Michelle Guerette in Slow Motion
Charles Carroll
You may recall that we have had a couple of discussions about Michelle
Guerette's rowing technique. For anyone interested I have uploaded a slow
motion video of Ms. Guerette.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG9reew1TI0
I apologize for the poor quality of the video. It, however, does show off
Ms. Guerette's technique.
Needless to say I am interested in comments, if there are any.
Carl, you may be particularly interested to see how high Ms. Guerette lifts
her oar handles.
In my untutored opinion I think Ms. Guerette's technique is the technique of
a world champion sculler. She understands what to do with the blades, she
misses no water, she gets onto her feet to take the catch, and she stays
connected during the drive. She is an enviably powerful sculler.
Cordially,
Charles
Carl Douglas
Actually, Charles, I think we see that Michelle Guerette does _not_ "get
onto her feet to take the catch" but, rather, her blades enter & load
simultaneously with the start of leg extension. The seat is still
moving astern virtually to the point of blade entry, whereupon it seems
to me that the blades are loading rapidly. It is not too clear, but I
think you see more of a legs-led catch from the lady in red (blue boat)
in the early frames.
As regards hand/blade heights, I am most interested to see how finely,
during recovery, she judges levels to just clear the water & no more.
Note too that she lowers the hands as she squares, again just preserving
the blades' water clearance. Yet she is also an excellent rough-water
sculler, so she puts a lot of thought into this aspect of her technique.
Also evident is the complete lack of a so-called "tap-down". As must
happen in real rowing, the hands are drawn diagonally downwards into the
finish, then move away without further height change. As discussed on
various occasions in the past, a vertical tap-down with a square-blades
finish has to cause back-watering since, with her square-bladed
extraction, the hands must keep moving towards the bow until the blade
clears the water just to maintain the blades' necessary sternwards motion.
Very interesting - many thanks -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
A3aan
the catch and the blades go extremely deep during the middle of the
stroke (often related issues). Also, as Carl mentioned, she loads
pretty late, during the start of the leg phase. I don't really like
that catch, it is wasteful and maybe typical of a rower who has enough
power in the second phase of the stroke. Speaking of which, I think
her pull-through and finish are really good, and her blade control is
awesome.
But tell me, why are we discussing this?
A3aan.
> Email: c...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
> URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)
Charles Carroll
Is Ms. Guerette loading late? Carl writes that "her blades enter & load
simultaneously." So I am not inclined to say that Carl is arguing that Ms.
Guerette loads pretty late.
But I am also having trouble agreeing with Carl's contention that "her
blades enter and load simultaneously." I don't see it.
What I see is a sequential movement. Ms. Guerette arrives at the catch,
pauses, and during this pause lifts her oar handles up, and only after the
blades are entered to the correct depth does she begin to load them by
squeezing off the stretcher and oar handles. While you can see this in slow
motion, you can prove it in stop motion.
Let's use Kleshnev's definition of the catch "as the furthest point of the
handle towards the stern." We understand that this "point" is arbitrary
because we know the rowing stroke is not made of up points. But for the sake
of argument, can we stipulate that this is what we will call the catch?
So if you look at the video in stop motion you see Ms. Guerette arrive at
the catch and stop, meaning that she neither travels sternwards or bowards.
This stop, or pause if you will, lasts three frames. And during it, as I
have said, she lifts up on the oar handles to place the blades in the water.
The lift is very sequential. From frame to frame nothing moves except her
arms. She otherwise sits perfectly still.
I suppose one might argue that the blades are loading as they are entering
into the water. But I see her doing nothing to load the blades. Only after
her hands have finished lifting the oar handles does she start the move
bowards.
Now the thing I thought that would really interest Carl about this is how
deep she puts the blades into the water. Carl has argued, quite forcefully
in my opinion, that orthodox thinking about blade entry is simply wrong.
Orthodox thinking would not have us place the blades deep enough. No one
could say Ms. Guerette is guilty of such an error.
The next thing that interests me is how Ms. Guerette squeezes back for the
drive. She has just astonishingly good connection. Her timing is impeccable.
Her hands and feet are perfectly synchronized. Look at how the oar handles
and seat travel at the same speed almost until the legs come fully down. She
just recruits every muscle in her body to apply pressure to the pins.
Now consider her oar shaft. During the first part of the stroke you can see
it bend, storing energy that will become available during another point in
the stroke. In fact, you can see the oar shaft straighten out just before
the oar become perpendicular to her shell. But I do have a question about
this. Is the mid-point in the drive where you want this stored energy to
become available? If so, why? Isn't this where the blades stall?
Now let's go on to her finish. She stays deep almost to the very end. Then,
as Carl writes, to get the blades out of the water she pulls the oar handles
into herself on a diagonal. Only after the blades are out of the water does
she tap down, and only then very little.
Now you ask, "Why are we discussing this?"I find this interesting because
all the above points are topics that we have discussed in this group.
We all have our separate opinions about what constitutes a good stroke. But
living all over the world, as we do, we can only discuss these opinions. We
can't really illustrate in a boat what we think rowing is. But sometimes we
can find a video of someone rowing - in this case sculling - that
illustrates it for us.
Cordially,
Charles
mruscoe
> So if you look at the video in stop motion you see Ms. Guerette arrive
> at the catch and stop, meaning that she neither travels sternwards or
> bowards. This stop, or pause if you will, lasts three frames. And during
> it, as I have said, she lifts up on the oar handles to place the blades
> in the water. The lift is very sequential. From frame to frame nothing
> moves except her arms. She otherwise sits perfectly still.
I don't see any two consecutive frames around the catch where her seat
doesn't move. She not using much length to get the blades in, but it's
not a pause.
> The next thing that interests me is how Ms. Guerette squeezes back for
> the drive. She has just astonishingly good connection. Her timing is
> impeccable. Her hands and feet are perfectly synchronized. Look at how
> the oar handles and seat travel at the same speed almost until the legs
> come fully down.
Once her knees have straightened about 90 degrees, her shoulders are
moving back over the seat, so her handle and seat can't be travelling at
the same speed.
Carl Douglas
There's much in what Charles says with which I agree (but I'm a bit
bemused by A3aan's comments - were they tongue in cheek, or a wind-up,
Adriaan?). However, I'm with Mark R in some of what he says above.
Something folk trying to judge rates of oar loading at the catch may be
forgetting, & which should not be ignored, is that with only a side-on
view one loses all sense of the true geometry & movements occurring
around the catch position. If the catch is taken ~60 degrees ahead of
perpendicular, then for every 1 cm of apparent bow-wards hand motion
there's also an invisible 1.73 cm of inwards hand motion which you
simply cannot see. So the hands are actually moving twice as fast as
you think they are, the oar is rotating twice as fast & the blade is
loading up twice as fast as seems to be the case. That's an awfully
large difference between simple appearance & actual reality.
I'm not sure that any intrinsic merit can be attached to perceptions
that the shoulders & seat travel together for part of the stroke. Why
is this thought better than having some back rotation WRT the horizontal
plane? Aren't we again getting trussed up in the complete irrelevance
of the horizon to transient postures - just as folk do when arguing that
shins should be vertical & that shins past vertical indicates
over-compressing. The back is not being levered off some aspect of the
horizontal plane. What happens during the leg-drive phase is that the
angle between thigh & lower back is inexorably being opened up. So it
follows that the back & pelvis are not being "held firm", because the
only thing against which they genuinely could have been held firm was
the thigh alignment. And if you did do that, then you'd have to keep
the thigh/back angle constant, & that'd result in the farce of seat at
backstops & nose close to the shins - not a pretty sight, methinks!
So back alignment & horizontal location of shoulders WRT seat are, of
themselves, 2 rather meaningless concepts - beloved of pundits but of no
direct relevance, just passing artefacts of a far from simple series of
movements involving all parts of the body. The perceived alignment of
the back WRT the horizontal plane depends on the resultant of the
changing rate of opening of the angle at the knee & the changing rate of
opening of the angle between thigh & pelvis/back. Meanwhile, with the
back being a multi-jointed entity, itself mounted upon the pelvis, it is
hard & somewhat irrelevant to talk in prescriptive terms about the
pelvis & back as a single unit.
I hope that has thrown enough grit into the collective oyster to
generate at least a short string of pearls of wisdom, if not enough to
kit out a dowager duchess?
Cheers -
Carl
Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
sully
wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> You may recall that we have had a couple of discussions about Michelle
> Guerette's rowing technique. For anyone interested I have uploaded a slow
> motion video of Ms. Guerette.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG9reew1TI0
Thanks, Charles. These are still inferior training films, they don't
show enough, but since I was the loudest critic of many who proclaim
fast scullers as necessarily good scullers, I'll speak up here.
I've watched the vid a few times. It's important that you watch a
vid for what you see and not for what you expect to see because of
what the result a sculler obtained.
The finish.
The sculler gives up the finish of the stroke, basically from just
past the pin the hands gradually drop and the blade emerges little by
little so that the releases become easier to accomplish. In order not
to waste enormous amounts of energy throwing water, the sculler eases
on the pull through.
Use your stop and go button and click your way through from 37 secs.
At that point the hand draw is steadily downward in the boat. Sculler
has a deep bite on the water here, so good so far,
At 42 secs the blade emerges. her hands just past her knees, and her
elbows are not yet at 90 degrees. There is nothing wrong with a
roughly eliptical drive, it need not be exactly flat, but if the blade
is not buried, it is driving the boat at less effectiveness and is
either pushing water or not pushing at all.
'
Notice she has moved her body well past vertical at this point, though
there is slight motion afterward, the body motion to bow is gratuitous
since she is no longer connected to the water.
What's instructive is that at 44 seconds the blade is completely out
of the water and square, mvoing sternward as it feathers.
The sculler lays the oars on top of the water and holds the boat
briefly for steadiness, and the hands come away raising a bit, then
eventually lowering as she moves from a less critical area.
The hands never get close to the body on the drive, basically this
sculler has given up any upper body propulsion to the boat, There is
much more here that I won't tackle now.
Watch in every stroke where the scullers hands actually raise up or
lift after the release. This indicates a washing blade and having to
actually lower the shaft to the water in order to keep the boat
stable. You can see white water spraying from the blade as it's set
on the water at 45 secs and 1:01, and 1:31.
This is consistent with what I observed at the Olys.
Tere is every bit a vertical component of the release as there is at
the catch. Approaching the catch, the blade must go in quickly and
bury as soon as possible to apply pressure. At the finish the blade
must maintain pressure to continue to accelerate the boat and release
as late as possible. One can catch too early ":backing" the blade
in, or release too late, "backing water". In both cases, there is
ample negaitive feedback such that most every rower uncoached will
choose to row in the water or row out in order to avoid it.
This is classic washed out release, with an athlete who is sensitive
enough not to waste energy throwing water during it's execution.
The drive:
I consider this scullers leg drive and basic connection nearly
perfect. She has a deep bite on the water and is hanging skeletally
to the water. This moves the boat impressively. Here's an
interesting sequence.
Look at 1:17 to 1:28. The two scullers catch within less than a
second of real time to each other. the black semi circle above the
forestay of the featured sculler is lined up with the bow of the
sculler in the foreground. During the drive, the featured sculler
moves the boat two inches faster to
where both blades begin to emerge.
Charles, this is what we call hanging on the oar. Some rowers will
pull from the outset and use their upper body pretty much from the
catch and go fast, but what this sculler is doing is the most
efficient use of the body on the drive, using the most powerful
muscles in the slowest part of the rowing cylcle to put maximum
pressure on the blades wthout tiring the upper body.
The arms are quicker than the legs, and should be used in concert with
the body mass moving to bow to add impulse through the stroke. While
this sculler doesn't do that, she certainly wastes no energy on the
early drive.
Excellent.
The catch.
Catches are good but not great. If you look in the 2:41 range you can
see that at 2:40she's at full compression with the blades out of the
water completely. Click quickly and you'll see that there's still a
hint of sternward movement as the blades touch the water, excellent
coordination of movement.
As mentioned here before, she's rigged a good 2inches through the pin
as at the catch the pin is at her hip pointer, which with her kind of
reach affords a gentler catch entry. I would use this catch to teach
a tall sculler.
Excellent.
There's a hint of waste in the pickup, in about half the strokes you
see the arms bend slightly to feel the water, then as the legs really
drive they stretch. This is not every stroke, some pick up right
away. This is typical, though, of a not quite stable platform.
Recovery:
As pointed out before, The blades briefly balance the boat at the
release as shown by the whitewater, and the raising of the hands after
the release. During the recovery, the hands should drop at the
release, then cleaer the water on the recovery at the same height as a
full square blade so that there should be no hand dip to square. She
does lower her hands during the recovery.
An ideal recovery flattens out the acceleration curve over the
stroke, leave the body in the bow for an instant while the hands come
away, join the hands coming out so that the slide starts after the
handles cross the knees. This gives ample room for adding blade
height for rough water. This sculler is less than ideal, the legs
are starting before the handle is past.
That said, the latter part of the recovery is perfect, and is why the
catches are as good as they are. The arms are reached, the body
angle achieved before half slide coming to sterm, so that the last
movement to the catch is all compression by the slide. I'd use this
part as an example to anybody.
Exceptions:
At 1:01and 1:26 there are dramatic exceptions to my critiques of the
finishes of this scullers strokes. While not ideal, the finishes do
stay buried longer and you can see there is more body swing applied
during the finish, a longer body swing.
There is also a more definitive downward motion to release.
I remember you saying after a session with Gordon that you believed a
more effective drive would be to be adding arm pull overall to the leg
drive. Did I get this wrong? How does this compare to what the
sculler in video is doing?
Thanks for the vid. It's way too late!
Sully
Mike Sullivan
"sully" <s...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:5cabc64d-22dc-43eb...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
<sully>
Exceptions:
At 1:01and 1:26 there are dramatic exceptions to my critiques of the
finishes of this scullers strokes. While not ideal, the finishes do
stay buried longer and you can see there is more body swing applied
during the finish, a longer body swing.
snip
</sully>
big OOOPS. So much for careful watching of video (as he wipes
egg off his face). From :47 to 1:26 it is a different sculler, the Czech.
What a maroon. :^)
Thanks Bob!
Charles Carroll
I just sent you a rather large private email. It has 23 attachments, which
are 23 consecutive frames from the slow motion video of Michelle Guerette.
These come from the video on my computer before it was converted into a file
that YouTube would accept. I believe they may give a more accurate picture
of Ms. Guerette's catch.
What I see in the sequence of frames is Michelle's coming through the pins,
and then for several frames sitting there as she lifts the oar handles. I
don't see her hips moving bowards, although I do notice a slight pivot as
she lifts up on the oar handles.
It seems to me that from these frames one might argue that she even waits
until she has completely immersed the blades before she starts to squeeze
off the stretcher.
Isn't this kind of in line with how she has been coached?
According to Charlie Butt, Ms. Guerette's coach, "The catch is the point at
which the legs are compressed and the blade enters the water. The motion
needs to be smooth and relaxed, not necessarily quick."
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/fashion/22fitness.html)
This leads me to think that Ms. Guerette has never particularly obsessed
over "a quick catch," but at making her catch smooth and relaxed, and at
getting all the water she can.
Can you let me know if you get my email? And needless to say, I would love
to hear what you think.
Cordially,
Charles
JD
Thanks for posting this for us to chew on.
As for technique, I agree with Sully, especially regarding the finish,
in which Ms. Guerette doesn't hold the water as well as I might want.
With respect for Carl's admonitions about mid-drive depth, I think she
might be too deep and is finding her way put of the water by pulling
down and out before the end of the drive.. The catches are very
interesting. There is a great deal of vertical component or
"squareness" to the motion that I would not expect, but being a
women's single, the boat is not traveling nearly as fast at the catch
as the eights I am used to coaching. There is a slower blade-to-water
speed relationship than I am used to working with. The question to
ask here is this: How much check is she getting at the catch? That's a
different video for later.
Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. If Ms. Guerette’s technique is
not what many of us would call ideal, she is a testament to how
critical mental strength, fitness and race preparation are. Ms,
Guerette is not as strong as others indicate, certainly not in
comparison to Nekova who won in Beijing and Karsten who took bronze.
She is incredibly fit and likely a cardiovascular marvel in a field of
marvels. Moreover, she was extremely well prepared by her coach. She
let the other two beat up on one another and slipped in for the silver
- a great race plan. Ms. Guerette may have weaknesses we can see here,
but there is something important to be said about leading with your
strengths and capitalizing upon them. That alone reveals her
intelligence and will.
If it were not for these factors, which are unrelated to her
technique, we would not be having this discussion. Ms. Guerette would
just be another US sculler with technical problems.
JD
On Nov 10, 9:37 pm, "Charles Carroll" <charles_carr...@comcast.net>
wrote:
mruscoe
> Hello Mark,
>
> I just sent you a rather large private email. It has 23 attachments,
> which are 23 consecutive frames from the slow motion video of Michelle
> Guerette. These come from the video on my computer before it was
> converted into a file that YouTube would accept. I believe they may give
> a more accurate picture of Ms. Guerette's catch.
>
> What I see in the sequence of frames is Michelle's coming through the
> pins, and then for several frames sitting there as she lifts the oar
> handles. I don't see her hips moving bowards, although I do notice a
> slight pivot as she lifts up on the oar handles.
>
> It seems to me that from these frames one might argue that she even
> waits until she has completely immersed the blades before she starts to
> squeeze off the stretcher.
>
Charles, I got your email, although I didn't really think the frames
were any more useful than the YouTube video. It seemed to be the frame
you used to make your stop-motion video rather than frames from the
original. Anyway, that doesn't matter as I went back and looked at my
copy of the official FISA 60fps video.
Looking at that video, there are few frames where there's not much seat
movement, but to be honest that's not really any different to what
anyone else is doing. Watched at half speed, there's just a smooth
change of direction. By the time the blade is half buried there has
been noticeable seat movement, as there should be - the blade has to be
moving around the pin once it is in contact with the water, but that
doesn't tell you anything about the load.
I think the most noticeable thing about her catch is that she is
presenting the blade to the water quite early compared with some of the
other competitors.
Charles Carroll
Going back to the film and trying to look at it through your eyes, I
absolutely agree that the sculler gives up the finish of the stroke.
As you observed, at 37 secs into the film the sculler still has a deep bite
on the water. But at 42 secs, with the sculler's hands just past her knees
and probably a foot or more from her body, the blade emerges. It seems to me
that the sculler is clearly losing precious milliseconds which could be used
to keep pressure on the pins.
Do you remember? We had a discussion about this. You estimated, if I am
remembering correctly, that giving up the finish, as she did, may have cost
the sculler a second overall. A second was the difference between silver and
gold.
Gordon sent me an email about the film and has given me permission to quote
him. The following is Gordon's explanation of why she tends to give up the
finish.
"It is quite interesting to see the video of Michelle. Yes, she does raise
her hands rather high, well above her center of gravity and drives the
blades a little too deep as a result. You can see quite clearly that she
cannot hold that depth as the handles want to seek out her center and she
washes out slightly because of it. Once those handles start downward toward
her center of gravity, just as she is not strong enough to hold her hands
above her CoG, she is not strong enough to stop the downward path once the
handles find it and they just continue down to the end of the drive."
Carl contends that it is wrong to coach scullers not to place their blades
deep. Gordon offers a counter argument of what happens when blades are
placed too deep. Sometimes sculling theory is just damned confusing.
I have been thinking about this dialectic between Carl and Gordon and wonder
if it isn't possible to arrive at a synthesis. What if the sculler had made
some small changes in her rigging? Say she increased her outboard slightly.
Wouldn't this enable her to get the blade depth she desires without raising
her hands above her CoG? Or say she lowered the height of her oarlock,
wouldn't this result in the same, that is, desired blade depth while being
able to keep her hands in line with her CoG? Then again, maybe I am just
chasing windmills.
Now, as for the catch and the sternward movement as the blades are touching
the water, this I confess I cannot see. I do see, as I wrote to Mark, a
little pivot at the hips as she is lifting up the oar handles. But I am a
trifle uneasy at calling this either sternward or bowards movement. Perhaps
I am being too simple, but it seems to me that she just arrives at the catch
and then smoothly places the blades in the water. Only when she has the
blades at the correct depth, does she squeeze back to take the drive. I know
Mark thinks I am wrong about this, and probably if I had you or Mark sitting
next to me watching the video frame by frame I would see movement. But on
my own I just don't.
Now, for the last point, your question about whether I still believe that
you get a more effective drive by adding arm pull to the leg drive. Yes I
do. This has been my observation when I scull. But the phrase "adding arm
pull" is slightly misleading. My best drives are when I manage to stay
connected. By connected I mean when I can synchronized the movements of legs
and hands. To do this I have to stay braced. I have to bring my shoulders
down, low, away from my ears. Then I have to have them lock my lats into
place. It is true that when I pull I am using my hands and arms. But I am
also using my back and my abs and gluts and legs? Am I making sense? I have
never been able to explain this very well. It is kind of like everything
pulls at once.
And speaking of pulling, I've got to go. I can feel pull of dinner calling
me to come downstairs.
Cordially,
Charles
Ps. Here is one last comment Gordon made. It is about lift.
"As far as all this business about lift from the great angle of her entry
goes, I am not sure what to make of it; that is if the shell actually gets
pulled forward. I don't actually think it is all that important because, as
I see it, the main benefit of the lift is how it affects the blade, not so
much the shell. You can clearly feel the handles move into your fingers if
your grip is soft. Allowing this to happen, recognizing the "lift", makes
all the difference in whether the blades are locked in and you are therefore
working with the water (not ripping against it). I think Volker misses the
point when he says that this lift caused by her wide entry angle will not
benefit "Masters" because they are not traveling fast enough for any effect
is off base. Buernulli's principle works whether the airplane is taxing
around the runway or flying. The blade is still held by the water if you
allow it to be and not rip the crap out of it."
sully
wrote:
> Mike,
>
> Going back to the film and trying to look at it through your eyes, I
> absolutely agree that the sculler gives up the finish of the stroke.
>
> As you observed, at 37 secs into the film the sculler still has a deep bite
> on the water. But at 42 secs, with the sculler's hands just past her knees
> and probably a foot or more from her body, the blade emerges. It seems to me
> that the sculler is clearly losing precious milliseconds which could be used
> to keep pressure on the pins.
>
> Do you remember? We had a discussion about this. You estimated, if I am
> remembering correctly, that giving up the finish, as she did, may have cost
> the sculler a second overall. A second was the difference between silver and
> gold.
>
> Gordon sent me an email about the film and has given me permission to quote
> him. The following is Gordon's explanation of why she tends to give up the
> finish.
>
> "It is quite interesting to see the video of Michelle. Yes, she does raise
> her hands rather high, well above her center of gravity and drives the
> blades a little too deep as a result. You can see quite clearly that she
> cannot hold that depth as the handles want to seek out her center and she
> washes out slightly because of it. Once those handles start downward toward
> her center of gravity, just as she is not strong enough to hold her hands
> above her CoG, she is not strong enough to stop the downward path once the
> handles find it and they just continue down to the end of the drive."
No, I don't agree with that argument. There's lots and lots of
scullers who
don't row deep who wash out as well. I really don't understand what
it means for a blade to 'seek it's own level'. If you put pressure
on the blade,
water flow over the surface will stabilize it, but it doesn't matter
if the blade is at the surface or buried 5 inches further down.
If you get a deep bite with your blade, then toward the finish the
handles should drop a bit, but you can get a deep bite and finish the
stroke as well.
Scullers need to be taught to finish, to me that's all there is to
it. I don't think it's very easy to learn, it's doggone difficult to
teach. When you do change to finishing the stroke from not doing it,
the impulse on the drive is very different so you have to learn it
pretty much at each pressure and rate, the catch isn't difficult like
that.
Carl Douglas
This is turning into a fascinating virtual congress (no, I'm not talking
in Kama Sutra terms here!), moderated for us by Charles. I've read the
above, including Gordon Hamilton's most interesting remarks, & I've read
Sully's reply to this particular posting.
Here follow a few (?) points, but first let me propose that none of us
should start off by seeing the technique of Michelle Guerette in terms
of defects. She is a fantastically good sculler, in all conditions, so
most of what she does must be exceptionally effective. Better we try to
learn why she is so fast, rather than look for why she has got it wrong.
We may all have much to learn, beyond the revelation that each of us
sees something different happening between frames ;)
1. You only get hydrodynamic "lift" in response to an applied load on
the blade. It can't exist when there's no load, or there'd be a force
imbalance - which can't be.
2. "Lift" is a force which results when something termed "circulation"
occurs - a rotational flow element about the vertical axis is
superimposed on the flows running (at the catch) from tip to root. You
get tip-to-root flow because the blade is driven forward through the
water by the pin & rotates (relatively slowly) out from the boat
because, being angled ~30 degrees to the flow, that has to happen.
3. Circulation starts when the act of loading the blade changes the
flows slightly, starting from the tip, to introduce a rotational
component. The accelerated flow along the blade's curved back remains
attached due to the Coanda effect (flows tend to adhere to surfaces).
4. Bernoulli's principle defines the conservation of energy in a packet
of a fluid - the sum of its kinetic (= velocity), pressure & potential
(= height) energy must, without an external input, remain constant.
5. Bernoulli tells us that the velocity increase over the back of the
blade reduces pressure over that surface (actually only over part of it)
but hardly, or not at all, increases pressure over the face.
6. It is that pressure fall over the _back_ of the blade which provides
your main propulsive link with the water - lose it & you lose a big
chunk of propulsion, & stir water instead.
7. Efficient lift depends absolutely on the smooth & continuous flow of
water across the back of the blade. It is severely diminished if those
flow lines are deflected or restricted by the proximity of the water
surface. That is particularly so if the fall in pressure that is your
"lift" brings the water surface down enough to expose part, or more, of
the back of the blade - leading to partial or complete loss of lift.
8. That is the first reason for burying the blade _well_ below the
surface - preserving the lift generating flows & preventing the
destructive loss of blade back immersion (= aeration). And, contrary to
the 99% of popular belief, this incurs no drag penalties.
9. Gordon is right to say that lift does not affect the shell, only the
blade. Lift determines much the blade's effectiveness for boat moving.
Without fluid friction, lift would give a ~100% efficient connection
for propulsion, given a fully buried blade. Fluid friction reduces that
efficiency by a very small amount, but you still get a very good return
on investment.
10 The handles don't come into your hands through lift but by being
driven that way by the inescapable rotation of the oar around the pin
(see the end of 2 above). So there is no way to recognise the lift.
Indeed, lift provides the opposite reaction to that which would bring
the handles into your hands - it reacts against the force you apply in
the direction in which the handles are anyway going to move.
11. I do like the concept of working with the water, not fighting it.
We all want a smooth process since hacking the water about, or failing
to engage properly with it, are inimical to a full, un-aerated coverage
& the stable flows that the lift process requires.
12. Charles - you can't have a stroke without arm pull, whether or not
the arms are being deliberately or seemingly passively loaded, they have
to be pulling. The amount of active pull is a complex function of the
1/2-angle at the elbow & that joint's tendons' geometry; it starts at
zero for a straightish arm and rises only very slowly for the first
several degrees of bend. Nor can you even think of taking the stroke
unless the fingers are able to pull as hard as whatever load is coming
down the arms. Funny how all that massive leg drive we talk about has to
pass through maybe just 6 skinny digits....
13. With Ms Guerette's stroke, what matters is whether, within the time
& distance of hand movement during which her blade is immersed & pulling:
a) she is able to fully expend the energy she has available for one
stroke
b) she is distributing her loading through that stroke in the way
which maximises the integral of (local work rate x local stroke efficiency).
Without knowing her force curves, we can but guess. What is excellent
is that her blade is deepest where, at square with the boat, the
efficiency might be expected to be in decline, since that maximises the
blade's drag coefficient & reduces the possibility of blade aeration.
14. What those arguing for a less deep, less vertically curved, stroke
path may not appreciate is that vertical component of the blade motion,
both up & down, can much enhance the maintenance of hydrodynamic lift.
During the mid-stroke in a typical flat blade path you get the complete
loss of flow along the blade, & with it the loss of lift, while drag is
diminished by a sudden onset of aeration (the frothy puddle). Going
deeper not only prevents mid-stroke aeration but implies 2 vertical
elements to the blade path which, in turn gives back some flow across
the plane of the blade, restoring or sustaining some greater measure of
lift.
15. So there is nothing remotely wrong with the handle being drawn down
from the mid-stroke - it is inevitable, of course, but I cannot agree
that it is in the slightest way a failing, rather the opposite. To
argue that her hands come down because she lacks strength to keep them
there seem just a bit like arguing for the descent in mountaineering
being a bit of a failure after a successful ascent. What goes up must
come down, but in a proper manner. I think that's what this lady does.
16. IIRC, Volker Nolte used to argue for a very much front-loaded
stroke, even proposing that extraction occurred very early (in
conventional terms) to reduce the proportion of your work done in the
stalled & inefficient (in hydrodynamic terms) mid-stroke phase. You
could argue that what Ms Guerette is doing isn't so far from that.
17. Charles - how do you know when the load goes onto the handles &
blades? I referred in an earlier posting, to which no one rose BTW, to
the fact that a side-on viewer simply can't tell how much hand movement
is occurring near the catch. You see only fore-aft movement, & at the
catch most of the hand movement is directly away from the camera. I'm
going to guess that a fair amount of lateral squeeze (hands moving
towards each other) is going on around the times that you think nothing
much is going on. And, while that is happening, there is scant scope
for shoulders or anything more remote from the hands to be doing much
that will help to load the handles.
I'll stop there & see if we get some interesting reactions this time.
Charles Carroll
I will reply later when I have more time. But I wanted to let you know that
Gordon is going to be in London with CUWBC for the four's head on Sunday. He
asked if you were planning to be there. I told him I would let him know.
Warmest regards,
Charles
Mike Sullivan
"Carl Douglas" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7m2jm7F...@mid.individual.net...
> Charles Carroll wrote:
>> Mike,
>>
snip
>
> I'll stop there & see if we get some interesting reactions this time.
hurrumph! You mean the previous comments weren't at least interesting???
Richard du P
wrote:
Charles - CUBC, yes, definitely
[fascinating field in Elite coxed fours, and many of the twenty other
roughly simultaneous events not bad either]
- but I had a rather unproductive correspondence with CUWBC a month or
two back. To the best of my [ageing] recollection, our insistence that
any sweep crew had to demonstrate at least a modest record of previous
competitive achievement, proved the proverbial Bridge Too Far, and
they're staying in their tent?
Proud to note that their darker blue counterparts will be here.
Richard du P
Entries Secretary, Fullers Head of the River Fours
If it goes quiet at the substitution desk on Saturday, happy to sneak
downstairs and share a Fullers Honeydew with RSR correspondents
PS - no, you said "Sunday"! ..... Veteran Fours Head? ..... So CUWBC
is putting up [a] Veteran crews [b] quite low-status crews? ..... or
have I got that wrong?
Carl Douglas
I wasn't making comparisons! I should have slipped the word "more"
before "interesting". Then some touchy old grampus would rumble
something disparaging about my use of "more interesting".
:(
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Carl Douglas
Following the other feedback here, Charles, are you able to confirm it
is for Sunday?
Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Charles Carroll
Yes, Gordon wrote "in London with the CUWBC for the four's head on Sunday."
I'll send you his telephone number in a private email, and him yours.
I know you two have talked on the telephone, but Gordon thought it would be
fun to put a face to the voice. I suggested that he go down to Chertsey, but
he said that once he gets to Cambridge and starts coaching it is very hard
for him to get away from Cambridge. He is in the UK until the 23d.
By the way, I loved your reply to Mike and me, but I do have to study it
before I reply in return. I am puzzled, however, about one thing. Why isn't
anyone commenting on Gordon's contention that Ms. Guerette raises her hand
well above her CoG? One of the first things I was taught when I took my
initial sculling lessons is during the drive keep the oar handles roughly
level with your CoG. Has thinking changed about this? Is this just another
rowing myth?
I took some of videos of Ivanov that Peter Mallory put on YouTube, and did
the same thing I did with Ms. Guerette's videos. I re-recorded them in slow
motion. As you might guess, Ivanov is smoother, doesn't lift the oar handles
nearly so high as Ms. Guerette does, and it looks to me that he definitely
keeps the oar handles level with his CoG during the drive.
I could not possibly say whose "style" is better. I am not even sure it
matters. But the styles definitely are different. Chris Dadd says that he
tells his crews that "there are many ways to move a boat." I am beginning to
think that this may be the best way to think about "style," which may be
really only a matter of taste. Remember you school boy Latin? De gustibus
non est disputandum. But then again [...]
Cordially,
Charles
Charles Carroll
> is putting up [a] Veteran crews [b] quite low-status crews? ..... or
> have I got that wrong?
Richard,
I wish I could help, but you are talking so far over my head that I haven't
the faintest notion. I'll forward your post to Gordon and see if I can get a
reply.
Cordially,
Charles
Kit
The Vet 4s Head has for the past couple of years allowed IM3 & IM4
entries that were barred from the main event. So this sounds feasible,
Richard.
Kit
Richard du P
wrote:
Yes, sorry Charles, I'm too deep just now in UK competition admin. Kit
has resolved my confusion.
Two big races, over the same track, consecutive days .....
"Fours" - coxed, coxless and quad - on Saturday ..... including
several from the Great 8
"Vet Fours" - often older crews in the same boats [from all over the
country, and some from Europe] - on Sunday
Fullers Fours has an absolute limit of 550 entries, could probably
attract 700, so we ration sweep crews by setting a minimum achievement
level of 6 "points" [don't ask] per crew
Vet Fours has recently included some lower-status non-veteran events,
which attracted some of our unluckies, to the benefit of all
This year, I believe it's hit its own limit ..... maybe freezing out
some veterans!
..... so rowing seems to be in some sort of rude good health
Fullers Fours' 6-point minimum is not universally welcome,
particularly among university women [complicated reasons, but I know
who I blame]
- and thus it comes to pass that your friend's flagship boat is racing
[I'm now pretty sure] on Sunday, among veteran crews
Richard du P
Carl Douglas
Not sure about the precise relevance of the _height_ of your CoG against
hand height....
Let me state the bleedin' obvious on the balance of forces & moments in
a boat, & NB I'm dealing only with the static case whereas real rowing
involves dynamic reactions. These dynamics can swamp the simple forces
conceived of in the static & unreal models favoured in the rowing world.
We're held in a boat by our weight (the total force exerted by our mass
under gravity), acting vertically & apparently through our CoG but in
reality acting only at the seat & heels. Most of it is on the seat when
at rest. The vertical forces imposed by the heels & bum are exactly
balanced by opposing vertical reactions from shoe heels & seat.
When we pull, we apply a new force acting at handle level &
approximately (note that word) horizontally. That force is balanced by a
corresponding force where feet meet the stretcher (could be the ball or
heel of the foot, or in between), & its direction is not necessarily
horizontal either. Those 2 forces are opposed by reactions at the
handle & stretcher.
Because the 2 forces generated in pulling do not act through the same
point, they generate a couple or moment, tending to rotate the still
static body. That couple has to me balance by an opposing couple. This
opposition is provided by what appears to be a weight transference from
the seat to the feet - in reality no weight is transferred, but the
down-force on the seat reduces & that on the stretcher increases
correspondingly. The greater the separation of the hands & foot contact
points, the greater that couple will be so the greater the apparent
transfer of weight off the seat
As the load builds, the pull on the hands increases but exactly matches
the push on the feet (I said this was the static case!), & the greater
the applied couple - until you reach the point at which there is no load
at all on the seat. At that point you start to lift off.
And at that point you can pull no harder, not because you lack strength
but because you then come straight off your seat. That is the limiting
condition, & it makes sense of coaching advice to hang your weight on
your hands.
The significance of high hands (& of low feet, & of driving off the
heels rather than the balls of the feet) is that each of these increases
the applied couple for the same pulling load. So higher hands must
reduce the peak load you can apply at any part of the stroke. In this
respect it would not matter in the least whether your CoG was down at
seat level, or way up in the air somewhere - the effect would be the same.
Of course, as you extend your legs you increase the distance between
heels & seat, & also that between heels & your CoG, so you can pull a
lot harder without lifting off. But it is still possible to lift off
part way down the slide if you try hard enough. Fortunately, rowers
have sensitive rear ends which tell their brains when to pull no harder.
Or is that too much information? ;)
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Mike Sullivan
"Charles Carroll" <charles...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7m3qesF...@mid.individual.net...
> Hi Carl,
>
> Yes, Gordon wrote "in London with the CUWBC for the four's head on
> Sunday."
>
> I'll send you his telephone number in a private email, and him yours.
>
> I know you two have talked on the telephone, but Gordon thought it would
> be fun to put a face to the voice. I suggested that he go down to
> Chertsey, but he said that once he gets to Cambridge and starts coaching
> it is very hard for him to get away from Cambridge. He is in the UK until
> the 23d.
>
> By the way, I loved your reply to Mike and me, but I do have to study it
> before I reply in return. I am puzzled, however, about one thing. Why
> isn't anyone commenting on Gordon's contention that Ms. Guerette raises
> her hand well above her CoG? One of the first things I was taught when I
> took my initial sculling lessons is during the drive keep the oar handles
> roughly level with your CoG. Has thinking changed about this? Is this just
> another rowing myth?
I've not heard this. Can you explain or have Gordon explain why the handles
need to be level with CoG?
And how is Gordon defining the CoG in this context?
And yes, I thought I did address some of Gordon's comments, here again:
And both Gordon and JD asserted the following, which I have long heard of:
If you dig the blade really deep, it must inevitably pop up and wash out.
What forces do that? Oars do float, so there is going to be some force
tending to want to drive the oar up, but as you drive pressure against the
blade,
the flow over the blade far overwhelms this floatation. The only force I
can
think of is the scullers hands on the handle, and the direction they are
drawn
on the drive, and the flow on the blade itself that is affected by the pitch
of
the blade in the water.
I don't believe a sculler has any more likelihood of washing out from a
deep drive than a shallower drive.
>
> I took some of videos of Ivanov that Peter Mallory put on YouTube, and did
> the same thing I did with Ms. Guerette's videos. I re-recorded them in
> slow motion. As you might guess, Ivanov is smoother, doesn't lift the oar
> handles nearly so high as Ms. Guerette does, and it looks to me that he
> definitely keeps the oar handles level with his CoG during the drive.
I think the 30 sec vid is a better look than the race, unless Peter
put both of those up.
I can't really see who's smoother, though Ivanov's release bladework is
cleaner.
There are many components of 'smooth', clean bladework, a consistent
power application, a relaxed and disciplined recovery. I think outside
of the releases, Michelle looks very smooth, and as I said time after time,
the power application and connection exemplary.
>
> I could not possibly say whose "style" is better. I am not even sure it
> matters. But the styles definitely are different. Chris Dadd says that he
> tells his crews that "there are many ways to move a boat." I am beginning
> to think that this may be the best way to think about "style," which may
> be really only a matter of taste. Remember you school boy Latin? De
> gustibus non est disputandum. But then again [...]
Take the fastest woman sculler in the world, stick her in the lightweight
men's single event and she'll be 20 seconds behind the medals.
Do all of those men scull better than her?
Do they have a superior style?
Walter Martindale
wrote:
Interesting discussions from many.
Reminds me of the Rowing NZ Level 2 coaching course we were doing in
about 1999. The section of the class was "how would you use video to
help this crew improve" -
One of the coaches picked the crew apart.. they were hanging at the
catch, stroke was leaning out and her back was opening too early, bow
was shooting her butt and also leaning out too much. They were
missing water.
All true.
then he said "They'll never go anywhere, who are they?"
Well... It was video taken by me during a technique session when
Volker was coaching the 1991 world champion women's pair to help
eliminate their hesitation at the entry. They won the Olympics, too.
Look for what people are doing that makes a boat go well, then look
for ways to improve them. Do they row differently from our "model"
and still win international races? Does that mean that they're wrong,
or does it mean that our "model" doesn't cover some important factors?
W
Charles Carroll
>> did the same thing I did with Ms. Guerette's videos. I re-recorded them
>> in slow motion. As you might guess, Ivanov is smoother, doesn't lift the
>> oar handles nearly so high as Ms. Guerette does, and it looks to me that
>> he definitely keeps the oar handles level with his CoG during the drive.
>
> I think the 30 sec vid is a better look than the race, unless Peter
> put both of those up.
>
> I can't really see who's smoother, though Ivanov's release bladework is
> cleaner.
>
> There are many components of 'smooth', clean bladework, a consistent
> power application, a relaxed and disciplined recovery. I think outside
> of the releases, Michelle looks very smooth, and as I said time after
> time,
> the power application and connection exemplary.
>
Mike,
About an hour ago I uploaded the video in question to YouTube. I am sure the
particular footage is familiar to you, but the slow motion rendition may be
something you haven't seen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVxVisaz_nI
The way I got the video is as follows:
1) I found the footage I wanted from one of Peter's uploads.
2) I zoomed in on Ivanov.
3) When I was satisfied I had a good sequence of strokes, I re-filmed the
video in Slow motion. On my new camera this is a mode called SMTH SLW REC.
It is for recording fast moving motion such as golf swings and tennis
swings. About 3 seconds of footage is recorded as a 12 second slow motion
movie.
4) I then opened the slow motion footage in PowerDirector and re-recorded it
with PowerDirector's slow motion feature.
It came out nicer than I expected. What you will see is three slow motion
identical loops, followed by footage of the final 300 meters.
I burned a disc for David Lay. As an .AVI file on a television set it
actually comes out very nice.
Cordially,
Charles
Mike Sullivan
>>> I took some of videos of Ivanov that Peter Mallory put on YouTube, and
>>> did the same thing I did with Ms. Guerette's videos. I re-recorded them
>>> in slow motion. As you might guess, Ivanov is smoother, doesn't lift the
>>> oar handles nearly so high as Ms. Guerette does, and it looks to me that
>>> he definitely keeps the oar handles level with his CoG during the drive.
>>
>> I think the 30 sec vid is a better look than the race, unless Peter
>> put both of those up.
>>
>> I can't really see who's smoother, though Ivanov's release bladework is
>> cleaner.
>>
>> There are many components of 'smooth', clean bladework, a consistent
>> power application, a relaxed and disciplined recovery. I think
>> outside
>> of the releases, Michelle looks very smooth, and as I said time after
>> time,
>> the power application and connection exemplary.
>>
>
> Mike,
>
> About an hour ago I uploaded the video in question to YouTube. I am sure
> the
> particular footage is familiar to you, but the slow motion rendition may
> be
> something you haven't seen.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVxVisaz_nI
>
You're right, I hadn't seen that.
No bouys on course, Ivanov in the heat looks around to see if he's ok
in the heat. That's good "looking around" technique, times the
head turn with the finish of the stroke and doesn't skip a beat.
I can't believe what I'm seeing in the final clip. Is he really
blowing through a racing sculler there? That can't be.
I heard about Ivanov's legendary sprint, that he'd actually negative
split his 2ks, but it couldn't possibly be that dramatic.
Charles Carroll
> blowing through a racing sculler there? That can't be.
>
> I heard about Ivanov's legendary sprint, that he'd actually negative
> split his 2ks, but it couldn't possibly be that dramatic.
Mike,
Here is what Wikipedia says about Ivanov's legendary sprint:
"Ivanov won his first gold medal in rowing's single sculls event in 1956
Olympics as an 18 year old. He was in fourth place at the 1,500 meter mark.
With only 500 meters left, he began a devastating sprint, first catching
Poland's Teodor Kocerka, then American John B. Kelly, Jr. Finally, with 200
meters to go, he blew past fellow teenager Stuart Mackenzie of Australia who
had led the entire race. Mackenzie had momentarily stopped rowing and
according to his account Mackenzie believed that he had won the race. When
Mackenzie realized his error, he was unable to regain his form. Ivanov went
on to win by a 5� seconds."
I don't know who wrote the article. You certainly can't trust everything you
read in Wikipedia. No one, however, has challenged the above, and I see no
reason to doubt it. To make everything even more unbelievable, I have been
told that Ivanov had only been sculling one year when he made that sprint.
One year was all the experience he had as a sculler. Can this really be
true?
Anyway, glad you liked the video.
Here is something that you will probably fall off her chair laughing at. I
put the video together and burnt it before going to Sausalito this morning.
In the process I must have watched it, or parts of it, at least ten times.
So I go sculling and I "feel" that this is one of the mornings when I have
sculled better than I have ever sculled. When I got back to the Club I
wondered what was different. On the way back to San Francisco I realized
that I had not thought once about what my hands were doing, or feet, or
legs, or back, etc. The whole time I was on the water I was just replaying
that video in my imagination and thinking about how much I admire the way
Ivanov sculls. Go figure.
Cordially,
Charles
Charles Carroll
> split his 2ks, but it couldn't possibly be that dramatic.
Shoot! I forgot to mention that the final clip wasn't shot in slow motion or
doctored in any other way. The only thing that is different from the
original is that I just zoomed in a little closer on Ivanov. I have no
reason to believe that it isn't as dramatic as it looks. Pretty amazing!
sully
wrote:
> > I can't believe what I'm seeing in the final clip. Is he really
> > blowing through a racing sculler there? That can't be.
>
> > I heard about Ivanov's legendary sprint, that he'd actually negative
> > split his 2ks, but it couldn't possibly be that dramatic.
>
> Mike,
>
> Here is what Wikipedia says about Ivanov's legendary sprint:
>
> "Ivanov won his first gold medal in rowing's single sculls event in 1956
> Olympics as an 18 year old. He was in fourth place at the 1,500 meter mark.
> With only 500 meters left, he began a devastating sprint, first catching
> Poland's Teodor Kocerka, then American John B. Kelly, Jr. Finally, with 200
> meters to go, he blew past fellow teenager Stuart Mackenzie of Australia who
> had led the entire race. Mackenzie had momentarily stopped rowing and
> according to his account Mackenzie believed that he had won the race. When
> Mackenzie realized his error, he was unable to regain his form. Ivanov went
>
> I don't know who wrote the article. You certainly can't trust everything you
> read in Wikipedia. No one, however, has challenged the above, and I see no
> reason to doubt it. To make everything even more unbelievable, I have been
> told that Ivanov had only been sculling one year when he made that sprint.
> One year was all the experience he had as a sculler. Can this really be
> true?
That story is a lot more believable than if I were told Mackenzie were
rowing all out. It looks like he's paddling, an eight couldn't blow
by a single that fast.
I know nothing of Ivanov's history, but remember that in the 1950s,
training in all sport, particularly rowing, pales in comparison to
today.
Nobody trained year round then, there was more of a concept of 'the
season's coming up, better get in shape', than understanding how
consistent training improves the physiology over the years.
Arthur Lydiard, the great running coach was just getting his stable of
runners from Australia and New Zealand to train year round, and
developing the concept of aerobic training. US college eights were
winning the Olys every time, these guys had between one and 4 years
experience.
Charles Carroll
It is fascinating how sport has developed since we were children. The things
we know now that we didn't know then!
But isn't this a little like saying it is fascinating how the world has
developed since we were children? My two grandmothers grew up with horse and
buggies, but lived to travel on commercial jet airliners. And we have lived
to see the iPhone! And not only that, but we have a little more life left in
us. Who knows what we are going to see?
As for this young Ivanov, wouldn't he have been every bit a wonder today as
he was 1956? True, he could not have had the training then that he would
have gotten today. But how many people today, who after only one year of
training, would could match Ivanov's sculling? I don't know of any.
The young man was just gifted!
Cordially,
Charles
Carl Douglas
So you liked Ivanov's bent-arm catches & feathered extractions? ;)
You were dead right on the importance of feeling your sculling. If you
are always carving it into shape, piecemeal, there is a risk of it
becoming dead meat. When you absorb the sense of someone's flowing
action it may implant, like a piece of music, within your brain & you
can't then help playing it back (well, playing back a version of it)
through your own actions.
Great scullers are naturals, not the man-made product of coaching
engineering. They start off with great physical & mental advantages,
they have got to that pinnacle via a complex itneraction of physical
attributes, mental toughness, guts, training regime, coaching help & a
myriad other factors, & will not be too inclined to have their
techniques moulded. What they do in technique is only what they are
prepared to do & what feels right for them, & I'm sure that applies
whether it's Guerette today, Ivanov half a century ago or Hanlon over a
century back.
If these demigods are that fast, it doesn't necessarily mean that any
particular aspect of what they do is either especially right or dead
wrong. Each stage in their stroke's progression is partly pre-formed by
what was happening milliseconds earlier, so we should not be overly
forensic in analysing what may seem to us as easily identifiable
"features" in their technique. And we should be wary of imitating
exactly what they do.
Thanks, Charles -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Carl Douglas
> Charles Carroll wrote:
<snip>
Doh! I now see that Walter has already written a similar message,
perhaps rather better.
Thanks, Walter -
Zbigniew Andruszkiewicz
> I don't know who wrote the article. You certainly can't trust everything
> you read in Wikipedia. No one, however, has challenged the above, and I
> see no reason to doubt it. To make everything even more unbelievable, I
> have been told that Ivanov had only been sculling one year when he made
> that sprint. One year was all the experience he had as a sculler. Can this
> really be true?
I've looked up the Russian Wikipedia page of Вячеслав Николаевич Иванов
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Иванов,_Вячеслав_Николаевич
Born in July 1938. During childhood he was very active in all kind of
sports, mainly football (soccer), hockey, boxing and track & field.
In 1952 started rowing in a club Strelka, his first coach was I.Ya.
Demyanov, multiple champion of USSR.
In 1955 he won USSR championship in junior class and got bronze in senior
(elite).
In 1956 he won championship of Communist block, European Champs in
Yugoslavia, and Olympics in Melbourne.
In 1959 during Euro Champs in France he was first ever to row 2000 meters
below 7 minutes -- 6:58.
He won Olympics in 1956, 1960 and 1964. In 1968 he was preparing for Olympic
Games in Mexico but lost qualifying race in Russia.
--
Yours Virtually, Zibi