to them and > they are excited and eager students, but they make their > boat go from slow to slow+.5
> Rowing is ultimately a vigorous physical sport to be > raced by athletes and I can't get past that, and > to apply time to lesser effort doesn't seem worth my > time even if I am well paid.
> Keep in mind, I love to teach brand new beginners > sculling skills and will do so the rest of my life. I > will help anybody that asks for specific help, I'm > exceedingly generous.
> I don't know how to reconcile that and I think at times > I'm an idiot for not being able to.
> It caused me a firestorm of thinking about what I do > and why. There's definitely a niche in the Bay Area for > some sculling coach to pull in a pile of money in the various > clubs who are begging for help. On the other hand, to > me it seems a waste to spend time discussing nuances > of proper catches and releases to people who row 8 > hours a week. I know it makes a difference to them and > they are excited and eager students, but they make their > boat go from slow to slow+.5
> Rowing is ultimately a vigorous physical sport to be > raced by athletes and I can't get past that, and > to apply time to lesser effort doesn't seem worth my > time even if I am well paid.
> Keep in mind, I love to teach brand new beginners > sculling skills and will do so the rest of my life. I > will help anybody that asks for specific help, I'm > exceedingly generous.
> I don't know how to reconcile that and I think at times > I'm an idiot for not being able to.
> Damn. > Mike
It's the slow +.5's that were excited and eager students that end up running the club in my experience. We run an adult 'learn2row' course once a year - we get the occasional good athlete start that way, but mainly it's our committee that gets stocked with willing volunteers from this course's alumni. Anyone who trains more than 8 hours per week turns up - rows - and goes home.
> The point you are making is understood. However do you mean that people > who row 8 hours per week are not doing much in rowing terms and cannot > appreciate / grasp technical nuances ? 8 hours per week is a reasonable > amount of activity and if used productively I would expect it > sufficient to gain good technical proficiency.
For both you and Phil. I already granted that recreational rowers are very willing and eager students.
They're not the problem, I am.
The standard isn't the age, the experience, but the commitment.
Believe me, I've had a wonderful time the few times I've coached recreational or master's groups, I guess the way I framed it helped a lot - a very limited scope with very specific goals and an absolute time frame.
In fact I wouldn't even have brought it up, but I'm having a change of heart.
Maybe the pressures of getting kids through college is driving me to look for more money.
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:26:43 -0800, Mike Sullivan wrote:
snip
> Exactly! That's why I will never take a paid coaching job unless it > were national team coach. But hey I'm not ambitious enough for that. > Meanwhile, I spend most of my free time coaching 1st, 2nd or 3rd year > rowers.
If they're training 15 hours a week it's the most rewarding coaching job in the world.
But it's odd. A younger master's group will row 3-4 days a week, usually the sessions are short. They can say, "hey sully, we'll pay you to help us go faster".
"great" says I.
"row 6 days a week, and put in a couple days of lifting on top of it. you'll go from 7:05 to 6:20 for your 2k."
"that'll be $10,000...."
40 year old guys out of shape would benefit drastically by that.
I know they can't do that, they have families, job committments, etc., I'm not trying to judge them poorly. I think 3-4 days a week of rowing for a professional with a family is a very balanced approach to life. If they committed more to rowing, it's not fair to the more important commitments they have (or should).
So I charge them money to help them go from 7:05 to 6:59.
What's the point?
Is it all about the money? It's never been about the money between me and rowing.
Hey, I agree with you. If I did coach my interest would only be on the performance side of things and with individuals of ability. I admire anyone who give up time for recreational rowing facilitation, but for me the heart of rowing will always be competitive and the strive for potential attainment from athletic people.
Tangentally, I focused on the 8 hours thing as I feel many below international level blindly put in masses of hours each week, doing much ineffectively and that quality training for a much more limited time can achieve better results.
Mike Sullivan wrote: > "Rower123" <newoa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > news:1164877826.374866.39300@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > The point you are making is understood. However do you mean that people > > who row 8 hours per week are not doing much in rowing terms and cannot > > appreciate / grasp technical nuances ? 8 hours per week is a reasonable > > amount of activity and if used productively I would expect it > > sufficient to gain good technical proficiency.
> For both you and Phil. I already granted that recreational > rowers are very willing and eager students.
> They're not the problem, I am.
> The standard isn't the age, the experience, but the commitment.
> Believe me, I've had a wonderful time the few times I've coached > recreational or master's groups, I guess the way I framed it > helped a lot - a very limited scope with very specific goals > and an absolute time frame.
> In fact I wouldn't even have brought it up, but I'm having > a change of heart.
> Maybe the pressures of getting kids through college is driving > me to look for more money.
> It's the slow +.5's that were excited and eager students that end up > running the club in my experience. We run an adult 'learn2row' course
I know that very well. They're golden people and I love them!
When I see them on the water, I'll watch them row a bit and later make suggestions about their progress and comment on something they're doing, much as I did to Charles Carroll when I saw him a couple weeks ago.
When I see something at the club done well, I send an 'attaboy' email to those responsible.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a good citizen. I'm just not a good candidate for a master's coach for reasons I can't quite fathom.
> Hey, I agree with you. If I did coach my interest would only be on the > performance side of things and with individuals of ability. I admire > anyone who give up time for recreational rowing facilitation, but for > me the heart of rowing will always be competitive and the strive for > potential attainment from athletic people.
It's not quite that. I don't differentiate between the athlete and the non-athlete as deserving. It's that to improve in rowing requires a minimal energy output. Coaching somebody is about improving. It's like paying for piano lessons and not practicing, what's the point?
Basically you're hiring an escort to coo sweet nothings in your ear.
> Tangentally, I focused on the 8 hours thing as I feel many below > international level blindly put in masses of hours each week, doing > much ineffectively and that quality training for a much more limited > time can achieve better results.
Training time should be planned and focused with goals in mind for every session, be it a short paddle or a 25 mile session. Don't need a coach for that.
Focused work of a certain quantity will lead certain results. If you work finishes with a crew from Mon thru Wed in the fall, I want the next week and a half to simply pattern that work in with varying pressures, tempos, drills, and boat combinations.
At the end of two weeks, if half the people are doing it well at full pressure I'm a glorious success of a coach. I'll catch 1/2 of the ppl who don't get it next time around. But that's 24 hours of rowing, not 10.
In the meantime, finishing well requires a base level of abdominal strength, upper body and ability to sit up. That requires strength many people don't have inherently and has to be trained in. You can spend time with a masters showing him how to finish properly, then 10 mins into a 3/4 pressure piece at a 22 he's simply too tired to perform it as he's just not training enough.
That's best case scenario, a willing student who's never rowed before. Then you have the ex-college rowers who's exploits have grown with their advancing age. you show them how to finish and they smile at you and think behind your smile:
"hey if you knew enough to tell ME what to do, you wouldn't be here, you'd be coaching at Cal".
> > It's the slow +.5's that were excited and eager students that end up > > running the club in my experience. We run an adult 'learn2row' courseI know that very well. They're golden people and I love them!
> When I see them on the water, I'll watch them row a bit and > later make suggestions about their progress and comment on > something they're doing, much as I did to Charles Carroll when > I saw him a couple weeks ago.
> When I see something at the club done well, I send an 'attaboy' email > to those responsible.
> Don't get me wrong, I'm a good citizen. I'm just not a good candidate > for a master's coach for reasons I can't quite fathom.
> Mike
Getting back on topic - one of our juniors is now using an elderly Carl Douglas single which fell off a trailer, got badly smashed and has been completely restored by Carl himself. The lad in question has won everything he has entered since he's been using it. OK, so he wasn't bad to start with, but that boat has given him wings.
I've still got my Glyn Locke, which is now nearly 20. I haven't won a race since 2000, mainly because (a) I'm old, (b) I don't train enough and (c) I hardly ever race, but I haven't found another boat that suits me as well (and I don't fall in very often).
Mike Sullivan wrote: > "Rower123" <newoa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > news:1164887008.599110.165500@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Hey, I agree with you. If I did coach my interest would only be on the > > performance side of things and with individuals of ability. I admire > > anyone who give up time for recreational rowing facilitation, but for > > me the heart of rowing will always be competitive and the strive for > > potential attainment from athletic people.
> It's not quite that. I don't differentiate between the athlete > and the non-athlete as deserving. It's that to improve in rowing > requires a minimal energy output. Coaching somebody is about > improving. It's like paying for piano lessons and not practicing, > what's the point?
> Basically you're hiring an escort to coo sweet nothings in your ear.
> > Tangentally, I focused on the 8 hours thing as I feel many below > > international level blindly put in masses of hours each week, doing > > much ineffectively and that quality training for a much more limited > > time can achieve better results.
> Training time should be planned and focused with goals > in mind for every session, be it a short paddle or a > 25 mile session. Don't need a coach for that.
> Focused work of a certain quantity will lead certain results. If > you work finishes with a crew from Mon thru Wed in the fall, > I want the next week and a half to simply pattern that work in > with varying pressures, tempos, drills, and boat combinations.
> At the end of two weeks, if half the people are doing it well at > full pressure I'm a glorious success of a coach. I'll catch 1/2 > of the ppl who don't get it next time around. But that's 24 > hours of rowing, not 10.
> In the meantime, finishing well requires a base level of abdominal > strength, upper body and ability to sit up. That requires > strength many people don't have inherently and has to be > trained in. You can spend time with a masters showing > him how to finish properly, then 10 mins into a 3/4 pressure > piece at a 22 he's simply too tired to perform it as he's just > not training enough.
> That's best case scenario, a willing student who's never rowed > before. Then you have the ex-college rowers who's exploits > have grown with their advancing age. you show them how > to finish and they smile at you and think behind your smile:
> "hey if you knew enough to tell ME what to do, you wouldn't > be here, you'd be coaching at Cal".
At (UK) Club non-multilane regatta level does the boat make that much difference?
Yes, there is the pyschological side (twisted that I am, I actually like racing my £500 Burgashell against nice new shiny boats), but invariably the reasons for winning/losing are mainly down to fitness levels/technique in my experience.
Going back to the original post, I haven't been in a club that has the luxury of choosing the boat you get to row in (other than singles) or has the luxury of a large enough fleet to provide a choice of boats for different races/conditions!!
That said, if money no object, then I could see that in terms of the UK rowing scene, you might use a different boat for the straight line (2000m and lower) regattas than the long-distance heads (4-milers) that invariably involve some corners eg Tideway and Worcester.
Ewoud Dronkert wrote: > On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:26:43 -0800, Mike Sullivan wrote: > > Rowing is ultimately a vigorous physical sport to be > > raced by athletes and I can't get past that, and > > to apply time to lesser effort doesn't seem worth my > > time even if I am well paid.
> > Keep in mind, I love to teach brand new beginners > > sculling skills and will do so the rest of my life. I > > will help anybody that asks for specific help, I'm > > exceedingly generous.
> Exactly! That's why I will never take a paid coaching job unless it > were national team coach. But hey I'm not ambitious enough for that. > Meanwhile, I spend most of my free time coaching 1st, 2nd or 3rd year > rowers.
> -- > E. Dronkert
Ewoud
Been there with the paid thing...trust me, a pint of lager bought at the bar as a thank you is much better fun. You haven't missed anything
Mike Sullivan wrote: > "Ewoud Dronkert" <firstn...@lastname.net.invalid> wrote in message > news:ki7tm293pktl47egd15hjiqq4btk53eque@4ax.com... > > On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:26:43 -0800, Mike Sullivan wrote:
> snip
> > Exactly! That's why I will never take a paid coaching job unless it > > were national team coach. But hey I'm not ambitious enough for that. > > Meanwhile, I spend most of my free time coaching 1st, 2nd or 3rd year > > rowers.
> If they're training 15 hours a week it's the most rewarding > coaching job in the world.
> But it's odd. A younger master's group will row 3-4 days a week, > usually the sessions are short. They can say, "hey sully, we'll pay > you to help us go faster".
> "great" says I.
> "row 6 days a week, and put in a couple days of lifting on top of it. > you'll go from 7:05 to 6:20 for your 2k."
> "that'll be $10,000...."
> 40 year old guys out of shape would benefit drastically by that.
> I know they can't do that, they have families, job committments, > etc., I'm not trying to judge them poorly. I think 3-4 days a week > of rowing for a professional with a family is a very balanced approach > to life. If they committed more to rowing, it's not fair to the more > important commitments they have (or should).
> So I charge them money to help them go from 7:05 to 6:59.
> What's the point?
> Is it all about the money? It's never been about the money between > me and rowing.
>Yes, there is the pyschological side (twisted that I am, I actually >like racing my £500 Burgashell against nice new shiny boats), but >invariably the reasons for winning/losing are mainly down to fitness >levels/technique in my experience.
hmm, for a couple of years, I was around a women's novice four that entered races in an old wooden shell with macon blades, for ages, they never even won a heat, it was disheartening and they were truely considered low performance rowers, most of them had nothing in there favour physically, being short and some very skinny, but technique wise they really weren't that bad and were coachable. Eventually one season they got a bit of regular coaching and at one race I found myself in the stroke seat (I'm a cox!), remarkably we won a 4 lane heat, but then lost in the final after a restart, that experience convinced other club members that it was really time to let the girls loose in a regular janousek four, next regatta, I ended up in the cox seat (despite being bigger than most of the crew) and they won each race and got rid of their novice status, I honestly don't think they would have done if they'd been in the original wooden shell that day.
> Getting back on topic - one of our juniors is now using an elderly Carl
Still talking rowing, what's wrong with that???
> Douglas single which fell off a trailer, got badly smashed and has > been completely restored by Carl himself. The lad in question has won > everything he has entered since he's been using it. OK, so he wasn't > bad to start with, but that boat has given him wings.
a good boat will help a good crew, won't do anything for a slow crew (speed wise that is)
> > For the Group I want to ask: What shells do you prefer to row or scull? > > And > > why? If you were going to do a sprint, would you choose one kind shell; > > and > > a different shell if you were going to be in a longer race?
> I'm sure as s*** there will be ppl who will voice that > preference. They ought to be shot.
> Take down one of your club Aeros, and we'll > take down that beautiful Empacher wood single that > you have at your boathouse and put them in the > water side by side and wait with a stopwatch.
> hmm. they're tied.
> The vast differences happen in athleticism, training, and > basic technique. Lesser differences occur in more specific > training and more advanced technique. Hardly any > differences occur at any distance between various > competent makes of boats in speed. Most of the time, > decisions are best made on value, cost, reliability, > customer service, ease of rig, and popularity most of all.
> We had this discussion when I visited you, (I forgot to > say, RSR, Charles and I finally hooked up!)
> At a particular sculling ability, you will be as fast in an > Aero or wherry as you will in a single, even while > a racing single is a vastly superior hull to an Aero.
> At an elite level with world class scullers, two different > sets of sculls of the same make and same rig might feel > different enough in a single for a sculler to prefer set A to > set B.
> You have to be sculling 20-30 miles daily to get to that > sensitivity.
> When you put them in a particular boat, once you get used > to the feel and you're happy with it, the distance is irrelevant > since every workout is always going to be longer than the > longest race, and anytime you get beat in pieces will > first cause you to question your equipment anyway.
> It's the nature of single sculling.
> By the way, great meeting you and checking out your digs, > I'll share with RSR that you have beautiful body mechanics in the > boat, but you need to learn some bladework, and especially > some boat handling to consider yourself a complete sculler.
> It caused me a firestorm of thinking about what I do > and why. There's definitely a niche in the Bay Area for > some sculling coach to pull in a pile of money in the various > clubs who are begging for help. On the other hand, to > me it seems a waste to spend time discussing nuances > of proper catches and releases to people who row 8 > hours a week. I know it makes a difference to them and > they are excited and eager students, but they make their > boat go from slow to slow+.5
> Rowing is ultimately a vigorous physical sport to be > raced by athletes and I can't get past that, and > to apply time to lesser effort doesn't seem worth my > time even if I am well paid.
> Keep in mind, I love to teach brand new beginners > sculling skills and will do so the rest of my life. I > will help anybody that asks for specific help, I'm > exceedingly generous.
> I don't know how to reconcile that and I think at times > I'm an idiot for not being able to.
> Damn. > Mike
Have a beer Mike, I'm buy'in. [;o)
When I announced that "Unless y'all can get your Erg 2k's into the 90th Percentile for your age/weight class, the goal of being 'competitive' is pretty much a pipe dream. We can go out and learn to row reasonably well, but it will be more for fun than anything else." It didn't earn me many brownie points, though I hear rumors of things starting to come around.
If I catch your drift, we're probably of similar thinking. The amount of the fee required to keep me interested varies inversely with my perception of the athletes commitment and training ethic. I've even told a few to stop paying, yet they insist, perhaps part of their own similar values taking priority, mutual respect goes a long way.
Do those of you who coach experience a different reaction or treatment from your athletes /rowers and their wider clubs depending on whether you are paid or not paid ?
I wonder if we take two people A and B doing the exact same coaching role but A is paid and B a volunteer, A as a professional will have more respect and perceived value.
A perverse symptom of human nature - the volunteer should be more appreciated though in actual fact that which is free is seen as less than that paid for, even if inherent value is the same.
paul_v_sm...@hotmail.com wrote: > Mike Sullivan wrote: > > "Charles Carroll" <charles_carr...@comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:hs-dnWnczOz4zPPYnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > >> In another thread paul_v_sm...@hotmail.com wrote: > > snip
> > > For the Group I want to ask: What shells do you prefer to row or scull? > > > And > > > why? If you were going to do a sprint, would you choose one kind shell; > > > and > > > a different shell if you were going to be in a longer race?
> > I'm sure as s*** there will be ppl who will voice that > > preference. They ought to be shot.
> > Take down one of your club Aeros, and we'll > > take down that beautiful Empacher wood single that > > you have at your boathouse and put them in the > > water side by side and wait with a stopwatch.
> > hmm. they're tied.
> > The vast differences happen in athleticism, training, and > > basic technique. Lesser differences occur in more specific > > training and more advanced technique. Hardly any > > differences occur at any distance between various > > competent makes of boats in speed. Most of the time, > > decisions are best made on value, cost, reliability, > > customer service, ease of rig, and popularity most of all.
> > We had this discussion when I visited you, (I forgot to > > say, RSR, Charles and I finally hooked up!)
> > At a particular sculling ability, you will be as fast in an > > Aero or wherry as you will in a single, even while > > a racing single is a vastly superior hull to an Aero.
> > At an elite level with world class scullers, two different > > sets of sculls of the same make and same rig might feel > > different enough in a single for a sculler to prefer set A to > > set B.
> > You have to be sculling 20-30 miles daily to get to that > > sensitivity.
> > When you put them in a particular boat, once you get used > > to the feel and you're happy with it, the distance is irrelevant > > since every workout is always going to be longer than the > > longest race, and anytime you get beat in pieces will > > first cause you to question your equipment anyway.
> > It's the nature of single sculling.
> > By the way, great meeting you and checking out your digs, > > I'll share with RSR that you have beautiful body mechanics in the > > boat, but you need to learn some bladework, and especially > > some boat handling to consider yourself a complete sculler.
> > It caused me a firestorm of thinking about what I do > > and why. There's definitely a niche in the Bay Area for > > some sculling coach to pull in a pile of money in the various > > clubs who are begging for help. On the other hand, to > > me it seems a waste to spend time discussing nuances > > of proper catches and releases to people who row 8 > > hours a week. I know it makes a difference to them and > > they are excited and eager students, but they make their > > boat go from slow to slow+.5
> > Rowing is ultimately a vigorous physical sport to be > > raced by athletes and I can't get past that, and > > to apply time to lesser effort doesn't seem worth my > > time even if I am well paid.
> > Keep in mind, I love to teach brand new beginners > > sculling skills and will do so the rest of my life. I > > will help anybody that asks for specific help, I'm > > exceedingly generous.
> > I don't know how to reconcile that and I think at times > > I'm an idiot for not being able to.
> > Damn. > > Mike
> Have a beer Mike, I'm buy'in. [;o)
> When I announced that "Unless y'all can get your Erg 2k's into the 90th > Percentile for your age/weight class, the goal of being 'competitive' > is pretty much a pipe dream. We can go out and learn to row reasonably > well, but it will be more for fun than anything else." It didn't earn > me many brownie points, though I hear rumors of things starting to come > around.
> If I catch your drift, we're probably of similar thinking. The amount > of the fee required to keep me interested varies inversely with my > perception of the athletes commitment and training ethic. I've even > told a few to stop paying, yet they insist, perhaps part of their own > similar values taking priority, mutual respect goes a long way.
Rower123 wrote: > Do those of you who coach experience a different reaction or treatment > from your athletes /rowers and their wider clubs depending on whether > you are paid or not paid ?
> I wonder if we take two people A and B doing the exact same coaching > role but A is paid and B a volunteer, A as a professional will have > more respect and perceived value.
> A perverse symptom of human nature - the volunteer should be more > appreciated though in actual fact that which is free is seen as less > than that paid for, even if inherent value is the same.
When football referees went professional in this country, one of the most respected and senior referees handed in his whistle at the top level - his day job was more important to him. I suspect that some of the best coaches out there would never consider coaching professionally because they enjoy their day job too much / get paid a lot more than rowing can afford..
tonight, tonight! I was stuck at work all night yesterday.
> When I announced that "Unless y'all can get your Erg 2k's into the 90th > Percentile for your age/weight class, the goal of being 'competitive' > is pretty much a pipe dream. We can go out and learn to row reasonably > well, but it will be more for fun than anything else." It didn't earn > me many brownie points, though I hear rumors of things starting to come > around.
This can be true of competitive scullers as well. A male who is sculling his single at 7:25 might be pulling a 6:20 erg. Depending upon his age, maturity, strength, and O2 efficiency, an agressive aerobic program over a few years can drop his erg times to the low 6:00 and pull his single times down to 7:10 range with it - putting him in the 'take a look' range at speed orders.
Spending a lot of time on technique on that sculler at 7:25 might overly emphasize the focus on that aspect of rowing, ie, 'gee, I'm getting beat by 15 seconds, I can make it up by catching better' and can be quite frustrating and lead the athlete to discouragement.
What they really need is the long view, find races with people at that speed (intermediates at Independence Day regatta) and settle in for the long haul with a program that helps him improve without driving him nuts or discouraging him.
> If I catch your drift, we're probably of similar thinking. The amount > of the fee required to keep me interested varies inversely with my > perception of the athletes commitment and training ethic. I've even > told a few to stop paying, yet they insist, perhaps part of their own > similar values taking priority, mutual respect goes a long way.
> Do those of you who coach experience a different reaction or treatment > from your athletes /rowers and their wider clubs depending on whether > you are paid or not paid ?
> I wonder if we take two people A and B doing the exact same coaching > role but A is paid and B a volunteer, A as a professional will have > more respect and perceived value.
> A perverse symptom of human nature - the volunteer should be more > appreciated though in actual fact that which is free is seen as less > than that paid for, even if inherent value is the same.
I don't charge athletes a dime who are doing the work and have a commitment to a goal.
My reasoning goes that I got the help from far better coaches than I'll ever be, and they never charged me a penny.
If I ever got into a master's boat, I'd be the biggest a-hole pain in the ass any master's coach ever encountered - I'm certain. :^)
|
