Which boat do you row? Why?
Charles Carroll
> > 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?
marco...@gmail.com
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
Mike Sullivan
"Charles Carroll" <charles...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hs-dnWnczOz4zPPY...@comcast.com...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
Ewoud Dronkert
> 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
Rower123
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.
Phil
Mike Sullivan wrote:
{snip}
>
> 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.
Phil.
Mike Sullivan
"Rower123" <newo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1164877826....@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.
I'm no good as a gigolo anymore....
Mike
Mike Sullivan
"Ewoud Dronkert" <firs...@lastname.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:ki7tm293pktl47egd...@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.
I'm just a bit psycho.
Mike
Rower123
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
"Phil" <philip_b...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164877904....@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>
snip
'
> 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.
Mike
Mike Sullivan
> 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".
please.
Mike
carol...@aol.com
On Nov 30, 11:50 am, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu>
wrote:
> "Phil" <philip_barton....@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1164877904....@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Mike Sullivan wrote:snip
> '
>
> > 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).
Caroline
Rower123
Ha ha.
Forgive one further non topic question, I am curious, you are in
California right ?
Are you really on line at 11:28am GMT (03:28 Cal time)?
JK
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.
James
anto...@aol.com
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
Paul
going to get it back to 6.20, ever...
Anne Rogers
>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.
Cheers
Anne
Mike Sullivan
"Paul" <pgos...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1164900470.0...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> If they have got to 40 and their 2k has sliped to 7.05 they are never
> going to get it back to 6.20, ever...
it's doable, nobody makes the training investment though.
Mike Sullivan
>
> Ha ha.
>
> Forgive one further non topic question, I am curious, you are in
> California right ?
>
> Are you really on line at 11:28am GMT (03:28 Cal time)?
I was, yes, rebuilding a mirror web site that went down....
yawn...
Mike Sullivan
<carol...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1164889720....@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> On Nov 30, 11:50 am, "Mike Sullivan" <s...@SNIPslac.stanford.edu>
> wrote:
>> "Phil" <philip_barton....@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:1164877904....@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Mike Sullivan wrote:snip
>> '
>>
snip
> 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)
paul_v...@hotmail.com
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.
- Paul Smith
Rower123
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.
Jeremy Fagan
> 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.
>
>
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..
Jeremy
Mike Sullivan
<paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164905202.4...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>> "Charles Carroll" <charles...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:hs-dnWnczOz4zPPY...@comcast.com...
>> >> In another thread paul_v...@hotmail.com wrote:
snip
> Have a beer Mike, I'm buy'in. [;o)
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.
For sure.
Mike
Mike Sullivan
> 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. :^)
Carl
Good question, Charles. And, because I don't do bullshit, it's that bit
harder for me to answer. But here goes, as far as I'm prepared to spill
beans:
I optimised the 92kg single hull for 2k at a boat speed ~5m/sec. That,
however, tells nothing you might not hear from another designer.
Optimisation is not simple, since it must consider that range of
considerations I listed in the CRS thread (my posting in reply to Paul
on 29 Nov at 22:27), plus a few more. Some of these considerations end
up more as matters of judgement - you may have to back a hunch based on
what you know & from what you see with other shells - & some may later
be refined in the light of practical experience with the boat. So
there's always an element of the black arts in with the science.
It was also necessary to give much consideration to materials,
durability, stiffness, strength. Although we have changed structurally
over the years, the earliest & latest in our production remain very
recognisably the same species. We still get boats in for TLC which date
from our very first year's production - as stiff & sound as ever,
despite never before having been back for refurbishment.
I scaled the other members of our hull-size range (6 sizes from the
smallest at 60kg & below to the current largest at 100kg & above)
according to what I thought most appropriate for the power & weight of
scullers at those sizes, with lengths, beams & depths scaled differently
from the basic hull form. But, as I've said, rowers don't come standard
whatever their size.
Our clients seemed to enjoy & to win in our boats, over all distances,
so we (or, shall we say, our clients) established a reputation for
success at all levels. Of course, by considering not only the needs of
the large but also of the small, the daft situatation arose that,
because so many smaller scullers liked & did well in our boats (&
because we declined all invitations to provide free or cut-price boats),
word got around the drinking classes that we did not build for heavies.
Couldn't be more wrong :) !
Inevitably, we were pressed to build doubles & pairs. That took a lot
of extra thought about how to take forward, but not to over-play, the
features which characterised our products. We think that went pretty
well too: we developed a suite of relatively long but very stiff &
"uncompromising" doubles, which we made so strong that it worked
perfectly as pairs.
We arranged, over a couple of years, a number of comparative speed tests
between our 2x/2- & those of other current makes (whose shapes persist
to this day). IPS, who corresponds here, was involved in one set of
those tests (thanks Ian!). We were, let me say, delighted by the
results of these tests.
Then we got around to sorting out a really effective, lean & low-drag
rigger design, fitted with a unique, pitchable pin. Designed only for
our own use, we soon had others asking if they could have some too - and
the rest, as they say, is history.
We do continually experiment with structural details & evolve our
construction. We are also (very slowly!) developing a radical
125kg-crew single (recognising that athletes are getting bigger!), & we
have had a very competent graduate student subject our designs to CFD
analysis with, again, very heart-warming outcome. Of course we have
been & are quite active in other fields of boat design, & in the design
of rowing accessories, including the AeRowFin, which makes steering a
precision science & so empowers the cox. This unique steering foil was
designed with the help of CFD methods, so that we actually could predict
how it would perform before it was ever fitted to the Sydney 2000 GB 8+.
So the answer to your question is not simple. I don't know any distance
at which our boats don't perform well in competent hands. But since, as
I indicated, courses of markedly different lengths may require boats of
markedly different lengths, yet shells of a class tend to be of
relatively similar lengths, the failure of any one design to show a
particular distance for "best performance" is not too surprising.
>
> 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?
>
>
>
Obedient to your rules of engagement, Charles, I will keep mum here.
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)
Jonathan Anderson
> I was, yes, rebuilding a mirror web site that went down....
That reflects well on you Mike.
Sorry, I've had one of those days.
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 ]
paul_v...@hotmail.com
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.
>
The part I really like is when they return from their Super-dee-duper,
Ex-national team coach, sweep/sculling "camp", that costs hundreds of
dollars, and report, "Well coach, we didn't hear anything that you
haven't already told us."
Well, that's just great! I'm really happy for you, so next time you
think you can go purchase skills, instead of practicing what you have
already heard, just give me the money instead. [:o)
The one thing I'll never understand is the apparent lack of awareness
that being a rower is not all that tough, listen to what the coach
says, do what you are told, and remember to do it the next time out.
If the coach wants you to change something specifically, they will use
your name/seat number, otherwise they are talking to the crew and it
applies to everyone in the boat, including the coxswain who should
watch for the change to be made, and give feedback to help the process.
There is nothing else to think about when out in a boat, leave the rest
of your world on the dock, it will be patiently waiting when you
return.
- Paul Smith
anto...@aol.com
It's very doable if their 2k used to be sub 6.00.....
Mike Sullivan
<anto...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1164922770.1...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Which leads to a question.
Two guys in equal shape at age 25, both pull a 6:00 erg.
One guy(guy "A") stays in good shape until he turns 50 and can
pull a 6:25. Other guy(guy "B") stays in good health but doesn't
particularly train and slips to 7:10.
Can guy "B" ever catch up if "A" continues to train?
Say give them each 5 years, "A" keeps the rate of work
load, "B" gives it an honest effort.
Where do you think "B" can drop to?
My guess is that "B" gets to about 6:40 at best in 5 years.
No wisecracks, JD... :^)
anto...@aol.com
I think the two athletes you mention would get closer together. And
would take much less than 5 years. Much much less.
paul_v...@hotmail.com
Mike Sullivan wrote:
> <anto...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1164922770.1...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Mike Sullivan wrote:
> >> "Paul" <pgos...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> news:1164900470.0...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> > If they have got to 40 and their 2k has sliped to 7.05 they are never
> >> > going to get it back to 6.20, ever...
> >>
> >> it's doable, nobody makes the training investment though.
> >
> > It's very doable if their 2k used to be sub 6.00.....
>
> Which leads to a question.
>
> Two guys in equal shape at age 25, both pull a 6:00 erg.
> One guy(guy "A") stays in good shape until he turns 50 and can
> pull a 6:25. Other guy(guy "B") stays in good health but doesn't
> particularly train and slips to 7:10.
>
> Can guy "B" ever catch up if "A" continues to train?
Probably yes, "A" is unlikely to get any better, "B" should catch up
with the same training schedule.
> Say give them each 5 years, "A" keeps the rate of work
> load, "B" gives it an honest effort.
>
> Where do you think "B" can drop to?
>
> My guess is that "B" gets to about 6:40 at best in 5 years.
>
> No wisecracks, JD... :^)
I know of a rower, after a 17 year break in rowing training, and a
first 5k @ 2:12 where the training note said "Thought I was going to
die!", 6 months later, with 5 day/week 30 minutes a day training, was
sub 6:40, with what I would consider to be a CV base that still needed
a lot of work, but that takes more time. Maintaining a similar
training plan would likely see similar improvement for quite some time
I'd think. Though life can still get in the way of even such a
minimal structured plan as priorities shift about. Certainly if they
were motivated to stay consistent for as much as 5 years the result
would be back to on par with their more dedicated peer. Or is the
"motivation" factor something that you are considering in your
scenario? Same guy above, after establishing a fun challenge ("next
year") with the guy who beat him after the 6 month 2k, had improved to
6:31, but the challenge race didn't happen because of life interference
for the previous victor. The previous years target time was beaten,
however slight a consolation that was. Result declared "All square at
1-1."
I coach a couple of the toughest guys I know, both LM55 that will be
pulling sub 6:40's in a few weeks at the EIRC, their work ethic is
tremendous, and a cut above the norm. If a masters program had enough
guys like this to fill an 8+ they would be unbeatable in any Masters
event. IMO
- Paul Smith
Charles Carroll
> pulling sub 6:40's in a few weeks at the EIRC, their work ethic is
> tremendous, and a cut above the norm. If a masters program had enough
> guys like this to fill an 8+ they would be unbeatable in any Masters
> event. IMO
Forgive me for being obtuse, Paul, but I just have to ask. Does LM55 mean
lightweight men 55 to 60 years of age? If so, that's my groups and I am in
awe.
Mike Sullivan
<paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164992373.8...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>> <anto...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1164922770.1...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Mike Sullivan wrote:
>> >> "Paul" <pgos...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >> news:1164900470.0...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > If they have got to 40 and their 2k has sliped to 7.05 they are
>> >> > never
>> >> > going to get it back to 6.20, ever...
>> >>
>> >> it's doable, nobody makes the training investment though.
>> >
>> > It's very doable if their 2k used to be sub 6.00.....
>>
>> Which leads to a question.
>>
>> Two guys in equal shape at age 25, both pull a 6:00 erg.
>> One guy(guy "A") stays in good shape until he turns 50 and can
>> pull a 6:25. Other guy(guy "B") stays in good health but doesn't
>> particularly train and slips to 7:10.
>>
>> Can guy "B" ever catch up if "A" continues to train?
>
> Probably yes, "A" is unlikely to get any better, "B" should catch up
> with the same training schedule.
Anton, Paul.
I'm really surprised. You guys agree that "B" will catch up
to "A" and I can't see why. You have both probably seen
it happen, so it's not that I disagree with you, clearly I don't
understand something.
"A" and "B" are both on the athletic decline generally, which
is why I agree "A" is not going to improve and over time will
actually decline.
If I were coaching "A" and "B" as college guys, then "A"
continued to train at a competitive level after college
while "B" did not, "A" would improve his cardio
physiology over time, particularly his VO efficiency and
his physical strength.
This will grow until he hits mid thirties or so.
If "B" started training competitively beginning 5 years
after college, he would improve very rapidly, but I
assert he would never catch back up to "A". "A"'s
cardio work over that 5 years built an efficiency that
"B" can approach but not catch. (Again, given
that they are equal athletes).
Before I go further, would you both agree with above?
The difference in this immediate scenario and the
one I asked last night was simply shifting the time
frame from guys aged 35-50 to guys 20-35.
This kind of stuff is hard to test because it's so hard
to judge who is an 'identical athlete'. I'm well aware
that there are rowers who will keep training stay
fit, crank out their respectable 6:30 erg, then some
guy their age comes along who never really trained before,
trains for a year or two and matches the score.
If "B" could take all that time off and still catch up
to "A" in their declining years, I'd be really pissed
off if I were "A". :^)
Mike
paul_v...@hotmail.com
Yes, lwt men 55 (unofficial WR holder at 6:32.7) and 56 (current WR
holder 6:40.8) years old. And there is even a 3rd (55, Former LM50 WR
holder) that designs his own training to the tune of 1000hrs a year (my
guys do about 1/3 of that) who is claiming to be sub 6:30. Though a
recent 6:42 at the BIRC doesn't seem to indicate such largess. Should
be a hell of a race in two weeks when they all end up at the same venue
in Amsterdam.
- Paul Smith
anto...@aol.com
You would be pissed off but....
Effectively A and B both have a ceiling on fitness. A is at that
ceiling and training will only maintain that level or very marginally
improve it. B has scope to rise to that ceiling. And, with an
established lung and heart, muscle bulk etc. from training years before
it is a catch up scenario.
Mike ...take me. I pulled sub 6.00.....just.....inthe past
Haven't trained in a long time maybe over 10 years. Bought an erg and
kicked off. First 30 mins was 2.08 rating 20!! ugly.... Paul...do I
know you?
3 months later, 30 minutes rating 20 is now 1.52. Target 1.47 in March.
It has surprised me how quick it came back.
So Sub 6.30 is on the cards for the Summer
paul_v...@hotmail.com
No, but I think 2-3 years is what it takes to get back on Par with CV
fitness, strength will come back even more quickly. Since they both
had trained to equal capacity at some earlier point in the past they
would reach the same point in the future. Now if they were identical
twins and one had not trained to a high level earlier, he would not be
able to "catch up" later. This is not my opinion, but something in the
memory banks from having read a study somewhere.
> The difference in this immediate scenario and the
> one I asked last night was simply shifting the time
> frame from guys aged 35-50 to guys 20-35.
>
> This kind of stuff is hard to test because it's so hard
> to judge who is an 'identical athlete'. I'm well aware
> that there are rowers who will keep training stay
> fit, crank out their respectable 6:30 erg, then some
> guy their age comes along who never really trained before,
> trains for a year or two and matches the score.
>
> If "B" could take all that time off and still catch up
> to "A" in their declining years, I'd be really pissed
> off if I were "A". :^)
>
> Mike
No need for A to be pissed, as the quality of life for them was likely
quite a bit better.
It's easier to stay in shape, than to get in shape. One of the things
I'm finding personally (I'm close to the B fellow) is that wringing out
the fat that had accumulated to the tune of 4lbs per year is a real
pain in the ass. I did everything I could to get up to 240lbs in
University, but it dropped back to 205lbs as soon as the longer OTW
stuff started, 5 years ago I went from 275 to 240 by starting up 8k Erg
Sessions, but have been relatively stable at 240 ever since (rowing on
the water mostly, but some Erg during flood season). Would really like
to at least drop another 20lbs, but the extra fat seems very stubborn
at the moment. Perhaps it's the mature metabolism that is causing the
problem. [;o)
- Paul Smith
anto...@aol.com
Weight Watchers
I jest not.........................
Nick Suess
"Carl" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message news:eknfrd$abr$2
> ................ Of course we have been & are quite active in other fields
> of boat design, & in the design of rowing accessories, including the
> AeRowFin, which makes steering a precision science & so empowers the cox.
> This unique steering foil was designed with the help of CFD methods, so
> that we actually could predict how it would perform before it was ever
> fitted to the Sydney 2000 GB 8+.
>
Now you're living dangerously!
No matter that you did all that unpaid work, and that they won some
prestigious but unnamed trophy of the metal that is mined in Kalgoorlie, I'm
sure that your juxtaposition of the word "Sydney" with the numeral "2000"
and the initials "GB" will bring the writs flying fast. You naughty, naughty
boy!
Paul
someone at 40 ish to get their 2k down from 7.05 to 6.20, especially if
they had once pulled sub 6.00, but mentally imposssible. I have seen
quite a few guys come back to rowing in their early 30s having put on
30 or 40 pounds and fail to get back to their physical best. I am
approaching 40 and have seen my 2k start to slip, I've only maintained
it by (I beleive) more heavy weights every year. But every year
training gets more of a mental effort, which can only get worse as I
get gradually weaker, missing traing, especially when the river is
flooded is not uncommon. Maybe it is possible, but despite the feats
described above, no one has managed yet.
anto...@aol.com
Re the weight...try L-Carnitine...500 to 1000 mg each day. helps access
fat.
paul_v...@hotmail.com
Opinions vary, but yep, I'm ugly. [;o)
> 3 months later, 30 minutes rating 20 is now 1.52. Target 1.47 in March.
>
>
> It has surprised me how quick it came back.
>
> So Sub 6.30 is on the cards for the Summer
If 30' R20 is just getting you over 8k at the moment, you are sub 6:40
for the 2k now, perhaps more like mid 6:30's. I don't do 30' R20 at
all, but regular "hard days" were at a similar pace when I pulled a
6:36 as an "old Fart". I found strength came back very quickly (500m
1:24), but endurance completely sucked (1k 3:06), and effected
everything longer than 300m quite severely. Even though the supposed
tail off is supposed to be strngth falling quicker than endurance for
the masters athlete, I think that has to do with the masters athlete
that stayed in shape. Putting in the CV base work, and getting the
body adaptations required for greater endurance seems to take longer
now, just as getting over a cold or injury does. Here's to injury free
training.
Cheers.
- Paul Smith
Charles Carroll
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.
Mike,
You come right to the point. No shilly-shallying, no ambiguous
qualifications, no hesitations. Just a clear, simple opinion.
Let’s see if I have this right. The differences between competent makes of
boats is very subtle and is really only relevant to an elite sculler. Is
this a fair summary?
When I posed the question I had a hunch that might be the answer. I only
raised the issue because of all the claims being thrown around by various
boat builders.
It’s probably not the best idea to try to sell boats by claiming they’re
faster then your competitor’s. That selling point seems to be largely
irrelevant to the vast majority of scullers, especially those like myself
who are at the base of Nick’s famous pyramid. Still, human nature being what
it is, I suspect that some boat builders will continue to claim that they,
and only they, possess the holy blueprint for building the speediest hull.
Moreover they will always find clients who believe them and purchase new
boats just because they think they are getting the fastest boat money can
buy.
When Sandy and I visited Staines Carl told the story of a client of his who
sold his old CDRS to his Double partner so he could buy a new Empacher for
himself. Carl said he did “a refurb” on the old CDRS. When the new owner
came to pick it up he was delighted. It looked like a brand new shell.
“All I did was polish it,” said Carl.
The new owner, however, was so pleased that he asked what he could do for
Carl.
“Do you ever race your Double partner?” asked Carl.
“Yes,” said the new owner, “we’re racing each other next weekend.”
“Just beat him,” said Carl.
And he did!
When Carl told me the story I couldn’t resist saying, “But we all know that
it wasn’t an old CDRS that beat a brand new Empacher, don’t we? It was the
sculler that beat the other sculler, right?”
Carl looked me straight in the eyes and smiled.
“Nevertheless,” I went on, “it must have felt very satisfying.”
“Quite,” was all Carl said.
Mike, it was great meeting you. I have been meaning to write for two weeks
now. I owe you at least a cup of coffee, and probably a beer.
I been working on the two of the points that we discussed: 1) making an
effort to balance high as I come down the slide so that the blades stay off
the water; and 2) at staying on the pins all the way through the Finish. The
latter is actually much more difficult than it sounds. But those times when
I succeed it gives me a much stronger and more natural finish.
By the way, thanks for the compliment. But I have to confess, I am not so
sure I know what you mean by “mechanicals.”
Cordially,
Charles
Mike Sullivan
>> The vast differences [between racing shells] 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.
>
> Mike,
>
> You come right to the point. No shilly-shallying, no ambiguous
> qualifications, no hesitations. Just a clear, simple opinion.
>
> Let's see if I have this right. The differences between competent makes of
> boats is very subtle and is really only relevant to an elite sculler. Is
> this a fair summary?
yes. In fact, I would guess that most scullers' satisfaction
with a single comes from other people's opinions of it.
"Oh wow, you got a ********!! Great boat!
I will re-state, elite scullers, scullers who've put on a lot of miles
trying to get fast will find definite things they like on one boat
over another, and in one set of oars over others.
>
> When I posed the question I had a hunch that might be the answer. I only
> raised the issue because of all the claims being thrown around by various
> boat builders.
>
> It's probably not the best idea to try to sell boats by claiming they're
> faster then your competitor's. That selling point seems to be largely
> irrelevant to the vast majority of scullers, especially those like myself
> who are at the base of Nick's famous pyramid. Still, human nature being
> what
> it is, I suspect that some boat builders will continue to claim that they,
> and only they, possess the holy blueprint for building the speediest hull.
> Moreover they will always find clients who believe them and purchase new
> boats just because they think they are getting the fastest boat money can
> buy.
That's ok. I'm a big fan of the placebo effect. Years ago at a
selection
camp, there were going to be some doubles racing in a workout. One stroke
complained about her rig, that she was too low. I had rigged all the
boats
and she definitely was not too low, but was unused to stroking a double
and was not releasing high enough. I wasn't about to go messing with the
rig that I'd checked, double checked, and where she might get switched out
anyway. I grabbed my tool box, made a bunch of noise on the rigger
and oarlock, and claimed 'yes, you were rigged pretty low. However,
now that I've rigged you up much higher, try to pull in higher, and
especially
release higher.
During warmup...: "how's it feel?"
"MUCH better, thanks".
I spoke to her later, of course, about my trick.
snip
> Mike, it was great meeting you. I have been meaning to write for two weeks
> now. I owe you at least a cup of coffee, and probably a beer.
I don't drink coffee, but I'm a cheap date for beer, in quality anyway.
>
> I been working on the two of the points that we discussed: 1) making an
> effort to balance high as I come down the slide so that the blades stay
> off
> the water; and 2) at staying on the pins all the way through the Finish.
> The
Well you're describing it a bit differently than I did, and I want
to make sure you didn't miss the point. (this is why I hate quick stop
critiques!).
What I intended for you was to release high and relax, not 'balance high'.
'Balance high' indicates an active motion or set of motions that sounds like
an effort to keep your blades off the water. Not what I meant. What I
meant was to obtain more height off water at critical release point, then
to practice simply relaxing. If the boat should fall to one side or other,
allow it to and just try to relax on the recovery.
balance comes with improved bladework.
> latter is actually much more difficult than it sounds. But those times
> when
> I succeed it gives me a much stronger and more natural finish.
>
> By the way, thanks for the compliment. But I have to confess, I am not so
> sure I know what you mean by "mechanicals."
What I said was that you had good body mechanics. It looked like you
had a good relaxed connection on the drive and the correct amount and timing
of body swing into bow.
We'll catch up again.
Mike
Charles Carroll
Mike,
I am not sure I know what you mean by "release high."
At the Catch I am trying to immerse the blades to the correct depth. This
translates into "deep enough to keep slippage at a minimum." When I succeed
the blades keep hold of the water. Carl talks about "entrainment," i.e. air
in the form of bubbles behind the blades. That's what I am trying to avoid
by immersing the blades a little deeper.
Next I try to suspend my weight from the oar handles and use this weight to
take the handles back evenly while staying suspended. Oar handles and seat
are connected. They start moving at the same time and speed until I start
opening my back.
Lastly I try to pull the oar handles as far back as they can be carried.
This translates at the finish into hunching over the shoulders, drawing in
the belly, and rowing the lower back out well. The phrasing is Fairbairn's.
The idea is to get the oar handles back as far as you can carry them.
I tend to finish too soon. Another way of saying this is that my weight
returns to the seat too early. I don't stay suspended on the oar handles as
long as I could. This is what I mean when I write that I don't stay on the
pins long enough.
When I manage to stay on the pins milliseconds longer I notice three things:
First, the blades stay in the water longer.
Second, my hands and body are higher when the blades release. The shoulders
are still hunched over, the belly is still drawn in, the lower back is still
rowed out, but in general the body feels more stretched out.
And, third, the blades release "naturally." I don't have to think about
tapping down the oar handles, or breaking my wrist. We discussed this. The
blades seem to pull out of their own accord.
I don't know. Does any of this make any sense? Or do you mean something else
by "release high?"
By the way, glad to know that you will be a cheap date. Hope you can
tolerate some of the Northern California beers. When we were in Cambridge we
went out with friends of Nick's. Nick's friend, who was buying the first
round, asked what I wanted. I said Guinness, and slapped down some pound
notes before he could reach for his wallet. The second round we were at a
table, had become very friendly, and he wouldn't let me go with him. When he
came back he proudly put a Pride in front of me. "Now, Charles," he said,
"have a real beer."
Cordially,
Charles
Mike Sullivan
>> What I intended for you was to release high ...
>
> Mike,
>
> I am not sure I know what you mean by "release high."
> And, third, the blades release "naturally." I don't have to think about
> tapping down the oar handles, or breaking my wrist. We discussed this. The
> blades seem to pull out of their own accord.
Half a blade is easy to release. just feather.
>
> I don't know. Does any of this make any sense? Or do you mean something
> else
> by "release high?"
Yes it makes complete sense. I just don't agree. I'm telling you to make a
more
deliberate motion to release the oar, just as there is a deliberate motion
to catch.
at some point in the recovery, the blade must be a full blade height
off the water. Achieve that height at the finish. That, by itself,
doesn't insure
good finishes, but that habit gives you a chance.
When rowers had toothpick blades with a lot of flex, a smooth
finish was possible by coming to the finish and holding/feathering
and pushing away. The feather by itself can have just enough downward
component to accomodate the delta in width between shaft and
handle.
Since Macons it was not enough, PLUS macons(and hatchets) are stiffer,
athletes
are longer and stronger, and require a release that requires a finish of
substance.
It is a challenging thing to learn, and will not be learned on RSR
from the likes of THIS bozo.
>
> By the way, glad to know that you will be a cheap date. Hope you can
> tolerate some of the Northern California beers. When we were in Cambridge
> we
> went out with friends of Nick's. Nick's friend, who was buying the first
> round, asked what I wanted. I said Guinness, and slapped down some pound
> notes before he could reach for his wallet. The second round we were at a
> table, had become very friendly, and he wouldn't let me go with him. When
> he
> came back he proudly put a Pride in front of me. "Now, Charles," he said,
> "have a real beer."
I've been around too many wine sippers here in NorCal to
be impressed. Nick's pal bought the round, that's the only
thing that counts.
There's a lot of ways of drinking beers. Company and context is always
the most important.
An icey can with oily finger stains contain some of the best beer
ever tasted.
Mike
Charles Carroll
> off the water. Achieve that height at the finish
Mike,
Ah! I get it! By "release high" you mean lift the blades higher off the
water at the release.
I'm slow. But sometimes I get there.
By the way, don't let those awful wine-sippers get to you; although I must
tell you that Sandy and I had a very nice Cab last night. It is not all bad,
you know. Indeed some of it can be quite nice.
Cordially,
Charles
Mike Sullivan
>> at some point in the recovery, the blade must be a full blade height
>> off the water. Achieve that height at the finish
>
> Mike,
>
> Ah! I get it! By "release high" you mean lift the blades higher off the
> water at the release.
>
> I'm slow. But sometimes I get there.
You're describing my rowing now.
>
> By the way, don't let those awful wine-sippers get to you; although I must
> tell you that Sandy and I had a very nice Cab last night. It is not all
> bad,
> you know. Indeed some of it can be quite nice.
They're thick in Kelseyville now. It's just a matter of
time before somebody tries to make wine sipping an
Olympic sport.
Charles Carroll
> make wine sipping an Olympic sport.
>
You mean it isn't? Why didn't somebody tell me? I am always the last to
know.
Charles Carroll
> >> off the water. Achieve that height at the finish
Mike,
Just to let you know that I went out and practiced "releasing high" this
morning. About two thirds of the way through my row I thought my wrists
might break off. But I did keep my blades off the water. Felt very good.
Thanks,
Charles