Cleavers vs Macons
Trevor Chambers
> The latest edition of Regatta Magazine (Nov-Dec 1995), has the first informed
> article on Cleavers vs Macons I have seen.
Actually I found the article a bit disappointing. Large parts seemed to be replicated, and the graphs struck me as inconclusive and confusing at best.
> Although the tests were performed
> by a sculler, they tie in with what I heard from the Eastern Region ARA coach
> regarding sweep oars.
Watch it, you're dangerously close to alledging that the Eastern Region *do*
anything at all. Or maybe they do, but only in the Western half of the region.
We certainly get b****r all support/help/advice/money out of it....
> He said that Redgrave and Pinsent had done trials with
> both sets of oars and found no difference, but settled on Cleavers because
> everyone else used them. A nice circular argument there boys!
>
That's interesting. I know all the theory about less slippage etc etc, but
I reckon that the reason they took off so fast was precisely this: the top
Internationals perceived some benefit (whether in the mind or in the boat
speed) and started using them. After the '93 World's, where practically
every medal was won with cleavers, the writing was on the wall for Macons.
Now, quite what made cleavers 'stick' rather than pass like asymetrics and
other oddities, I don't know - maybe the CII marketing machine? - but stick
they have, to the extent that 75% of Dreissigacker sculls bought in the UK
this year were cleaver-spooned.
Of course, on this argument everyone would race in Empachers, and S & M
don't feel they have to follow the flock there, preferring to stick with
Aylings, so...
What is noticeable is that virtually no Macons are seen at Henley or in the
big Heads now, other than by those clubs who haven't yet taken the plunge.
> At club level, I remeber a Henley-bound 4- from OxPoly that came to similar
> conclusions as R+P, but settled on Macons. I have raced with Macons
> successfully beating crews with Cleavers, but have always felt underpriviledged
> not to have that meaty blade in my hand!
>
Maybe it's all psychological - "if everyone else and their dog are using these
damn cleaver things, they must know something we don't, ergo we'd better get a
set" ???
Trev
Sudbury RC
"It's how it's used, not what you've got, that matters"
Nick Buffinger
> The latest edition of Regatta Magazine (Nov-Dec 1995), has the first informed
> article on Cleavers vs Macons I have seen. Although the tests were performed
> by a sculler, they tie in with what I heard from the Eastern Region ARA coach
> regarding sweep oars. He said that Redgrave and Pinsent had done trials with
> both sets of oars and found no difference, but settled on Cleavers because
> everyone else used them. A nice circular argument there boys!
>
> At club level, I remeber a Henley-bound 4- from OxPoly that came to similar
> conclusions as R+P, but settled on Macons. I have raced with Macons
> successfully beating crews with Cleavers, but have always felt
underpriviledged
> not to have that meaty blade in my hand!
>
> Now that my club is digging deep to buy a set of new Cleaver oars, this
article
> appears and seems to say that there is no mechanical reason for choosing the
> Cleavers. Can the collective minds of r.s.r. come up with any other stats to
> compare and contrast with the article mentioned?
>
> Thanks all (and the club Treasurer may thank you too)
>
> Blaine
Ok, so here's where I toss out a big piece of flame-bait. ;-)
I haven't read the Regatta Magazine article, but I've been thinking about
the difference between macons and cleavers for some time now (I'm still
using macons in my 1x, but usually sweep with cleavers). I've sculled with
both cleavers and macons, and find cleavers too "harsh" at the catch.
However, I prefer the cleavers for sweep rowing, because they feel more
positive at the catch. The other important bit of data is that my catch
is rather faster/sharper in the 1x than in a sweep boat (it takes me 5-6
video frames to get in the water sweep rowing, vs. 2-3 frames for
sculling). Could it be that the average rower prefers cleavers because
they mask softness at the catch?
BTW Blaine, rather than feeling underprivileged, I personally feel a
greater level of satisfaction when I, rowing my single with macons, beat
somebody using cleavers.
Ok, flame away.
Nick
Stanford RC
A.J. Potts
+ You can go through thinner bridges with cleavers
+ They look cooler
+ They can be more forgiving, 'cause they're shorter (hence an error at
the handle end is not quite so magnified at the spoon end. This isn't
necessarily a good thing)
+ If the loom is shorter they will bend less - a good thing
+ I reckon they improve starts, despite the Regatta article.
+ I'm not a physicist, but surely the shorter the oar the less boat energy
is required to swing it from the back to the front-stop.
+ Less loom is in the water, surely too, which _must_ be a good thing.
AJP
PMckeon531
switched to Cleaver sculls I can't HELP but throw in my $.02. The only
real difference I noticed was that they "held the water" much better than
Macons. It was like catching in cement. Now, some would say that this is
bad, that it hurts one's back muscles, but I found that it helped me relax
and drive hard at the catch. I also did not notice any difference in the
ability to get the blade in and out of the water, especially in rough
water. I had expected them to be more difficult to handle in rough water,
due to the size of the blade.
I don't think that they make all that much of a difference, in terms of
raw speed. Maybe a few seconds, at best, though I have no data to back up
my hunch. Unless one is racing at the Olympic/World Championship level, I
think that the difference is not significant. There are so many other
factors (fitness level, technique, etc.) that count for much more.
-Pat McKeon
bla...@lsl.co.uk
I E L Jones
Good point - but can you get lightweight Macons???
Iwan
He of the Big Yellow
Durham ARC
S L Ng
: appears and seems to say that there is no mechanical reason for choosing the
: Cleavers. Can the collective minds of r.s.r. come up with any other stats to
: compare and contrast with the article mentioned?
i think it is worth getting cleavers. i think they cost the same as
macons or maybe a slight small difference in price. many inexperienced
crews, not all but many many get very scared when they see their
opposition with cleavers. it is a psychological advantage.
LEONG.
Charles Ehrlich
the asymetrics and been completely unimpressed. However, I then spent most of
1991-92 away from the major rowing scene, and it was at that time that I
became convinced about the hatchet blades by noting the following:
1) results in the US Collegiate (EARC) circuit. Crews which adopted hatchets
earlier were beating crews without hatchets despite what form implied. When
the other colleges switched to hatchets, the results were reversed. By the
time Sprints rolled around, everyone was using hatchets, and results were
pretty much back to what had been expected.
2) the British Men's Heavyweight 4x. This crew was one of the first
international crews to use hatchets and did far better than expected in the
run-up to the Olympics. By the Olympics, it was relegated to the C-finals
where everyone had expected it to be in the first place.
I discussed these results with friends in the US, and then at the Olympics
in Banyoles. The consensus was for the new oars. I won't go into the details
of that consensus because they pretty much replicated what CII claimed.
I have now observed hatchets for several years, and used them as a cox, coach,
and sweep rower. I have been impressed. Last year, the women I coach came up
with the funds to buy some, and I am convinced that the hatchets provided them
with the extra boatspeed that I would have expected based on what people told
me from 1991-92 and from my observation of crews which could afford to buy
them sooner. They certainly would not have done so well without hatchets.
Obviously, different things are right for different crews. It is quite
possible that a particular crew will go slower with hatchets than with macons
(although I would guess that such a crew would have to be particularly bad not
to benefit). The crews which appear to benefit most are those with less-than-
perfect but not atrocious technique (i.e., most crews). It is also quite
certain that crews with macons can beat crews with hatchets - the blades will
not make the crew. But given two otherwise equal crews, I will choose the one
with hatchets to win by a longshot. And I will also keep sending my crews out
with hatchets, given the choice.
I have been told by the Harvard boatman that Harvard now sends its novices out
with hatchets from day one on the theory that they'll have to row with them in
the end. I don't know if I subscribe to that theory yet. Too many crews that
I have seen are not competent enough to deserve hatchets or to be able to use
them properly. I can't imagine it is much different over on the Charles.
Charles Ehrlich
Wolfson College (Oxford)
S L Ng
: the end. I don't know if I subscribe to that theory yet. Too many crews that
: I have seen are not competent enough to deserve hatchets or to be able to use
: them properly. I can't imagine it is much different over on the Charles.
i must disagree with this one. you use a slightly different technique for
macons as you would for cleavers. for example, strokes are shorter with
cleavers, less layback etc etc...
so if i have the resources, i would coach every novice crew with cleavers
as they would most likely end up with those oars when they get better. if
i coach them with macons and after a year they get competent enough, they
have to spend some time to adapt to cleavers.
you find loads of good cres using cleavers. i guess the reason must be,
most boatclubs let better crews use the newer equipments(clevers usually)
while handing down the older macons to the novices or the "less-competent".
LEONG.
Jeremy Martin
> The latest edition of Regatta Magazine (Nov-Dec 1995), has the first informed
> article on Cleavers vs Macons I have seen. Although the tests were performed
> by a sculler, they tie in with what I heard from the Eastern Region ARA coach
> regarding sweep oars. He said that Redgrave and Pinsent had done trials with
> both sets of oars and found no difference, but settled on Cleavers because
> everyone else used them. A nice circular argument there boys!
All the tests that I have conducted have suggested that hatchets are worth
about two seconds per 500m, be they sculls or be they oars. This is backed
up by the observation of a massive improvement in world best times for
most, if not all, boat classes since hatchets became available. Redgrave
and Pinsent have made quite a mark on the pairs world record in that time,
whatever their testing seemed to suggest.
However I think that one has to row slightly differently with the hatchets to
get the most out of them. Perhaps the scullers who reported their results
to Regatta magazine failed to row in an optimal style when using the
hatchet blades.
Jeremy Martin
flem...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
It's for this last reason that 'swap tests' with a scull/crew are of doubtful
value in comparing Macons and Cleavers: one thing most people seem to agree on
(about sweep blades anyway) is that the feel of, and optimal style for, the two
blades is really quite different. It's hard to believe that someone can just
slot right into each style as soon as they change blades on the test.
(Incidentally, my own view is that there is that in the case of sculls, macons
and cleavers differ very little in feel, and the techniques and speeds achieved
also. I really don't care which kind I use and in rough water might even favour
macons for racing.)
So the best test to see the difference is the one Jeremy mentions: World
record/gold times comparison. Holiday project work for a stat-minded rsr'er -
if you plot the world record times for each event against time (in years), you
should see a 'knee' in the graph at around 1992, when records suddenly jump up
for a couple of years as the new faster technology takes hold; you would then
expect the gradient of improvement to settle down to roughly what it was before
once these improvements have been fully exploited (if this has happened yet).
Ie this graph would indicate something suspicious going on circa 1992.
WR Times ] *******
] **
] **
] **
] ******
] **********
] **********
] *********
-----------------------------------------------------
1980 1985 1990 1995
What you want to plot is probably the sum of WR times for selected boat classes
(eg four lines - MenSweep, WomenSweep, MenScull, WomenScull, summing all champ
classes in each group to get a composite 'performance index'. For extra marks,
re-scale this so that 1991= 100 for each index, say.
Anyway, that's the test. Jeremy says that records *have* tumbled - but is this
just anecdotal impression, or the result of a rigorous investigation? Is
someone sends me the figures, I'd do it myself (wild life, eh?), and I'd
certainly be interested to hear if anyone has figured it already...
Last thing: records may be set so infrequently as to ruin the test. In which
case, you might want to look at 'gold' times in successive years, but you'd
need to some kind of regression work to get a trend free from all the
weather-induced variaTIONS
tom
PMckeon531
Championships is a little naive. One must take into account too many
variables: wind speed and direction, water temperature (Ted Van Dusen has
done some research in to this area and has found that temperature has a
significant effect on water resistance), strength of field during
progression to final (did the gold medalists have an "easy" heat and semi?
Were they battling to the wire in all races?), etc. I don't think anyone
can support any hypothesis of how much time can be shaved using cleavers.
Looking at times that crews row over a course is not valid. Fatigue and
the "placebo affect" both could mask any change produced by the cleavers.
The same holds true for changing your technique to match the cleavers.
Changing your technique based on what? I haven't seen any research that
suggests how the force vs. time curve for the drive is changed by using
cleavers. The only thing that you can say with certainty is whether they
"feel" any better, which IMHO, they do.
-Pat McKeon
Jim Dwyer
ability to better balance the boat during the drive phase of the stroke.
This benifits novice scullers as it is easier to balance the boat and
you will pull harder if you feel more comfortable and stable. I have
been sculling for over 25 years and I noticed the difference as soon as i
tried them. I now notice that I have a lot of shoulder and upper back
pain from rowing. I don't know if it is from the hatchets or because I am
just getting older. I have no trouble with the big blades in rough or windy
conditions. I have to hold them on the feather longer and "flip catch"
to avoid the wind or waves catching them but other than that I have to admit
that they work better than macons. Has anyone heard of a new style of hatchet
The edge of the blade is attached to the shaft so that the whole blade is on
one side of the shaft. I would like to hear how they work compared to CII
hatchets.
Walter Martindale
blades (common until the early 60's) to Macon blades? Granted there
was no R.S.R. back then but surely the argument exists.
Perhaps, with less blade slippage, the boat gets to "body of the
race" speed a bit sooner. Perhaps this permits the crew to
switch out of "start" mode into "body" mode a bit sooner and in
so doing postpone the onset of blood lactate accumulation.
I don't know - haven't the resources to make the measurements.
However. A second worth of lead, gained early in the race or late in the
race, is still a second. If the shape of the oar is going to help a
crew I coach cut a second (or more) off their race time just because of the
shape of the oar, I'm going to recommend it.
Once the boat is up to speed, we're still dealing with the physiological
mechanism of the human being. That clunky thing needs training, nutrition,
rest, etc., etc. It also helps to believe that it is using the best
equipment available.
I believe that in the next short while there will be more than a few
research papers published on the topic. There have been a few papers of
varying relevance and quality. One by Nolte in the American Rowing magazine
(or was it Rowing Canada), one in FISA Coach, and one (I haven't seen) in the
British one.
I wonder if one will come out soon in a refereed journal.
Walter
Sullys Maze
wmar...@unibase.unibase.com (Walter Martindale) writes:
>Did this argument arise when "the world" shifted from the long, thin
>blades (common until the early 60's) to Macon blades? Granted there
>was no R.S.R. back then but surely the argument exists.
>
about the arguments among the US collegiate community. In the US,
more than the equipment style was changing, the Macons were
accompanied by higher stroke ratings and a move away from the
Conibear style, and an emphasis on the 2000 meter course as the
collegiate championship distance (a shift from the 3 mile IRA race)
By 1964, International crews had pretty much universally switched
to Macons and the "Ratzeburg" style much in the same fashion as the
hatchets dominate now. The exception was the gold medal pair
with of Conn Findlay rowing at a 32 with standards.
The consensus among the collegiate coaches seemed to be (that I read
anyway) that the Macons and Ratzeburg style presented no great
advantage at the longer distances at the IRA, but since the IRA was
moving to 2000 meters, and Harry Parkers Harvard crew were kicking
butt with his Macons and changed styles, that crews switched over
the next few years.
Mike
william beery
and Ratzeburg styles of rowing?
William V. Beery '98
Skidmore Crew
Skidmore College
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866-1632
Sullys Maze
wbe...@saims.skidmore.edu (william beery) writes:
> Out of curiosity, what are the differences between the Conibear
>and Ratzeburg styles of rowing?
What I called the 'Ratzeburg style' was a style brought into the
international arena through Karl Adam, though I'm very doubtful that
he necessarily created it. The literature I've read over the years
has Karl Adam prominent in various FISA symposiums of the early to
mid 60s and the style's greatest advocate.
There was a thread on RSR this year with a pretty good description
of the Conibear style, which was rowed with quick hands away, a
slowing of the slide, a late rollup, flip catch, coordinated drive
and a slight pause at the finish.
The Ratzeburg style was coined International Modern Style in a book
by Paul Wilson in the 70s, and is very similar to styles rowed
today. There are big differences in the looks of the modern crews
over the past few decades based on length of slide, and the amount
of body swing. Karl Adam had super long slides with very little
body angle at all. This was brought to the Brit national crews in
the 70s while the Yanks, Easties, Soviets, and Southern Hemisphere
tended to go for more swing, a little less track. Even the least
track length of the modern styles uses more leg compression and less
overall body swing than the Conibear style.
Conibear Crews raced in a rating range of 30-34. The modern styles
race in a range of 33-40. (this for body of race only. Both styles
were capable of high start and finish ratings.)
I've never been coached in or rowed the Conibear style, though I'm
an admirerer of some of its' greatest practitioners. Therefore I'll
stand correction graciously. :^)
Mike Sullivan.
PS. As a caveat. Again, I am not sure that Karl Adam is truly
responsible for the creation or invention of the modern style(He
may well be), again he was an advocate and had the great success in
it. Conibear did develop the style named after him at Washington
with the help of the Pocock brothers (who assisted with the design
of suitable equipment)
What I find very interesting was that neither Adam or Conibear were
rowers. Both of their athletic backgrounds were in Boxing!
Mike
ChWundi
since 94, I exprienced rowing is much easier with cleavers. There is no
problem getting in the water and other things that I'm unable to express.
Another important improvement is that You got this psychological advantage
- the feeling to have the ability to catch the water a little bit earlier,
to bring more power "into the water".
Christian Wunderlich, Germany
Lee Greenwood
writes:
> Path:
upfgroup.demon.co.uk!news.demon.co.uk!demon!peer-news.britain.eu.net!tank.ne
ws.pipex.net!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e1a.megaweb.com!newstf01.news
.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
> From: chw...@aol.com (ChWundi)
> Newsgroups: rec.sport.rowing
> Subject: Re: Cleavers vs Macons
> Date: 27 Dec 1995 06:43:46 -0500
> Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
> Lines: 8
> Sender: ro...@newsbf02.news.aol.com
> Message-ID: <4brbhi$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
> References: <1995Dec15.085627.5609@lsl>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com
> X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader
Fine words from Herr Wunderlich. Having used cleavers for a season several
years ago (borrowed from Cambridge Uni - my claim to fame) the crew I was in
found the increase in power - mainly from the fact that cleavers find their
own height in the water so you the rower can concentrate more on the the
execution of the stroke - does give a great advantage.
Unfortunately, as with any NEW idea, cleavers are critisised by the so
called experts as causing severe back problems. I would say back problems
are more likely to be caused by poor rowing technique or training rather
than blade design itself.
I am curious as to whether this kind of debate took place when feather
blades were replaced by macons. Answers on a post card please.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Lee Greenwood EMail gre...@demon.co.uk |
| |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRC_Mac
waste of time and energy to start inexperienced rowers off with the
hatchet blades because they give an easier catch and it is harder for
the coach to tell if the rowers are missimg water. People should start
off with macons and progress. That's just my opinion.