Sculling Finish
lpu0...@rdg.ac.uk
I'm getting back into my sculling again at the moment as I have a new
boat on the way and am really looking forward to using it over summer
(I'm aiming to complete the Boston Marathon in it after having done it
in a larger boat last year).
Anyway, since I've started the sport, I've always had trouble with my
finish. I did a bit of sculling as a junior but moved into sweep after
a couple of months and almost all the sculling I've done since then
has been self taught. My basic problem is that I square out of the
water, often leading me to get stuck in with one blade or the other at
the finish. I do this in all sculling boat classes so It's not like
it's a problem with being worried about the balance in a single, as I
do it in quads. This confuses me a bit as I can sweep row both sides
and finish cleanly without any problems.
I find square blade work in a scull quite difficult, but I've been
making myself do it to try and get used to finishing cleanly, however
as soon as I go back to feathering my blades I'm back to my old tricks
again.
I also bend my wrists a lot to feather, which I know from all the
books I've read (Art of Sculling, Rowing Faster, Sculling by Paul
Thompson) is wrong. I should be using my fingers more, but again, I'm
really having trouble grasping the idea of rolling my fingers to
square - it seems quite counter intuiative to me!
If anyone's got any exercises you think would be good to help me with
either of these problems, that would be very much appreciated. I know
it's something that's going to take a lot of repetitions to correct as
my bad technique's pretty much drilled in, but the sooner I start the
sooner I'll reach the day when it's corrected.
Cheers,
Simon Barbour
Chris Kerr
Bending your wrist and feathering out are related problems - if you drop
your wrist when you feather, your oar handle does not go down as far as it
would if you kept your wrist straight, so your oar stays in the water for
too long.
Depending on the sleeve of the oar and the tightness of the oarlock, it can
be difficult to feather just by rolling your fingers - in this case, you
need to push with your thumb at the same time as your roll your fingers.
You get blisters on your thumbs for a while, until they toughen up, but at
least you don't screw up your wrist.
Carl
Most things in rowing are somewhat counter-intuitive.
I suspect your problem arises from worrying about your extraction. A
good finish is pulled hard, right to the end &, when it is pulled hard,
it extracts easily. In fact, a hard finish cannot get stuck.
It may be that, thinking you'll get stuck, you take the work off before
the finish - either deliberately or through pre-occupation. And that
creates every possibility that you'll get caught as water washes back
over the unloaded blade. If you do this most with the blade which seems
most to get trapped, that will ensure you have a difficult, unbalanced
finish.
To cure it? Show yourself that a hard finish extracts cleanly.
How? Just take a single stroke, as hard as you possibly can. But
_don't_ try to extract. Nor let the hands go away from the body. Just
draw the blades as hard as you possibly can, all the way to the finish,
& let them pop out. Remember - _don't_ push the hands away! Just let
the blades skim along the water & sit theree at backstops.
Yes, the blades will extract. But I bet that you'll find it very hard
not to push the hands away?
It is in that push away that your problem may lie. Fearing a caught
finish, you may already be pushing before you've finished pulling,
thinking that the quicker you can get the finish over with, the less
time there'll be for you to get it caught. But a blade can only extract
reliably if the load is maintained right to the end. If you push it
away before it is out of the water, the water must inevitably over-flow
it, & when that happens the blade sticks in the water.
I suspect you've have had someone tell you to quicken your finish, or
that the finish is the least secure part of the stroke? Well, if so
they were dead wrong. Sit at backstops, hands drawn to the body,
leaning back normally, blades feathered: does that feel insecure? I
doubt it. Now imagine the boat's moving fast forward while you're in
that position: is there any way, except if you over-feather, that either
blade can possibly get caught? No - because, if there is any solid
impact on a blade when trailing like that, you just let the handle move
a bit past the body & whatever was caught is now free, & your hand
returns to where it was.
Give it a go, & let us know the result.
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)
Caroline Smith
> books I've read (Art of Sculling, Rowing Faster, Sculling by Paul
> Thompson) is wrong. I should be using my fingers more, but again, I'm
> really having trouble grasping the idea of rolling my fingers to
> square - it seems quite counter intuiative to me!
I'm no expert, but there was an article on this in the last Rowing News I
got so I thought I'd pass on what it said...
As an alternative to either dropping your wrists to feather, or rolling out
your fingers, they suggest what I describe as "feathering from the
knuckles".
The shape of the movement is essentially the same as the movement you'd make
with your wrist (bringing the back if your hand up to be almost
perpendicular with your forearm), but you do it at the first set of knuckles
instead, lifting the lowest joints of your fingers to be almost
perpendicular with the back of you hand. Does that make sense?
I've not had a chance to try it yet (I only scull *very* occasionally) or
get anyone to try it while I watch from a launch, but from messing around
with it on land, it feels a lot more secure than unrolling the fingers.
Has anyone else tried this, or just seen the article and have an opinion?
Caroline
mpru...@hotmail.com
wrote:
I skimmed through that article, and thought that it was just a proper
desciption of how to roll it out in your fingers and not some other
method?
carol...@aol.com
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you've been doing mostly sweep oar rowing, I expect you've been
taught to keep your elbows close to your sides at the finish. If you
do this when sculling, you probably finish with your elbows lower than
your wrists, which makes it quite difficult to tap down. Try
sticking your elbows out so that your forearms are horizontal at the
finish, which should give you more room to get your hands round.
As for rolling the fingers to feather and square - practice makes
perfect. But are your scull handles the right size? You may need
smaller ones. And make sure you keep your thumbs over the ends, as
that helps.
Caroline
Mike Sullivan
<lpu0...@rdg.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:1177260231.4...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Hi everyone
>
snip
> I also bend my wrists a lot to feather, which I know from all the
> books I've read (Art of Sculling, Rowing Faster, Sculling by Paul
> Thompson) is wrong. I should be using my fingers more, but again, I'm
> really having trouble grasping the idea of rolling my fingers to
> square - it seems quite counter intuiative to me!
I don't know what these particular books say off hand, and
I don't know what 'a lot' is in your case, but using your
wrists to feather is correct.
The wrists should be flat as you squeeze toward the body,
the hands give a downward push on the handles and
the wrists break to begin the feather. The hands should
be relaxed and open up, the last half of feathering happens
'by itself' based on the momentum of the feathering action
your wrists have imparted already.
KC
Of all the responders so far, I agree most with Carl (sorry Sul, but you
knew that.) First of all, square-blade drills are fine-and-dandy for
some things, of which learning a good release is not one. Forget the
square-blade drill for learning a good release. Forget about the phrase
"tap down". There is a tiny bit of "tap down" in a good release, but it
should be an almost unconscious part of the motion, not a deliberate action.
We used to do a "pause at the release" aka "lie at the finish" drill
(and I still coach it) very similar to Carl's one-stroke suggestion.
You take a long hard stroke, and let the blades turn and lie on the
water (good flat water is helpful for this drill, but not for the
ultimate execution of the technique). You then sit at the release,
blades trailing on the water, with ZERO weight of the hands on the oar
handles. The keys here are: to feel the blades release themselves, and
feel the even/level set you get with such a release, and to learn WHERE
the handles are in that position. Repeat it: take a stroke, lie at the
finish. ALWAYS remembering to keep weight off the handles, and just let
the blades sit freely on the water. ZERO vertical motion or pressure on
the handles throughout the release & feather. Your hands only keep a
sternward pressure on the handles, NO VERTICAL pressure. Slowly, the
water will train your hands on the proper feathering motion & timing.
As you get more comfortable with the drill, shorten the pause between
strokes, until it is almost gone, and you are rowing almost
continuously. Then, as you transition to continuous rowing, you'll
notice that the blades don't lie on the water any more, for you will
naturally push away and slightly down on the handles. In rough water,
you push down slightly more, but again, this is instinctual, not deliberate.
Extracting the blades fully square and THEN feathering (as most people
seem to do) is unnecessary and unstable, and not any faster or cleaner.
Forget about extracting square and learn to feel the water more at the
release.
-Kieran
Mike Sullivan
"KC" <kc_...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:f0iu70$g08$1...@prometheus.acsu.buffalo.edu...
> lpu0...@rdg.ac.uk wrote:
>> Hi everyone
>>
snip
> Of all the responders so far, I agree most with Carl (sorry Sul, but you
> knew that.) First of all, square-blade drills are fine-and-dandy for some
> things, of which learning a good release is not one. Forget the
> square-blade drill for learning a good release. Forget about the phrase
> "tap down". There is a tiny bit of "tap down" in a good release, but it
> should be an almost unconscious part of the motion, not a deliberate
> action.
Kieran knew how to avoid taking me on in
this subject last time we got together by simply
asking how my kids were doing. Good way
to get me off track! :^)
Later in your post you use the term 'instinctual' rather
than 'unconscious'. Either of those terms fit movements
made that are either helpful toward boat moving or
detrimental, and just describe a motion that has been
patterned in.
Indeed, rushing the slide can be said to be instinctual
since we have to spend a lot of time teaching people
to be deliberate about slide control. No?
Steven M-M
said it would. The only way I could prevent the effortless feathering
was to tightly grip the handles. I found that I did not need a hard
stroke; worked well with a relatively gentle stroke. Steven M-M
Walter Martindale
> lpu0...@rdg.ac.uk wrote:
(snip)
I should be using my fingers more, but again, I'm
>> really having trouble grasping the idea of rolling my fingers to
>> square - it seems quite counter intuiative to me!
Carl wrote:
> To cure it? Show yourself that a hard finish extracts cleanly.
> Give it a go, & let us know the result.
>
> Cheers -
> Carl
>
Other things - since you're asking about rolling to square - A couple of
things you can try.
On land - with a piece of dowel or tubing about the same size as a
sculling handle, place the dowel on a table with the "handle" hanging
off the edge. Place your hand on the dowel in a normal sculling grip
such as during the recovery - wrist in a neutral position, handle under
the second joint from the fingertips, fingertips holding lightly -
imagine that all you're doing is balancing the weight of the oar off the
water. Roll the dowel along the table by curling your fingers around to
a proper "squared" grip.
Take it to the boat - the recovery blade height should be (my opinion,
anyway) high enough off the water that you could square without having
to take the blade any farther from the water. If this is the case, you
should be able to go from feathered to squared by simply rotating the
shaft about it's axis, and still be sufficiently high enough off the
water to not need to lower your handle/raise your blades. Then - curl
your fingers over the handle, attempting to keep the shaft height the
same. If you tic the water whilst squaring, keep the blade higher next
stroke and try again, as you've probably lowered the blade/raised the
handle during the recovery.
When you initiate the feather at the release, some wrist action may be
inevitable to START the motion, but allow a relaxed enough grip to let
the momentum of the blade carry it the rest of the way to the feather,
relax the hands/wrists enough to resume the wrists "neutral" with the
handle balanced under that second set of finger joints from the finger
tip. The handle should be gripped only tightly enough to avoid disaster
- on calm water with good balance, you should be able (as an exercise)
to completely straighten your fingers and use our hands simply as
counterweights for the handles, before re-grasping to curl your fingers
over the shaft to square the blade.
Clear to me, but then I know what I mean - not necessarily what I'm
talking about...
Walter
Mike Sullivan
wrists at finish, not looking at other parts of stroke here.
I have no idea who these ppl are, btw.
this one's excellent, you can see he's begun but not completed his feather.
I expect
by the time his feather is completed, his hands will be more opened.
http://www.rowperfect.co.uk/news/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/Sculling%20book%20cover.jpg
The photography is a bit blurry, the handle definitely dropped
and wrists break:
http://www.teesrowingclub.co.uk/photos/BRT_Sculling2.jpg
http://www.wycliffe.co.uk/senior/prospectus/images/images10.jpg
I know all about finger roll releasing, I used to do it myself
and swore by it.
I betcha there are plenny fast scullers who row that way.
wrist break is marginally better because it works well
with the downward movement the handle must do if
it is to clear the water from a buried position. No need
for downward motion on the handle at the release if
you've already done it on the finish of the drive!
It's also nice on the rollup, just flatten the wrists.
While you folks are all correct that you need to drive
right to the finish to get a good release, a component
of driving to the finish is that the path of the oar handle
stay up so the blade stays buried at the finish - a very
rare event anymore in sculling.
flat releases encourage washed finishes.
KC
Very rare because everyone thinks they must extract the blade square!
> flat releases encourage washed finishes.
Noooo... square releases encourage washed finishes, and that's a fact:
In order to extract a blade that is square, you must begin dropping the
hands while still pulling on the oar, there's absolutely no other way to
do it. Thus, you are washing out. With a flat release, you pull all
the way to the finish fully buried. The release happens as the rower
stops pulling.
-KC
KC
Walter,
I'm surprised that you think the blades should be high enough to be
squared at all times during the recovery. What is the benefit of this?
If the blades are kept closer to the water, the balance is more
stable. A quick drop of the hands to square with a quick lift of the
arms to catch is all that's needed to clear the water for the catch.
Carrying the blades so high is only necessary IMO, in rough conditions.
If the water's flat, keep the blades close.
-KC
Mike Sullivan
> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>> Some examples of hands and wrists at finish, look at hands and
>> wrists at finish, not looking at other parts of stroke here.
snip
>> While you folks are all correct that you need to drive
>> right to the finish to get a good release, a component
>> of driving to the finish is that the path of the oar handle
>> stay up so the blade stays buried at the finish - a very
>> rare event anymore in sculling.
>
> Very rare because everyone thinks they must extract the blade square!
few scullers do it. Most extract flat after washing out.
The blade doesn't have to completely clear the water before feathering,
but the first impulse is down to release, and the release should be
the highest point of the blade off the water on the recovery.
>
>> flat releases encourage washed finishes.
>
> Noooo... square releases encourage washed finishes, and that's a fact:
You have to learn two things, both to finish deep and to release
well. I agree with you that square blade rowing will encourage some
poor rowing practices, but that's why you have to learn this stuff.
Any kind of "drill" can encourage some bad practices when not
properly integrated with the lesson you're trying to learn.
> In order to extract a blade that is square, you must begin dropping the
> hands while still pulling on the oar, there's absolutely no other way to
> do it. Thus, you are washing out. With a flat release, you pull all the
> way to the finish fully buried. The release happens as the rower stops
> pulling.
We've been here before. Bury your blade at the finish in static
place where the blade is supposed to end up when you stop
pulling. Where does the handle go to get out of the water, down,
or away?
and as far as the rough water vs flat water, you should only have
to make a minor adjustment to row in rough water to just keep the
oars high after the release, you shouldn't have to change your release
based on the conditions. By the way, stroke seat in a quad or
double is ALWAYS rough water.
Similarly, you can adjust your roll up in a strong headwind.
lpu0...@rdg.ac.uk
useful. I'm obviously nowhere near getting the release where I want it
to be yet, but I found I was getting sucked under less at the finish
once I just pulled through hard at the finish and relaxed out. Still
not getting very far with the squaring, but hopefully I'll start to
make inroads with practice.
Interestingly, I was lucky enough to be coached by our director of
rowing's father in our eight leading up to the eights head, Sid Rand,
who I believe was a GB single sculler in the 56 and 60 Olympics. He
said exactly the same thing about not square blading at the finish and
trying to feel the water and almost just let the blade feather out. It
certainly seemed to make for a more smooth release and helped with the
rhythm. Having been taught that in a sweep boat it seems logical to
apply it to a scull too.
Thanks for the drill too Kieran, I'll try it when I next get out.
Just for interest, what is everyone's preferred setup with the gates -
level or one higher than the other? The boats at my home club of
Bewdley were all set up with level gates as a junior, then jumping
into uni boats I found they were set with the bow side gate higher.
Although it took me a while to get used to the switch, not having to
level my hands out as much at the catch etc, I prefer rowing with the
gates apart. However some of the Bewdley old guard have informed me
that rigging like that is tantamount to cheating, and remarkably bad
form!
KC
Mike please tell me you don't teach and practice the release relative to
a static condition? The whole POINT is that the water is moving wrt the
boat and blade, and we can use this fact to make an easy, clean release.
> and as far as the rough water vs flat water, you should only have
> to make a minor adjustment to row in rough water to just keep the
> oars high after the release, you shouldn't have to change your release
> based on the conditions. By the way, stroke seat in a quad or
> double is ALWAYS rough water.
But not in a four or eight? ;-)
> Similarly, you can adjust your roll up in a strong headwind.
Agreed, that it's just an adjustment of technique, but it still helps to
practice in those conditions. DYH used to hate to coach us in rough
conditions, so he hardly ever did. As a result we were poor rough water
racers.
-KC
Mike Sullivan
> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>> "KC" <kc_...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> news:f0luq7$fos$1...@prometheus.acsu.buffalo.edu...
>>> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>> We've been here before. Bury your blade at the finish in static
>> place where the blade is supposed to end up when you stop
>> pulling. Where does the handle go to get out of the water, down,
>> or away?
>
> Mike please tell me you don't teach and practice the release relative to a
> static condition? The whole POINT is that the water is moving wrt the
> boat and blade, and we can use this fact to make an easy, clean release.
Yes I do absolutely. It's the hardest position to learn from
but it's where it makes all the difference.
So here is a question. Is the release a horizontal, or vertical
motion?
>
>> and as far as the rough water vs flat water, you should only have
>> to make a minor adjustment to row in rough water to just keep the
>> oars high after the release, you shouldn't have to change your release
>> based on the conditions. By the way, stroke seat in a quad or
>> double is ALWAYS rough water.
>
> But not in a four or eight? ;-)
You can get away with flat releases more easily in a four
or eight (and certainly in a pair or single) because
the puddle settles more, and ppl who release flat
can still raise their blades lower later in the stroke to
miss sweep puddles.
We've been here before, but just in case anybody's listening.
there has to be a vertical component of at the very least
of a square blade and more off the water at some point of the
stroke, else you would not be able to get your blade square
before the catch.
I insist that all the vertical component happens at the release.
You must get a square blade width off the water at the release
point. At that point, it is imperative that you relax and rest,
be disciplined on the order away and slide control, but that you
should not balance your boat. A good finish will establish
a strong platform in the niftiest single that will feel like you're
sitting on an aircraft carrier.
If you release low, then you are pushing down on the handles
at indeterminite times that you must work out with each individual
crew and each individual condition based on who knows what
and you are always adjusting, rather than just relaxing and resting.
In rough water, you have already the height you need.
This technique doesn't prevent you from being more
clever with your bladework, and staying close to the
water in glassy conditions.
At the bare minimum, though, the highest point is the release
at the most critical balance point, then over the recovery
the blade seeks the water.
The reason low releases seem more comfortable is because
there is an automatic pontoon out there to protect a mistaken
or poor release on one side or other. Mitigation of mistakes
is not how you correct mistakes.
>
>> Similarly, you can adjust your roll up in a strong headwind.
>
> Agreed, that it's just an adjustment of technique, but it still helps to
> practice in those conditions. DYH used to hate to coach us in rough
> conditions, so he hardly ever did. As a result we were poor rough water
> racers.
No point in coaching in rough conditions. Race.
flat water teach
rough water race
David Biddulph
news:1177460916....@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
...
> Interestingly, I was lucky enough to be coached by our director of
> rowing's father in our eight leading up to the eights head, Sid Rand,
Nearly right. Sid did the single in Rome, but in Stockholm he had done the
double sculls:
(S C Rand and W H Rand).
--
David Biddulph
Rowing web pages at
http://www.biddulph.org.uk/
Carl
<snip>
> While you folks are all correct that you need to drive
> right to the finish to get a good release, a component
> of driving to the finish is that the path of the oar handle
> stay up so the blade stays buried at the finish - a very
> rare event anymore in sculling.
>
I would never advocate that you do not hold the finish in (apologies for
the double negative!). Indeed, you can't draw a hard finish unless you
have something hard against which to pull.
The beauty of not mentally complicating the finish with silly things to
do with the hands, fingers, blades, etc., is that it all becomes
self-explanatory. Once you have learned that a deep, solid finish is
self-extracting, you have little or no need of all the technical advice.
This is the fundamental problem: we deeply overcomplicate a simple task
by convincing the sculler or rower that the finish is tricky, highly
technical & full of snares which are potentially dangerous to the health
of the unwary. In short, we kid ourselves that it is a most demanding
task which can only be handled well by those who can also juggle a dozen
eggs while riding their unicycle along the edge of a crevasse.
Well, I got news! Rowing is fundamentally simple, mentally undemanding
& intensely repetitious of a very few mind-bendingly simple operations.
How else could the athletic incompetents who make up a large
proportion of rowers (I speak as one of them) become passable rowers in
the space of a few 30-minute outings? Try reaching the same level of
passability in so short a time in gymnastics or ice dancing!
> flat releases encourage washed finishes.
Nah! The shallow finishes of those who haven't been told to pull hard &
deep at the finish will wash. As will the finishes of those who are too
keen (or have been coached to be too keen) to get onto the next stroke.
lpu0...@rdg.ac.uk
I thought i'd written a reply to this last night, but it must have
failed to send or something. Anyway Carl, your coaching on the finish
really helped, obviously I'm no where near where I want to be yet but
I found myself getting sucked under a lot less when I just relaxed and
pulled all the way though. Interestingly, although I've always rowed
with very fast hands in sweep, they're a lot slower when I scull, it
just seems more natural that way.
Many thanks for the exercise Kieran, I'll give it a pop the next
chance I get. We were coached in our eights head boat not to think
about tapping down as much as almost squaring against the water -
feeling the squeeze right through until the last minute then releasing
the blade into the gap left behind it (but obviously with enough
clearence to avoid clipping the water), so it would seem logical to do
the same thing whilst sculling.
Just for interest, how does everyone here set up their boats, with the
gates level or with one higher than the other? I sculled at Bewdley
before going to uni with my gates level, but coming to Reading all the
sculling boats are set up with the bow side gate around 1cm higher
than stroke side. Although it took a while to get used to, I
definately prefer my gates rigged apart. However, some of the old
guard at Bewdley have told me that rigging like this is tantamount to
cheating and remarkably bad form!
Chris Kerr
Lowe Double Sculls). Unfortunately it wasn't quite enough to win me the
Colquhouns, although I did go 20 seconds faster than I did in Freshers'
Sculls last year. Thanks for the tip!
Mike Sullivan
"Carl" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f0n80f$g2p$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> Mike Sullivan wrote:
> <snip>
snip
> Well, I got news! Rowing is fundamentally simple, mentally undemanding &
> intensely repetitious of a very few mind-bendingly simple operations.
except for the part where "most things in rowing are
counter-intuitive" (CD a couple days ago)
:^)
KC
> "KC" <kc_...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:cwyXh.8249$oo5.6013@trndny06...
>> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>>> "KC" <kc_...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> news:f0luq7$fos$1...@prometheus.acsu.buffalo.edu...
>>>> Mike Sullivan wrote:
> snip
>
>
>>> We've been here before. Bury your blade at the finish in static
>>> place where the blade is supposed to end up when you stop
>>> pulling. Where does the handle go to get out of the water, down,
>>> or away?
>> Mike please tell me you don't teach and practice the release relative to a
>> static condition? The whole POINT is that the water is moving wrt the
>> boat and blade, and we can use this fact to make an easy, clean release.
>
> Yes I do absolutely. It's the hardest position to learn from
> but it's where it makes all the difference.
>
> So here is a question. Is the release a horizontal, or vertical
> motion?
Well, if the boat is not moving, it must be initially and mostly
vertical. If the boat is moving though, it can be the reverse:
initially and mostly horizontal. This method if done properly, results
in a LESS washed out finish than trying to extract the blade mostly
square (i.e. initially and mostly vertical).
>>> and as far as the rough water vs flat water, you should only have
>>> to make a minor adjustment to row in rough water to just keep the
>>> oars high after the release, you shouldn't have to change your release
>>> based on the conditions. By the way, stroke seat in a quad or
>>> double is ALWAYS rough water.
>> But not in a four or eight? ;-)
>
> You can get away with flat releases more easily in a four
> or eight (and certainly in a pair or single) because
> the puddle settles more, and ppl who release flat
> can still raise their blades lower later in the stroke to
> miss sweep puddles.
Most of the sweep rowing I've done lately has been as three seat in a
starboard-bucket four... so I guess I forgot that standard sweep rigs
give more distance between same-side-seats' puddles.
> We've been here before, but just in case anybody's listening.
>
> there has to be a vertical component of at the very least
> of a square blade and more off the water at some point of the
> stroke, else you would not be able to get your blade square
> before the catch.
Of course, but this doesn't have to happen until just before the catch.
> I insist that all the vertical component happens at the release.
> You must get a square blade width off the water at the release
Why? What benefit is it to have that much handle height at the release,
other than that it's the way you learned it?
> point. At that point, it is imperative that you relax and rest,
> be disciplined on the order away and slide control, but that you
> should not balance your boat. A good finish will establish
> a strong platform in the niftiest single that will feel like you're
> sitting on an aircraft carrier.
High blades make for a less stable platform, that's just simple physics.
If an otherwise fantastic rower has a little trouble with balance &
stability, why not let him row with blades closer to the water?
> If you release low, then you are pushing down on the handles
> at indeterminite times that you must work out with each individual
Squaring the blade for the catch is no less a determined point in the
stroke than achieving height at the release. I would like you to
explain why this is SO important that you'd rather sacrifice some
stability (and a more effective less washed out finish) just so that you
don't have to deal with the timing of blade heights? My crews (ones in
which I've rowed and ones whom I've coached) never had any trouble
getting the blades squared up for the catch cleanly and together.
> crew and each individual condition based on who knows what
> and you are always adjusting, rather than just relaxing and resting.
Struggling to balance is hardly relaxing or resting.
> In rough water, you have already the height you need.
But in another thread you said that rowing in rough water requires small
adjustments to technique...?
> This technique doesn't prevent you from being more
> clever with your bladework, and staying close to the
> water in glassy conditions.
HUH??? Please explain this further. This seems in contradiction to what
you've said. Are you suggesting that we come out of the water high,
then allow the feathered blade to come back down close to the water,
only to have to lift it back up again for the square up? That's just
crazy... up, down, up, down, drive, release, up, down, up, down...
> At the bare minimum, though, the highest point is the release
> at the most critical balance point, then over the recovery
> the blade seeks the water.
If the blade must always be high enough off the water to allow a fully
squared blade at any point in the recovery, then the amount that it
"seeks" the water throughout the recovery is slim to nil.
> The reason low releases seem more comfortable is because
> there is an automatic pontoon out there to protect a mistaken
A flat release is more effective, not more comfortable. Comfort is
relative... to what one is used to doing. A low blade during the
recovery is more stable. If it wasn't, square blade rowing would be as
easy as normal rowing, which it isn't (for the majority of rowers, anyway).
> or poor release on one side or other. Mitigation of mistakes
> is not how you correct mistakes.
>
>>> Similarly, you can adjust your roll up in a strong headwind.
>> Agreed, that it's just an adjustment of technique, but it still helps to
>> practice in those conditions. DYH used to hate to coach us in rough
>> conditions, so he hardly ever did. As a result we were poor rough water
>> racers.
>
> No point in coaching in rough conditions. Race.
>
> flat water teach
> rough water race
I assume by that you mean that if on a practice day you have rough
conditions, then you should just do hard pieces. I agree. DYH on the
other hand would just keep us off the water entirely if it was too
rough, and have us erg or do other land work. Either that, or we'd row
out to that protected dead-end channel at the southwest end of the
harbor (by the cannery, I think) and do technique drills back and forth
there. I think he just wasn't content as a coach on the water if he
couldn't be giving technical feedback to us. And, in rough conditions,
(almost) all you can do is let the rowers work through it and get tough.
-KC
Charles Carroll
> > intensely repetitious of a very few mind-bendingly simple operations.
>
> except for the part where "most things in rowing are
> counter-intuitive" (CD a couple days ago)
>
> :^)
Well done, Mike. Who said wit isn't thriving on this side of the pond?
Carl
But they are still simple - until you go & complicate things by trying
to think about them in detail, & make special rules for which bit to
twiddle when.
Not that I'm in any way suggesting you do that, Mike, so please don't go
thinking I am.
Look at that old centipede. He'd always found walking was a doddle, a
no-brainer. Or he did so until someone told him to think which leg went
down when & how. Whereupon, he fell over & could never walk again.
From time to time I get to see & wrestle with the inhibitions &
confusions with which over-technical coaching can infect a rower's mind,
just like that poor centipede's problem. First among those problems is
the one we were discussing - getting stuck in at the finish, & the
morbid fear of getting stuck, which actually makes you do things which
make the problem more persistent. This is a surprisingly widespread
problem. It is often bred in by coaching which, early in a rower's
career, stresses getting a fast finish as the only way to not get the
finish caught. And you do see a lot of rowers carryong obvious scars
from this.
Now I could try to reason it all through with an individual, technical
step by technical step, but that might just drive them nuts. And who
needs a trip to the "shrink"? Or I could cut the crap & say "Go & do
this", fastening on one key aspect in the knowledge that if that is
successfully addressed we have solved 95% of the problem & the other 5%
will sort itself out in due course. Once they have cracked the problem,
then I can explain the finer points of why it worked for them to a
relieved & now relaxed rower.
All this is easier done 1-on-1, on the water, where we don't have to
explain what we are doing & why, but I think we may have seen, in this
case, that applying the more-visceral approach even via correspondence
does have certain merits.
Anyway, rowing isn't about being dainty & analytical. It's about doing
more work than the other guy while also applying reasoned insights to
help you make your increased work even more effective (= less inefficient).
I doubt, because I know Mike that you coach them well & carefully, that
any of the scullers you coach will ever learn that finishes can get
caught up. So we might even argue that we're only having this
discussion due to your unreasonable & selfish refusal to get out there &
coach everyone ;)
David Biddulph
news:pr2dnRZ4Xt9...@bt.com...
> <lpu0...@rdg.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:1177460916....@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> ...
>> Interestingly, I was lucky enough to be coached by our director of
>> rowing's father in our eight leading up to the eights head, Sid Rand,
>> who I believe was a GB single sculler in the 56 and 60 Olympics. ...
> Nearly right. Sid did the single in Rome, but in Stockholm he had done
> the double sculls:
> (S C Rand and W H Rand).
You will have realised that I wasn't awake this morning. [Nothing new
there!] 1956 was, of course, Melbourne. It was only the equestrian events
which were in Stockholm, and they weren't doing double sculls on horseback.
Mike Sullivan
> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>> "KC" <kc_...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> news:cwyXh.8249$oo5.6013@trndny06...
>>> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>>>> "KC" <kc_...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:f0luq7$fos$1...@prometheus.acsu.buffalo.edu...
>>>>> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>> snip
>>
>>
>>>> We've been here before. Bury your blade at the finish in static
>>>> place where the blade is supposed to end up when you stop
>>>> pulling. Where does the handle go to get out of the water, down,
>>>> or away?
>>> Mike please tell me you don't teach and practice the release relative to
>>> a static condition? The whole POINT is that the water is moving wrt the
>>> boat and blade, and we can use this fact to make an easy, clean release.
>>
>> Yes I do absolutely. It's the hardest position to learn from
>> but it's where it makes all the difference.
>>
>> So here is a question. Is the release a horizontal, or vertical
>> motion?
>
> Well, if the boat is not moving, it must be initially and mostly vertical.
> If the boat is moving though, it can be the reverse: initially and mostly
> horizontal. This method if done properly, results in a LESS washed out
> finish than trying to extract the blade mostly square (i.e. initially and
> mostly vertical).
There is only one way to have the blade make
a horizontal release and that is if you've rowed
the blade out already, boat static or moving
at full speed.
stick your oar in the water and look. If blade is buried
then part of the loom is in the water.
The release must be primarily vertical if the blade is buried
even if you want a very very flat release, this
is static or moving boat.
snip
>> We've been here before, but just in case anybody's listening.
>>
>> there has to be a vertical component of at the very least
>> of a square blade and more off the water at some point of the
>> stroke, else you would not be able to get your blade square
>> before the catch.
>
> Of course, but this doesn't have to happen until just before the catch.
So there is a vertical component of at LEAST a square blade
that must happen somewhere in the stroke. Do it at the release.
>
>> I insist that all the vertical component happens at the release.
>> You must get a square blade width off the water at the release
>
> Why? What benefit is it to have that much handle height at the release,
> other than that it's the way you learned it?
I'll repeat:
1. up and down movement of the handle on the recovery will
cause a reaction at the lock. Different timing on the changes
of blade height from oar to oar can tip boat.
2. In team boats, people to bow will have a puddle, hitting
those puddles with the blade disrupts relaxation and timing, and
slows the boat.
3. Given that there is going to be a vertical component to the
release, it is best to do all of that component at the same time.
4. If you are in rough water, the additional adjustment in height
is only required in one place, at the release.
>
>> point. At that point, it is imperative that you relax and rest,
>> be disciplined on the order away and slide control, but that you
>> should not balance your boat. A good finish will establish
>> a strong platform in the niftiest single that will feel like you're
>> sitting on an aircraft carrier.
>
> High blades make for a less stable platform, that's just simple physics.
fine, but the blades must be high to square up anyway.
> If an otherwise fantastic rower has a little trouble with balance &
> stability, why not let him row with blades closer to the water?
Depends on if they are finishing well. If they are finishing deep,
relaxed and resting on the recovery, that's all that really counts.
There's a lot of ways of getting that done, my way is best
but it's not the only.
>
>> If you release low, then you are pushing down on the handles
>> at indeterminite times that you must work out with each individual
>
> Squaring the blade for the catch is no less a determined point in the
> stroke than achieving height at the release. I would like you to explain
> why this is SO important that you'd rather sacrifice some stability (and a
> more effective less washed out finish) just so that you
This is silly to say, KC, when indeed this argument
is over which way of releasing will help you get a
better finish.
> don't have to deal with the timing of blade heights? My crews (ones in
> which I've rowed and ones whom I've coached) never had any trouble getting
> the blades squared up for the catch cleanly and together.
This isn't an either/or problem and as you say later, there is
a lot of bad ineffective rowing that feels quite comfortable to ppl.
>
>> crew and each individual condition based on who knows what
>> and you are always adjusting, rather than just relaxing and resting.
>
> Struggling to balance is hardly relaxing or resting.
So don't.
It's actually quite easy to learn, and very very rewarding.
Come see me in SoCal this summer when I'm in Newport and
I'll teach you.
Most scullers will release and keep blades close as that is the critical
part of balance, right at the release, thus the blades work nicely as
training wheels to keep the boat from falling over. When scullers
come to me wanting to learn to finish, The drill I have
them do is to bury blades completely, static release very high,
then allow the boat to fall to one side. What they learn to do
is to not do balancing movements
but just to relax and let the boat do what it will do.
A few times when the blades feather exactly together, the boat
will set and give some positive reinforcement.
Then we move into hands only then to body swing at a very
light paddle doing the same thing. What I look for is
buried blades and give neg feedback every time I see the
blades start to rise before the release.
I allow the boat to give them the positive feedback.
Invariably, most of the strokes the boat dips to one
side but they reinforce NOT SETTING the boat, just
recover and pick it up next time.
Almost always, on the first day of drill the sculler will
get one stroke where (s)he has maintained pressure
evenly, releases right together and the boat sets like
a battleship and they are ez chair relaxed on the recovery.
I usually will know they did this because the guys
say "WHOA" and the girls say "WOW".
It's a matter of practice and concentration but the
focus is on rowing the boat, not balancing the boat.
>
>> In rough water, you have already the height you need.
>
> But in another thread you said that rowing in rough water requires small
> adjustments to technique...?
Sure. Release HIGHER at the release than normal, and
square later depending on how rough, wind direction, etc.
>
>> This technique doesn't prevent you from being more
>> clever with your bladework, and staying close to the
>> water in glassy conditions.
>
> HUH??? Please explain this further. This seems in contradiction to what
> you've said. Are you suggesting that we come out of the water high, then
> allow the feathered blade to come back down close to the water, only to
> have to lift it back up again for the square up? That's just crazy... up,
> down, up, down, drive, release, up, down, up, down...
don' t be silly, read the rest of my comments before you
go on.
>
>> At the bare minimum, though, the highest point is the release
>> at the most critical balance point, then over the recovery
>> the blade seeks the water.
see?
>
> If the blade must always be high enough off the water to allow a fully
> squared blade at any point in the recovery, then the amount that it
> "seeks" the water throughout the recovery is slim to nil.
That's ok by me.
But if you have to dip your hands to square, you are going
down with the hands, then UP. You've begun the very
motion you need to sky the blade at the catch! Just add
a little more.
I teach just UP.
Handle path is horizontal to catch then weight comes
off the hands.
>
>> The reason low releases seem more comfortable is because
>> there is an automatic pontoon out there to protect a mistaken
>
> A flat release is more effective, not more comfortable. Comfort is
> relative... to what one is used to doing. A low blade during the recovery
> is more stable. If it wasn't, square blade rowing would be as easy as
> normal rowing, which it isn't (for the majority of rowers, anyway).
The sense of stability(comfort) comes from the proximity of the blade
to the water to protect you if the boat dips, particularly right
at the release. I have no doubt that if you recovered higher
the boat would feel less stable to you(the generic you, not
you specifically). I also have no doubt that
if you needed to recover higher in rough water that would be
more difficult than someone who has already command of his
boat and blade height.
Mike Sullivan
> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>> "Carl" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:f0n80f$g2p$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>>Mike Sullivan wrote:
>>><snip>
>>
>>
>>
>> snip
>>
>>
>>
>>>Well, I got news! Rowing is fundamentally simple, mentally undemanding &
>>>intensely repetitious of a very few mind-bendingly simple operations.
>>
>>
>> except for the part where "most things in rowing are
>> counter-intuitive" (CD a couple days ago)
>>
>> :^)
>>
>>
>>
>
> But they are still simple - until you go & complicate things by trying to
> think about them in detail, & make special rules for which bit to twiddle
> when.
Indeed, this is RSR, not an on water sculling session.
Believe me, I've taught hundreds and hundreds of rowers and I believe
in economy of communication. I just don't have the energy to
tell everybody everything nor does anybody have the patience to
listen to it all.
I will say I was immensely surprised at the success of my Fall clinic.
I had 18 scullers in singles and OW singles and they all wanted
me to teach them to finish. Usually my program with a couple dedicated
scullers takes a few days of focus, and a whole lot of individual
attention on my part. I suspected the large group session might be a
colossal waste of time. Nonetheless, I adjusted the program a bit,
did a demo, had everybody watch while I ran one person through
the program, then had every body else find a spot and try it on
their own whilst I darted among them in a single.
These poor ppl were so starved for affection from any coach
they worked like fiends collabratively with each other to get it
right. They did really well, learned more and quickly in that
large group than some elite scullers I've had all to my lonesome.
This reinforced something I used to say myself when I
did a lot of coaching. "shut up, stop teaching, let them learn"
Carl
All good stuff, Mike.
That the finish was their prime concern shows just how badly the
business of the finish is normally handled.
You & I both know that a good finish is simple & easy, & looks it too.
We'll agree to differ in our approaches, but the outcomes may not look
much if any different.
For me, it is all about simplifying what you do, & dissolving away that
sense of unease, even of fear, which seems to infect those with troubled
finishes. Once a sculler or rower realises how hard & effective a good
finish can be, & how simple & secure it is, they're left wondering why
it was ever a problem to them in the first place.
I'd reckon to work with the sculler to achieve this simple objective
within a 30-minute session, after which if they rarely need more. What
we have to fear is the coach who then takes that sculler & insists they
"sharpen up their hands around the turn". No one has ever explained why
hands - which come in slowly (yes) & under heavy load towards the finish
- should be expected, even required, to unload & accelerate away in the
space of a few tens of milliseconds. The pointless stress that this, a
mere style exercise (hands whipped away do nothing to move the boat, nor
to stabilise it) can impose on some people is sufficient to seriously
inhibit or incommode their finishes.
David Biddulph
news:462f4fc0$0$97273$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>I too can confirm that it works - and now I have a medal to prove it (Mens
> Lowe Double Sculls). Unfortunately it wasn't quite enough to win me the
> Colquhouns, although I did go 20 seconds faster than I did in Freshers'
> Sculls last year. Thanks for the tip!
Losing narrowly in the final of the Colquhouns; well done!.
Walter Martindale
else push down on the handle (to simulate extraction from water), then
lower the blade (raise the handle), then lower the handle to square, and
finally raise the handle to drop the blade in the water. If feels quite
a trivial matter to the person on the end of the oar handle, but the
person holding the oar/scull by the sleeve feels a lot of up/down
forces. These forces are vertical accelerations in the hull, and cause
(however minor, we're after efficiency, aren't we) and they require some
muscular movement to do (again, we're trying to reduce un-needed effort
to be able to put more into propelling the boat). This is more an
effect in sweep rowing, if people do the raise, lower, raise handle
thing in the recovery at different times, the boat has a big balance
effect. (while doing the little on-shore exercise, imagine that you're
a round-bottomed boat, and that weight in the "oarlock" that is your
hands is 80 or 85 cm from the centreline - how could it not affect
balance?
Does all this matter? Well, I repeated that exercise (and some others
that I'm sharing with my employer) last week, with good effect on the
way the crew felt, looked, and - because their boat was more stable,
they were better at the catch, and because of that, we had to throttle
up in the launch to keep up with them. Works for me. You may not like
it but if you try it, you may like it. Free world - scull how you wish.
The balance is more stable with the blades closer to the water because
a) you're used to it, and b) training wheels. People I've helped learn
to keep their sticks higher off the water have won Canadian Henley, and
some have earned seats on national teams.
W
Mike Sullivan
> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>> "Carl" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:f0o4ea$81d$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>>Mike Sullivan wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Carl" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>news:f0n80f$g2p$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
snip
> That the finish was their prime concern shows just how badly the business
> of the finish is normally handled.
In my case, I have an excellent pool of ppl
who, for the most part, have had to teach themselves
to scull. Even ex-collegiate stars who take up sculling
after their college days generally get little help and
coaching in the single, they find themselves generally
adapting what they learned from sweep into a single -
largely it works ok.
The other pool of ppl are ones who come on to sculling
as the first rowing thing they've ever done (like our
Charles here) and with the exception of a few barely
heard comments from a passing coach, or some profound
sets of contradictory advice from other scullers, they
have to teach themselves.
In a sense I have a laboratory of ppl who do what comes
'naturally' with ppl with a wide variety of athletic abilities
and ages.
Most ppl with enough miles will figure out for themselves
some passable body mechanics. But one thing the
will universally do is:
1. hold themselves up after the release with their training wheels and wash
out.
2. hang or row in the catch.
Most women naturally find a good power application with
their legs.
Most men muscle it until they start doing big miles.
I've yet to see anybody yet who's figured out how to keep
blade buried or catch properly on their own. It has to be
taught.
Mike Sullivan
"Walter Martindale" <wmar...@telusSPAMSTOPplanet.net> wrote in message
news:HlPXh.455$Dq6.441@edtnps82...
snip
> The balance is more stable with the blades closer to the water because a)
> you're used to it, and b) training wheels. People I've helped learn to
> keep their sticks higher off the water have won Canadian Henley, and some
> have earned seats on national teams.
Careful, Walter, some of the worst rowers I've ever seen
have made nat'l teams!!! :^)
KC
I don't promote an up/down/up motion of the handles. I promote a flat
(minimal vertical motion) release, keep the blades just a couple inches
off the water through the recovery, and then square and catch. The
necessary vertical spacing for the blade at the catch comes with the
square up - I don't even have to tell them to do it. So, the amount of
up/down motion (force) on the pin is no different for how I row&coach
than how you do.
Contrary to Mike's claims, skying the blade at the catch is a different
matter, IMO, unrelated to getting the squared blade clear of the water.
(It has more to do with the shoulders than the hands, and happens for
some rowers even if they hold the blade higher through the recovery.)
> The balance is more stable with the blades closer to the water because
> a) you're used to it, and b) training wheels. People I've helped learn
> to keep their sticks higher off the water have won Canadian Henley, and
> some have earned seats on national teams.
> W
I coached the eight that won the ltwt sr-b event last year at Canadian
Henley, but I haven't been coaching long enough to claim seats on
national teams... my rowers are all still in college.
I don't doubt that both styles can be effective. I just doubt that
there are real benefits to carrying the blade high.
-KC
mpruscoe
>
> I coached the eight that won the ltwt sr-b event last year at Canadian
> Henley, but I haven't been coaching long enough to claim seats on
> national teams... my rowers are all still in college.
>
> I don't doubt that both styles can be effective. I just doubt that
> there are real benefits to carrying the blade high.
>
If you can carry the oars low, you are using ground effect to stabilise
the boat (even without touching the water) and that causes extra drag.
Of course, trying to carry the blades high if you can't balance is going
to slow you down more.
KC
While I doubt the ground effect is that significant, I agree that if you
can't balance, high blades will slow you down more, especially when you
wobble up to the catch and end up with one blade entering first, or
whatever.
-KC
Taniwha
>
> High blades make for a less stable platform, that's just simple physics.
Sorry, I'm simple but not a physicist. Why is it more stable to have
blades three inches above the water rather than four? If you said
horizontal oars are more stable than ones angled up or down because
the moments of force are further from the centre of mass or gravity or
something I'd say my accountant's brain can't argue, but I can't work
out why the height, per se, matters.
Thanks in advance,
Taniwha.
Taniwha
(Sorry if this doubles up. Last post seems to have gone AWOL.)
I'm simple but I'm not a physicist. Can you tell me why blades three
inches off the water are more stable than if they are four inches off.
If you said they should be horizontal because the moments of force are
further from the centre of gravity, mass or flotation my accountants
brain would say, "That sounds reasonable." I can't, however, get the
concept that height, per se, affects balance.
Thanks,
Taniwha.
Mike Sullivan
"mpruscoe" <mpru...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:59a5bpF...@mid.individual.net...
This is true. Releasing high is not enough. I teach
releasing high because it is a component of finishing
deep.
If you keep your blades buried all the way to the finish,
you are going to have a much more consistent anchor
to release against than if blades wash.
balance in the boat on the recovery is best achieved with
good finishes and a relaxation, rather than any kind of
active motions for compensation.
Shallow finishes are unstable and uneven requiring
the training wheel release.
Mike
Ewoud Dronkert
> balance in the boat on the recovery is best achieved with
> good finishes and a relaxation, rather than any kind of
> active motions for compensation.
>
> Shallow finishes are unstable and uneven requiring
> the training wheel release.
True, true. Then see this picture of two Dutch selection eights
nearing the finish line of the 750m of the Heineken (March 2007).
http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/4870/nrc2007031902016004kn2.jpg
Stroking the frontmost eight is the four. (The four remains the
priority boat, BTW.)
--
E. Dronkert
Taniwha
>
(Sorry if this doubles up. Last post seems to have gone AWOL.)
Ewoud Dronkert
> (Sorry if this doubles up. Last post seems to have gone AWOL.)
Treble. All 3 posts appear on my news server.
--
E. Dronkert
Taniwha
(Sorry if this doubles up. Last post seems to have gone AWOL.)
I'm simple but I'm not a physicist. Can you tell me why blades three
KC
-KC
KC
It's a small/subtle change, but by keeping the blades 1~2 inches above
the water, rather than 6~8 as I see many square-blade-releasers doing,
you lower the c.g. of the system ever so slightly. Some say it's too
slight to make a difference. I think it's not. Try letting the boat
run out after several hard strokes with the hands away... see whether
it's easier to balance with your hands low in the boat, or high in the
boat. I think it's easier with the hands high/blades low, and it's NOT
due to "training wheels" as Walter implied.
-KC
KC
> "mpruscoe" <mpru...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:59a5bpF...@mid.individual.net...
>> KC wrote:
>>> I coached the eight that won the ltwt sr-b event last year at Canadian
>>> Henley, but I haven't been coaching long enough to claim seats on
>>> national teams... my rowers are all still in college.
>>>
>>> I don't doubt that both styles can be effective. I just doubt that there
>>> are real benefits to carrying the blade high.
>>>
>> If you can carry the oars low, you are using ground effect to stabilise
>> the boat (even without touching the water) and that causes extra drag. Of
>> course, trying to carry the blades high if you can't balance is going to
>> slow you down more.
Mike, your statements below seem contradictory to me. I'll try to
explain why/how below. Will you please elaborate for me? Thanks...
> This is true. Releasing high is not enough. I teach
By "releasing high" do you mean a high handle (deep blade) or a high
blade (i.e. after the release)? I teach *finishing* high (deep), /and/
releasing high ("level" as you call it) - a "low" blade above the water.
> releasing high because it is a component of finishing
> deep.
>
> If you keep your blades buried all the way to the finish,
> you are going to have a much more consistent anchor
> to release against than if blades wash.
I absolutely agree with this. Which is why I don't like the square
bladed release. With a square blade, one MUST (no other way about it)
start to "tap down" before one finishes the stroke. Therefore this
encourages washed finishes. With a strong, flat release, you can pull
all the way in high/deep, and the blade releases as a result of the
rower stopping his pull on the oar.
> balance in the boat on the recovery is best achieved with
> good finishes and a relaxation, rather than any kind of
> active motions for compensation.
Again, I agree 100% with that statement. The active motion of pushing
down on the handle causes instability and is unnecessary. A *slight*
push down is necessary, but the primary motion of the release is simply
to stop pulling, and "assist" the feathering of the blade (i.e. don't
inhibit it) with a VERY slight downward pressure, and very slight
rotation of the handle. This results in the handle being only an inch
or less below where it was with a fully burried blade, yet the blade is
now feathered, free of the water, and about 1" above it. NO WASH OUT.
To wash out, the rower MUST be pushing down on the handle! There's no
other way to achieve wash out!
> Shallow finishes are unstable and uneven requiring
> the training wheel release.
They are unstable and uneven, which is why I teach to minimize downward
motion of the handle at the release. This keeps the blade deep through
to the finish. Rowers who practice square blade rowing too much are
prone to washing out, because they start the tap-down before the stroke
is finished (a necessity of extracting a blade square).
BTW, Ewoud's picture is an excellent example of washed finishes, notice
the blades are still square.
-Kieran
Mike Sullivan
> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>> "mpruscoe" <mpru...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:59a5bpF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> KC wrote:
>>>> I coached the eight that won the ltwt sr-b event last year at Canadian
>>>> Henley, but I haven't been coaching long enough to claim seats on
>>>> national teams... my rowers are all still in college.
>>>>
>>>> I don't doubt that both styles can be effective. I just doubt that
>>>> there are real benefits to carrying the blade high.
>>>>
>>> If you can carry the oars low, you are using ground effect to stabilise
>>> the boat (even without touching the water) and that causes extra drag.
>>> Of course, trying to carry the blades high if you can't balance is going
>>> to slow you down more.
>
> Mike, your statements below seem contradictory to me. I'll try to explain
> why/how below. Will you please elaborate for me? Thanks...
>
>> This is true. Releasing high is not enough. I teach
>
> By "releasing high" do you mean a high handle (deep blade) or a high blade
> (i.e. after the release)? I teach *finishing* high (deep), /and/
> releasing high ("level" as you call it) - a "low" blade above the water.
high blade after release. A completely buried blade has
a longer way to go to clear the water than a washed one.
>
>> releasing high because it is a component of finishing
>> deep.
>>
>> If you keep your blades buried all the way to the finish,
>> you are going to have a much more consistent anchor
>> to release against than if blades wash.
>
> I absolutely agree with this. Which is why I don't like the square bladed
> release. With a square blade, one MUST (no other way about it) start to
> "tap down" before one finishes the stroke. Therefore this encourages
> washed finishes. With a strong, flat release, you can pull all the way in
> high/deep, and the blade releases as a result of the rower stopping his
> pull on the oar.
Whether release low or high is going to simply have a varying
amount in the "tap down". I reject that you must start
to wash to get a square release, and whether or not you row
square or flat, washed finishes are the norm. Deep finishes
must be taught.
>
>> balance in the boat on the recovery is best achieved with
>> good finishes and a relaxation, rather than any kind of
>> active motions for compensation.
>
> Again, I agree 100% with that statement. The active motion of pushing
> down on the handle causes instability and is unnecessary. A *slight*
That's why you do it all at once, and not scatter it throughout
the recovery.
> push down is necessary, but the primary motion of the release is simply to
> stop pulling, and "assist" the feathering of the blade (i.e. don't inhibit
> it) with a VERY slight downward pressure, and very slight rotation of the
> handle. This results in the handle being only an inch or less below where
> it was with a fully burried blade, yet the blade is now feathered, free of
> the water, and about 1" above it. NO WASH OUT. To wash out, the rower
> MUST be pushing down on the handle! There's no other way to achieve wash
> out!
watch the path of the shoulders of a mechanically sound
rower with a strong layback (not extreme). The
shoulders are highest off the gunwhales as he
is vertical in the boat, then as he passes vertical to
the finish, the pendulum motion lowers his shoulders
relative to the plane of the shell. The handle path
tends to follow that slight arc. This is the natural
form for most rowers washing out, and they must
learn to pull higher relative to the body to keep
the blade buried.
In sweep rowing, the path of the off-hand must be
emphasized to make this happen, the off-hand controls
that path, does the push down to release, and bladeside
feathers.
>
>> Shallow finishes are unstable and uneven requiring
>> the training wheel release.
>
> They are unstable and uneven, which is why I teach to minimize downward
> motion of the handle at the release. This keeps the blade deep through to
> the finish. Rowers who practice square blade rowing too much are prone to
> washing out, because they start the tap-down before the stroke is finished
> (a necessity of extracting a blade square).
Most do, but it is because they've not been taught to
finish deep.
I think I've made the comment a number of times that hardly
anybody keeps their blades in the water, including some very very
fast ppl. They don't know how to hold water either.
I see lots and lots of abysmal hands on the oars, dominant
inside hands in sweep rowing, and spread or tight hands on
sculling handles.
>
> BTW, Ewoud's picture is an excellent example of washed finishes, notice
> the blades are still square.
I got a million of them.
No matter how you teach this, the components of what has to be
done to row more effectively are the same. The primary difference
is that you are getting your blade height later in the recovery,
and I believe discipline breaks down on that in rougher water.
I totally reject your assertion that from any sort of practical sense
high releases make for more difficult balance, indeed, the experience
I've had has been unanimously that scullers I teach to simply
release high with NO instruction on finishes will make massive
improvements in their sculling and their enjoyment of it.
It is always difficult for them initially, but that's ok by me,
they learn.
Mike
KC
> "KC" <kc_...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:f0qici$b9g$1...@prometheus.acsu.buffalo.edu...
>> Mike Sullivan wrote:
snip
>>> This is true. Releasing high is not enough. I teach
>> By "releasing high" do you mean a high handle (deep blade) or a high blade
>> (i.e. after the release)? I teach *finishing* high (deep), /and/
>> releasing high ("level" as you call it) - a "low" blade above the water.
>
> high blade after release. A completely buried blade has
> a longer way to go to clear the water than a washed one.
Which is exactly why a flat release is more effective.
>>> releasing high because it is a component of finishing
>>> deep.
>>>
>>> If you keep your blades buried all the way to the finish,
>>> you are going to have a much more consistent anchor
>>> to release against than if blades wash.
>> I absolutely agree with this. Which is why I don't like the square bladed
>> release. With a square blade, one MUST (no other way about it) start to
>> "tap down" before one finishes the stroke. Therefore this encourages
>> washed finishes. With a strong, flat release, you can pull all the way in
>> high/deep, and the blade releases as a result of the rower stopping his
>> pull on the oar.
>
> Whether release low or high is going to simply have a varying
> amount in the "tap down". I reject that you must start
> to wash to get a square release, and whether or not you row
Reject it? It's a mechanical FACT! See my linked sketch below...
> square or flat, washed finishes are the norm. Deep finishes
> must be taught.
Of course they must be taught. But, given a perfectly executed square
release and a perfectly executed flat release, the flat one will be well
buried longer.
>>> balance in the boat on the recovery is best achieved with
>>> good finishes and a relaxation, rather than any kind of
>>> active motions for compensation.
>> Again, I agree 100% with that statement. The active motion of pushing
>> down on the handle causes instability and is unnecessary. A *slight*
>
> That's why you do it all at once, and not scatter it throughout
> the recovery.
I don't "scatter" it throughout the recovery. It happens when it's
necessary: at the catch. And, contrary to your previous statements,
this does NOT encourage skying of the blade at the catch. Only if you
don't teach the catch correctly does this happen. Skying is no more or
less likely with a squared release / high blade than with a flat release
& low blade. Skying happens because of the swing of the torso
mentioned below, and the rower's lack of understanding of that motion.
It's a quick/easy fix.
>> push down is necessary, but the primary motion of the release is simply to
>> stop pulling, and "assist" the feathering of the blade (i.e. don't inhibit
>> it) with a VERY slight downward pressure, and very slight rotation of the
>> handle. This results in the handle being only an inch or less below where
>> it was with a fully burried blade, yet the blade is now feathered, free of
>> the water, and about 1" above it. NO WASH OUT. To wash out, the rower
>> MUST be pushing down on the handle! There's no other way to achieve wash
>> out!
>
> watch the path of the shoulders of a mechanically sound
> rower with a strong layback (not extreme). The
> shoulders are highest off the gunwhales as he
> is vertical in the boat, then as he passes vertical to
> the finish, the pendulum motion lowers his shoulders
> relative to the plane of the shell. The handle path
> tends to follow that slight arc. This is the natural
> form for most rowers washing out, and they must
> learn to pull higher relative to the body to keep
> the blade buried.
>
> In sweep rowing, the path of the off-hand must be
> emphasized to make this happen, the off-hand controls
> that path, does the push down to release, and bladeside
> feathers.
Those last two paragraphs could have been word-for-word from my mouth
last summer when coaching the West Side 8+. I also apply the same sort
of example of the torso rotating about the hips to illustrate why/how
rowers tend to sky the blade at the catch... because they keep the
handle in a fixed position relative to their bodies, not relative to the
boat or water. They must feel like they are lifting the handle as
their torsos swing forward, in order to keep the handle height constant.
Same is true as you are finishing the stroke.
>>> Shallow finishes are unstable and uneven requiring
>>> the training wheel release.
>> They are unstable and uneven, which is why I teach to minimize downward
>> motion of the handle at the release. This keeps the blade deep through to
>> the finish. Rowers who practice square blade rowing too much are prone to
>> washing out, because they start the tap-down before the stroke is finished
>> (a necessity of extracting a blade square).
>
> Most do, but it is because they've not been taught to
> finish deep.
You physically can NOT finish deep all the way to the body AND extract
the blade square. If you want to extract the blade square, it MUST be
initiated well before the body, there's just no two ways about it. This
fact is what I see encouraging washing out.
Here, I've made a quick sketch of the handle paths for what I see as the
two different styles we're talking about for releases:
http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/7286/catchesbw4.png
In case it's not obvious, the top sketch is "your" style, the bottom one
is "my" style ;-) Of course, dimensions are exaggerated, not to scale!
The black line represents the limit of how far the handle can travel to
bow (rower's body in sweep). The blue line is where a square blade must
begin the "tap down" in order to be extracted cleanly. The green line
is the same point for a flat release.
I hope that illustrates my point about how a square release washes out
more than a flat one. Either one can be done poorly, but IMO, a square
bladed release stroke can never be as long ("long" e.g. time or distance
that the blade is well buried) as a flat one.
BTW, one can debate how much curvature is necessary on the ends of those
sketches for both the catch and release. However, no matter what, SOME
curvature is necessary, and the curvature is greater at greater speeds.
> I think I've made the comment a number of times that hardly
> anybody keeps their blades in the water, including some very very
> fast ppl. They don't know how to hold water either.
>
> I see lots and lots of abysmal hands on the oars, dominant
> inside hands in sweep rowing, and spread or tight hands on
> sculling handles.
>
>> BTW, Ewoud's picture is an excellent example of washed finishes, notice
>> the blades are still square.
>
> I got a million of them.
>
> No matter how you teach this, the components of what has to be
> done to row more effectively are the same. The primary difference
> is that you are getting your blade height later in the recovery,
> and I believe discipline breaks down on that in rougher water.
That's an entirely subjective reason though! And, it comments more on
one's ability to deal with discipline in the stroke than it does on the
relative effectiveness of one style over another.
For the small boat coaching I've done (pairs mainly) this style has
resulted in VERY fast improvements in boat stability and confidence. I
had a pair of guys who were training in the pair almost all summer under
someone else. They were rowing the pair like they rowed in the eight
(big square bladed releases, blades high off the water) and they
couldn't balance it. They were REALLY strong athletes too, so they were
decent, but they had no smoothness, no stability, no confidence, so
their strokes were not as long and effective as they could be. I had
them change the way they released, and within 1 DAY they were miles
ahead of other pairs in the club that before they'd just hung with.
This was NOT a "training wheel" effect, as they were NOT dragging their
blades on the water (except during the pause drill).
YOU believe that getting all the height at once forces rowers to do it
together, and that yields stability & "discipline". My way, they START
stable from the release, and then work their way up together to the
catch. If you start unstable at the release, then it's that much harder
to come together and find the stability as you go up the slide to the
catch. With a flat release, the stability is already THERE, they can
FEEL it, and as they go up the slide, it's easier to KEEP the stability
with small adjustments, than it is to try to fight to find it when one
guy might go one way and the other another way.
I've seen this work over and over again (in my limited coaching time).
Guys are rowing too short because they are unstable out of the recovery.
This technique instantly fixes their release timing, gives them
stability, and all of a sudden they are inches longer at the catch, and
driving further at the finish.
Now, it's entirely possible to train in a pair and find the stability
and sync with one's partner using a high, square bladed release style.
But it takes WAY more time to "gel" that way.
When I have guys first try this drill, by the time they work through the
drill, from pausing to continuous rowing, all of a sudden they're rowing
normally, set, long, stable, and they (every time) giggle despite
themselves, they are so amazed at how easy it is to row a pair well
(after having struggled with it for WEEKS)
> I totally reject your assertion that from any sort of practical sense
> high releases make for more difficult balance, indeed, the experience
Fine, totally reject it. But in MY experience, it's true. And, nothing
brought it home more than watching my under-sized pair launch along side
Ernst's "Washington timber" as the two pairs rowed to the starting line
at Indy. His guys were huge compared to mine. They'd been training
under Ernst for at least the whole summer, besides rowing at UW for him
(and whatever pairs time they got during the normal season.) My pair
rowed away level and smooth, like your stereo-typical "aircraft carrier"
analogy. His boys were strong & clean, but wobbly on the recovery.
My guys medaled, Bob's came in 4th. My guys rowed through the UW boys
in the last 300m. JD was there, not sure if he saw this race, though.
-KC
Walter Martindale
Perhaps we'll meet some day - I wonder if "good rowing" and "good style"
are not necessarily the same - good rowing that looks good is often
called good rowing, while good rowing (technically effective with
'errors' that don't really matter to propulsion and efficient recovery)
that doesn't look good is called "bad" rowing. If Rob Waddell had rowed
with the same technical errors as the current ergo world record holder
(I can't spell his name, but he's german/polish), Rob never would have
gone anywhere near as fast as he did in a boat - you may not have
thought Rob's sculling was pretty, but it sure was effective - you don't
win 2 worlds and an Olympics with that much power and poor technique.
W
Taniwha
Sorry people. None had appeared after four hours. I had actually given
up and gone to bed thinking it wasn't worth the trouble trying to post
and it was easier to give up.
Taniwha
Mike Sullivan
The sketch was not illuminating. When you stop pulling
and begun your tap down, you have already released
the pressure. The FIRST motion after stopping the
pull is down, whether it is a slight motion, or a larger
one.
That is a fact, else the blade center is still below the water
line when you want to recover.
The only difference between our ideal releases is simply the
blade heights AFTER the release.
>
>> square or flat, washed finishes are the norm. Deep finishes
>> must be taught.
>
> Of course they must be taught. But, given a perfectly executed square
> release and a perfectly executed flat release, the flat one will be well
> buried longer.
then you don't know what a perfectly executed square release
looks or feels like.
Read back earlier on this thread and see where I said that I
have no doubt there are people who can keep blades buried
with flatter releases.
>
>>>> balance in the boat on the recovery is best achieved with
>>>> good finishes and a relaxation, rather than any kind of
>>>> active motions for compensation.
>>> Again, I agree 100% with that statement. The active motion of pushing
>>> down on the handle causes instability and is unnecessary. A *slight*
>>
>> That's why you do it all at once, and not scatter it throughout
>> the recovery.
>
> I don't "scatter" it throughout the recovery. It happens when it's
> necessary: at the catch. And, contrary to your previous statements, this
> does NOT encourage skying of the blade at the catch. Only if you don't
> teach the catch correctly does this happen. Skying is no more or less
> likely with a squared release / high blade than with a flat release & low
> blade. Skying happens because of the swing of the torso mentioned below,
> and the rower's lack of understanding of that motion. It's a quick/easy
> fix.
That motion has to happen somewhere. It can't be simpler than
to do it all at once, rather than twice, one inch at the release
and another couple at the rollup, or have to modify your release
height anyway to stroke a double or quad.
Have you ever coached new people? Ppl who've never rowed
before and get them from 0 to 6:00 in a matter of months?
The spread of athleticism and the variety of things that CAN be
done with such a simple motion is pretty awesome. The primary
reason ppl sky is lack of preparation to the catch, but it isn't
the only reason.
If you put crews together, or teach new crews, rollup timing is
going to be different, and not only that you want to be able
to vary your rollup if need be, thus the up/down hand motion must vary
with it.
snip
> Those last two paragraphs could have been word-for-word from my mouth last
> summer when coaching the West Side 8+. I also apply the same sort of
> example of the torso rotating about the hips to illustrate why/how rowers
> tend to sky the blade at the catch... because they keep the handle in a
> fixed position relative to their bodies, not relative to the boat or
> water. They must feel like they are lifting the handle as their torsos
> swing forward, in order to keep the handle height constant.
>
> Same is true as you are finishing the stroke.
Then you do understand that washing out is not a case of
actively pushing the handle down, it is pulling the handle
on the same arc as the body swing.
>
>>>> Shallow finishes are unstable and uneven requiring
>>>> the training wheel release.
>>> They are unstable and uneven, which is why I teach to minimize downward
>>> motion of the handle at the release. This keeps the blade deep through
>>> to the finish. Rowers who practice square blade rowing too much are
>>> prone to washing out, because they start the tap-down before the stroke
>>> is finished (a necessity of extracting a blade square).
>>
>> Most do, but it is because they've not been taught to
>> finish deep.
>
> You physically can NOT finish deep all the way to the body AND extract the
> blade square. If you want to extract the blade square, it MUST be
> initiated well before the body, there's just no two ways about it. This
> fact is what I see encouraging washing out.
Yes you can. in CAPS too.
>
> Here, I've made a quick sketch of the handle paths for what I see as the
> two different styles we're talking about for releases:
> http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/7286/catchesbw4.png
>
> In case it's not obvious, the top sketch is "your" style, the bottom one
> is "my" style ;-) Of course, dimensions are exaggerated, not to scale!
>
> The black line represents the limit of how far the handle can travel to
> bow (rower's body in sweep). The blue line is where a square blade must
> begin the "tap down" in order to be extracted cleanly. The green line is
> the same point for a flat release.
>
> I hope that illustrates my point about how a square release washes out
> more than a flat one. Either one can be done poorly, but IMO, a square
> bladed release stroke can never be as long ("long" e.g. time or distance
> that the blade is well buried) as a flat one.
>
> BTW, one can debate how much curvature is necessary on the ends of those
> sketches for both the catch and release. However, no matter what, SOME
> curvature is necessary, and the curvature is greater at greater speeds.
see my comments above about the release.
>
>> I think I've made the comment a number of times that hardly
>> anybody keeps their blades in the water, including some very very
>> fast ppl. They don't know how to hold water either.
>>
>> I see lots and lots of abysmal hands on the oars, dominant
>> inside hands in sweep rowing, and spread or tight hands on
>> sculling handles.
>>
>>> BTW, Ewoud's picture is an excellent example of washed finishes, notice
>>> the blades are still square.
>>
>> I got a million of them.
>>
>> No matter how you teach this, the components of what has to be
>> done to row more effectively are the same. The primary difference
>> is that you are getting your blade height later in the recovery,
>> and I believe discipline breaks down on that in rougher water.
>
> That's an entirely subjective reason though! And, it comments more on
> one's ability to deal with discipline in the stroke than it does on the
> relative effectiveness of one style over another.
The dispute boils down to the mechanics of WHEN the
the blade comes off the water on the recovery. You
have two places, I have one.
>
> For the small boat coaching I've done (pairs mainly) this style has
> resulted in VERY fast improvements in boat stability and confidence. I
> had a pair of guys who were training in the pair almost all summer under
> someone else. They were rowing the pair like they rowed in the eight (big
> square bladed releases, blades high off the water) and they couldn't
> balance it. They were REALLY strong athletes too, so they were decent,
> but they had no smoothness, no stability, no confidence, so their strokes
> were not as long and effective as they could be. I had them change the
> way they released, and within 1 DAY they were miles ahead of other pairs
> in the club that before they'd just hung with.
>
> This was NOT a "training wheel" effect, as they were NOT dragging their
> blades on the water (except during the pause drill).
What you don't understand is that you don't need to drag
the oars to make training wheels. see next para.
>
> YOU believe that getting all the height at once forces rowers to do it
> together, and that yields stability & "discipline". My way, they START
> stable from the release, and then work their way up together to the catch.
> If you start unstable at the release, then it's that much harder to come
> together and find the stability as you go up the slide to the catch. With
> a flat release, the stability is already THERE, they can FEEL it, and as
> they go up the slide, it's easier to KEEP the stability with small
> adjustments, than it is to try to fight to find it when one guy might go
> one way and the other another way.
this is the exact description of training wheels, KC. I've
had this same discussion with Conn and with DYH. They're
wrong too, btw..
So what happens is with low recovered blades right after
the finish is that any instabilities created by uneven finishes
are caught by one blade or another, the boat begins to dip,
and the flat blade nicks the water enough to dampen the roll
and keep the boat set. The rowers feel more comfortable
because the boat isn't ever dipping very dramatically.
In the meantime, however, even while not dragging oars,
there is often contact with the water and the blades are
creating a mitigation effect for poor finishes, which BTW
happens to the best of us.
This contact with the water adds tension to the recovery
because when the blade nicks, it bounces, the hands have
to find control of it again.
High releases and complete relaxation will cause more dramatic
recovery problems but far less constant recovery
corrections.
Believe me, even in singles, you can have very uneven
finishes and bad release timing and when I coach scullers
who seem to be struggling, usually a reminder to
'establish the platform' is a signal to them to focus
on finishes, and relax.
>
> I've seen this work over and over again (in my limited coaching time).
> Guys are rowing too short because they are unstable out of the recovery.
> This technique instantly fixes their release timing, gives them stability,
> and all of a sudden they are inches longer at the catch, and driving
> further at the finish.
>
> Now, it's entirely possible to train in a pair and find the stability and
> sync with one's partner using a high, square bladed release style. But it
> takes WAY more time to "gel" that way.
Having success with one particular method is a nice
thing to have happen and tends to reinforce that that method
must be correct because, look, it works.
>
> When I have guys first try this drill, by the time they work through the
> drill, from pausing to continuous rowing, all of a sudden they're rowing
> normally, set, long, stable, and they (every time) giggle despite
> themselves, they are so amazed at how easy it is to row a pair well (after
> having struggled with it for WEEKS)
>
>> I totally reject your assertion that from any sort of practical sense
>> high releases make for more difficult balance, indeed, the experience
>
> Fine, totally reject it. But in MY experience, it's true. And, nothing
> brought it home more than watching my under-sized pair launch along side
> Ernst's "Washington timber" as the two pairs rowed to the starting line at
> Indy. His guys were huge compared to mine. They'd been training under
> Ernst for at least the whole summer, besides rowing at UW for him (and
> whatever pairs time they got during the normal season.) My pair rowed
> away level and smooth, like your stereo-typical "aircraft carrier"
> analogy. His boys were strong & clean, but wobbly on the recovery.
>
> My guys medaled, Bob's came in 4th. My guys rowed through the UW boys in
> the last 300m. JD was there, not sure if he saw this race, though.
Someone else finished first, though, didn't they?
You're going to run into a world of hurt trying to justify your argument
by success of a particular crew. The primary impulse to boat speed is
going to be the power and fitness level of the athlete and there are hideous
techniques and boxes of rocks I've seen winning world medals.
I have learned in my many years that there are some athletes
in many sports that are comfortable with some motions that
are not mechanically sound. But they feel a comfort level
with that pattern of motion that allows them to push themselves
and drive themselves really really hard.
This is not the case in this discussion, but it serves to illustrate
a basic problem with results-based argument, and why
I tend to avoid it if I can.
Mike Sullivan
"Walter Martindale" <wmar...@telusSPAMSTOPplanet.net> wrote in message
> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>> "Walter Martindale" <wmar...@telusSPAMSTOPplanet.net> wrote in message
>> news:HlPXh.455$Dq6.441@edtnps82...
>>> KC wrote:
>>>> Walter Martindale wrote:
>>>>> Carl wrote:
>>>>>> lpu0...@rdg.ac.uk wrote:
snip
> Perhaps we'll meet some day - I wonder if "good rowing" and "good style"
> are not necessarily the same - good rowing that looks good is often called
> good rowing, while good rowing (technically effective with 'errors' that
> don't really matter to propulsion and efficient recovery) that doesn't
> look good is called "bad" rowing. If Rob Waddell had rowed with the same
> technical errors as the current ergo world record holder (I can't spell
> his name, but he's german/polish), Rob never would have gone anywhere near
> as fast as he did in a boat - you may not have thought Rob's sculling was
> pretty, but it sure was effective - you don't win 2 worlds and an Olympics
> with that much power and poor technique.
My point then was to look at the whole package. Some were arguing
that Rob did some things that should be modeled, and I totally rejected
that unless you can find a body like that. He was extremely effective in
his power application, that's something I noted, and I really liked
his deep blades (though he too washed out!)
You've been around long enough to remember how Anne Marden
rowed. It looked like hell from the outside, but people who rowed
with her wouldn't trade her for anything.
It would be immensely fun to meet some of the folks here that I've
known a long time, but I haven't been getting out of town for many
years, don't even get to local regattas on the weekend.
If you come to Cali be sure to beep me.
Mike
Mike Sullivan
"Taniwha" <david....@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1177620336....@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
I've been noticing disappearing posts, I thought they might be cancels.
Walter Martindale
it's dark, but my office window looks out over the finish line for the
2010 Worlds...
W
Jed Rogge
Both of you assholes make some good points.
Both of your finishes have potential pitfalls but both assume that the
blades stay buried till the work is done (when executed properly). KC,
a "big" drop of the hands at the finish doesn't require rowing the blade
out or finishing shorter than a flat finish (as your sketch indicates),
it just means you need a deep puddle from which to extract the blade, ie
a strong finish. Mike's point (I think) is that the flat finish allows
the rower to feel comfortable without a strong finish because the blade
will still extract *without* the deep puddle. KC's point (I think) is
that the squared finish often leads to washing out and an unsteady boat
as the hands drop precipitously.
I do favor the flat finish, however. Particularly with the large
asymmetrical hatchets. To me it seems more natural for the blades to
rise gradually over the course of the recovery to a height that they can
be squared. This can be adjusted for rough conditions.
KC, I don't like your sketch. It looks like a dip of the hands is
required to get the blade squared. It's one of my major qualms with
DYH's technique. To me, it becomes more problematic at higher beats and
leads to missed water. I'm sure we've talked about this in the past. I
like a straight trajectory from a flat finish to get the blade high
enough to square cleanly.
-Jed
paul_v...@hotmail.com
Damn! Who's this guy talking sense? Will he be able to mediate the
fun debate going on?
Who is "DYH"?
- Paul Smith
KC
DYH is Duvall Young Hecht, Gold medal 2- USA 1956, and founder of UC
Irvine Crew (and Books on Tape, Inc.) UC Irvine, in case any one missed
it is the alma mater for JD, Sully, Jed, and myself. Jed is one of the
unfortunate products of Irvine and DYH. He never could pull an oar
right. ;-)
Actually, Jed stroked the V8 at Irvine while I was there, and he and I
rowed the pair together a lot after graduation (the fact that we
actually did pretty well means he wasn't all that bad, or that I'm just
as bad as he...) He also introduced me to RSR in '95. He lurks here
mostly, and makes fun of me off line for all the crazy debates I partake
in on RSR.
-KC
KC
> Mike, KC,
>
> Both of you assholes make some good points.
>
> Both of your finishes have potential pitfalls but both assume that the
> blades stay buried till the work is done (when executed properly). KC,
> a "big" drop of the hands at the finish doesn't require rowing the blade
> out or finishing shorter than a flat finish (as your sketch indicates),
It's not the "big drop" of the hands per se... it's the fact that the
blade is extracted fully square. There's absolutely no other way to get
a square blade out cleanly than to start the "tap down" before the
handle comes to the body. I don't care what Sul says, he's wrong on
this point.
> it just means you need a deep puddle from which to extract the blade, ie
> a strong finish. Mike's point (I think) is that the flat finish allows
> the rower to feel comfortable without a strong finish because the blade
> will still extract *without* the deep puddle. KC's point (I think) is
> that the squared finish often leads to washing out and an unsteady boat
> as the hands drop precipitously.
>
> I do favor the flat finish, however. Particularly with the large
> asymmetrical hatchets. To me it seems more natural for the blades to
> rise gradually over the course of the recovery to a height that they can
> be squared. This can be adjusted for rough conditions.
>
> KC, I don't like your sketch. It looks like a dip of the hands is
> required to get the blade squared. It's one of my major qualms with
> DYH's technique. To me, it becomes more problematic at higher beats and
> leads to missed water. I'm sure we've talked about this in the past. I
> like a straight trajectory from a flat finish to get the blade high
> enough to square cleanly.
Yeah, I was debating whether to draw a line straight & tangent from the
small (release) circle to the large (catch) circle (which I think is
closer to what you're describing.) I think we (meaning you, me, & our
UCI contemporaries) row like this more than we row like my sketch,
unless we are specifically trying to keep the blades close to the water.
In glassy conditions, I prefer to row more like my sketch, although I
know I don't always row like that, since the rest of you yahoos don't.
;-) Actually, I think we row somewhere in between a straight & tangent
line, and what I sketched.
I just remembered another benefit of keeping the blades closer to the
water - when/if there is a dip, you don't immediately smash your hands
into the gunwhales, or your knees, because you've got room. With the
blade always high enough to be squared up, there's little room for
handle clearance.
BTW, the sketch may seem like a big drop of the hands is necessary, but
it's not... just a by-product of the out-of-scale nature of the sketch.
The "loop" at the catch is only enough to clear the squared blade, &,
in my experience happens almost as a by product of the squaring motion:
a small drop of the wrists as the handle rolls up into one's grip during
the square is enough to clear the bottom edge of the blade...
Also, I was hoping my sketch would sort of illustrate how the square up
need not happen until very late in the recovery. All this "square over
the shins" nonsense is just that, and is only useful when trying to fix
a novice's late catch timing.
Think Scott'll let us take a pair out this summer?
-KC
>
> -Jed
KC
Nope. The FIRST motion (when *I* row) is diagonal - down & away
simultaneously. The ONLY (yes, in caps) time the motion is down, is
when the boat is not moving, since it must necessarily be only down
then. Which is why coaching the release from a static boat is wrong.
>
> That is a fact, else the blade center is still below the water
> line when you want to recover.
>
> The only difference between our ideal releases is simply the
> blade heights AFTER the release.
Then you haven't described your release very well. I'm claiming that a
square bladed release is less effective & unnecessary. Sounds like your
release is not a square bladed release - just a flat one with an
unnecessary amount of vertical motion added to it. If so, then I return
to my claim that square blade rowing drills are useless for teaching a
good release, & actually encourage washing out.
>
>
>>>square or flat, washed finishes are the norm. Deep finishes
>>>must be taught.
>>
>>Of course they must be taught. But, given a perfectly executed square
>>release and a perfectly executed flat release, the flat one will be well
>>buried longer.
>
>
> then you don't know what a perfectly executed square release
> looks or feels like.
Or, as stated above, you're misusing the label "square release". A
fully square blade can NOT (caps again!) be extracted cleanly from the
water without beginning the "tap down" well before the body.
>
> Read back earlier on this thread and see where I said that I
> have no doubt there are people who can keep blades buried
> with flatter releases.
That's fine. I have no doubt that NO ONE can keep a square blade fully
buried for as long as a flat(ter) release AND extract it cleanly. One
or the other - not both.
>
>
>>>>>balance in the boat on the recovery is best achieved with
>>>>>good finishes and a relaxation, rather than any kind of
>>>>>active motions for compensation.
>>>>
>>>>Again, I agree 100% with that statement. The active motion of pushing
>>>>down on the handle causes instability and is unnecessary. A *slight*
>>>
>>>That's why you do it all at once, and not scatter it throughout
>>>the recovery.
>>
>>I don't "scatter" it throughout the recovery. It happens when it's
>>necessary: at the catch. And, contrary to your previous statements, this
>>does NOT encourage skying of the blade at the catch. Only if you don't
>>teach the catch correctly does this happen. Skying is no more or less
>>likely with a squared release / high blade than with a flat release & low
>>blade. Skying happens because of the swing of the torso mentioned below,
>>and the rower's lack of understanding of that motion. It's a quick/easy
>>fix.
>
>
> That motion has to happen somewhere. It can't be simpler than
You for got to add the "IMO" there. I think it's simpler to ONLY (damn
caps again!) get blade height when NECESSARY. Who's to define how much
blade height is "enough"? Rowers IME, have a poor sense of this, and
will often carry the handle *too* low (lower than is necessary to allow
for only a square blade). On the other hand, if you tell them to keep
the blade close to the water, they naturally get enough height to square
up and catch, and rarely go for more. Minimize all vertical motion as
much as possible, always. It makes for quicker catches, too.
> to do it all at once, rather than twice, one inch at the release
> and another couple at the rollup, or have to modify your release
> height anyway to stroke a double or quad.
Humans are smarter than you give them credit for, Mike. If a guy feels
spray on his blade, he'll carry it a little higher. You don't have to
tell them to do it, and they don't even realize they do it. It's not a
big deal.
>
> Have you ever coached new people? Ppl who've never rowed
> before and get them from 0 to 6:00 in a matter of months?
Nope.
>
> The spread of athleticism and the variety of things that CAN be
What's this? Emphasis expressed with CAPS? From thee? For shame!
> done with such a simple motion is pretty awesome. The primary
> reason ppl sky is lack of preparation to the catch, but it isn't
> the only reason.
I think it has more to do with the confusion mentioned earlier of the
hand height relative to the body rather than to the boat & water.
>
> If you put crews together, or teach new crews, rollup timing is
I *have* put crews together from disparate groups. None were new rowers
though (although some were poor/bad rowers).
> going to be different, and not only that you want to be able
> to vary your rollup if need be, thus the up/down hand motion must vary
> with it.
>
>
> snip
>
>
>>Those last two paragraphs could have been word-for-word from my mouth last
>>summer when coaching the West Side 8+. I also apply the same sort of
>>example of the torso rotating about the hips to illustrate why/how rowers
>>tend to sky the blade at the catch... because they keep the handle in a
>>fixed position relative to their bodies, not relative to the boat or
>>water. They must feel like they are lifting the handle as their torsos
>>swing forward, in order to keep the handle height constant.
>>
>>Same is true as you are finishing the stroke.
>
>
> Then you do understand that washing out is not a case of
> actively pushing the handle down, it is pulling the handle
> on the same arc as the body swing.
& skying at the catch is similarly related to body swing, not "lack of
preparation". If anything it's too much preparation for the catch.
>
>
>>>>>Shallow finishes are unstable and uneven requiring
>>>>>the training wheel release.
>>>>
>>>>They are unstable and uneven, which is why I teach to minimize downward
>>>>motion of the handle at the release. This keeps the blade deep through
>>>>to the finish. Rowers who practice square blade rowing too much are
>>>>prone to washing out, because they start the tap-down before the stroke
>>>>is finished (a necessity of extracting a blade square).
>>>
>>>Most do, but it is because they've not been taught to
>>>finish deep.
>>
>>You physically can NOT finish deep all the way to the body AND extract the
>>blade square. If you want to extract the blade square, it MUST be
>>initiated well before the body, there's just no two ways about it. This
>>fact is what I see encouraging washing out.
>
>
> Yes you can. in CAPS too.
REALLY??? THANKS, MIKE! Oh, and no, you can not. If the boat is
moving, and you want to extract the blade fully square and cleanly (no
hangups), then you must start it (the handle) on a downward trajectory
while the blade is still traveling with the water (& the handle still
traveling toward the rower). THUS, the downward motion MUST be
initiated well before the body. IF on the other hand, you start your
feather while the blade is still partially immersed, that's a different
story - and more like a flat release than a square one, regardless of
how much extra & unnecessary height you choose to add to the motion.
I don't think we were disputing that. I thought we were disputing which
way was better. THAT dispute boils down to ... MINE! :^)
I've never talked technique w/ Conn, but I know DYH and he disagreed on
a lot... or at least DYH has said he didn't like Conn's rowing style
(IIRC) but he did speak volumes about Conn's toughness and power. DYH
was wrong on some things about technique (for modern equipment anyway)
but he wasn't wrong about the release.
>
> So what happens is with low recovered blades right after
> the finish is that any instabilities created by uneven finishes
> are caught by one blade or another, the boat begins to dip,
> and the flat blade nicks the water enough to dampen the roll
> and keep the boat set. The rowers feel more comfortable
> because the boat isn't ever dipping very dramatically.
This description may be true for less skilled rowers. But, using this
technique, they quickly find their release timing, and the little
wobbles cease, and the releases are just as clean as your big vertical
ones - but much more stable, because the rowers were QUICKLY able to
find comon timing at the finish, in a position of stability.
>
> In the meantime, however, even while not dragging oars,
> there is often contact with the water and the blades are
> creating a mitigation effect for poor finishes, which BTW
> happens to the best of us.
>
> This contact with the water adds tension to the recovery
> because when the blade nicks, it bounces, the hands have
> to find control of it again.
See, here is where your detailed description falls apart as one from
someone who's not familiar with the technique. Above you mentioned
contact with the water right AT the release (which can/does happen with
less skilled rowers or learners of the technique). These "nicks" don't
bounce anything - they dampen it. The resulting style is MUCH more
relaxed and smooth and calm than rowing with blades high, where the
tension and anxiety of a big dip to one side results in lack of
relaxation (& exacerbates the balance problem). My style may be prone
to nicks, but due to it's inherent stability, they don't happen as often
(as dips do with your technique).
>
> High releases and complete relaxation will cause more dramatic
> recovery problems but far less constant recovery
> corrections.
No. High releases and blades cause less relaxation, since the boat dips
more when it does dip. And yes, this causes more dramatic recovery
problems, and thus far MORE constant recovery corrections. With my
style, they find stability right away, and work together down the
recovery with fewer dips and problems. So to paraphrase you:
The differences boil down to this: your style takes the recovery
instabilities and spreads them out throughout the recovery, which sets
up for a mis-timed catch. "Nothing could be simpler" than to take care
of the instability all at once - at the release - and have a stable
recovery and a well timed & coordinated catch.
>
> Believe me, even in singles, you can have very uneven
> finishes and bad release timing and when I coach scullers
> who seem to be struggling, usually a reminder to
> 'establish the platform' is a signal to them to focus
> on finishes, and relax.
Same here.
>
>
>>I've seen this work over and over again (in my limited coaching time).
>>Guys are rowing too short because they are unstable out of the recovery.
>>This technique instantly fixes their release timing, gives them stability,
>>and all of a sudden they are inches longer at the catch, and driving
>>further at the finish.
>>
>>Now, it's entirely possible to train in a pair and find the stability and
>>sync with one's partner using a high, square bladed release style. But it
>>takes WAY more time to "gel" that way.
>
>
> Having success with one particular method is a nice
> thing to have happen and tends to reinforce that that method
> must be correct because, look, it works.
>
Oh? And what re-enforced for you that your method was the correct one,
other than seeing that it worked well for you? My style is not the only
way I've rowed, nor the only way I've coached. I've tried several
different styles both as rower and coach. This one works best.
>
>>When I have guys first try this drill, by the time they work through the
>>drill, from pausing to continuous rowing, all of a sudden they're rowing
>>normally, set, long, stable, and they (every time) giggle despite
>>themselves, they are so amazed at how easy it is to row a pair well (after
>>having struggled with it for WEEKS)
>>
>>
>>>I totally reject your assertion that from any sort of practical sense
>>>high releases make for more difficult balance, indeed, the experience
>>
>>Fine, totally reject it. But in MY experience, it's true. And, nothing
>>brought it home more than watching my under-sized pair launch along side
>>Ernst's "Washington timber" as the two pairs rowed to the starting line at
>>Indy. His guys were huge compared to mine. They'd been training under
>>Ernst for at least the whole summer, besides rowing at UW for him (and
>>whatever pairs time they got during the normal season.) My pair rowed
>>away level and smooth, like your stereo-typical "aircraft carrier"
>>analogy. His boys were strong & clean, but wobbly on the recovery.
>>
>>My guys medaled, Bob's came in 4th. My guys rowed through the UW boys in
>>the last 300m. JD was there, not sure if he saw this race, though.
>
>
> Someone else finished first, though, didn't they?
No Mike, they only gave out bronzes that day. :-/
>
> You're going to run into a world of hurt trying to justify your argument
> by success of a particular crew. The primary impulse to boat speed is
> going to be the power and fitness level of the athlete and there are hideous
> techniques and boxes of rocks I've seen winning world medals.
>
> I have learned in my many years that there are some athletes
> in many sports that are comfortable with some motions that
> are not mechanically sound. But they feel a comfort level
> with that pattern of motion that allows them to push themselves
> and drive themselves really really hard.
>
> This is not the case in this discussion, but it serves to illustrate
> a basic problem with results-based argument, and why
> I tend to avoid it if I can.
Oh give me a break, Mike. You're sounding pretty high and mighty here.
Forgive me for a moment - you know I have *tons* (no caps, just for
you) of respect for you - but I could hardly be accused of anything less
than following your lead here. You brag so much about being such a
great sculling instructor it's bordering on tiresome. At least Carl's
repetitions about buoyancy serve a greater purpose than selling his
boats or something. I wish I had time to go and find quotes of how many
times you've posted about how much success you've had with all your
clinics, and how many times you've told other RSR'ers that if they are
ever in town you'd gladly teach them for a day. So PLEASE! Forgive me
if I took a little self indulgence and chose a *specific* instance where
I saw my work pay off, rather than the payoffs at 100's of ambiguous
practice sessions. Of course I'm not going to hang my hat on ONE
quasi-victory. I haven't even been coaching long enough to have a hat
to hang, I'm the first to admit that.
-KC
Carl
> Jed Rogge wrote:
>
>> Mike, KC,
>>
>> Both of you assholes make some good points.
>>
>> Both of your finishes have potential pitfalls but both assume that the
>> blades stay buried till the work is done (when executed properly).
>> KC, a "big" drop of the hands at the finish doesn't require rowing the
>> blade out or finishing shorter than a flat finish (as your sketch
>> indicates),
>
>
> It's not the "big drop" of the hands per se... it's the fact that the
> blade is extracted fully square. There's absolutely no other way to get
> a square blade out cleanly than to start the "tap down" before the
> handle comes to the body.
Absolutely correct.
To get (should you even want it) a supposedly vertical lift of the blade
WRT the water, with the oar attached to a moving boat & being operated
by an occupant of that boat, you _must_ move the hands both to the bow &
down - a diagonal path in the vertical plane. If you simply move the
hands downwards WRT the boat, the blade must travel (= tear) bow-wards
through the water on its way up.
So the very notion of a "tap-down" is invalid.
I don't care what Sul says,
I always care what Sully says, even if
he's wrong on
> this point.
>
>> it just means you need a deep puddle from which to extract the blade,
>> ie a strong finish. Mike's point (I think) is that the flat finish
>> allows the rower to feel comfortable without a strong finish because
>> the blade will still extract *without* the deep puddle. KC's point (I
>> think) is that the squared finish often leads to washing out and an
>> unsteady boat as the hands drop precipitously.
This talk of flat finishes, deep puddles, etc., seems to ignore the
realities of a blade's actual 3-D path within the water, & the direct
relevance of hydrodynamic lift to its function.
Near the finish, the blade is moving root-first, quite rapidly, through
the water in the horizontal plane & should have water flowing over its
entire convex (back) surface, this flow generating lift. Contrary to
popular fiction, the blade does not generate much useful reaction from
water allegedly "piling" against its front, concave face so, if the
notion of a "deep puddle" carries with it the common notion of a cavity
behind the blade, then that'd be a great recipe for a soggy finish. In
any case, the blade has moved enough towards the boat near the finish to
have cut its way out of the cavity & disturbed water of the main puddle
created during the mid-stroke stall/slip.
Since the blade, approaching the finish, is moving root first while
totally immersed in water, let's consider the most useful way of
extracting it.
To maximise the available reaction force one wants to sustain lift/load
on the blade right to the last moment of extraction. Lift is efficient
because, with even a small part of the blade's area, it so well resists
the forces you apply - blades are much bigger than need be for the lift
phases of the stroke, but have to be big to cope with the stall phases.
If you finish in a way which destroys lift, you either shorten the
stroke's useful duration, or finish by scooping water astern & towards
the boat (an inefficient way to generate propulsion).
The finish does involve the blade moving upwards through the water, but
the least useful way to do this is to bring out the blade square. When
you do that, even though water is still flowing along the blade, the
increase in tension in the water behind the blade as the immersed area
shrinks causes the water level to fall, prematurely reducing that
immersed area & initiating premature slip - which is a dead loss.
A more efficient way to do things is to begin feathering as the blade
begins to lift. This keeps more of the blade immersed for longer, yet
requires less lift for initial water clearance. But the really
interesting thing is what this does for the water flow around the blade,
& for the useful hydrodynamic lift:
As the blade starts to lift & begins to turn towards the feather, while
fully immersed, the hands do slow down because they are approaching the
body & the turn. However, the new vertical velocity component alters
the pattern of flow over the blade most interestingly: whereas you
first had root-to-tip flow with the square blade, now the vertical
motion changes this to a significant extent to a top-edge-to-bottom-edge
flow. This new flow path sustains lift & thus the solid connection
between blade & water, & it efficiently generates propulsive force.
Interestingly, even of the hands were not moving at all to the bow, this
vertical movement of the part-feathered blade would generate both lift &
propulsive effect.
So the feathering finish allows sustained pressure further into the
finish even as the hands slow to a halt - something quite impossible
with the square finish. Indeed, the square finish is not only less
effective but it has to be shorter if it is to be fully & cleanly
extracted (& it must go to a greater height as well) as must happen even
before the hands can significantly slow down (if we ignore blade flex).
I hope that explanation will clarify some of the points being made in
this discussion? The rowing stroke is simple to do, but because it is
conducted from a moving platform it is rather hard at first to fully
understand how hand movements affect water flow around the blade.
Again, because fluid-dynamics is a rather counter-intuitive discipline,
it can be hard to see why certain actions sustain hydro-dynamic lift
while others will destroy lift & penalise us as a result.
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)
Jed Rogge
>> Read back earlier on this thread and see where I said that I
>> have no doubt there are people who can keep blades buried
>> with flatter releases.
KC responded:
> That's fine. I have no doubt that NO ONE can keep a square blade fully
> buried for as long as a flat(ter) release AND extract it cleanly. One
> or the other - not both.
KC,
I don't think you read my post very carefully. ;-)
I think you are neglecting a key part of any good finish: the puddle.
When the blade is buried squarely at the end of the stroke, the puddle
allows the blade time to extract cleanly. You don't have to pull the
hands down as they are drawn into the body to get the blade out cleanly
with a square blade release.
A flat release relies on the puddle as well, for the finish to be as
long and effective as a squared release. Without the puddle, a flat
release requires a less effective finish as the blade is rowed and/or
feathered out of the water.
So you can see how the square release might actually reinforce good
finishes since a deep puddle is *required* to get the blade out cleanly.
I think Mike's point is that it may be easier to coach against washed
out finishes with squared releases than it is to prevent weak (small
puddle) finishes with flat releases.
Just think about it. What the blade does above water is less important,
IMO.
-Jed
Kieran
> Mike wrote:
>
>>> Read back earlier on this thread and see where I said that I
>>> have no doubt there are people who can keep blades buried
>>> with flatter releases.
>
> KC responded:
>
>> That's fine. I have no doubt that NO ONE can keep a square blade
>> fully buried for as long as a flat(ter) release AND extract it
>> cleanly. One or the other - not both.
>
>
> KC,
>
> I don't think you read my post very carefully. ;-)
> I think you are neglecting a key part of any good finish: the puddle.
> When the blade is buried squarely at the end of the stroke, the puddle
> allows the blade time to extract cleanly. You don't have to pull the
> hands down as they are drawn into the body to get the blade out cleanly
> with a square blade release.
The puddle is what we see after the stroke. There shouldn't be a big
cavity behind (astern of) the blade during the stroke. If there is, the
blade isn't being as efficient as it could be, and is probably not
buried deeply enough (has already started to wash out). Remember from
fluids, the term "attached flow"? It refers to an attached boundary
layer. In the case of a blade, if it's well buried, the flow will
generally stay attached (except during midstroke when the blade stalls).
But if the air/water interface is allowed to interfere, we get what is
effectively detached flow along the blade. So, a cavity behind the
blade is not a good thing. I bet if you see a good sized cavity astern
of the blade, you would also see some of the front of the blade exposed
to air. That said, a puddle of sorts does start to develop (more so
with a shallow blade, but even with a deeper blade) as the force on the
blade falls off. Check out these images:
http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/jeff/courses/ken_young_webs/208A/scull.lift.html
even up to the fourth picture in the sequence, there isn't a big puddle.
The puddle forms (a) when the blade stalls mid stroke, and (b) as the
force drops off approaching the release (because the vortices from the
lifting flow start to move in on the blade)
>
> A flat release relies on the puddle as well, for the finish to be as
> long and effective as a squared release. Without the puddle, a flat
> release requires a less effective finish as the blade is rowed and/or
> feathered out of the water.
Mmm... I don't buy it. I say that a flat/feathered release is more
effective for whatever level of force is applied (i.e. it's no less
effective for lightweight women than for hwt men). So, even if you have
weak finishes, the feathered release is more effective than the square
one, and it's more effective even with a well-powered finish.
> So you can see how the square release might actually reinforce good
> finishes since a deep puddle is *required* to get the blade out cleanly.
> I think Mike's point is that it may be easier to coach against washed
> out finishes with squared releases than it is to prevent weak (small
> puddle) finishes with flat releases.
I think I understand what you're saying, but I still don't buy it. I
know we always have and do talk about the puddle, but in reality, I
don't think it does (or should) show up until after the stroke is done.
We like to think of a big cavity behind the blade as a result of our
great efforts on the handle causing a "mound" of water in front of the
blade, but if the blade is well buried, it shouldn't be there, no matter
how hard one pulls (the mound nor the cavity).
Also, I think no matter how well you perform a square release, it's
never better than a flat/feathered release. Besides, I think this may
all be moot, because I suspect that what Mike coaches is not a square
release, but something more similar to how you and I row, just with a
lot more (unnecessary) vertical motion.... because: you just can't
extract a fully squared blade cleanly at high pressure & rate - not
without starting the extraction too early anyway. Think about rowing by
square blades - even with bow pair setting up the boat - how jerky the
finish feels (even @ full pressure) until coach or cox allows you to
feather again, if even a half feather.
> Just think about it. What the blade does above water is less important,
> IMO.
I totally agree with that. Although I do feel that if we just focus on
blade heights on the recovery, a general rule of keeping the blade as
low as possible all the time is a good rule to follow. Requiring the
blade to be high enough for a square up for the whole recovery is
pointless, IMO. I understand WHY Mike and others *think* it's
important, I just don't think it *IS* important. Further I think that
the way we release sets up a nice stable platform from which to approach
the catch with relaxation, control and good timing.
-KC
Jed Rogge
> I think I understand what you're saying, but I still don't buy it. I
> know we always have and do talk about the puddle, but in reality, I
> don't think it does (or should) show up until after the stroke is done.
> We like to think of a big cavity behind the blade as a result of our
> great efforts on the handle causing a "mound" of water in front of the
> blade, but if the blade is well buried, it shouldn't be there, no matter
> how hard one pulls (the mound nor the cavity).
The puddles don't materialize on the surface until the release, but I
think they are formed by the difference in water pressure to bow and
stern of an accelerating squared and buried blade. The low water
pressure on the bow side of the blade is what allows it to be extracted
cleanly (and even "squarely!")
If you reduce the high water pressure on the stern side of the blade by
easing up on the finish or rowing it out, you will lose the low water
pressure on the bow side of the blade that facilitates a clean extraction.
Try it! Square and bury the blade and draw the handle with an even
force into the body. The more force you apply to the handle through the
drive, the easier it becomes to squarely finish and release the blade.
IMO, a flat *release* (ie extraction) can still be accomplished with a
square *finish* (ie blade squarely buried until the end of the stroke).
From what I've seen, many sweep coaches these days coach a flatter
release to adjust for the large hatchet blades with off center shafts.
The "tap down" (square) release needs to be bigger than it was with
spoons, and it isn't required for a good finish, IMO.
> Also, I think no matter how well you perform a square release, it's
> never better than a flat/feathered release. Besides, I think this may
> all be moot, because I suspect that what Mike coaches is not a square
> release, but something more similar to how you and I row, just with a
> lot more (unnecessary) vertical motion.... because: you just can't
> extract a fully squared blade cleanly at high pressure & rate - not
> without starting the extraction too early anyway. Think about rowing by
> square blades - even with bow pair setting up the boat - how jerky the
> finish feels (even @ full pressure) until coach or cox allows you to
> feather again, if even a half feather.
I've seen crews row square blades all 8 quite beautifully. UW's V8 at
Natoma comes to mind, and they were at about 22 spm. I gained a lot of
respect for Bob Earnst after seeing it.
2 questions came to my mind after watching them:
1) Why are they rowing square blades by all eight?
2) Why can't we? (At least not as consistently well)
-Jed
Carl
> Kieran wrote:
>
>> I think I understand what you're saying, but I still don't buy it. I
>> know we always have and do talk about the puddle, but in reality, I
>> don't think it does (or should) show up until after the stroke is
>> done. We like to think of a big cavity behind the blade as a result
>> of our great efforts on the handle causing a "mound" of water in front
>> of the blade, but if the blade is well buried, it shouldn't be there,
>> no matter how hard one pulls (the mound nor the cavity).
>
>
>
> The puddles don't materialize on the surface until the release, but I
> think they are formed by the difference in water pressure to bow and
> stern of an accelerating squared and buried blade. The low water
> pressure on the bow side of the blade is what allows it to be extracted
> cleanly (and even "squarely!")
>
> If you reduce the high water pressure on the stern side of the blade by
> easing up on the finish or rowing it out, you will lose the low water
> pressure on the bow side of the blade that facilitates a clean extraction.
Jed -
Forgive me busting in on your private exchange, but what you are seeking
to argue, above, amounts to fluid-dynamical anathema. May I suggest
that you ponder what I wrote yesterday in response to the posting from
KC which replied to one of yours (how does one best explain such
threading issues in few words??).
The fundamental issue is that it is not, as you clearly think, the
pressure on the concave face that provides the reaction between water &
blade. That pressure is wholly inadequate for the task, which is
principally done by the fluid tension existing across the blade's back.
And this applies even in the mid-stroke stall phase of the stroke
provided teh blade is kept sufficiently buried to rpevent hole
formation. In short, holes behind blades are a real waste of space.
Of course, you don't have to agree ;)
KC
> Kieran wrote:
>
>> I think I understand what you're saying, but I still don't buy it. I
>> know we always have and do talk about the puddle, but in reality, I
>> don't think it does (or should) show up until after the stroke is
>> done. We like to think of a big cavity behind the blade as a result
>> of our great efforts on the handle causing a "mound" of water in front
>> of the blade, but if the blade is well buried, it shouldn't be there,
>> no matter how hard one pulls (the mound nor the cavity).
>
>
> The puddles don't materialize on the surface until the release, but I
> think they are formed by the difference in water pressure to bow and
> stern of an accelerating squared and buried blade. The low water
Basically correct: Lift vortices are formed by the coming together of
low & high pressure (or IMO easier to visualize - high & low velocity)
fluids. "Winglets" on aircraft are there to reduce these vortices by
effectively increasing the aspect ratio of the wing. A "winglet" on the
deep side of an oar blade would make for a very messy catch though!
(although maybe that "lip" on the top edge of the newer C2 blades is
there for this very reason... pointed in the wrong direction, but it
might still serve this purpose somewhat...)
> pressure on the bow side of the blade is what allows it to be extracted
> cleanly (and even "squarely!")
I don't agree. (besides the fact that the pressure on the bow-side of
the blade is not "higher" than the ambient water p at that depth, it's
the stern side of the blade that has lower pressure, thus it's the
delta-pressure that counts). As I see it, no matter how high the
pressure differential, if a blade is to be extracted fully square, and
the water level is the same in front & behind the blade (which for a
well-buried blade it should be) then it must have a sternward & upward
trajectory until it is free of the water. This means the handle must be
pulled down & in before the handle meets the body, else you crab (if
even only slightly). IF on the other hand you're willing to begin the
feather AS you are pulling down & in, then the downward motion can be
started later. You can't tell me that a boat being rowed all-square
doesn't suddenly get MUCH more "send" at the finish&release as soon as
the feather is added in (maybe some cox'ns could chime in on this one).
The (fully) squared blade extraction is (by necessity) cutting the
stroke short.
> If you reduce the high water pressure on the stern side of the blade by
> easing up on the finish or rowing it out, you will lose the low water
> pressure on the bow side of the blade that facilitates a clean extraction.
Just to re-iterate: I'm 99% certain that the pressure to stern of the
blade doesn't "increase" ever, relative to the open water "ambient"
pressure. If anything it even drops slightly: If we assume that the
body of water is still, then when the blade disturbs it, the pressure
must drop. It's just that the pressure drops (much) more on the
bow-side of the blade (during a stroke). It's this delta-p that is the
reaction force against which we pull.
> Try it! Square and bury the blade and draw the handle with an even
> force into the body. The more force you apply to the handle through the
> drive, the easier it becomes to squarely finish and release the blade.
I can't try it right now... but let's make a date for sometime this
summer at the boathouse. Maybe Sully will join us.
> IMO, a flat *release* (ie extraction) can still be accomplished with a
> square *finish* (ie blade squarely buried until the end of the stroke).
YES! IMO, the *only* way to keep the blade squared all the way to the
end of the stroke (or very close to it anyway... to be literal) is to
perform a flat release. This is done by starting the feather while the
blade is still in the water. If you want the blade to be fully square
until it is totally free of the water, you must begin to extract it well
before the body.
> From what I've seen, many sweep coaches these days coach a flatter
> release to adjust for the large hatchet blades with off center shafts.
> The "tap down" (square) release needs to be bigger than it was with
> spoons, and it isn't required for a good finish, IMO.
Agreed, and I think Sully is one of these coaches, whether he realizes
it or not. To row such that the blade is kept fully square until
totally free of the water is just silly, and is only really done as a drill.
>
>
>> Also, I think no matter how well you perform a square release, it's
>> never better than a flat/feathered release. Besides, I think this may
>> all be moot, because I suspect that what Mike coaches is not a square
>> release, but something more similar to how you and I row, just with a
>> lot more (unnecessary) vertical motion.... because: you just can't
>> extract a fully squared blade cleanly at high pressure & rate - not
>> without starting the extraction too early anyway. Think about rowing
>> by square blades - even with bow pair setting up the boat - how jerky
>> the finish feels (even @ full pressure) until coach or cox allows you
>> to feather again, if even a half feather.
>
>
> I've seen crews row square blades all 8 quite beautifully. UW's V8 at
As have I. It *can* be done beautifully and cleanly, but it still cuts
the stroke short.
> Natoma comes to mind, and they were at about 22 spm. I gained a lot of
> respect for Bob Earnst after seeing it.
I think I was probably standing next to you then. I remember commenting
on it, too. I have tons of respect for Ernst. His crews are technical
wizards, whether or not I agree with the technique they use, and he
obviously knows how to train them well, both physically and technically.
> 2 questions came to my mind after watching them:
>
> 1) Why are they rowing square blades by all eight?
That's been my question throughout this whole discussion. I don't see
the benefit of it as a drill. Actually, I see some benefits: release
timing, balance, discipline on blade height early (if that's what the
coach wants). But IMO, there are other ways to drill those things, and
the square bladed release also drills in a washed finish (or if you
don't want to call it "washed" since it's not really an error but a
necessity of rowing square blades, call it "short") which is not a good
thing. Instead, if you want your crews to row with a square blade of
height under the feathered blades at all times, then drill with a normal
release, but square up IMMEDIATELY after the feathered release. At
least then the rowers are drilling a proper (long & strong) finish.
> 2) Why can't we? (At least not as consistently well)
A couple reasons: 1) only half our boat (most years) were athletes as
skilled as all 8 of the UW boat, and 2) because we never drilled &
practiced it, except for when Dan coached us, and we did get pretty good
at it that year. I remember rowing away from the beach at SDCC in '94
all 8 square and set and confident (a little too confident as it turned
out!)
-KC
Mike Sullivan
> Jed Rogge wrote:
>> Kieran wrote:
>>
I won't be able to catch up with the weekends responses.
I have some questions for you,, KC and Carl.
1. what do you coach the off hand to do at the finish and release in
a sweep row finish?
2. How is a flat release enough to clear puddles immediately behind?
I read Carl's description of the lift forces in the feathered finish. Very
interesting and I'll try and understand it better. Want to point
to somebody that does this successfully?
>> From what I've seen, many sweep coaches these days coach a flatter
>> release to adjust for the large hatchet blades with off center shafts.
>> The "tap down" (square) release needs to be bigger than it was with
>> spoons, and it isn't required for a good finish, IMO.
Many coaches don't coach finishes, Jed. They get the crew
to row a little square blade and that's enough. It's the
one part I agree with Kieran on.
>
> Agreed, and I think Sully is one of these coaches, whether he realizes it
> or not. To row such that the blade is kept fully square until totally
> free of the water is just silly, and is only really done as a drill.
Very patronizing, 'realizes it or not'. jeez
Rowing square is difficult to do well. I've said all along
that square rowing encourages cheating on the finish, and that
when I teach scullers to finish well, I do not do it by rowing
square blade. This does not change that I teach releasing
high however for the reasons already stated.
That being said I've had many many scullers (and sweep rowing)
able to row square blade and to keep finishes buried.
Let me give you a hint, it's hard to do.
>
>>
>>
>>> Also, I think no matter how well you perform a square release, it's
>>> never better than a flat/feathered release. Besides, I think this may
>>> all be moot, because I suspect that what Mike coaches is not a square
>>> release, but something more similar to how you and I row, just with a
>>> lot more (unnecessary) vertical motion.... because: you just can't
>>> extract a fully squared blade cleanly at high pressure & rate - not
>>> without starting the extraction too early anyway. Think about rowing by
>>> square blades - even with bow pair setting up the boat - how jerky the
>>> finish feels (even @ full pressure) until coach or cox allows you to
>>> feather again, if even a half feather.
>>
>>
>> I've seen crews row square blades all 8 quite beautifully. UW's V8 at
>
> As have I. It *can* be done beautifully and cleanly, but it still cuts
> the stroke short.
It need not.
> That's been my question throughout this whole discussion. I don't see the
> benefit of it as a drill. Actually, I see some benefits: release timing,
> balance, discipline on blade height early (if that's what the coach
> wants). But IMO, there are other ways to drill those things, and
Best way to do square blade rowing is to go
off hand only. It drills in the importance of that hand for
the finish in sweep.
In sculling, I drill random squaring on different hands to
encourage the release height motion. While doing that
I'm watching blade depths. It works.
Here's a sculler:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfQ916xkevs
At about 1:50 and later in the vids, they do some stop action.
Tell me what you see and what you'd tell him to do differently
on the finish if anything.
Now take this vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMj59_BdG10
Watch first the various crews rowing from
the stern and see what they're doing regarding the hand motions at
the finish/release recovery. Look at the Italians particularly vs the
Germans, then go play around with the stop action at around 3:58 through
4:50. there is a sequence where you can see the germans and
Italians releasing at the same time and they've videoed it at slo-mo
for us which is most excellent!
Let me know what you think you see.
'realize it or not' indeed.....
Kieran
> Very patronizing, 'realizes it or not'. jeez
Patronize and patronize alike? I may be a lot younger and a lot less
experienced, but your last post to me (specifically the end of it) was,
IMO, more patronizing than anything I wrote.
> 'realize it or not' indeed.....
How about this: "I reject" that you and/or your rowers actually extract
the blade FULLY square when rowing "normally" (i.e. not a drill).
Unless doing a square blade drill, I bet you feather a bit before the
blade is fully free of the water, whether you realize it or not... no
patronizing intended.
For the Vyacheslav video, it's hard to see anything well, but on the few
frames where you can see his blade at the release, it looks like it's
washed out.
Haven't watched the other vid yet.
-KC
Mike Sullivan
"Kieran" <kc_...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:f15o72$rrh$1...@prometheus.acsu.buffalo.edu...
> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>
>> Very patronizing, 'realizes it or not'. jeez
>
> Patronize and patronize alike? I may be a lot younger and a lot less
> experienced, but your last post to me (specifically the end of it) was,
> IMO, more patronizing than anything I wrote.
Well if it sounded patronizing to you, I apologize.
my response was you were trying to point to your own
results to justify the technique, earlier by how you
rowed, and the latest by the success of this particular crew
over UW boys.
right?
Else I'd have to point out that the rower I taught how to
finish the stroke in a single had her crews completely
dominate the Big 10 championships this weekend!!! :^)
>
>> 'realize it or not' indeed.....
>
> How about this: "I reject" that you and/or your rowers actually extract
> the blade FULLY square when rowing "normally" (i.e. not a drill). Unless
> doing a square blade drill, I bet you feather a bit before the blade is
> fully free of the water, whether you realize it or not... no patronizing
> intended.
You completely misunderstand that though, KC. I do not teach that
you have to clear the puddle before you feather and said
it again very clearly. You can row deep and square, but there
is no need to.
Indeed, in one of our first exchanges on this thread I said this:
<begin>
KC>
> Very rare because everyone thinks they must extract the blade square!
few scullers do it. Most extract flat after washing out.
The blade doesn't have to completely clear the water before feathering,
but the first impulse is down to release, and the release should be
the highest point of the blade off the water on the recovery.
<end>
>
> For the Vyacheslav video, it's hard to see anything well, but on the few
> frames where you can see his blade at the release, it looks like it's
> washed out.
Did you watch his handle path on the finish?
As far as the doubles go, I'll tell you what I see.
The Italian stroke pulls in high and has a more dramatic drop of
his hands to release. You can see it by comparing the various
stern shots, particlarly between him and the germans. The germans
release is very flat.
The Italian's finish is not perfect, he drops a bit before the actual
release which is the more dramatic drop (then the wrist break)
but for a race piece is very good.
The germans start their drop of their hands sooner, and feather and
push away fairly flat (not completely). I can clearly see the germans
dropping hands on the drive without seeing the blades and can
tell what the blades are doing.
Then you go the angle shot I pointed to later. For a minute you
can see through the german's releases to the italians' bladework.
The Italians stay in the water later nearly every stroke and there is
one Italian stroke that looked really good. The German blade is
rowed gradually out of the water, then feathered.
Coincidentally, there is one stroke where the german blade
whack's a little water in that sequence, the italians are clean.
This was not glassy conditions but hardly rough.
Mike
Kieran
> Here's a sculler:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfQ916xkevs
>
> At about 1:50 and later in the vids, they do some stop action.
> Tell me what you see and what you'd tell him to do differently
> on the finish if anything.
>
> Now take this vid:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMj59_BdG10
>
> Watch first the various crews rowing from
> the stern and see what they're doing regarding the hand motions at
> the finish/release recovery. Look at the Italians particularly vs the
> Germans, then go play around with the stop action at around 3:58 through
> 4:50. there is a sequence where you can see the germans and
> Italians releasing at the same time and they've videoed it at slo-mo
> for us which is most excellent!
>
> Let me know what you think you see.
First vid comments in previous post. For the second vid, I'd say both
Italians and Germans are trying to extract the blade square. Both
boats' blades start to appear from the water before they are finished
moving to stern. I call this wash-out, although it's a result of the
technique, IMO, not a real error. The Germans do, however, achieve a
much cleaner release; the Italians throw a whole lot of water up with
their feather. Both boats begin the feather before the blade is fully
out of the water. Neither boat rows the way I try to row, or the way I
try to coach. The Italians also are pulling down into their bellies,
rather than level and high into their chests.
-KC
Kieran
> "Kieran" <kc_...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:f15o72$rrh$1...@prometheus.acsu.buffalo.edu...
>> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>> Very patronizing, 'realizes it or not'. jeez
>> Patronize and patronize alike? I may be a lot younger and a lot less
>> experienced, but your last post to me (specifically the end of it) was,
>> IMO, more patronizing than anything I wrote.
>
> Well if it sounded patronizing to you, I apologize.
Thanks and I apologize for sounding patronizing, whether I realized it
or not. :^)
> my response was you were trying to point to your own
> results to justify the technique, earlier by how you
> rowed, and the latest by the success of this particular crew
> over UW boys.
>
> right?
My point is/was that you do the same thing all the time, except rather
than talk about race results, you talk about how well your teaching
sessions go, and how well your scullers pick up your teachings. To
quote Abbot: "SAME AS YOU!" ;^) (or was that line Costello?) Only I
chose a specific instance, rather than some random training session
where they guys did really well.
> Else I'd have to point out that the rower I taught how to
> finish the stroke in a single had her crews completely
> dominate the Big 10 championships this weekend!!! :^)
Which is about as valid as DYH taking credit for Ernst's victories, or
Ernst for yours.
>>> 'realize it or not' indeed.....
>> How about this: "I reject" that you and/or your rowers actually extract
>> the blade FULLY square when rowing "normally" (i.e. not a drill). Unless
>> doing a square blade drill, I bet you feather a bit before the blade is
>> fully free of the water, whether you realize it or not... no patronizing
>> intended.
>
> You completely misunderstand that though, KC. I do not teach that
> you have to clear the puddle before you feather and said
How else does one define a square-blade release than that the blade is
square when it is released? Anything else is more like a flat release
with excess vertical motion.
> it again very clearly. You can row deep and square, but there
> is no need to.
>
> Indeed, in one of our first exchanges on this thread I said this:
>
> <begin>
> KC>
>> Very rare because everyone thinks they must extract the blade square!
>
> few scullers do it. Most extract flat after washing out.
>
> The blade doesn't have to completely clear the water before feathering,
> but the first impulse is down to release, and the release should be
> the highest point of the blade off the water on the recovery.
>
> <end>
Apologies again then, I remember that exchange but not the "blade
doesn't have to completely clear the water before feathering" part.
>> For the Vyacheslav video, it's hard to see anything well, but on the few
>> frames where you can see his blade at the release, it looks like it's
>> washed out.
>
> Did you watch his handle path on the finish?
Yeah, he could pull in higher, too.
> As far as the doubles go, I'll tell you what I see.
>
> The Italian stroke pulls in high and has a more dramatic drop of
> his hands to release. You can see it by comparing the various
> stern shots, particlarly between him and the germans. The germans
> release is very flat.
>
> The Italian's finish is not perfect, he drops a bit before the actual
> release which is the more dramatic drop (then the wrist break)
> but for a race piece is very good.
>
> The germans start their drop of their hands sooner, and feather and
> push away fairly flat (not completely). I can clearly see the germans
> dropping hands on the drive without seeing the blades and can
> tell what the blades are doing.
>
> Then you go the angle shot I pointed to later. For a minute you
> can see through the german's releases to the italians' bladework.
>
> The Italians stay in the water later nearly every stroke and there is
> one Italian stroke that looked really good. The German blade is
> rowed gradually out of the water, then feathered.
>
> Coincidentally, there is one stroke where the german blade
> whack's a little water in that sequence, the italians are clean.
> This was not glassy conditions but hardly rough.
>
> Mike
Wow. Seems like we were watching different videos (see my last post) I
did not see the shots of the Germans from stern, I jumped right to the
angle shot (sorry). I did watch the Italians from stern though. I'm
surprised though you thought the Italian stroke was pulling in high. I
think he was as bad if not worse than most at pulling down too soon, too
much. His blade is washing out, it's just hard to see with all the
spray he picks up with it on that forceful feather he does (another bad
thing).
-KC
Jed Rogge
> IMO, the *only* way to keep the blade squared all the way to the
> end of the stroke (or very close to it anyway... to be literal) is to
> perform a flat release. This is done by starting the feather while the
> blade is still in the water. If you want the blade to be fully square
> until it is totally free of the water, you must begin to extract it well
> before the body.
KC - both squared and feathered releases require the blade to "drag"
through the water after the (square) work on the drive is done and the
hands stop moving to bow. Aren't the blade's effective/submerged
cross-sectional areas comparable for both types of releases?
It's my belief that the (square) blade's acceleration at the finish will
mitigate this resistance ("drag") and facilitate a "clean" exit for both
types of releases.
It seems to me (I could be wrong) that you advocate a flat *finish*
where the blade feathers in the last part of the drive when the hands
are still moving to bow. IMO, this is essentially the same thing as
rowing the blade out squarely since the blade is reducing it's effective
cross-sectional area on the drive.
Carl - I'm not ignoring you, but I can only argue with one person at a
time. :-)
Rob
pretty deep, rowing very legs-then-back-then-arms. Now I'm more
everything-at-once, and I think that the earlier draw with the arms
creates a nice little downward vector on the handle and thereby keeps
the blade at a better height, consistent through the drive.
The elbows-out idea is excellent, but there are a lot of hinges at
work near the finish of the drive (shoulder, elbow, wrist, circularity
around the pin, up and down at pin/hands, maybe more), so a more
comprehensive idea is to get the elbows staying at the same height as
the hands throughout the vicinity of the finish. I used to get some
mileage out of picturing my entire forearm joint finishing on a
shelf. Rather than focusing on a point on your anatomy (elbow), try
to broaden the effort or visualization.
As to tap-down (or not) and wrists level (or not), I also strive here
to work less with the hands and more with bigger muscle groups. My
project for about a year has been to work on sticking my chest out a
bit at the finish to avoid collapsing (hat tip to John Gill). When I
get this right, there is a sensation that I am pressing the shoulder
blades together at the very very end of the stroke, and the pressure
actually comes off the shoulders and the stroke feels centered more in
the core for an instant before the blades release.
A couple of winters ago I decided to emphasize the last couple of
inches of pull-through on the seated rowing machine I use, and this
had some benefits on the water in terms of control and confidence at
the finish.
Amen to Carl's strong draw-through and not fearing the finish, but
there is an absolutely pivotal moment when you must indeed relax and
get going the other way! I think if you're feeling an awful lot of
force on the oar right at the release that you've waited a bit too
long to get the power on.
Kiwi coach Chris Nilsson once told me, "The finish just happens." My
current coach, Vaclav Kacir, likes to say "One motion!"-IE finish and
hands away is one motion. "Rebound" is the term we use around here
(Connecticut).
There's a drill that illustrates rebound really well. In my
experience very few people latch onto but I'm going to describe it
anyway. It's the one on-water rowing drill that is not actually any
sort of replication of an actual stroke. Do this in a double or quad
first, with partner setting up the boat. Put oars over knees, shafts
perpendicular to the boat, blades square and in the water.
Violently jerk the handle toward your body with back and arms. The
blades should pop out.
What you really did was to pull your body toward the handle. So as
the blades pop out, you've also got your body on its way as if this
were an actual recovery to a stroke.
Whenever I try to show people this drill they always try to take some
kind of short stroke. Forget that. Just jam it. This is very much
contra the point I just made about relaxing for an instant as you
finish, but the sensation of coming out of bow is realistic.
Mike Sullivan
> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>> "Kieran" <kc_...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> news:f15o72$rrh$1...@prometheus.acsu.buffalo.edu...
>>> Mike Sullivan wrote:
snip
>> Else I'd have to point out that the rower I taught how to
>> finish the stroke in a single had her crews completely
>> dominate the Big 10 championships this weekend!!! :^)
>
> Which is about as valid as DYH taking credit for Ernst's victories, or
> Ernst for yours.
whiff.
You totally missed it. I thought you were pals w/ JD! WD
won big time and should be congratulated. It's
significant, they've been rowing out a freakin tent for
the last 7 years. It's the largest overall point total. 2nd
in V, 1st in JV, 4+ and novice 8!!!!!!
snip
>>> For the Vyacheslav video, it's hard to see anything well, but on the few
>>> frames where you can see his blade at the release, it looks like it's
>>> washed out.
>>
>> Did you watch his handle path on the finish?
>
> Yeah, he could pull in higher, too.
I've heard someone comment on this vid that given this was a training
film and the Soviets were supposedly sneaky that Ivanov was
screwing with his rowing.
His releases are very relaxed and smooth, but there's very
little impulse to the boat on the back half, especially relative
to the connection early on. His releases
are flat, and yes he's out of the water already when he releases.
He was about a 6:58 sculler, I recall.
I don't think the german stroke has been taught to finish high
and release high. He is sculling typically flat in flat out feathering
the 'release'.
I already stated that the italian is not ideal, but the height of his
release gives him a chance to finish deep (which he hangs in
deeper for longer than the german does).
The simple point is that you need to move the hands down to clear the
blade from the correct finish. I think the contrast in the two finishes
exhibits it nicely. The Italians move down, the germans do not.
The italian HAD to move down because he was deeper in
the water when he released.
I'd be interested in seeing any examples of good finishes in your
estimation.
Mike Sullivan
"Carl" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f0vqfi$h55$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
> KC wrote:
>> Jed Rogge wrote:
>>
>>> Mike, KC,
>>>
>>> Both of you assholes make some good points.
>>>
>>> Both of your finishes have potential pitfalls but both assume that the
>>> blades stay buried till the work is done (when executed properly). KC,
>>> a "big" drop of the hands at the finish doesn't require rowing the blade
>>> out or finishing shorter than a flat finish (as your sketch indicates),
>>
>>
>> It's not the "big drop" of the hands per se... it's the fact that the
>> blade is extracted fully square. There's absolutely no other way to get
>> a square blade out cleanly than to start the "tap down" before the handle
>> comes to the body.
>
> Absolutely correct.
>
> To get (should you even want it) a supposedly vertical lift of the blade
> WRT the water, with the oar attached to a moving boat & being operated by
> an occupant of that boat, you _must_ move the hands both to the bow &
> down - a diagonal path in the vertical plane. If you simply move the
> hands downwards WRT the boat, the blade must travel (= tear) bow-wards
> through the water on its way up.
I don't understand how this is so.
If I pull into my tits with my scull handles, push down,
there is a discreet amt of time where the oars are
no longer moving to bow (in relation to boat, it
is only moving up) yet there is contact w/ water.
In relation to the water, the
blades are moving in the direction of the bow
at the speed the boat is moving.
So I must not understand what you are saying here.
snip
> This talk of flat finishes, deep puddles, etc., seems to ignore the
> realities of a blade's actual 3-D path within the water, & the direct
> relevance of hydrodynamic lift to its function.
>
> Near the finish, the blade is moving root-first, quite rapidly, through
> the water in the horizontal plane & should have water flowing over its
> entire convex (back) surface, this flow generating lift. Contrary to
so I understand, the lift on the back of the blade as the
water flows from stem (shaft) to tip lengthwise on the
blade is creating higher pressure on the blade face
giving you that anchor point.
> popular fiction, the blade does not generate much useful reaction from
> water allegedly "piling" against its front, concave face so, if the notion
> of a "deep puddle" carries with it the common notion of a cavity behind
> the blade, then that'd be a great recipe for a soggy finish. In any case,
> the blade has moved enough towards the boat near the finish to have cut
> its way out of the cavity & disturbed water of the main puddle created
> during the mid-stroke stall/slip.
I've never bought the 'hole in the back'. Indeed it is that
notion that used to be used to sell flat finishes!!! release
out of the hole in back of the puddle.
>
> Since the blade, approaching the finish, is moving root first while
> totally immersed in water, let's consider the most useful way of
> extracting it.
>
> To maximise the available reaction force one wants to sustain lift/load on
> the blade right to the last moment of extraction. Lift is efficient
> because, with even a small part of the blade's area, it so well resists
> the forces you apply - blades are much bigger than need be for the lift
> phases of the stroke, but have to be big to cope with the stall phases. If
> you finish in a way which destroys lift, you either shorten the stroke's
> useful duration, or finish by scooping water astern & towards the boat (an
> inefficient way to generate propulsion).
>
> The finish does involve the blade moving upwards through the water, but
> the least useful way to do this is to bring out the blade square. When
> you do that, even though water is still flowing along the blade, the
> increase in tension in the water behind the blade as the immersed area
> shrinks causes the water level to fall, prematurely reducing that immersed
> area & initiating premature slip - which is a dead loss.
But you're still getting lift along the back of the blade as you extract,
lengthwise as the boat goes down course, and width wise as
the blade lifts out. true?
>
> A more efficient way to do things is to begin feathering as the blade
> begins to lift. This keeps more of the blade immersed for longer, yet
> requires less lift for initial water clearance. But the really
> interesting thing is what this does for the water flow around the blade, &
> for the useful hydrodynamic lift:
when you say 'as the blade begins to lift, how do you
lift?
>
> As the blade starts to lift & begins to turn towards the feather, while
> fully immersed, the hands do slow down because they are approaching the
> body & the turn. However, the new vertical velocity component alters the
> pattern of flow over the blade most interestingly: whereas you first had
> root-to-tip flow with the square blade, now the vertical motion changes
> this to a significant extent to a top-edge-to-bottom-edge flow. This new
> flow path sustains lift & thus the solid connection between blade & water,
> & it efficiently generates propulsive force. Interestingly, even of the
> hands were not moving at all to the bow, this vertical movement of the
> part-feathered blade would generate both lift & propulsive effect.
but as the blade feathers, aren't the forces going at right angle to the
blade?
>
> So the feathering finish allows sustained pressure further into the finish
> even as the hands slow to a halt - something quite impossible
> with the square finish. Indeed, the square finish is not only less
So you lighten the pressure against the blade as
you draw to the finish?
> effective but it has to be shorter if it is to be fully & cleanly
> extracted (& it must go to a greater height as well) as must happen even
> before the hands can significantly slow down (if we ignore blade flex).
>
> I hope that explanation will clarify some of the points being made in this
> discussion? The rowing stroke is simple to do, but because it is
> conducted from a moving platform it is rather hard at first to fully
> understand how hand movements affect water flow around the blade. Again,
> because fluid-dynamics is a rather counter-intuitive discipline, it can be
> hard to see why certain actions sustain hydro-dynamic lift while others
> will destroy lift & penalise us as a result.
I admit to be woefully ignorant of the specifics of the fluid
dynamics of the blade and promise I'm looking.
What it sounds like your describing though, that as you feather
you should be feeling resistance in your hands?
KC
> "Carl" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:f0vqfi$h55$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>>KC wrote:
>>
>>>Jed Rogge wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mike, KC,
>>>>
>>>>Both of you assholes make some good points.
>>>>
>>>>Both of your finishes have potential pitfalls but both assume that the
>>>>blades stay buried till the work is done (when executed properly). KC,
>>>>a "big" drop of the hands at the finish doesn't require rowing the blade
>>>>out or finishing shorter than a flat finish (as your sketch indicates),
>>>
>>>
>>>It's not the "big drop" of the hands per se... it's the fact that the
>>>blade is extracted fully square. There's absolutely no other way to get
>>>a square blade out cleanly than to start the "tap down" before the handle
>>>comes to the body.
>>
>>Absolutely correct.
>>
>>To get (should you even want it) a supposedly vertical lift of the blade
>>WRT the water, with the oar attached to a moving boat & being operated by
>>an occupant of that boat, you _must_ move the hands both to the bow &
>>down - a diagonal path in the vertical plane. If you simply move the
>>hands downwards WRT the boat, the blade must travel (= tear) bow-wards
>>through the water on its way up.
>
>
> I don't understand how this is so.
I'll leave the rest of your questions to Carl. I understand his points,
but don't necessarily agree with all he says about propulsive lift being
useful as one feathers. But this part is easy...
>
> If I pull into my tits with my scull handles, push down,
> there is a discreet amt of time where the oars are
> no longer moving to bow (in relation to boat, it
> is only moving up) yet there is contact w/ water.
If you pull to your tits as you say, and ONLY push down, (i.e. stop all
bow-ward motion of the handles) then as soon as the handles stop moving
to bow the blade stops moving with the water. It takes time for you to
drop the handles enough to get the blade out. During that time, if the
blade is not moving with the water, it must be "holding water" or
"back-watering". Therefore, to not backwater or hold water, or crab, or
any way you want to describe it, you must, if you want to extract the
blade fully square (no feather) push down while the handle still is
traveling toward your body. If you stop the bow-ward motion of the
handle, you're putting on the brakes. A very very good sculler could
minimize this diagonal pull distance, in theory, but it still must happen.
If on the other hand, you feather a bit as you push down, then the part
of the blade below the axis of the shaft travels with the water as it
turns, thus minimizing the amount of bow-ward motion the handles must do
to keep from back-watering at the blade.
>
> In relation to the water, the
> blades are moving in the direction of the bow
> at the speed the boat is moving.
Yes exactly. The blades are moving with the boat, if you've stopped
bow-ward motion of the handle. If the blade is moving with the boat,
then it is being dragged through the water.
>
> So I must not understand what you are saying here.
Hope this helps clear it up?
> snip
>
>>This talk of flat finishes, deep puddles, etc., seems to ignore the
>>realities of a blade's actual 3-D path within the water, & the direct
>>relevance of hydrodynamic lift to its function.
>>
>>Near the finish, the blade is moving root-first, quite rapidly, through
>>the water in the horizontal plane & should have water flowing over its
>>entire convex (back) surface, this flow generating lift. Contrary to
>
>
> so I understand, the lift on the back of the blade as the
> water flows from stem (shaft) to tip lengthwise on the
> blade is creating higher pressure on the blade face
> giving you that anchor point.
No, pressure on the blade face is not increased. Only the pressure on
the back face is decreased. It's this delta in pressure from front to
back that provides the force against which we pull.
All from me,
-KC
JD
> You totally missed it. I thought you were pals w/ JD! WD
> won big time and should be congratulated. It's
> significant, they've been rowing out a freakin tent for
> the last 7 years. It's the largest overall point total. 2nd
> in V, 1st in JV, 4+ and novice 8!!!!!!
Mike:
On behalf of the WD, thanks for the kudos. We sure enjoyed your call,
as it has kept the glow going for another day.
And for the rest of you, I haven't read a snip of this, but whatever
Sully says here is dead-on, as evidenced by the fact that my wife's
crew just had a great day because she listened to him for 5 minutes,
20 years ago.
JD
Mike Sullivan
"JD" <johnn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177989068.3...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
LOL.
I ran workouts all winter from a split hull Pocock single.
Usually I take credit for a coach's success based on having
had a beer with him or her!
That might be most of the country.
Mike
Mike Sullivan
"KC" <kc_...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:HSwZh.2643$dy2.1883@trndny01...
> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>> "Carl" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:f0vqfi$h55$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
snipo
> If on the other hand, you feather a bit as you push down, then the part of
> the blade below the axis of the shaft travels with the water as it turns,
> thus minimizing the amount of bow-ward motion the handles must do to keep
> from back-watering at the blade.
This is the first case you've made to me for
your flat release. I won't yet comment or
question until I see if Carl responds.
Carl
Mike, it seems you understand perfectly. And I go with most of Kieran's
explanation too. A vertical hand drop (the so-called tap-down) means
the blades must, until clear of the water, drag in the same direction as
the boat, which is therefore most undesirable.
I don't go with Kieran's last comment about the feather keeping that art
of the blade mving the right way - that was not what i meant at all, so
let me discuss that:
This can be difficult to juggle in the mind as it involves thinking in
unfamiliar frames of reference, but please imagine a vertically-sliced
cross-section (= the minor chord) of your blade (cut from top edge to
bottom edge) as it moves up through the water during the extraction. As
it moves up, & the boat moves forward taking the blade with it, it
follows a diagonal path through the last part of the water & out into
the air. If the blade is square at this time we agree that it must drag
water forwards with it - all loss. If, however, the blade is rotated so
its minor chord is perfectly aligned with its path through the water,
then it will slice edge-on along that diagonal path, causing minimum drag.
Minimum drag like this is good; it is not negatively propulsive, but nor
is it positively propulsive. It is just a neat, low-loss means of
self-extraction.
Now imagine that the blade is just a little more feathered, so its minor
chord is aligned just a little flatter than the path it is going to take
up through the water? Now, if it is still to be moved along that
diagonal path, it will require some pressure downwards on the
oar-handle. That's because the blade is now generating "lift". But
that lift has a useful forward component, & that component delivers a
useful propulsive effect while incurring truly minimal extra drag.
In summary what we are doing, by applying the right amount of feather
during extraction, is going from the situation approaching the finish
where the flow is running root-to-tip along the blade, thereby
generating lift (reduced pressure) over its convex surface, towards one
during extraction in which the flow is increasingly running
top-to-bottom of the feathering blade, again generating lift. Which
beats both of the square blade situations where, if rowed down under
load, the blade throws water (or it will do no propulsion) or on
vertical tap-down it generates only drag, a crab hazard & no propulsion,
& the sweetly feathered extraction - which generates little drag but no
propulsion either.
> snip
>
>>This talk of flat finishes, deep puddles, etc., seems to ignore the
>>realities of a blade's actual 3-D path within the water, & the direct
>>relevance of hydrodynamic lift to its function.
>>
>>Near the finish, the blade is moving root-first, quite rapidly, through
>>the water in the horizontal plane & should have water flowing over its
>>entire convex (back) surface, this flow generating lift. Contrary to
>
>
> so I understand, the lift on the back of the blade as the
> water flows from stem (shaft) to tip lengthwise on the
> blade is creating higher pressure on the blade face
> giving you that anchor point.
As Kieran points out, foils don't generate lift through any meanngful
pressure increase but by their ability to cause a substantial pressure
_decrease_ over their convexly-curved "back" surfaces. The small heap
of water you see above the front of the blade represents sod-all in
terms of a pressure increase, but the tendency of the surface to suck
down behind the blade tells you all you need to know about that fall in
pressure which causes lift. Of course, if too much of a cavity forms
behind the blade you'll break the otherwise fiercely strong tension
between back of blade & water (water can sustain very high tension for
short time durations). And the way to prevent the cavity from forming
is to bury that blade rather deeper, so the drop in pressure hasn't the
time to suck the water surface far enough down to break the tension
connection.
>
>
>>popular fiction, the blade does not generate much useful reaction from
>>water allegedly "piling" against its front, concave face so, if the notion
>>of a "deep puddle" carries with it the common notion of a cavity behind
>>the blade, then that'd be a great recipe for a soggy finish. In any case,
>>the blade has moved enough towards the boat near the finish to have cut
>>its way out of the cavity & disturbed water of the main puddle created
>>during the mid-stroke stall/slip.
>
>
> I've never bought the 'hole in the back'. Indeed it is that
> notion that used to be used to sell flat finishes!!! release
> out of the hole in back of the puddle.
But we both know how popular that totally bogus image is within the
sport. And, beings a direct encouragement to rowers to rip holes in the
water, it will have slowed down ever so many crews over the years.
>
>
>>Since the blade, approaching the finish, is moving root first while
>>totally immersed in water, let's consider the most useful way of
>>extracting it.
>>
>>To maximise the available reaction force one wants to sustain lift/load on
>>the blade right to the last moment of extraction. Lift is efficient
>>because, with even a small part of the blade's area, it so well resists
>>the forces you apply - blades are much bigger than need be for the lift
>>phases of the stroke, but have to be big to cope with the stall phases. If
>>you finish in a way which destroys lift, you either shorten the stroke's
>>useful duration, or finish by scooping water astern & towards the boat (an
>>inefficient way to generate propulsion).
>>
>>The finish does involve the blade moving upwards through the water, but
>>the least useful way to do this is to bring out the blade square. When
>>you do that, even though water is still flowing along the blade, the
>>increase in tension in the water behind the blade as the immersed area
>>shrinks causes the water level to fall, prematurely reducing that immersed
>>area & initiating premature slip - which is a dead loss.
>
>
> But you're still getting lift along the back of the blade as you extract,
> lengthwise as the boat goes down course, and width wise as
> the blade lifts out. true?
Provided you have water cover on enough of the back of the blade, yes.
>
>
>
>>A more efficient way to do things is to begin feathering as the blade
>>begins to lift. This keeps more of the blade immersed for longer, yet
>>requires less lift for initial water clearance. But the really
>>interesting thing is what this does for the water flow around the blade, &
>>for the useful hydrodynamic lift:
>
>
> when you say 'as the blade begins to lift, how do you
> lift?
:) In the 1st "lift" I mean "rise up through & out of the water". In
the 2nd I mean the same. But in the 3rd I do mean "hydro-dynamic lift".
Sorry about any confusion - blame the language!
>
>
>>As the blade starts to lift & begins to turn towards the feather, while
>>fully immersed, the hands do slow down because they are approaching the
>>body & the turn. However, the new vertical velocity component alters the
>>pattern of flow over the blade most interestingly: whereas you first had
>>root-to-tip flow with the square blade, now the vertical motion changes
>>this to a significant extent to a top-edge-to-bottom-edge flow. This new
>>flow path sustains lift & thus the solid connection between blade & water,
>>& it efficiently generates propulsive force. Interestingly, even of the
>>hands were not moving at all to the bow, this vertical movement of the
>>part-feathered blade would generate both lift & propulsive effect.
>
>
> but as the blade feathers, aren't the forces going at right angle to the
> blade?
>
These are great questions, showing you really are there with me. Yes,
the lift force is perpendicular to the blade surface. But we are never
proposing total feather. So the lift perpendicular to the plane of the
blade can still be resolved into a geographically vertical component & a
second, horizontal & forward component. As with the action of the blade
at catch or approaching finish, it is that forward component that
propels the boat.
>
>
>>So the feathering finish allows sustained pressure further into the finish
>>even as the hands slow to a halt - something quite impossible
>>with the square finish. Indeed, the square finish is not only less
>
>
> So you lighten the pressure against the blade as
> you draw to the finish?
I think we can't avoid that at the end of any pulling action, can we?
It is all about whether we conduct this last part of the stroke in the
most or the leaset effective manner. And, of course, the part-feathered
finish has the great beauty that it never gets caught or overtaken by
the water.
>
>
>>effective but it has to be shorter if it is to be fully & cleanly
>>extracted (& it must go to a greater height as well) as must happen even
>>before the hands can significantly slow down (if we ignore blade flex).
>>
>>I hope that explanation will clarify some of the points being made in this
>>discussion? The rowing stroke is simple to do, but because it is
>>conducted from a moving platform it is rather hard at first to fully
>>understand how hand movements affect water flow around the blade. Again,
>>because fluid-dynamics is a rather counter-intuitive discipline, it can be
>>hard to see why certain actions sustain hydro-dynamic lift while others
>>will destroy lift & penalise us as a result.
>
>
> I admit to be woefully ignorant of the specifics of the fluid
> dynamics of the blade and promise I'm looking.
Mike, we're all woefully ignorant of most everything. But if we share a
bit, we all benefit. What I particularly hate is those petty little
intellectual empire-builders, who like to pretend that something they
know about must be & remain incomprehensible to the rest of us mere
mortals. It ain't necessarily so!
>
> What it sounds like your describing though, that as you feather
> you should be feeling resistance in your hands?
>
It means you should still feel some load, doubtless declining, until the
blade loses its connection with the water. But if, while we are feeling
our way towards the best performance outcome, we relax that load there
is still no chance of the blade not extracting cleanly. And I still
favour erring first on the side of robustness at the finish. Remember,
we will never do anything perfectly, so a bit of brute force will still
paper-over, if incompletely, some of the cracks in our technique.
Carl
LOL!
KC
Carl says he doesn't go with my explanation as stated. I think what I
wrote above is really just a very (over?) simplified way to look at what
Carl wrote in much more detail.
The only part I'm not 100% with Carl on, is the suggestion that we might
try to somehow take advantage of the small propulsive component of lift
as the blade feathers. To me the more important point he made (which
IMO agress 100% with what I've been trying to communicate) is that a
feathered release has less drag, & therefore is cleaner & longer.
I'll have to get on the water and actually play around with the idea of
useful lift during the feather before I pass judgment. :-) When is
your Newport trip?
Carl, are you suggesting feathering while still pulling? Again I need
to get on the water (been too long) to remind myself EXACTLY how I (like
to) do the release, but I think my feather occurs with a minuscule (but
positive) stern-ward force applied to the handle. There might be some
small amount of strain energy still in the shaft which unloads even
while I am pushing "away" that keeps some small amount of propulsive
pressure at the blade, but IIRC it feels & looks more neutral to me.
Indeed, the way I coach is to finish high & deep, then push away with
the outside hand (not down) and feather with the inside fingers. Some
downward motion is necessary, but I don't ask for it.
-KC
KC
Mike and JD (& others)
I haven't checked results in ages. Sorry I missed it. I also didn't
know who WD was until now.
-KC
Mike Sullivan
> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>> "KC" <kc_...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> news:HSwZh.2643$dy2.1883@trndny01...
>>> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>>>> "Carl" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:f0vqfi$h55$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
snip
hydrodynamics is not my strong suit. I have a
practical understanding based on everything from
coaching and doing rowing, paddling, swimming, bodysurfing,
and 20 hrs in a Cessna but will take a bit to absorb what
KC and Carl are saying here.
> I'll have to get on the water and actually play around with the idea of
> useful lift during the feather before I pass judgment. :-) When is your
> Newport trip?
WOW. Thanks for asking. I had to double check my contract and found
out the agent put down the wrong dates... We just straightened it
out over the phone. I owe you a beer for that question!
I'll be there 18th through the 25th of August. I believe a bunch of the
guys I coached in the 80s are trying to get a reunion going this year
and have it at my beach place, so it would be really fun if you, Jed,
and others would come join us. But come by nonetheless. Getting
me out on the bay is going to be completely surf dependent. If there's
a decent swell I never get closer to the bay than Blackies and
Albertson's market. If there's no surf I'm all over it! I could row
every
day if I wasn't such a turd, but I can't warm water surf but a few
times a year.
Butler's been going through the years of alums getting contact info
together and researching where ppl have gone and what they do.
He's been floored and humbled by how much we all have in common
in spite of the abrupt changes in coaching, program directions,
and supposed generational differences. We've also studied and looked
at dozens of other rowing programs looking at similarities and differences
trying to come up with a long term development plan that will be
secure and exciting for our alma mater.
mike
KC
> "KC" <kc_...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:f17oc6$mp4$1...@prometheus.acsu.buffalo.edu...
>> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>>> "KC" <kc_...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> news:HSwZh.2643$dy2.1883@trndny01...
>>>> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>>>>> "Carl" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>> news:f0vqfi$h55$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> snip
>
> hydrodynamics is not my strong suit. I have a
> practical understanding based on everything from
> coaching and doing rowing, paddling, swimming, bodysurfing,
> and 20 hrs in a Cessna but will take a bit to absorb what
> KC and Carl are saying here.
>
>> I'll have to get on the water and actually play around with the idea of
>> useful lift during the feather before I pass judgment. :-) When is your
>> Newport trip?
>
> WOW. Thanks for asking. I had to double check my contract and found
> out the agent put down the wrong dates... We just straightened it
> out over the phone. I owe you a beer for that question!
Call us even for the time I "stood you up" in Santa Rosa. :^)
> I'll be there 18th through the 25th of August. I believe a bunch of the
> guys I coached in the 80s are trying to get a reunion going this year
> and have it at my beach place, so it would be really fun if you, Jed,
> and others would come join us. But come by nonetheless. Getting
I'm sure we'll work something out.
> me out on the bay is going to be completely surf dependent. If there's
> a decent swell I never get closer to the bay than Blackies and
> Albertson's market. If there's no surf I'm all over it! I could row
> every
> day if I wasn't such a turd, but I can't warm water surf but a few
> times a year.
>
> Butler's been going through the years of alums getting contact info
> together and researching where ppl have gone and what they do.
> He's been floored and humbled by how much we all have in common
> in spite of the abrupt changes in coaching, program directions,
> and supposed generational differences. We've also studied and looked
> at dozens of other rowing programs looking at similarities and differences
> trying to come up with a long term development plan that will be
> secure and exciting for our alma mater.
Yeah, it'll be interesting to hear all about it. I have several pics
from my years that might be fun to scan and add to his collection... if
I can find them!
-KC
Carl
> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>
>> "KC" <kc_...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> news:HSwZh.2643$dy2.1883@trndny01...
>>
>>> Mike Sullivan wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Carl" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:f0vqfi$h55$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>
>> snipo
>>
>>> If on the other hand, you feather a bit as you push down, then the
>>> part of the blade below the axis of the shaft travels with the water
>>> as it turns, thus minimizing the amount of bow-ward motion the
>>> handles must do to keep from back-watering at the blade.
>>
>>
>> This is the first case you've made to me for
>> your flat release. I won't yet comment or
>> question until I see if Carl responds.
>
>
> Carl says he doesn't go with my explanation as stated. I think what I
> wrote above is really just a very (over?) simplified way to look at what
> Carl wrote in much more detail.
Nothing to fall out over :)
>
> The only part I'm not 100% with Carl on, is the suggestion that we might
> try to somehow take advantage of the small propulsive component of lift
> as the blade feathers. To me the more important point he made (which
> IMO agress 100% with what I've been trying to communicate) is that a
> feathered release has less drag, & therefore is cleaner & longer.
>
> I'll have to get on the water and actually play around with the idea of
> useful lift during the feather before I pass judgment. :-) When is
> your Newport trip?
>
> Carl, are you suggesting feathering while still pulling?
I think that can & does happen. Remember, nothing happens in precise
segments, with sharp corners & changes. Every part of the action moves
smoothly into the next bit, so the transition from square to feathered
isn't & can't be a sudden change but is a smooth progression. Nor will
the blade emerge fully feathered, but maybe 50% feathered, maybe 65%.
It all depends ....
Again I need
> to get on the water (been too long) to remind myself EXACTLY how I (like
> to) do the release, but I think my feather occurs with a minuscule (but
> positive) stern-ward force applied to the handle. There might be some
> small amount of strain energy still in the shaft which unloads even
> while I am pushing "away" that keeps some small amount of propulsive
> pressure at the blade, but IIRC it feels & looks more neutral to me.
>
> Indeed, the way I coach is to finish high & deep, then push away with
> the outside hand (not down) and feather with the inside fingers. Some
> downward motion is necessary, but I don't ask for it.
>
> -KC
Best if you can actually use the extraction to propel rther than
featehring solely to miminise drag. Especially since doing the former
is but a variation on teh latter. In fact, I see very little need if
any to push hands away: finish first & then go about the recovery, since
that pushing action has not the slightest muscular continuity with the
prior pulling action & can so easily come to fight it.
Good rowing is also about not wasting work fighting against yourself.
Jed Rogge
> The fundamental issue is that it is not, as you clearly think, the
> pressure on the concave face that provides the reaction between water &
> blade. That pressure is wholly inadequate for the task, which is
> principally done by the fluid tension existing across the blade's back.
> And this applies even in the mid-stroke stall phase of the stroke
> provided teh blade is kept sufficiently buried to rpevent hole
> formation. In short, holes behind blades are a real waste of space.
My inappropriate use of the words "puddle" and "hole" gave you the wrong
impression of what I think. (I think, LOL)
The flow of water across the convex side of the blade is what provides
the "low pressure zone" (better?) that reduces drag for both squared and
feathered releases. I am well aware that water needs to remain in
contact with the back side of the blade. I'm also aware of the blade's
lateral movement towards the boat in the second half of the stroke that
generates the lift. It is less than the lateral movement away from the
boat in the first half of the stroke.
The force on the concave (stern) side of the blade and the water flow
across the convex (bow) part of the blade are related, right? That was
the gist of what I was trying to say.
-Jed
Carl
Hi Jed -
Obviously there are going to wrong ends of sticks to be gathered up in
such discussions, but also we are all prone to make confident statements
which later prove unfounded. I really did think you referred directly
to having a hole behind the blade & that this aided extraction. If we
agree that ain't so, then that's woth doing of itself.
As for any relationship between over-pressure on one face &
under-pressure (=tension or suction) on t'other - no, there is none.
You can get substantial hydrodynamic lift without there being any
increase in pressure over any part of the concave face of the blade.
It is very normal for us to assume that, since we can feel the pressure
of a jet of water against our hand, that it is the same positive
pressure which provides the reaction between blade & water, or between
the underside of an aircraft's wing & the air, but this is not generally so.
If you look at the wing of a plane, all the "shape" is in the upper,
low-pressure surface & very little or none in the lower surface. When
more lift is needed at low airspeeds, then control surfaces are extended
both forward & down, & backwards & down, to increase the effective area
& curvature of that upper surface & the airflow directly over it. It is
the curvature of that surface which accelerates the local airflow, &
that acceleration which, by converting pressure energy into kinetic
energy, causes its pressure to fall. It is that fall in pressure, which
you can really see on some wings as a definite bulging of the skin
panels between the ribs, which provides the lift that allows the plane
to fly.
For much of the rowing stroke this same flow-induced phenomenon provides
the vital connection between the water & the convex back of the blade,
while the face of the blade does very little. Counter-intuitive at
first, but when it is understood it can give some really useful insights
into rowing shell propulsion. Or a nasty head-ache!
Jed Rogge
> As for any relationship between over-pressure on one face &
> under-pressure (=tension or suction) on t'other - no, there is none. You
> can get substantial hydrodynamic lift without there being any increase
> in pressure over any part of the concave face of the blade.
I understand that you can move the blade laterally in the water without
producing any increased pressure on the concave part of the blade (and
still get reduced pressure from lift on the convex side).
But I don't think you can take a rowing stoke without producing any
increased pressure on the concave part of the blade. Hence the
relationship between the force on the concave part of the stroke and the
reduced pressure on the back.
> It is very normal for us to assume that, since we can feel the pressure
> of a jet of water against our hand, that it is the same positive
> pressure which provides the reaction between blade & water, or between
> the underside of an aircraft's wing & the air, but this is not generally
> so.
>
> If you look at the wing of a plane, all the "shape" is in the upper,
> low-pressure surface & very little or none in the lower surface. When
> more lift is needed at low airspeeds, then control surfaces are extended
> both forward & down, & backwards & down, to increase the effective area
> & curvature of that upper surface & the airflow directly over it. It is
> the curvature of that surface which accelerates the local airflow, &
> that acceleration which, by converting pressure energy into kinetic
> energy, causes its pressure to fall. It is that fall in pressure, which
> you can really see on some wings as a definite bulging of the skin
> panels between the ribs, which provides the lift that allows the plane
> to fly.
Right, but a descending wing will have pressure on the underside pushing
up on it.
-Jed
Jed Rogge
> But I don't think you can take a rowing stoke without producing any
> increased pressure on the concave part of the blade. Hence the
> relationship between the force on the concave part of the stroke and the
^^^^^^
Woops - meant to say blade.
Kieran
> Carl wrote:
>
>> As for any relationship between over-pressure on one face &
>> under-pressure (=tension or suction) on t'other - no, there is none.
>> You can get substantial hydrodynamic lift without there being any
>> increase in pressure over any part of the concave face of the blade.
>
>
> I understand that you can move the blade laterally in the water without
> producing any increased pressure on the concave part of the blade (and
> still get reduced pressure from lift on the convex side).
>
> But I don't think you can take a rowing stoke without producing any
> increased pressure on the concave part of the blade. Hence the
> relationship between the force on the concave part of the stroke and the
> reduced pressure on the back.
Jed,
If you consider the nominal pressure in undisturbed water to be Pf, and
the pressure on the concave side of the blade to be Ps, and the pressure
on the convex side of the blade to be Pb, then at all times during a
normal (clean, no crabs) drive phase of the stroke, Pf > Ps > Pb. Water
is pretty much incompressible at these velocities, so you can't really
increase it's pressure just buy pulling a blade through it. In fact,
disturbing it at all will cause a drop in pressure. The force we pull
against is the DELTA P around the blade.
>> It is very normal for us to assume that, since we can feel the
>> pressure of a jet of water against our hand, that it is the same
>> positive pressure which provides the reaction between blade & water,
>> or between the underside of an aircraft's wing & the air, but this is
>> not generally so.
>>
>> If you look at the wing of a plane, all the "shape" is in the upper,
>> low-pressure surface & very little or none in the lower surface. When
>> more lift is needed at low airspeeds, then control surfaces are
>> extended both forward & down, & backwards & down, to increase the
>> effective area & curvature of that upper surface & the airflow
>> directly over it. It is the curvature of that surface which
>> accelerates the local airflow, & that acceleration which, by
>> converting pressure energy into kinetic energy, causes its pressure to
>> fall. It is that fall in pressure, which you can really see on some
>> wings as a definite bulging of the skin panels between the ribs, which
>> provides the lift that allows the plane to fly.
>
>
> Right, but a descending wing will have pressure on the underside pushing
> up on it.
No, not really. Yes, pressure below is greater than pressure above the
wing, but the force that lifts the airplane is the delta between them,
as the pressure below the wing is lower than the pressure at infinity
away from the wing (ambient p of still air).
-KC
Kieran
Another example of lift that might clarify: In a high wind storm, the
roofs of houses often get torn off. This is due to the low pressure
outside, not due to some increase in pressure under the roof pushing up
on the roof (since the pressure inside the house has not changed, or if
it has it's only dropped with the storm's barometric low pressure zone).
So, it's more like the roof is "sucked" off the house, not blown up &
off from inside. Similarly, a lifting foil is sort of "pulled" by the
low pressure side, not "pushed" by the "high" pressure side (and the
"high" pressure side is never (rarely?) ever higher than the free stream
pressure.)
-KC
KC
A correction: I should not have referenced water's incompressibility as
a reason for no increase in pressure.
-KC
Jed Rogge
> 1. Put the blade in the water, at rest, with the oar perpendicular to
> the boat.
>
> 2. Pull on the handle.
>
>
> What force is resisting the blades movement to bow?
Sorry, the blades movement to STERN. :-)
Jed Rogge
1. Put the blade in the water, at rest, with the oar perpendicular to
KC
Drag.
KC
Oh, woops... in that case, drag. :^)
-KC
B3
Let's be a bit more careful about pressure above and below a wing, and
wing analogies in general. The lift on a wing is determined by the
circulation generated, and as such the pressure above and below the
wing are very closely tied. High and low pressure on the 2 sides is
relative, and saying the pressure below a wing is ambient and not
increased is a) usually not the case, and b) somewhat irrelevant.
But, I do agree that the pressure above a wing is 'usually' more below
ambient than the pressure below the wing is above ambient.
While the wing analogies are useful, we need to be careful. For
instance, a rowing blade has 4 edges intimately tied (not just 2 -
leading and trailing), and the wing effective leading edge moves from
the outboard tip, to the flat of the blade to the inboard edge, and
then the upper edge of the blade - (thanks for that new insight gained
in this thread). Also, there are many complicating factors on a
rowing blade, like free surfaces, edges that are in and out of the
water, stalling the blade at mid stroke, and the unsteady nature of
the forces that all make the wing analogies useful, but also
potentially mis-leading.
I am a bit surprised at the strong statements about the high pressure
on the stern side of the blade. I can easily imagine (doing would be
tougher) 'rowing' between vertical pillars which catch the blades.
(Ok, a bit fanciful, but hopefully you get the idea) The 'pressure'
would surely be higher on the stern side of the blades in that case as
you are truley just pushing your way along. I suspect that this is
close to the situation at mid-stroke? In other words, I totally agree
that we are pulling on the delta P, but it is not clear to me that all
the delta is low pressure on the bow side of the blade. At mid
stroke, if the blade is buried, is the bow side depression really any
deeper than the stern side mound is high?
Bob
Jed Rogge
> KC wrote:
>
>>
>> Drag.
>
>
> increases on the concave part of the blade, the "low pressure zone"
> increases on the convex part of the blade. i.e. a stronger finish (more
> blade acceleration) will lead to a cleaner release.
I'm referring only to the finish here. At mid-stroke, when the blade
stalls, there is obviously a high drag force.
Jed Rogge
>> What force is resisting the blades movement to bow?
>
> Drag.
Ok, then I modify my original statement to be that as the drag force
increases on the concave part of the blade, the "low pressure zone"
increases on the convex part of the blade. i.e. a stronger finish (more
blade acceleration) will lead to a cleaner release.
Doesn't the drag force play a much greater role than the Bernoulli force
in rowing propulsion?