The Complete Steve Fairbairn on Rowing
Jake
If this book is so scarce to command such ridiculous prices for modern
pre-owned copies:
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?&isbn=0413639908&nsa=1
Why doesn't somebody reprint it? I am expecting an answer full of
intrigue and doubtless some kind of protracted family/ legal feud. I
see Alden Rowing shells had something to do with it at some point, what
happened there?
Because, rowers like me who just want to get their hands on a copy to
see whether they can gain any benefit from his supposed timeless
guru-like wisdom, are rather frustrated that it isn't possible to
actually get to read any of it without selling our organs. Or is it
possible, has somebody stuck it on the web somewhere or something? I
know sections of it have been repeated on here at times, and I have
found them quite useful.
As an aside, Abe Books had it listed on their website mistakenly until
today at $1.80 instead of the intended $1800. I ordered it quick, but
they unsurprisingly refused to honour the order! Still, worth a try I
thought.
James Elder
Jake wrote:
> Expect this is a question that has been asked before, but...
> If this book is so scarce to command such ridiculous prices for modern
> pre-owned copies:
> http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?&isbn=0413639908&nsa=1
> Why doesn't somebody reprint it? I am expecting an answer full of
> intrigue and doubtless some kind of protracted family/ legal feud. I
> see Alden Rowing shells had something to do with it at some point, what
> happened there?
In the UK, the last 'Complete' edition (with new Foreword by Geoffrey
Page etc) was published in 1990 by The Kingswood Press.
I learned last Autumn, whilst researching something else, that the
Kingswood Press imprint has been on a remarkable journey over the last
fifteen years as part of the cycle of mergers and demergers in the UK
publishing industry. William Heinemann, Methuen, William Heinemann
again and - I think - Random House were all involved somewhere along
the way.
The rights to the Kingswood Press back catalogue now reside with Hamlyn
(www.hamlyn.co.uk), part of Octopus Publishing Group
(http://www.octopus-publishing.co.uk). Hamlyn still publishes sports
books. I have actually had cause to speak to the Sports Editor and he
is a pleasant, if frantically busy man. If you want to mention the
idea, suggest you start there.
Also worth noting that Steve died in 1938. If my understanding of UK
copyright law is correct, than means that copyright on his works will
expire on 31 December 2008. So at that point anyone would be free to
put the text on the web or publish their own edition.
I agree that it is bizarre that when a book republished only 16 years
ago is commanding such high prices the publisher doesn't put out a
second impression.
James
J Flory
Jake wrote:
> Expect this is a question that has been asked before, but...
> If this book is so scarce to command such ridiculous prices for modern
> pre-owned copies:
> http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?&isbn=0413639908&nsa=1
> Why doesn't somebody reprint it?
Unless I'm mistaken, it WAS reprinted in 1990 and these are for copies
of the reprinted edition. I believe the original printing of the
Complete Fairbairn was in 1954-ish. And that was itself a compliation
(by his son) of previously printed pamphlets by Fairbairn.
paul_v...@hotmail.com
YIKES! I guess I should be pleased with my copy, the dust cover has a
bit of wear but underneath you would be hard pressed to determine if
the book had been opened. Similar to my University Texts. Hmmmm....
[;o)
Can hardly wait for the smart comments sure to follow on that opening.
- Paul Smith
Jeremy Fagan
Mine cost £5 in a charity shop. Could do with some new blades - I'll
sell for £800..
Jeremy
liz
<paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169521276.5...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> YIKES! I guess I should be pleased with my copy, the dust cover has a
> bit of wear but underneath you would be hard pressed to determine if
> the book had been opened. Similar to my University Texts. Hmmmm....
> [;o)
use it a lot then, do you..?
(ahem)
liz
Charles Carroll
> Unless I'm mistaken, it WAS reprinted in 1990 and these are for copies
> of the reprinted edition. I believe the original printing of the
> Complete Fairbairn was in 1954-ish. And that was itself a compliation
> (by his son) of previously printed pamphlets by Fairbairn.
>
Mine is titled "Steve Fairbairn on Rowing," (Nicholas Kaye LTD., 1 Trebeck
Street, London, W.1, 1951). It is edited by Ian Fairbairn, Steve's son, and
is indeed a compilation of Fairbairn's writings on rowing. It includes
published and unpublished text by Steve Fairbairn, a General Introduction by
Ian Fairbairn, an Obituary F. Brittain, The "Elements or Rowing" by R. S. de
Havilland, and ""Slowly Forward" by F. Brittain.
I wouldn't part with my copy for any amount of money. Most of what I know
about rowing and sculling comes from that book.
paul_v...@hotmail.com
Well, as predicted, that didn't take long. [:o)
I read it cover to cover, put those little read post-it flags where I
found things I might like to refer to later, i.e. make sure I quote
accurately if I do quote or refer to a figure. Since it's a collection
of various repeated works it was quite redundant throughout, and I
found very little that did not resonate strongly, so that makes it easy
to remember.
My copy of A Textbook of Oarsmanship has many more flags, mostly
because it is not repetitive and loaded with pretty much everything one
would need to know about Rowing. The most important of which is the
answer to the question "How do I become a good oarsman?", "By rowing,
and plenty of it."
The more recent Rowing Faster caused me to color code the flags. Red =
Particularly funny things that are questionable ("have a good supply of
condoms"), Yellow = Questionable Ideas ("best propulsive opportunity
at square off"), and Green = Really useful stuff (Dick Tonks Chapter).
How many times do you need to read a book?
- Paul Smith
Mike Sullivan
<paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169577850....@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> liz (nospam) wrote:
>> <paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1169521276.5...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
snip
> How many times do you need to read a book?
I read Jack London's "To Build a Fire" about once every other year to
keep it fresh.
It's the best safety manual I've ever read.
As far as Fairbairn, I found his stories about his life in Australia
(in his autobiography) more interesting and applicable to rowing
success than what he has to say about rowing.
Mike
Charles Carroll
news:1169577850....@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> My copy of A Textbook of Oarsmanship has many more flags, mostly
> because it is not repetitive and loaded with pretty much everything one
> would need to know about Rowing. The most important of which is the
> answer to the question "How do I become a good oarsman?", "By rowing,
> and plenty of it."
Paul,
Can you provide us with an example or two of what you find so useful in "A
Textbook of Oarsmanship?" Maybe one or two of those passages you have marked
with the little post-it flags?
This isn't a frivolous question. I have tried to get into the book several
times without much success. Instead of just reading on I always find myself
wanting to argue with Bourne.
Cordially,
Charles
paul_v...@hotmail.com
Charles Carroll wrote:
> <paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1169577850....@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > My copy of A Textbook of Oarsmanship has many more flags, mostly
> > because it is not repetitive and loaded with pretty much everything one
> > would need to know about Rowing. The most important of which is the
> > answer to the question "How do I become a good oarsman?", "By rowing,
> > and plenty of it."
>
> Paul,
>
> Can you provide us with an example or two of what you find so useful in "A
> Textbook of Oarsmanship?" Maybe one or two of those passages you have marked
> with the little post-it flags?
I'll be happy to do that. A couple that come to mind would be his
Complete description of the Stroke, and his discussion on the recovery
of the body.
> This isn't a frivolous question. I have tried to get into the book several
> times without much success. Instead of just reading on I always find myself
> wanting to argue with Bourne.
Perhaps it would be interesting for you to put forth the topic of
argument, I'd be interested to give a go at playing the Bourne
character in such a debate.
One thing I enjoyed about the Fairbairn and Bourne books is the
treatment of various subjects that appear to be in conflict, but that
is only due to semantics and the way the description was being pursued.
And of course what must be the desire to simply have a spirited debate
that is demonstrated on RSR from time to time. So we don't really
change much as time marches on...
- Paul Smith
> Cordially,
>
> Charles
Charles Carroll
<paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169590584.7...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> Perhaps it would be interesting for you to put forth the topic of
> argument, I'd be interested to give a go at playing the Bourne
> character in such a debate.
>
Paul,
I would love to. You cannot, however get me to play the Fairbairn part. I
just don't know enough.
I have to look at the Bourne book again. One thing that comes to mind is
Bourne's emphasis on a straight back. But again a caution! It is has been
over a year and a half since I glanced at the Bourne book. I may be
misreading him, or having one of those dang "senior moments" and
misremembering him.
Anyway, if I am correct here's the controversy. Bourne recommends keeping
the back straight. Fairbairn writes: "The 'orthodox' teachings I object to
are: (1) Keep the back straight ..."
Let's see what happens with this one.
Cordially,
Charles
paul_v...@hotmail.com
On Jan 23, 2:56 pm, "Charles Carroll" <charles_carr...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> <paul_v_sm...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1169590584.7...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Perhaps it would be interesting for you to put forth the topic of
> > argument, I'd be interested to give a go at playing the Bourne
> > character in such a debate.Paul,
>
> I would love to. You cannot, however get me to play the Fairbairn part. I
> just don't know enough.
The books are wonderful insights into the mens minds however.
Notwithstanding "senior moments" of my own.
> I have to look at the Bourne book again. One thing that comes to mind is
> Bourne's emphasis on a straight back. But again a caution! It is has been
> over a year and a half since I glanced at the Bourne book. I may be
> misreading him, or having one of those dang "senior moments" and
> misremembering him.
That the spine stays in line with the center of the boat and maintains
it's neutral position relative to the pelvis (torso pivot being from
the hips and not the lumbar spine) seems to well accepted these days.
Bourne does illustrate that the difference in reach to allow for the
angle of the sweep handle to be taken without bending either arm is
accomplished at the shoulders, allowing the back to remain a bit more
straight, as opposed to tilting into the rig, that is often seen in
practice, causing the inside arm to be necessarily bent.
> Anyway, if I am correct here's the controversy. Bourne recommends keeping
> the back straight. Fairbairn writes: "The 'orthodox' teachings I object to
> are: (1) Keep the back straight ..."
There is the bit about the "whalebone like bend to the back" mentioned
so frequently in Fairbairns treatment of the finish, though I think
both agree on a bit more upright posture at the catch. I would ahve to
check specifically, but I don't recall them being completely disparate
regarding the finish either, as Bourne mentions that throwing the
shoulders back does nothing to improve the length of the stroke because
the abdomen would still be in the way. This would end with the same
"whalebone" bend to the spine at the finish, but Bourne never used that
term.
The pictures of the "catch" and "finish" positions in both books appear
to be very similar, in spite of small differences in descriptive terms.
- Paul Smith
J Flory
On Jan 23, 10:43 am, "Charles Carroll" <charles_carr...@comcast.net>
wrote:
Mine is titled "Steve Fairbairn on Rowing," (Nicholas Kaye LTD., 1
Trebeck
> Street, London, W.1, 1951). It is edited by Ian Fairbairn, Steve's son, and
> is indeed a compilation of Fairbairn's writings on rowing. It includes
> published and unpublished text by Steve Fairbairn, a General Introduction by
> Ian Fairbairn, an Obituary F. Brittain, The "Elements or Rowing" by R. S. de
> Havilland, and ""Slowly Forward" by F. Brittain.
>
> I wouldn't part with my copy for any amount of money. Most of what I know
> about rowing and sculling comes from that book.
Yup, that's it. Sorry I didn't have my copy here so I couldn't check
the publication date.
The US$150 I paid for a usable but not mint copy seemed extravagant at
the time but now seems more like a wise investment - in more ways than
one.
Walter Martindale
interesting journey, put in a friend's suitcase in Edmonton for a visit
to NZ, only to sit in the Saigon airport for 9 weeks.
What a relief to finally get the book.
W
Jake
books has actually made them row or scull faster?
KC
>
> On Jan 23, 2:56 pm, "Charles Carroll" <charles_carr...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> <paul_v_sm...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1169590584.7...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Perhaps it would be interesting for you to put forth the topic of
>>> argument, I'd be interested to give a go at playing the Bourne
>>> character in such a debate.Paul,
>> I would love to. You cannot, however get me to play the Fairbairn part. I
>> just don't know enough.
>
> The books are wonderful insights into the mens minds however.
> Notwithstanding "senior moments" of my own.
>
>> I have to look at the Bourne book again. One thing that comes to mind is
>> Bourne's emphasis on a straight back. But again a caution! It is has been
>> over a year and a half since I glanced at the Bourne book. I may be
>> misreading him, or having one of those dang "senior moments" and
>> misremembering him.
>
> That the spine stays in line with the center of the boat and maintains
> it's neutral position relative to the pelvis (torso pivot being from
> the hips and not the lumbar spine) seems to well accepted these days.
It may be well accepted as an imaginary goal, but it is virtually
unachievable by most humans. I do encourage my athletes to strive for a
posture that keeps some semblance of a lumbar curve (or minimizes
flexion of the lumbar spine anyway), but no one I've ever seen rowing
has a lumbar posture at the catch that is "neutral" (i.e. that which one
has when standing erect.)
-Kieran
paul_v...@hotmail.com
On Jan 24, 2:46 am, "Jake" <jake.fr...@rya.org.uk> wrote:
> Is anybody prepared to stand up and claim that reading either of these
> books has actually made them row or scull faster?
LOL - Sure, but that begs the question "Faster than what?". [:o)
I'd go as far to say that they also add to the ways in which a coach is
able to communicate the various concepts we wish to get across. Not
everyone understands things in the same way, yet the task at hand
certainly does not change. I've never been a fan of saying things in
ways that are contrary to reality but supposedly "elicit the desired
behavior", as that's too much "black magic" for my personal taste. But
I'm sure it keeps some "famous" coaches in a job as the "Yoda" in
attendance.
- Paul Smith
paul_v...@hotmail.com
On Jan 24, 7:31 am, KC <kc_s...@sonic.net> wrote:
> paul_v_sm...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Jan 23, 2:56 pm, "Charles Carroll" <charles_carr...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> >> <paul_v_sm...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1169590584.7...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> Perhaps it would be interesting for you to put forth the topic of
> >>> argument, I'd be interested to give a go at playing the Bourne
> >>> character in such a debate.Paul,
> >> I would love to. You cannot, however get me to play the Fairbairn part. I
> >> just don't know enough.
>
> > The books are wonderful insights into the mens minds however.
> > Notwithstanding "senior moments" of my own.
>
> >> I have to look at the Bourne book again. One thing that comes to mind is
> >> Bourne's emphasis on a straight back. But again a caution! It is has been
> >> over a year and a half since I glanced at the Bourne book. I may be
> >> misreading him, or having one of those dang "senior moments" and
> >> misremembering him.
>
> > That the spine stays in line with the center of the boat and maintains
> > it's neutral position relative to the pelvis (torso pivot being from
> > the hips and not the lumbar spine) seems to well accepted these days.It may be well accepted as an imaginary goal, but it is virtually
> unachievable by most humans. I do encourage my athletes to strive for a
> posture that keeps some semblance of a lumbar curve (or minimizes
> flexion of the lumbar spine anyway), but no one I've ever seen rowing
> has a lumbar posture at the catch that is "neutral" (i.e. that which one
> has when standing erect.)
>
> -Kieran- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Let's not confuse what we would like to be accomplished (as ideal) with
what we see being accomplished (and figuring that must be ideal). If
it is impossible to maintain neutral lumbar posture at the catch, say
so, if not, we continue to work toward that end. Much like "keeping
the heels down" at the catch: First get to vertical shins, if the
heels can remain down - great!; if they can't, continue to work on
ankle flexibilty. In the mean time, since the ankle has become
essentially a rigid structure as the foot rises on the toes, there is
no loss of solid connection with the stretcher anyway. Some may never
get their heels to remain down, we all have various defects to deal
with.
For some reason, I seem to be seeing more reports of lower back
injuries in rowers lately, though that is not based on statistical
analysis of any sort, just the stories showing up in my normal course
of reading various rowing sites. I hope it's not really the case, as I
thought that we had made progress in figuring out how to minimize the
risk to the lower back in rowing.
- Paul Smith
KC
I did not say that what I see is ideal, just that it is not a neutral
lumbar posture. I don't think that "ideal" = "attainable" in all cases.
> it is impossible to maintain neutral lumbar posture at the catch, say
> so, if not, we continue to work toward that end. Much like "keeping
I believe that for most humans it will be impossible. I won't go so far
as to say that it is impossible for EVERYONE, as I'd have said that
about being able kiss one's knees by bending backwards until I saw
Cirque du Soleil a couple times. But it's not every day you get a
Russian contortionist to walk-on for crew (and if you did they'd
probably make a better cox than rower anyway!)
Having said that, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't ask our rowers to
try to maintain a neutral lumbar posture at the catch, as the closer
they can get to it, the better, regardless of whether it is truly
attainable or not.
> the heels down" at the catch: First get to vertical shins, if the
> heels can remain down - great!; if they can't, continue to work on
> ankle flexibilty. In the mean time, since the ankle has become
> essentially a rigid structure as the foot rises on the toes, there is
> no loss of solid connection with the stretcher anyway. Some may never
> get their heels to remain down, we all have various defects to deal
> with.
In which case, why should they continue to work on ankle flexibility?
Is heels down really better? From what you said above it seems that you
don't think it is. (I don't either.)
Not that I'm saying that working on flexibility isn't a good thing, but
it seemed like you were suggesting that a person who can't keep their
ankles down should strive for that. But anyway, we digress...
> For some reason, I seem to be seeing more reports of lower back
> injuries in rowers lately, though that is not based on statistical
> analysis of any sort, just the stories showing up in my normal course
> of reading various rowing sites. I hope it's not really the case, as I
> thought that we had made progress in figuring out how to minimize the
> risk to the lower back in rowing.
Education is the key, for both athletes and coaches. Many coaches do
not realize that when they demand more length from their rowers at the
catch, that their rowers are achieving that length by flexing the spine,
and thus placing themselves in a position where lumbar injury is more
likely.
-Kieran
paul_v...@hotmail.com
> > what we see being accomplished (and figuring that must be ideal). IfI did not say that what I see is ideal, just that it is not a neutral
> lumbar posture. I don't think that "ideal" = "attainable" in all cases.
Okay, my turn: I did not say you did. But this is written for a
larger audience, thus I invoked the more broadly encompassing "Let us".
Seems we agree on the second bit. Dang!
> > it is impossible to maintain neutral lumbar posture at the catch, say
> > so, if not, we continue to work toward that end. Much like "keepingI believe that for most humans it will be impossible. I won't go so far
> as to say that it is impossible for EVERYONE, as I'd have said that
> about being able kiss one's knees by bending backwards until I saw
> Cirque du Soleil a couple times. But it's not every day you get a
> Russian contortionist to walk-on for crew (and if you did they'd
> probably make a better cox than rower anyway!)
>
> Having said that, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't ask our rowers to
> try to maintain a neutral lumbar posture at the catch, as the closer
> they can get to it, the better, regardless of whether it is truly
> attainable or not.
More agreement. This is going to get really boring. [;o)
> > the heels down" at the catch: First get to vertical shins, if the
> > heels can remain down - great!; if they can't, continue to work on
> > ankle flexibilty. In the mean time, since the ankle has become
> > essentially a rigid structure as the foot rises on the toes, there is
> > no loss of solid connection with the stretcher anyway. Some may never
> > get their heels to remain down, we all have various defects to deal
> > with.In which case, why should they continue to work on ankle flexibility?
> Is heels down really better? From what you said above it seems that you
> don't think it is. (I don't either.)
Only from the standpoint that it reduces some connective tissue
stresses, which would seem to be a good thing in the long run. I was
just pointing out that rigid = rigid, as opposed to the person who
could keep their heels down but lifts onto their toes, creating a "not
as solid" connection to the stretcher, essentially acting as a shock
absorber (dashpot?), which can't be beneficial in the transmission of
force.
> Not that I'm saying that working on flexibility isn't a good thing, but
> it seemed like you were suggesting that a person who can't keep their
> ankles down should strive for that. But anyway, we digress...
They should, as reasoned above. It's just not the end all be all if
they simply can not attain it.
> > For some reason, I seem to be seeing more reports of lower back
> > injuries in rowers lately, though that is not based on statistical
> > analysis of any sort, just the stories showing up in my normal course
> > of reading various rowing sites. I hope it's not really the case, as I
> > thought that we had made progress in figuring out how to minimize the
> > risk to the lower back in rowing.Education is the key, for both athletes and coaches. Many coaches do
> not realize that when they demand more length from their rowers at the
> catch, that their rowers are achieving that length by flexing the spine,
> and thus placing themselves in a position where lumbar injury is more
> likely.
Indeed, and this is where Fairbairn's book has a nice quote. "It's got
to all come from within you, laddies." With a compliamentary quote
from Bourne. "Each rower must work within the constraints of their own
physical defects."
- Paul Smith
PS - Now do try to spark it up a bit, I thought for sure you might go
after the "Quick Bowman Vs Speed of light" theory. [;o)
KC
FYI, a "shock absorber" in the sense of those things on each wheel of
your car, and in the forks of many mountain bikes... is traditionally a
combination of a spring, and a "dashpot" (damper/dampener). It's the
spring that absorbs the shock really, and the dashpot dampens the
resulting oscillations. A dashpot is often (not always) a pneumatic
cylinder, similar to the things that keep your screen doors from
slamming shut (and which also are used as resistance on some lesser
"indoor rowing machines"). Often dampers, instead of using a gas as the
viscous medium (i.e. pneumatic) use a fluid like oil (MT bike forks,
esp. Marzocchi brand, often use oil instead of air). It all depends on
how much and what kind of damping you want.
Now, to take that little lesson in "mechanics" and add a "bio" in front
of it...
Muscle and connective tissue are nearly always modeled as some sort of
spring/mass/damper mechanical system (with a "contractile element" added
when considering contraction) when one needs to model them in software.
So, your original "shock absorber" statement wasn't far off. However,
by saying that a fully dorsi-flexed ankle is better than one where more
flexion is still available, is not necessarily true. The gastro-soleus
("calf") muscles are *incredibly* strong, and easily capable of
transmitting all of the power of the rowing stroke (think of how a 100m
sprinter runs: on his toes). In addition, in so far as injury to the
connective tissue is concerned, keep in mind that the connective tissue
always supports the whole load regardless of whether the ankle is fully
dorsi-flexed or not (well, except in the case of a "heels down" situation).
-Kieran
Charles Carroll
news:1169594350.9...@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> The pictures of the "catch" and "finish" positions in both books appear
> to be very similar, in spite of small differences in descriptive terms.
Paul,
Fairbairn's description of what the body should look like at the Finish:
shoulders slightly hunched forward, the belly drawn in, the small of the
back rowed well out.
Cordially,
Charles
Charles Carroll
Kieran,
It sure is for me.
Heels down at the Catch forces me to use the inboard levers to pull myself
up on to the rowing pins.
"'Row the oar into the water and hit the boat with your weight' is the main
principle of my theories." - Steve Fairbairn, "Chats on Rowing."
When the timing is right, when you place the blades into the water and push
off the footstretcher as the blades lock on, and simultaneously use the
inboard levers to pull yourself up on to the rowing pins, and then manage to
keep hold of the water while you let all your weight push back against the
pins, when you are able to row through without feeling any heaviness or
effort, and feel the quickness of the boat as it moves through the water,
well that's when a rowing stroke becomes pure joy.
Cordially,
Charles
paul_v...@hotmail.com
On Jan 24, 11:02 pm, "Charles Carroll" <charles_carr...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> <paul_v_sm...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1169594350.9...@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
In my copy of Fairbairn there is a series of pictures (2 series
actually) and in the second, #23 and 24 are showing different, but
apparently desireable finish positions. In ATOO, there is a similar
illustration on page 157 of the finish. Bourne does have some skeletal
drawings that appear to contradict the illustrated finish position, but
since all my rowers are covered with skin, those may or may not be
accurate. It seems as if the "sloppy finish" skeletal figure is just
about right in line with the finish on pg 157.
An just to keep things going. ATOO pg 89: Ch IV - The recovery and
swing forward.
"My excursion into the realm of theory assures me that the rules
accepted by the best English oarsmen are good, and that there is a
certain shape and sequence of bodily movement that is to be preferred
above all others. So this chapter is dogmatic. Its main purpose is to
insist, and to go on insisting, on the necessity of obeying the rules."
I simply love that! (And Nike thinks they are so original with the
veritable trademarking of "Just Do It.")
- Paul Smith
KC
>> Is heels down really better?
>
> Kieran,
>
> It sure is for me.
It may well be, Charles, but my point was that it may NOT be so for
everyone. In other words, I don't feel that we can say that "heels down
at the catch" is an ideal toward which everyone should strive.
> Heels down at the Catch forces me to use the inboard levers to pull myself
> up on to the rowing pins.
I'm not sure what you mean by pulling yourself up onto the rowing pins.
> "'Row the oar into the water and hit the boat with your weight' is the main
> principle of my theories." - Steve Fairbairn, "Chats on Rowing."
>
> When the timing is right, when you place the blades into the water and push
BTW, while it's been about 10 years since I read "Chats on Rowing" (the
only Fairbairn text I've read) I'm fairly certain that when he uses the
phrase, "row the oar into the water" that his meaning is entirely
different from "place the blades into the water".
> off the footstretcher as the blades lock on, and simultaneously use the
> inboard levers to pull yourself up on to the rowing pins, and then manage to
> keep hold of the water while you let all your weight push back against the
> pins, when you are able to row through without feeling any heaviness or
> effort, and feel the quickness of the boat as it moves through the water,
> well that's when a rowing stroke becomes pure joy.
Nicely put, Charles. I'd have to agree with that description and
sentiment. I would add though, that nothing in what you just wrote
precludes rowing with heals up during the initial phases of the stroke,
if that's the way one rows. I happen to have very good ankle
flexibility, so my "ingrained" style is with heels down. But I do not
believe that heels down is necessary, and if I have a rower who can not
do it, I don't harp on them for it. If one has learned to row and
developed his strength with heels up rowing, then it's probably better
for him, and he's certainly not loosing anything for it, IMO.
-Kieran
David Gillard
It is strange and I wonder if there has been a mistake somewhere along the
line. Perhaps one bookseller entered a completely crazy price by accident
(fat finger?) or optimism and others have followed as they have looked up
the same price on abebooks.com and used it as a benchmark. The original 1951
book "Steve Fairbairn on Rowing" as opposed to "The Complete Steve Fairbairn
on Rowing" is also listed on abebooks for much lower prices. I'm interested
if anyone knows any more on these pricing mechanisms?
Charles Carroll
news:epafuh$5me$1...@prometheus.acsu.buffalo.edu...
> Charles Carroll wrote:
> >> Is heels down really better?
> > It sure is for me.
>
> It may well be, Charles, but my point was that it may NOT be so for
> everyone. In other words, I don't feel that we can say that "heels down
> at the catch" is an ideal toward which everyone should strive.
I could not agree more. I am very wary of thinking that there is an "ideal
rowing stroke" and that everyone should strive for this ideal stroke. Such a
notion is certainly the opposite of anything Steve Fairbairn wrote. Besides,
if there actually existed an eidos of rowing stroke, an absolute ideal, then
why doesn't every accomplished rower row alike? No! Chris Dadd, who is the
Berkeley High School Rowing Coach and who coaches at my Club, says, "I tell
everyone who will listen that there are many ways to move a boat.
> > Heels down at the Catch forces me to use the inboard levers to pull
myself
> > up on to the rowing pins.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by pulling yourself up onto the rowing pins.
It means that as I push off the footstretcher I simultaneously pull myself
up on to the rowing pins. My weight leaves the seat. Occasionally my butt
also loses contact. But the point is I am, in Fairbairn's words, "...
coupling the drive and the draw." Or trying to!
People will tell you that the Catch is all about your legs.
But why limit the Catch to just using your legs when you have so many more
muscles available to you?
Fairbairn says, and my obversations coroborate this, that you should also
use your arms to draw back the oar handles. He says, and again this has been
my experience, that you don't really use your arms, that you are actually
using your shoulders and lats. In any event, it seems to me that as you try
to push your oar through the oarlocks and simultaeously against the pins,
your weght comes off the seat and you are taking the taking the oar handles
back with all your weight. Hence: hit the boat with your weight.
To me the measure of whether or not you have suceeded is how the row through
feels. If you can row through without feeling any heaviness or effort you
have succeeded in hitting the boat with your weight.
In fact, it seems to me that the row through is the measure of all things in
rowing. Rowing through without feeling any heaviness or effort tells you
that your timing at the Catch has been right. It tells you that you are not
letting go of the water. It tells you that your blades are immersed at the
correct depth. It tells you that you are hitting the boat with your weight.
It tells you that you are staying on the pins. It tells you that the
connection is good. Just everything!
Now, as for the question of heels down at the Catch: for me getting my heels
down early and trying to drive them through the footstretcher just helps me
get up on to the pins so much faster. But I also know that this doesn't work
for everyone.
> Nicely put, Charles. I'd have to agree with that description and
> sentiment. I would add though, that nothing in what you just wrote
> precludes rowing with heals up during the initial phases of the stroke,
> if that's the way one rows. I happen to have very good ankle
> flexibility, so my "ingrained" style is with heels down. But I do not
> believe that heels down is necessary, and if I have a rower who can not
> do it, I don't harp on them for it. If one has learned to row and
> developed his strength with heels up rowing, then it's probably better
> for him, and he's certainly not loosing anything for it, IMO.
Again, Kieran, I couldn't agree more. Everyone of us tends to confuse means
for ends.
It seems to me that _what_ moves a boat is the force against the pins. _How_
you move a boat is how you apply this force. So with regard to the question
of heels down at the Catch, if you are getting up on the pins at the Catch
with your heels up, don't worry about it. If you are not, then trying
getting your heels down earlier and see if this helps.
The point is fight the tendency to make technique a end in itself. It is not
an end. It is only a means to achieving an end, namely, to moving a boat.
I believe this is one of Fairbairn's admonishments. Watch how a rower works
his oars, watch what the blades do in the water, watch how the boat moves.
If everything is good, don't worry about the rower's technique. The rower is
doing what he is supposed to do, and doing it well.
Cordially,
Charles
Charles Carroll
news:1169734582....@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> In my copy of Fairbairn there is a series of pictures (2 series
> actually) and in the second, #23 and 24 are showing different, but
> apparently desireable finish positions. In ATOO, there is a similar
> illustration on page 157 of the finish. Bourne does have some skeletal
> drawings that appear to contradict the illustrated finish position, but
> since all my rowers are covered with skin, those may or may not be
> accurate. It seems as if the "sloppy finish" skeletal figure is just
> about right in line with the finish on pg 157.
>
I wish we could upload photographs to the Newsgroup. I would love to scan
these photographs and make them available to anyone who is familiar with
them. I have never known anyone to present a counter argument to Fairbairn
once they have studied these photographs.
I have been asked a couple of times about the Finish . If I am at the Club,
I just get the person asking to sit on an erg and look at himself in the
mirror. First, I have this person use the posture Fairbairn recommends:
shoulders slightly hunched forward, belly drawn in, small of the back rowed
out well. We mark on the mirror where the erg handle is.
Next I have this person try to draw the erg handle further back by using
excessive layback. Of course you know what happens. The person's abdomen
pushes out and as a result the erg handle is pushed forward and distance is
lost.
I never draw a conclusion. Instead, I let the person sitting on the erg draw
it for himself or herself.
> "My excursion into the realm of theory assures me that the rules
> accepted by the best English oarsmen are good, and that there is a
> certain shape and sequence of bodily movement that is to be preferred
> above all others. So this chapter is dogmatic. Its main purpose is to
> insist, and to go on insisting, on the necessity of obeying the rules."
>
It is an intriguing statement, but I've got to run. I'll try to find the
time to write about this later. I think it may be one of the major points
where Fairbairn and Bourne disagree.
Cordially,
Charles
paul_v...@hotmail.com
On Jan 25, 10:25 am, "Charles Carroll" <charles_carr...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> <paul_v_sm...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1169734582....@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > In my copy of Fairbairn there is a series of pictures (2 series
> > actually) and in the second, #23 and 24 are showing different, but
> > apparently desireable finish positions. In ATOO, there is a similar
> > illustration on page 157 of the finish. Bourne does have some skeletal
> > drawings that appear to contradict the illustrated finish position, but
> > since all my rowers are covered with skin, those may or may not be
> > accurate. It seems as if the "sloppy finish" skeletal figure is just
> > about right in line with the finish on pg 157.I wish we could upload photographs to the Newsgroup. I would love to scan
> these photographs and make them available to anyone who is familiar with
> them. I have never known anyone to present a counter argument to Fairbairn
> once they have studied these photographs.
>
> I have been asked a couple of times about the Finish . If I am at the Club,
> I just get the person asking to sit on an erg and look at himself in the
> mirror. First, I have this person use the posture Fairbairn recommends:
> shoulders slightly hunched forward, belly drawn in, small of the back rowed
> out well. We mark on the mirror where the erg handle is.
>
> Next I have this person try to draw the erg handle further back by using
> excessive layback. Of course you know what happens. The person's abdomen
> pushes out and as a result the erg handle is pushed forward and distance is
> lost.
>
> I never draw a conclusion. Instead, I let the person sitting on the erg draw
> it for himself or herself.
>
> > "My excursion into the realm of theory assures me that the rules
> > accepted by the best English oarsmen are good, and that there is a
> > certain shape and sequence of bodily movement that is to be preferred
> > above all others. So this chapter is dogmatic. Its main purpose is to
> > insist, and to go on insisting, on the necessity of obeying the rules."It is an intriguing statement, but I've got to run. I'll try to find the
> time to write about this later. I think it may be one of the major points
> where Fairbairn and Bourne disagree.
>
> Cordially,
>
> Charles
I'll write my rebuttle now. One must not confuse "Technique" with
"Style".
Much like a desireable force profile can be created with quite varied
styles, to have that force coordinated for optimal power input is not
so externally observable. I do think there is an "optimal technique
and style", however the "optimal human" may not exist.
Fortunately, we humans are quite adaptable.
Take the problem of designing a "Rowing Robot" that was going to mimic
the use of a human form, would the programming of this device be
difficult to optimize? I say no. But if it had the capacity to
misinterpret the instructions of the programmer then the answer is
reversed quite easily, isn't it?
- Paul Smith
KC
>
>
>
> I'll write my rebuttle now. One must not confuse "Technique" with
> "Style".
You've said this before, and have been asked before (maybe by me I don't
remember) what you meant by it... Could you please post your definitions
of "technique" and "style" as they pertain to the subject at hand (i.e.
I could look up the dictionary definitions myself, but I don't think
that would help in this case) and how they differ from each other? Thanks.
-Kieran
paul_v...@hotmail.com
On Jan 25, 11:28 am, KC <kc_s...@sonic.net> wrote:
> paul_v_sm...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > I'll write my rebuttle now. One must not confuse "Technique" with
> > "Style".You've said this before, and have been asked before (maybe by me I don't
> remember) what you meant by it... Could you please post your definitions
> of "technique" and "style" as they pertain to the subject at hand (i.e.
> I could look up the dictionary definitions myself, but I don't think
> that would help in this case) and how they differ from each other? Thanks.
>
> -Kieran
I did a quick search of the group on "Technique and style" and it was
the first hit.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.rowing/browse_frm/thread/cd68c442e20f0d23/9a78bffa89e0ecb6?lnk=gst&q=technique+and+style&rnum=1&hl=en#9a78bffa89e0ecb6
I suppose I could take another lash at it, but are you just stirring
the pot for a bit of fun, or are you serious?
Repeating the exercise and expecting a different result is... well...
the definition of insanity and I'm not quite there yet? [;o)
Just to start: Looking the terms up is not a bad idea.
Technique Vs Style
Technique -
Etymology: French, from technique technical, from Greek technikos
1 : the manner in which technical details are treated (as by a writer)
or basic physical movements are used (as by a dancer); also : ability
to treat such details or use such movements <good piano technique>
2 a : a body of technical methods (as in a craft or in scientific
research) b : a method of accomplishing a desired aim
Style -
2 a : a distinctive manner of expression (as in writing or speech)
<writes with more attention to style than to content> <the flowery
style of 18th century prose> b : a distinctive manner or custom of
behaving or conducting oneself <the formal style of the court> <his
style is abrasive>; also : a particular mode of living <in high style>
c : a particular manner or technique by which something is done,
created, or performed <a unique style of horseback riding> <the
classical style of dance>
I did find it interesting that "technique" was used in the defining of
"style" but not the other way around.
At the highest level I would describe Technique as what is being
accomplished (as mechanically measurable. i.e. Force Profile), and
Style as what is being observed (as visually perceived and
interpretted. i.e. Bodypart sequencing).
- Paul Smith
>
>
> > Much like a desireable force profile can be created with quite varied
> > styles, to have that force coordinated for optimal power input is not
> > so externally observable. I do think there is an "optimal technique
> > and style", however the "optimal human" may not exist.
>
> > Fortunately, we humans are quite adaptable.
>
> > Take the problem of designing a "Rowing Robot" that was going to mimic
> > the use of a human form, would the programming of this device be
> > difficult to optimize? I say no. But if it had the capacity to
> > misinterpret the instructions of the programmer then the answer is
> > reversed quite easily, isn't it?
>
> > - Paul Smith- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
KC
>
> On Jan 25, 11:28 am, KC <kc_s...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> paul_v_sm...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> I'll write my rebuttle now. One must not confuse "Technique" with
>>> "Style".You've said this before, and have been asked before (maybe by me I don't
>> remember) what you meant by it... Could you please post your definitions
>> of "technique" and "style" as they pertain to the subject at hand (i.e.
>> I could look up the dictionary definitions myself, but I don't think
>> that would help in this case) and how they differ from each other? Thanks.
>>
>> -Kieran
>
> I did a quick search of the group on "Technique and style" and it was
> the first hit.
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.rowing/browse_frm/thread/cd68c442e20f0d23/9a78bffa89e0ecb6?lnk=gst&q=technique+and+style&rnum=1&hl=en#9a78bffa89e0ecb6
>
> I suppose I could take another lash at it, but are you just stirring
> the pot for a bit of fun, or are you serious?
Of course I was serious, not stirring the pot at all. Don't be so
defensive. I was genuinely curious, and it was an honest question...
maybe spurred by my laziness in not wanting to do the search myself.
Speaking of which, that thread you posted did not answer my question.
The only post by you in that thread that mentioned both the words
"technique" and "style" offered a good definition of neither (IMO, anyway).
(quote)
Sounds like you are differentiating between technique and style. There
are crews that do well, even at the Olympics, that overcome a lot of
technical problems with extreme levels of fitness, and at least
matching up the flaws together (which counts for a lot, and blurs the
standard). Even the wrong thing done together is better than a mix of
right and wrong not working together. The 1x is very interesting
because there is no 'matching' to be done and all sorts of sylistic
differences can show up.
debe's attitude above is definitely common, but part of the problem in
rowing that seems to cause a sort of fickleness in technique. A style
is observed and copied, but what we see does not exactly match up with
the reality of what is going on. Why do you think most people think of
rowing as an "upper body" sport? They don't even realize that the legs
are being used. Secondly, they observe a rather slow, easy and
graceful Drive (hopefully), but that is only appearing that way due the
the resistance being overcome, internally it is anything but slow and
easy.
- Paul Smith
(/quote)
> Repeating the exercise and expecting a different result is... well...
> the definition of insanity and I'm not quite there yet? [;o)
>
> Just to start: Looking the terms up is not a bad idea.
I disagree. I want to know how YOU think of them differently. I *know*
how the dictionary defines them, and I don't feel that those definitions
clarify the difference you claim is important. Personally, for rowing,
I think the terms go hand in hand. One's technique defines one's style.
Therefore *in the context of rowing* technique and style are
interchangeable.
>
> I did find it interesting that "technique" was used in the defining of
> "style" but not the other way around.
Well, since you see them as different things, you should expect that the
"other way around" case didn't occur, right?
> At the highest level I would describe Technique as what is being
> accomplished (as mechanically measurable. i.e. Force Profile), and
> Style as what is being observed (as visually perceived and
> interpretted. i.e. Bodypart sequencing).
But bodypart sequencing directly impacts force profile, so again how is
technique really different from style in this case?
BTW, what other aspects would you say fall under technique and not
style? You seem to imply that sequencing of body part motions is part
of style, and not technique, but you say that technique is something
measurable. For my experiments I'm precisely measuring body motion
during the stroke. So, since I'm measuring it, is it now technique, or
still style?
FYI, I'm not trying to be antagonistic, really genuinely curious about
how you would use these two terms differently.
Could two rowers have similar styles, but different techniques, or vice
versa? How?
Thanks,
Kieran
Carl Douglas
> "KC" <kc_...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>
>>I'm not sure what you mean by pulling yourself up onto the rowing pins.
>
>
> It means that as I push off the footstretcher I simultaneously pull myself
> up on to the rowing pins. My weight leaves the seat. Occasionally my butt
> also loses contact. But the point is I am, in Fairbairn's words, "...
> coupling the drive and the draw." Or trying to!
>
One point to consider, Charles:
How well you retain contact with your seat is a matter of levers &
moments. Trying to lift you off your seat is a lever, pivoting at your
point of contact with the stretcher, with your pulling force F acting at
the level of your hands (assume a horizontal force application) a
distance H above the pivot. Trying to hold you in contact with your
seat is a lever, again pivoting at your same contact point with the
stretcher, of length L equal to the horizontal distance between that
pivot & your bodily C of G & being pulled vertically down by a force W
equal to your own weight.
At the point of lift-off, you can write the equation:
F x H = W x L
If you push with your heels, then for a given catch posture H will be as
large as it can possibly be & L will be as short as it can be. That's
the condition for minimum F (pulling force) before lift-off must occur.
If, however, you push with the balls of your feet, then at the identical
catch position H will be the least, & L will be the most, that they can
be, so F will be at the maximum possible without lifting off.
In short, how hard ultimately we can take the catch is set by that force
at which we start to leave the seat. All else being equal, this is
absolutely limited by height of our feet & by whether we drive off our
heels or toes - high feet & driving off their balls allows maximum catch
force. And there can be quite a large difference between As rowers we
quickly learn not to lift off, & to avoid this we become unconsciously
inhibited in how hard we take the catch.
It may also be that being able to feel yourself up against that lift-off
limit, as when using heel drive, gives you the sense of being really
solidly connected because you had pulling force in reserve which that
inhibitor in you brain would not allow you to use. What your brain
fails to tell you is that the limit was imposed not by your strength.
Once the bodily C of G has moved a little way towards the bow it is much
harder to lift off, so then you may drive from where you like without a
force limitation.
> People will tell you that the Catch is all about your legs.
>
> But why limit the Catch to just using your legs when you have so many more
> muscles available to you?
>
> Fairbairn says, and my obversations coroborate this, that you should also
> use your arms to draw back the oar handles. He says, and again this has been
> my experience, that you don't really use your arms, that you are actually
> using your shoulders and lats. In any event, it seems to me that as you try
> to push your oar through the oarlocks and simultaeously against the pins,
> your weght comes off the seat and you are taking the taking the oar handles
> back with all your weight. Hence: hit the boat with your weight.
Please don't hit the boat with your weight! Weight is nothing but a
darned nuisance at the catch because it has to be moved & moving it
absorbs energy. You need to hit (if that's the correct word, which I
doubt) the boat with the swift contraction of a whole range of muscles,
& only when you have connection should you start also to move you body
mass. After all, the effort you put into moving body mass
correspondingly reduces & delays the impulse you can apply to the
handles, & it is load on the handles & thence to the blades, not load on
the stretcher, which propels the boat. So treat load on the stretcher
not as the objective but as the inescapable consequence of having
applied load to the handles, & let the body come along as it must.
>
> To me the measure of whether or not you have suceeded is how the row through
> feels. If you can row through without feeling any heaviness or effort you
> have succeeded in hitting the boat with your weight.
>
> In fact, it seems to me that the row through is the measure of all things in
> rowing. Rowing through without feeling any heaviness or effort tells you
> that your timing at the Catch has been right. It tells you that you are not
> letting go of the water. It tells you that your blades are immersed at the
> correct depth. It tells you that you are hitting the boat with your weight.
> It tells you that you are staying on the pins. It tells you that the
> connection is good. Just everything!
Errr! How easily it feels that the stroke is taken is a consequence of
how smoothly the stroke force is sustained (minimise force fluctuations,
peaks & troughs) & how fast the boat is moving. How fast the boat will
move depends on your strength & fitness, smoothness of stroke & on how
little of your energy input gets wasted in puddle formation. Puddle
formation is reduced by emphasising effort at the 2 ends of the stroke
rather than in the middle, by maximising stroke length (within reason!)
so that with the stroke being longer the pressure can be lower for the
same stroke rate, & by increasing the blade depth so that air is not
entrained behind the blade to break the hydraulic connection between the
blade & the bulk of the water behind it.
And with that none of us should ever disagree!
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)
mpruscoe
> Charles Carroll wrote:
>> I believe this is one of Fairbairn's admonishments. Watch how a rower
>> works
>> his oars, watch what the blades do in the water, watch how the boat
>> moves.
>> If everything is good, don't worry about the rower's technique. The
>> rower is
>> doing what he is supposed to do, and doing it well.
>
> And with that none of us should ever disagree!
>
I will disagree. I think that you can positively say that there are
areas of poor technique that can cause damage e.g. disc damage or
chronic shoulder problems. Some people get away with doing strange
things for a very long time but others don't, and we often only see the
survivors. Back in Fairbairn's day they weren't doing the training
volumes people do now, and some people, at least, have to pay attention
to posture and suchlike in order to stay injury free.
paul_v...@hotmail.com
On Jan 25, 2:36 pm, KC <kc_s...@sonic.net> wrote:
> paul_v_sm...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Jan 25, 11:28 am, KC <kc_s...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >> paul_v_sm...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> I'll write my rebuttle now. One must not confuse "Technique" with
> >>> "Style".You've said this before, and have been asked before (maybe by me I don't
> >> remember) what you meant by it... Could you please post your definitions
> >> of "technique" and "style" as they pertain to the subject at hand (i.e.
> >> I could look up the dictionary definitions myself, but I don't think
> >> that would help in this case) and how they differ from each other? Thanks.
>
> >> -Kieran
>
> > I did a quick search of the group on "Technique and style" and it was
> > the first hit.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.rowing/browse_frm/thread/cd6...
>
> > I suppose I could take another lash at it, but are you just stirring
> > the pot for a bit of fun, or are you serious?
> Of course I was serious, not stirring the pot at all. Don't be so
> defensive. I was genuinely curious, and it was an honest question...
> maybe spurred by my laziness in not wanting to do the search myself.
That I know I was not being defensive, and yet you imply that I was,
would indicate something else entirely, but let's not digress.
Sounds more like you want me to understand what you think, which I do.
Now my openning question appears to have the relevance intended. But
I'll continue since I'm entertained.
>
> > I did find it interesting that "technique" was used in the defining of
> > "style" but not the other way around.
> Well, since you see them as different things, you should expect that the
> "other way around" case didn't occur, right?
Well yes, I suppose I could have left out that particular part of the
definition, but why do you suppose I didn't? hint: because it was
interesting to me.
> > At the highest level I would describe Technique as what is being
> > accomplished (as mechanically measurable. i.e. Force Profile), and
> > Style as what is being observed (as visually perceived and
> > interpretted. i.e. Bodypart sequencing).
> But bodypart sequencing directly impacts force profile, so again how is
> technique really different from style in this case?
Perhaps you will find that body part sequencing can appear to be quite
close, while at the same time the force profile varies considerably. I
see it all the time.
> BTW, what other aspects would you say fall under technique and not
> style? You seem to imply that sequencing of body part motions is part
> of style, and not technique, but you say that technique is something
> measurable. For my experiments I'm precisely measuring body motion
> during the stroke. So, since I'm measuring it, is it now technique, or
> still style?
I knew this would crop up with your objective study of body movement
during the rowing stroke, so was rather careful in the words I used.
Didn't you notice?
I'd agree that technique and style will be intertwined in the rowing
stroke, golf swing, tennis stroke, etc... but are seperabley definable
if one cares to do so. Technique, the technical qualities that must be
present for the performance to take place, i.e. Pin force, clubhead
speed, racquet speed and accuracy. Perhaps you have seen "The Ping
Man" a golfing robot, pure technique, nearly no style at all. Or the
"Lobster" tennis ball machine, or a pitching machine in baseball, both
even farther away from "Style" than the Ping man (since it at least
swings a real golf club).
I guess I'd express technique as being the qualities that are easily
definable and fairly readily duplicatable. Style, OTOH, while
observable and even measureable (as you are doing) will encompass what
one might call "intangibles" (though they probably aren't really, but
hopefully you know what I mean). It's the things that allow us to see
a rower which we have no reason to believe any particular identity of,
and recognize who it is, in spite of having not seen them in 20 years,
in fact not having even thought about them in 20 years, just as I did
with Tiff Wood when he was rowing on Greenlake in 2001, just as I was
renewing my interest in rowing, attending a local regatta. All due to
his very characteristic style.
> FYI, I'm not trying to be antagonistic, really genuinely curious about
> how you would use these two terms differently.
Thanks for the "I", is any of this helping to lend the clarity you are
seeking?
> Could two rowers have similar styles, but different techniques, or vice
> versa? How?
Of course, either way. Haven't you seen exactly that thing (based on
some of what has already be said) in your observations of rowers or
experimental subjects?
A good 2- will necessarily have rowers with the same style, but
different techniques M2- AUS 2003, 04. At least if they want to go
straight with the least amount of steering input. OTOH a 2x requires a
precise matching of technique while the style can vary considerably and
still yield fine results. M2x FRA 2003, 04 is a good example.
Summary, as applicable to rowing:
Various 1x's can do whatever they want, the 2- is a special case (along
with the 2+), but then all the team boats from there would be best
served by a complete matching of technique&style, technique & slightly
varied style, but definitely NOT: matching style with differing
techniques (extremely tough boat to diagnose as to why its going so
slow).
> Thanks,
> Kieran
You're welcome,
Paul Smith
Kieran
>
> On Jan 25, 2:36 pm, KC <kc_s...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> paul_v_sm...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 25, 11:28 am, KC <kc_s...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> paul_v_sm...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> I'll write my rebuttle now. One must not confuse "Technique" with
>>>>> "Style".You've said this before, and have been asked before (maybe by me I don't
>>>> remember) what you meant by it... Could you please post your definitions
>>>> of "technique" and "style" as they pertain to the subject at hand (i.e.
>>>> I could look up the dictionary definitions myself, but I don't think
>>>> that would help in this case) and how they differ from each other? Thanks.
>>>> -Kieran
>>> I did a quick search of the group on "Technique and style" and it was
>>> the first hit.
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.rowing/browse_frm/thread/cd6...
>>> I suppose I could take another lash at it, but are you just stirring
>>> the pot for a bit of fun, or are you serious?
>> Of course I was serious, not stirring the pot at all. Don't be so
>> defensive. I was genuinely curious, and it was an honest question...
>> maybe spurred by my laziness in not wanting to do the search myself.
>
> That I know I was not being defensive, and yet you imply that I was,
> would indicate something else entirely, but let's not digress.
It only indicates that while you were not being defensive, your writing
indicated otherwise. :^)
>>> Repeating the exercise and expecting a different result is... well...
>>> the definition of insanity and I'm not quite there yet? [;o)
>>> Just to start: Looking the terms up is not a bad idea.
>
>> I disagree. I want to know how YOU think of them differently. I *know*
>> how the dictionary defines them, and I don't feel that those definitions
>> clarify the difference you claim is important. Personally, for rowing,
>> I think the terms go hand in hand. One's technique defines one's style.
>> Therefore *in the context of rowing* technique and style are
>> interchangeable.
>
> Sounds more like you want me to understand what you think, which I do.
That I know that was not my intention, and yet you think it was, would
indicate something else entirely... ;^)
>>> At the highest level I would describe Technique as what is being
>>> accomplished (as mechanically measurable. i.e. Force Profile), and
>>> Style as what is being observed (as visually perceived and
>>> interpretted. i.e. Bodypart sequencing).
>
>> But bodypart sequencing directly impacts force profile, so again how is
>> technique really different from style in this case?
>
> Perhaps you will find that body part sequencing can appear to be quite
> close, while at the same time the force profile varies considerably. I
> see it all the time.
Of course, I also see force profiles look very similar with differing
"body part sequencing".
>> BTW, what other aspects would you say fall under technique and not
>> style? You seem to imply that sequencing of body part motions is part
>> of style, and not technique, but you say that technique is something
>> measurable. For my experiments I'm precisely measuring body motion
>> during the stroke. So, since I'm measuring it, is it now technique, or
>> still style?
>
> I knew this would crop up with your objective study of body movement
> during the rowing stroke, so was rather careful in the words I used.
> Didn't you notice?
I did notice, actually, but I felt that using "measurable" as an example
of technique, then "bodypart sequencing" as something that was
observable (and therefore by implication, not "measurable") was a poor
example, since motion of body segments is very measurable/quantifiable.
(People have made careers out of refining quantification of human
motion, to the point that bone-to-bone translations (e.g. sliding of the
femur and tibia relative to each other during knee flexion) can be
measured with sub-millimeter accuracy using only adhesive markers
attached to the skin.) So, given that it was a poor/contradictory
example, I wanted further explanation, which you then provided. Isn't
nice how that works? :^)
> I'd agree that technique and style will be intertwined in the rowing
> stroke, golf swing, tennis stroke, etc... but are seperabley definable
> if one cares to do so. Technique, the technical qualities that must be
> present for the performance to take place, i.e. Pin force, clubhead
> speed, racquet speed and accuracy. Perhaps you have seen "The Ping
> Man" a golfing robot, pure technique, nearly no style at all. Or the
> "Lobster" tennis ball machine, or a pitching machine in baseball, both
> even farther away from "Style" than the Ping man (since it at least
> swings a real golf club).
>
> I guess I'd express technique as being the qualities that are easily
> definable and fairly readily duplicatable. Style, OTOH, while
> observable and even measureable (as you are doing) will encompass what
> one might call "intangibles" (though they probably aren't really, but
> hopefully you know what I mean). It's the things that allow us to see
> a rower which we have no reason to believe any particular identity of,
> and recognize who it is, in spite of having not seen them in 20 years,
> in fact not having even thought about them in 20 years, just as I did
> with Tiff Wood when he was rowing on Greenlake in 2001, just as I was
> renewing my interest in rowing, attending a local regatta. All due to
> his very characteristic style.
Okay, I get how you think of it now. I don't agree with you at all, but
it will be good to know in the future where you're coming from, if you
ever accuse me of "confusing technique and style" or something like
that... ;^)
>> Could two rowers have similar styles, but different techniques, or vice
>> versa? How?
>
> Of course, either way. Haven't you seen exactly that thing (based on
> some of what has already be said) in your observations of rowers or
> experimental subjects?
Well, I don't consider the shape of one's force curve to be part of
their "technique". I consider it a *result* of their technique (or
style, since to me the two terms are almost interchangeable in this case.)
When someone describes a rower and says, "she has good technique" I
interpret that to mean things like, she has a quick catch, a clean
release, she seems to apply the legs well at the catch, she has good
balance, etc., etc.. People say this all the time about rowers they
observe, yet whose output they have not *measured* (e.g. force curve
profile is unknown). So, most of the people I interact with, when they
mention "technique" they are talking about what you apparently call "style".
I suppose that if someone referred to a rowing "style" I would take that
to mean the sum of all aspects of technique... i.e. the Karl Adam
"style" or Fairbairn "style". Whereas "technique" would in my mind
refer to how (and how well) a rower executes various aspects of a given
style. I might even go so far as to say that "style" is the "what" and
technique is the "how". For example, Fairbairn style includes a flip
catch. That's the "what"... How one executes the flip catch is the
technique.
-Kieran
Carl
You're quite right! I was writing in the more limited sense & stand
corrected in that broader sense of rower well-being.
However, coaching which concentrates on body actions whkile disregarding
what the blade is doing & how the boat is moving is unlikely to produce
many fast crews. This, I think, was what Fairbairn was addressing.
Any thoughts on the points I raised?
paul_v...@hotmail.com
On Jan 25, 6:25 pm, Kieran <kc_n...@sonic.net> wrote:
> paul_v_sm...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Jan 25, 2:36 pm, KC <kc_s...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >> paul_v_sm...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 25, 11:28 am, KC <kc_s...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >>>> paul_v_sm...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> I'll write my rebuttle now. One must not confuse "Technique" with
> >>>>> "Style".You've said this before, and have been asked before (maybe by me I don't
> >>>> remember) what you meant by it... Could you please post your definitions
> >>>> of "technique" and "style" as they pertain to the subject at hand (i.e.
> >>>> I could look up the dictionary definitions myself, but I don't think
> >>>> that would help in this case) and how they differ from each other? Thanks.
> >>>> -Kieran
> >>> I did a quick search of the group on "Technique and style" and it was
> >>> the first hit.
> >>>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.rowing/browse_frm/thread/cd6...
> >>> I suppose I could take another lash at it, but are you just stirring
> >>> the pot for a bit of fun, or are you serious?
> >> Of course I was serious, not stirring the pot at all. Don't be so
> >> defensive. I was genuinely curious, and it was an honest question...
> >> maybe spurred by my laziness in not wanting to do the search myself.
>
> > That I know I was not being defensive, and yet you imply that I was,
> > would indicate something else entirely, but let's not digress.It only indicates that while you were not being defensive, your writing
> indicated otherwise. :^)
>
> >>> Repeating the exercise and expecting a different result is... well...
> >>> the definition of insanity and I'm not quite there yet? [;o)
> >>> Just to start: Looking the terms up is not a bad idea.
>
> >> I disagree. I want to know how YOU think of them differently. I *know*
> >> how the dictionary defines them, and I don't feel that those definitions
> >> clarify the difference you claim is important. Personally, for rowing,
> >> I think the terms go hand in hand. One's technique defines one's style.
> >> Therefore *in the context of rowing* technique and style are
> >> interchangeable.
>
> > Sounds more like you want me to understand what you think, which I do.That I know that was not my intention, and yet you think it was, would
> indicate something else entirely... ;^)
Well, at least imitation is the sincerest from of flattery, so thanks.
Though it's not so clever as the original. [;o)
> >>> At the highest level I would describe Technique as what is being
> >>> accomplished (as mechanically measurable. i.e. Force Profile), and
> >>> Style as what is being observed (as visually perceived and
> >>> interpretted. i.e. Bodypart sequencing).
>
> >> But bodypart sequencing directly impacts force profile, so again how is
> >> technique really different from style in this case?
>
> > Perhaps you will find that body part sequencing can appear to be quite
> > close, while at the same time the force profile varies considerably. I
> > see it all the time.Of course, I also see force profiles look very similar with differing
> "body part sequencing".
>
> >> BTW, what other aspects would you say fall under technique and not
> >> style? You seem to imply that sequencing of body part motions is part
> >> of style, and not technique, but you say that technique is something
> >> measurable. For my experiments I'm precisely measuring body motion
> >> during the stroke. So, since I'm measuring it, is it now technique, or
> >> still style?
>
> > I knew this would crop up with your objective study of body movement
> > during the rowing stroke, so was rather careful in the words I used.
> > Didn't you notice?I did notice, actually, but I felt that using "measurable" as an example
> > his very characteristic style.Okay, I get how you think of it now. I don't agree with you at all, but
> it will be good to know in the future where you're coming from, if you
> ever accuse me of "confusing technique and style" or something like
> that... ;^)
>
> >> Could two rowers have similar styles, but different techniques, or vice
> >> versa? How?
>
> > Of course, either way. Haven't you seen exactly that thing (based on
> > some of what has already be said) in your observations of rowers or
> > experimental subjects?Well, I don't consider the shape of one's force curve to be part of
> their "technique". I consider it a *result* of their technique (or
> style, since to me the two terms are almost interchangeable in this case.)
>
> When someone describes a rower and says, "she has good technique" I
> interpret that to mean things like, she has a quick catch, a clean
> release, she seems to apply the legs well at the catch, she has good
> balance, etc., etc.. People say this all the time about rowers they
> observe, yet whose output they have not *measured* (e.g. force curve
> profile is unknown). So, most of the people I interact with, when they
> mention "technique" they are talking about what you apparently call "style".
>
> I suppose that if someone referred to a rowing "style" I would take that
> to mean the sum of all aspects of technique... i.e. the Karl Adam
> "style" or Fairbairn "style". Whereas "technique" would in my mind
> refer to how (and how well) a rower executes various aspects of a given
> style. I might even go so far as to say that "style" is the "what" and
> technique is the "how". For example, Fairbairn style includes a flip
> catch. That's the "what"... How one executes the flip catch is the
> technique.
>
> -Kieran
Well, I suppose that's part of the problem with making much progress in
rowing, you want to interchange terms that should not be interchanged
and the confusion continues. Afterall, you are the one that can say
things like "I think you have it backwards." and rationalize that it is
not equivalent to saying "I think you are wrong." endlessly (well, at
least until the flamethrower stepped in).
I thought the inclusion of the mechanical performers would have helped
to illustrate the differences to such a superior intellect as yourself,
but I was wrong, apparently. Such is life.
As far as the "what" and "how" you have enumerated above. I think you
have it backwards, which means I think you have it wrong, just to be
completely clear.
Perhaps it's all just up to opinion anyway, and that leaves us exactly
nowhere. Nice and comfy, but non productive and progressless.
How's the study coming along, can I go "look it up" yet?
- Paul Smith
KC
>>
>> When someone describes a rower and says, "she has good technique" I
>> interpret that to mean things like, she has a quick catch, a clean
>> release, she seems to apply the legs well at the catch, she has good
>> balance, etc., etc.. People say this all the time about rowers they
>> observe, yet whose output they have not *measured* (e.g. force curve
>> profile is unknown). So, most of the people I interact with, when they
>> mention "technique" they are talking about what you apparently call "style".
>>
>> I suppose that if someone referred to a rowing "style" I would take that
>> to mean the sum of all aspects of technique... i.e. the Karl Adam
>> "style" or Fairbairn "style". Whereas "technique" would in my mind
>> refer to how (and how well) a rower executes various aspects of a given
>> style. I might even go so far as to say that "style" is the "what" and
>> technique is the "how". For example, Fairbairn style includes a flip
>> catch. That's the "what"... How one executes the flip catch is the
>> technique.
>>
>> -Kieran
>
> Well, I suppose that's part of the problem with making much progress in
> rowing, you want to interchange terms that should not be interchanged
*IN YOUR OPINION* As far as I can tell, your use/definition of these
terms is no closer to the dictionary definition than mine. In my
opinion, the definitions you posted align more closely with my
"what/how" interpretation than with yours.
> and the confusion continues. Afterall, you are the one that can say
> things like "I think you have it backwards." and rationalize that it is
> not equivalent to saying "I think you are wrong." endlessly (well, at
> least until the flamethrower stepped in).
(SIGH...) are you *ever* going to let that water pass under the bridge,
Paul?
> I thought the inclusion of the mechanical performers would have helped
> to illustrate the differences to such a superior intellect as yourself,
> but I was wrong, apparently. Such is life.
No, you were not wrong. It did illustrate to me how YOU think of those
terms. I don't agree with your usage of them, but I now understand it,
and that was the entire goal of my asking you about them in the first
place. I had no intention of convincing you of my view, I just wanted
to understand yours, and then illustrate how it's different from my
interpretation.
> As far as the "what" and "how" you have enumerated above. I think you
> have it backwards, which means I think you have it wrong, just to be
> completely clear.
>
> Perhaps it's all just up to opinion anyway, and that leaves us exactly
In this case it is up to opinion. But if numbers matter at all, in my
experience you are the only person who thinks of the terms 'style' and
'technique' in the way that you do.
> nowhere. Nice and comfy, but non productive and progressless.
Not true at all, Paul. It is not imperative that we all agree on
terminology, just that we understand how other people interpret and use
those terms.
For example, I don't agree with the pluralization of singular/collective
nouns that our English colleagues use (e.g. "Oxford are winning that
race" rather than "Oxford is winning that race".) I understand their
usage though, and therefore we can communicate. In my mind, that phrase
would break down as "The Oxford TEAM is winning that race" i.e. the
whole team, one unit, is winning. English folk apparently think of it
as "all the members of the Oxford team are winning that race." Which
differs from the usage I was taught and grew up with. But at least we
can both understand each other. So, now if you and I (or anyone else)
discuss technique and style in the future, we will know what the other
means.
> How's the study coming along,
Fine. Slowly, but fine. Digitizing the 3D video data is a very slow
process (3 cameras per trial, 3 trials per session, 3 sessions per
rower, x10 rowers = lots of video to digitize). I will defend it this
April I think.
> can I go "look it up" yet?
*IF* it gets published, it will probably not show up until next year
sometime, at the earliest, so for the umpteenth time, quit asking please.
Did you look at the paper I sent you recently?
-Kieran
KC
> paul_v...@hotmail.com wrote:
snip
>>
>> Well, I suppose that's part of the problem with making much progress in
>> rowing, you want to interchange terms that should not be interchanged
>
> *IN YOUR OPINION* As far as I can tell, your use/definition of these
> terms is no closer to the dictionary definition than mine. In my
> opinion, the definitions you posted align more closely with my
Just to be clear, I meant the *dictionary* definitions Paul posted.
> "what/how" interpretation than with yours.
-KC
paul_v...@hotmail.com
On Jan 26, 8:14 am, KC <kc_s...@sonic.net> wrote:
> paul_v_sm...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Jan 25, 6:25 pm, Kieran <kc_n...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >> When someone describes a rower and says, "she has good technique" I
> >> interpret that to mean things like, she has a quick catch, a clean
> >> release, she seems to apply the legs well at the catch, she has good
> >> balance, etc., etc.. People say this all the time about rowers they
> >> observe, yet whose output they have not *measured* (e.g. force curve
> >> profile is unknown). So, most of the people I interact with, when they
> >> mention "technique" they are talking about what you apparently call "style".
>
> >> I suppose that if someone referred to a rowing "style" I would take that
> >> to mean the sum of all aspects of technique... i.e. the Karl Adam
> >> "style" or Fairbairn "style". Whereas "technique" would in my mind
> >> refer to how (and how well) a rower executes various aspects of a given
> >> style. I might even go so far as to say that "style" is the "what" and
> >> technique is the "how". For example, Fairbairn style includes a flip
> >> catch. That's the "what"... How one executes the flip catch is the
> >> technique.
>
> >> -Kieran
>
> > Well, I suppose that's part of the problem with making much progress in
> > rowing, you want to interchange terms that should not be interchanged*IN YOUR OPINION* As far as I can tell, your use/definition of these
> terms is no closer to the dictionary definition than mine. In my
> opinion, the definitions you posted align more closely with my
> "what/how" interpretation than with yours.
>
> > and the confusion continues. Afterall, you are the one that can say
> > things like "I think you have it backwards." and rationalize that it is
> > not equivalent to saying "I think you are wrong." endlessly (well, at
> > least until the flamethrower stepped in).(SIGH...) are you *ever* going to let that water pass under the bridge,
> Paul?
>
> > I thought the inclusion of the mechanical performers would have helped
> > to illustrate the differences to such a superior intellect as yourself,
> > but I was wrong, apparently. Such is life.No, you were not wrong. It did illustrate to me how YOU think of those
> terms. I don't agree with your usage of them, but I now understand it,
> and that was the entire goal of my asking you about them in the first
> place. I had no intention of convincing you of my view, I just wanted
> to understand yours, and then illustrate how it's different from my
> interpretation.
>
> > As far as the "what" and "how" you have enumerated above. I think you
> > have it backwards, which means I think you have it wrong, just to be
> > completely clear.
>
> > Perhaps it's all just up to opinion anyway, and that leaves us exactlyIn this case it is up to opinion. But if numbers matter at all, in my
> experience you are the only person who thinks of the terms 'style' and
> 'technique' in the way that you do.
Hmm, go figure. I've got no problem with being unique (though I don't
think I am in that respect), perhaps your experience is limitted in
some way. Apparently you now understand how I use the terms, after a
short explanation, so it must not be my communicating in our shared
language that is lacking.
> > nowhere. Nice and comfy, but non productive and progressless.
> Not true at all, Paul. It is not imperative that we all agree on
> terminology, just that we understand how other people interpret and use
> those terms.
Great! Fonner bry ger meener rip. [;o)
> For example, I don't agree with the pluralization of singular/collective
> nouns that our English colleagues use (e.g. "Oxford are winning that
> race" rather than "Oxford is winning that race".) I understand their
> usage though, and therefore we can communicate. In my mind, that phrase
> would break down as "The Oxford TEAM is winning that race" i.e. the
> whole team, one unit, is winning. English folk apparently think of it
> as "all the members of the Oxford team are winning that race." Which
> differs from the usage I was taught and grew up with. But at least we
> can both understand each other. So, now if you and I (or anyone else)
> discuss technique and style in the future, we will know what the other
> means.
"or anyone else"? Now that would indeed be something!
> > How's the study coming along,Fine. Slowly, but fine. Digitizing the 3D video data is a very slow
> process (3 cameras per trial, 3 trials per session, 3 sessions per
> rower, x10 rowers = lots of video to digitize). I will defend it this
> April I think.
>
> > can I go "look it up" yet?*IF* it gets published, it will probably not show up until next year
> sometime, at the earliest, so for the umpteenth time, quit asking please.
>
> Did you look at the paper I sent you recently?
>
> -Kieran- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
I hadn't asked in a while, just curious, and now that I know your
timetable I won't ask again until 2008, probably.
What paper? I haven't received anything from you in quite a long time.
If I receive something of value, and the papers you have sent always
have been, I respond at least privately with a 'thank you'. Did it
pertain to our current topic?
- Paul Smith
paul_v...@hotmail.com
On Jan 26, 4:42 am, Carl <c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
> mpruscoe wrote:
> > Carl Douglas wrote:
>
> >> Charles Carroll wrote:
>
> >>> I believe this is one of Fairbairn's admonishments. Watch how a rower
> >>> works
> >>> his oars, watch what the blades do in the water, watch how the boat
> >>> moves.
> >>> If everything is good, don't worry about the rower's technique. The
> >>> rower is
> >>> doing what he is supposed to do, and doing it well.
>
> >> And with that none of us should ever disagree!
>
> > I will disagree. I think that you can positively say that there are
> > areas of poor technique that can cause damage e.g. disc damage or
> > chronic shoulder problems. Some people get away with doing strange
> > things for a very long time but others don't, and we often only see the
> > survivors. Back in Fairbairn's day they weren't doing the training
> > volumes people do now, and some people, at least, have to pay attention
> > to posture and suchlike in order to stay injury free.You're quite right! I was writing in the more limited sense & stand
> corrected in that broader sense of rower well-being.
>
> However, coaching which concentrates on body actions whkile disregarding
> what the blade is doing & how the boat is moving is unlikely to produce
> many fast crews. This, I think, was what Fairbairn was addressing.
>
> Any thoughts on the points I raised?
>
> Cheers -
> Carl
Yes, would it be possible to plot the maximum potential handle force
against handle travel, based on easily obtainable measurements? i.e.
Rower Mass, hip height above heels, hip distance from heels, horizontal
handle travel relative to the heels, distance from hip to shoulder.
Did I miss anything critical, or perhaps head in teh wrong direction
entirely?
I remember reading a Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter that seemed to
point in the direction that handle force could not exceed rower weight,
but that can't possibly be correct, so I'm looking to find out where my
reading/understanding went wrong.
- Paul Smith
Charles Carroll
>
> BTW, while it's been about 10 years since I read "Chats on Rowing" (the
> only Fairbairn text I've read) I'm fairly certain that when he uses the
> phrase, "row the oar into the water" that his meaning is entirely
> different from "place the blades into the water".
Kieran,
I have often wondered about Fairbairn's "row the oar into the water." I am
not sure I know what he meant.
My idea of what he might have meant is this. Throughout his writings
Fairbairn says repeatedly "concentrate on working the oar." Fairbairn also
says don't drop the blade in at the Catch. And somewhere else I believe he
says that rowing is simply working the oar, and that a rower's technique (or
should I write "style?") should only be judged on how well he works the oar.
So 'rowing' and 'working the oar' are equivalent.
Thus in my dull mind I translated "row the oar into the water" as 'don't
stop controlling the oar, don't just allow the blade to drop in, instead
work it in, row it in, be in control of the oar, place the blade in the
water exactly the way you want it to go in.'
I am very curious to hear what you think Fairbairn mean by "row the oar into
the water."
Cordially,
Charles
KC
No, I don't think it would be possible. Maximum force, while influenced
by the geometry somewhat, is ultimately limited/determined by rower
(muscular) strength. The rower's mass matters little (which I think was
one of Carl's points) in comparison to his/her strength profiles.
> I remember reading a Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter that seemed to
> point in the direction that handle force could not exceed rower weight,
> but that can't possibly be correct, so I'm looking to find out where my
> reading/understanding went wrong.
I think I recall reading something from Valery along those lines, but I
think that he was stating that max/peak rowing force is often close to
body weight (which is true, although it often exceeds body weight too).
I don't recall anything saying it was limited by it. But I could be
mis-recollecting (again). ;^)
For example one of my test subjects pulled over 1200N peak erg chain
tension, (269lbf) and he weighed only ~190lbs.
-Kieran
KC
Again, it's been almost 10 years since I read "Chats on Rowing" but I'll
give it a shot... IIRC, Fairbairn style included a flip catch, similar
to that of Pocock's style. I have heard the flip catch described as
"rowing the blade into the water" thus when Fairbairn wrote those words,
I assumed he was referring to the flip catch (called by some old-timers
as a "scullers catch").
Re. the flip catch of which I speak... let me try to describe it:
As the rower is in the recovery, and is approaching the catch, the
feathered blade is brought closer and closer to the water. With just an
inch or two of slide left to go, the feathered blade is actually
touching the water, with most of the weight of the handle then gone from
the hands. At the moment of the catch, the blade is feathered (while on
the water) and the drive is initiated such that the bottom edge of the
blade (or sternward edge in the feathered case) "knifes" into the water.
The squaring of the blade is then done mostly by the torque produced
about the oar shaft by the flow of water over the lower half of the
blade. Keep in mind this was normally done with the old wooden oars
with tulip style oar blades.
These days, I've often heard novices criticized for "rowing the blade
in" and the action for which they are criticized looks somewhat like a
poorly done flip catch.
When learning to row (at least when I learned to row) the first couple
days/weeks are done "blades on the water" for stability. Rowing like
this, one is almost forced to do some variation of the old "flip catch."
-Kieran
KC
> Re. the flip catch of which I speak... let me try to describe it:
>
> As the rower is in the recovery, and is approaching the catch, the
> feathered blade is brought closer and closer to the water. With just an
> inch or two of slide left to go, the feathered blade is actually
> touching the water, with most of the weight of the handle then gone from
> the hands. At the moment of the catch, the blade is feathered (while on
That should have read, "At the moment of the catch, the blade is squared
slightly (while on the water) and the drive...
Walter Martindale
> Is anybody prepared to stand up and claim that reading either of these
> books has actually made them row or scull faster?
>
Not me.. but then I coach. I have rowed, on water, approximately 15
times since stopping competition in 1983. I can assure you I'm getting
slower.
Fairbairn offers an interesting perspective on things, and shows how
little things have changed in the last century.
W
Charles Carroll
> How well you retain contact with your seat is a matter of levers &
> moments. Trying to lift you off your seat is a lever, pivoting at your
> point of contact with the stretcher, with your pulling force F acting at
> the level of your hands (assume a horizontal force application) a
> distance H above the pivot. Trying to hold you in contact with your
> seat is a lever, again pivoting at your same contact point with the
> stretcher, of length L equal to the horizontal distance between that
> pivot & your bodily C of G & being pulled vertically down by a force W
> equal to your own weight.
>
> At the point of lift-off, you can write the equation:
> F x H = W x L
>
Carl,
You know I am a complete idiot when it comes to engineering, so you can
imagine that I am having trouble envisioning all these levers and moments.
You wouldn't happen to be able to point me to a diagram that might
illustrate these, would you?
I can tell you a discovery I made on my own and which you can verify for
yourself. Sit on a step with your back perpendicular to the floor. Keep your
back straight and draw in you belly. Extend your arms as if you were at the
Catch and holding on to a pair of inboard levers. Now try to lift yourself
off the stair. You can't, can you? Or leastwise I can't.
Now, keeping your belly drawn in but relaxing you back, pivot very slowly at
the hips. You should find as you pivot forward that you can lift your
fundament off the stair. This, I believe, is equivalent to lifting off the
seat at the Catch. I don't mean completely off the seat of course. You
wouldn't want that. All you want is to get most of yourself off the seat and
onto the pins.
Once I understood the above, I increased my forward lean at the Catch on the
erg by about 7cm. I stopped trying to hold my back so straight, allowed my
body to stretch and my back to round a bit more, and overall was more
relaxed. Viola! I was off the seat every Catch.
Cordially,
Charles
Charles Carroll
> large as it can possibly be & L will be as short as it can be. That's
> the condition for minimum F (pulling force) before lift-off must occur.
>
> If, however, you push with the balls of your feet, then at the identical
> catch position H will be the least, & L will be the most, that they can
> be, so F will be at the maximum possible without lifting off.
Carl,
I haven't been very accurate. I suspect you know this, but Fairbairn doesn't
actually recommend pushing off at the Catch with your heel. Here is the
passage from which I took this "push off with the heels" business:
"The body movement in slow motions would show something like this: just as
the oarsmen is arriving at the full reach forward, the weight comes off the
slide and gathers on the stretcher, and the feet push the behind away, and
somewhat upward, and so stretch the body, and hang the weight on to the
lower part of the back. Really that is putting the whole back into it. Then
as the draw couples with the drive, the top part of the body is driven right
back with all the weight applied, and the body carries further past the
perpendicular than it can with the back held straight. The thought should
be: come down on the stretcher and stand on it. Imagine that at the movement
of the catch the oar and boat got fixed immovably, and the seat disappeared,
and one had to hang there. To do that he would have to keep pushing the
behind away. So in rowing one should use the behind as a propelling weight.
The more one thinks of holding the back straight and getting the shoulders
over, the heavier one sits on the seat, and the less one uses the legs.
Drive your behind to hit the rowing pin and stand on it, and row standing
up; do not row for showy form which is rowing sitting down. As regards the
use of the feet I have frequently heard a discussion as to whether one used
the heels and the ball of the foot, or only the ball of the foot. Think only
of coming up on to the stretcher, and springing off it, and our old pal, the
Subjective Mind, will do the rest; and as you spring think of pulling, or,
shall we say, hauling or heaving at an invisible rope. To get a true heave
the heels must be put into the work. I used to get good results from 'drive
your heels through the stretcher.'"
As you can see the passage is much more sophisticated and subtle than a mere
'use your heels' recommendation. Fairbairn says "Think only of coming up on
to the stretcher, and springing off it." But how can you "spring off" the
stretcher without using the balls of your feet? You can't. To me a "spring"
must involve the balls of the feet.
Then, to confuse matters more, in the sentence that follows Fairbairn writes
"I used to get good results from 'drive your heels through the stretcher.'"
So is Fairbairn recommending that you "spring?" Or that you "drive?"
What Fairbairn seems to be saying is that if you cannot spring off the
stretcher with the balls of you feet, then drive off it with you heels. Do
whatever it takes to "come down on the stretcher and stand on it."
I wonder. By logical inference can't you reach the same conclusion from what
you yourself have written? A strong rower will spring off the stretcher with
the balls of his feet and draw harder on the inboard levers. A weaker rower
might have to resort to driving off the stretcher with his heels and drawing
less hard on the inboard levers. As you say "using heel drive, gives you the
sense of being really solidly connected because you [have] pulling force in
reserve which that inhibitor in you brain [will] not allow you to use."
In fact, this makes sense in terms of the exchange between Kieran and
myself. Kieran is a much more accomplished sculler than I am, much stronger
I suspect, so he springs off with the balls of his feet. Truth to tell, I
also spring off with the balls of my feet, but I try get my heels down as
quickly as I can. I
suppose, were I more accomplished, I would stay on the balls of my feet
longer. Although I am not completely sure of that. One thing that bothers me
is my memory of doing squats with a barbell on my back. I never used the
balls of my feet to push off when I was squatting. I was just too weak.
Instead I used my whole foot. For that matter I have never seen anyone in a
gym do a squat using just the balls of his feet. But I have never seen
anyone do a squat using just his heels either.
I am looking forward to a diagram.
Cordially,
Charles
Charles Carroll
Here is Fairbairn on the Catch:
Flick the Blade Square
When the oar has arrived full forward -- the blade being held on the feather
till full forward -- the oarsman with a rolling forward -- or throwing
movement -- rolls the oar from the ball of the hand into the fingers,
rolling the blade square with a forward and upward movement. The blade is
turned to just past a right angle with the water, and the loom of the oar
makes contact with the rowing pin. The oarsman must take special care that
he has turned the blade past the right angle with the water; and that the
bottom part of the loom of the oar has made contact with the rowing pin. He
must make especially sure that this contact of the bottom part of the loom
of the oar with the rowing pin is held throughout the stroke. Making and
holding this contact is the most important point in timing and control. The
blade is flicked square by a manipulation of the thumb and little finger of
the inside hand, and is held firmly against the rowing pin by the same
manipulation. Just in the same way the thumb and little finger of this hand
control the rotary movement on to the feather at the finish. "Chats on
Rowing," chapter VI.
The important point is that "the blade is turned to just past a right angle
with the water." In other words Fairbairn recommends that the blade should
be square, or just slightly forwards of square, before it is put in the
water.
I researched the so-called "sculler's catch" a year or so ago. I have never
been able to find it in Fairbairn. That doesn't mean that it isn't there,
only that I couldn't find it. In any of Fairbairn's description of the
Catch, leastwise of the descriptions I've read, Fairbairn always insists on
having the blade square before it is put into the water.
Cordially,
Charles
paul_v...@hotmail.com
On Jan 26, 11:02 am, KC <kc_n...@sonic.net> wrote:
Okay, maybe I need to further the definition to include "while not
losing contact with the seat". Surely a massless, infinitely strong
organism, shaped like a human, would not be able to exert any force on
the handle without leaving the seat, and his infinite mass twin could
exert infinite force. I'll try to understand if the middle ground can
not be bridged, but that seems unlikely.
> > I remember reading a Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter that seemed to
> > point in the direction that handle force could not exceed rower weight,
> > but that can't possibly be correct, so I'm looking to find out where my
> > reading/understanding went wrong.
> I think I recall reading something from Valery along those lines, but I
> think that he was stating that max/peak rowing force is often close to
> body weight (which is true, although it often exceeds body weight too).
> I don't recall anything saying it was limited by it. But I could be
> mis-recollecting (again). ;^)
The pertinent RBN is here:
http://www.biorow.com/RBN_en/2002RowBiomNews05.pdf
This reads as if it is talking about a "limit" in some way.
"From other side lift force cannot be higher than
rower's weight. This follows to the formula for
maximal handle force: Fh.max = Lw / H *W"
On reading it again, another thing jumped out at me, and that was the
notion that the rower lands back on the seat with more force than
thier weight. While I get that "what goes up must come down", surely
that excess "thump" goes directly to wave making and can't be
terribley beneficial to boat movement, so should be minimized if
possible, which may be what he is getting at by mentioning holding the
suspension as long as possible.
> For example one of my test subjects pulled over 1200N peak erg chain
> tension, (269lbf) and he weighed only ~190lbs.
>
> -Kieran
I hope you sat down and showed him what a real Hwt can do! [;o)
That's quite good actually, was he a trained rower?
- Paul Smith
KC
>
> On Jan 26, 11:02 am, KC <kc_n...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>paul_v_sm...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yes, would it be possible to plot the maximum potential handle force
>>>against handle travel, based on easily obtainable measurements? i.e.
>>>Rower Mass, hip height above heels, hip distance from heels, horizontal
>>>handle travel relative to the heels, distance from hip to shoulder.
>>>Did I miss anything critical, or perhaps head in teh wrong direction
>>>entirely?
>
>
>>No, I don't think it would be possible. Maximum force, while influenced
>>by the geometry somewhat, is ultimately limited/determined by rower
>>(muscular) strength. The rower's mass matters little (which I think was
>>one of Carl's points) in comparison to his/her strength profiles.
>
>
> Okay, maybe I need to further the definition to include "while not
> losing contact with the seat". Surely a massless, infinitely strong
In that case, the maximum amount of force you can apply without lifting
off the seat is limited by the height of the handle above the feet and
the distance of the seat from the feet, and the rower's weight, such that
Fmax = (L * W) / H
where L is the distance between the seat and the feet, (actually the
distance between the c.m. of the rower and the feet) and H is the height
of the handle above the feet (actually the minimum distance between the
feet and the force vector)
I just hopped on my erg with a tape measure, and at the catch, for me, L
is roughly equal to H, so the max force I can apply at the catch w/o
lifting off is roughly equal to my weight.
HOWEVER! as soon as you start the drive, L increases quickly, so the
force you can apply increases in direct proportion to that increase in
L. Peak force nearly always occurs somewhere near mid stroke, or at
least in the middle 40% of the drive depending on style/technique ;^),
thus a max force limitation in the first few moments of the drive is not
really a limitation (and this is kind of what I was thinking in my first
reply to your question... max force occurs later in the stroke due to
biomechanical factors like muscle lengths and joint angles and there it
is not limited by geometry). Near mid-drive, for me, my seat (& roughly
my c.g.) is about 1 meter from the feet. The handle is about .5m above
the feet. Thus I have a factor of two times my weight as a limitation
if I don't want to lift of my seat. My max pull force during rowing is
nowhere near twice my body weight, so it's not a limitation.
Upon looking at the RBN you referenced, it seems Valery and I generally
agree (thankfully). :-)
I referenced a paper in my thesis that tests max pull force versus foot
stretcher height. I'll see if I can find the reference... but I don't
think it's available online. Basically (no surprise) they found that
the higher the feet the better, to a point. As I recall, I was
generally disappointed with the quality of the study, as they didn't
publish force curves and how they changed shape with changing foot
height which would have been MUCH more interesting (to me anyway).
>>For example one of my test subjects pulled over 1200N peak erg chain
>>tension, (269lbf) and he weighed only ~190lbs.
>>
>>-Kieran
>
>
> I hope you sat down and showed him what a real Hwt can do! [;o)
> That's quite good actually, was he a trained rower?
He's a very good trained rower, yes. Last year, he pulled 19:40 6k and
a 6:10 2k. I have decent cardio now-a-days (if I'm training which
currently I'm not) but I don't have near the sheer strength I used to
have. I haven't tried yet, but I doubt I could peak at more than 1200N,
or if I could even get to 1200N. The erging test I'm doing for the
study is trails of roughly 30 seconds, so cardio doesn't really help much.
-Kieran
KC
>>One point to consider, Charles:
>>How well you retain contact with your seat is a matter of levers &
>>moments. Trying to lift you off your seat is a lever, pivoting at your
>>point of contact with the stretcher, with your pulling force F acting at
>>the level of your hands (assume a horizontal force application) a
>>distance H above the pivot. Trying to hold you in contact with your
>>seat is a lever, again pivoting at your same contact point with the
>>stretcher, of length L equal to the horizontal distance between that
>>pivot & your bodily C of G & being pulled vertically down by a force W
>>equal to your own weight.
>>
>>At the point of lift-off, you can write the equation:
>> F x H = W x L
>>
>
>
> Carl,
>
> You know I am a complete idiot when it comes to engineering, so you can
> imagine that I am having trouble envisioning all these levers and moments.
> You wouldn't happen to be able to point me to a diagram that might
> illustrate these, would you?
Check out Paul's post with a link to a Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter on
this topic...
http://www.biorow.com/RBN_en/2002RowBiomNews05.pdf
-Kieran
Carl
> In that case, the maximum amount of force you can apply without lifting
> off the seat is limited by the height of the handle above the feet and
> the distance of the seat from the feet, and the rower's weight, such that
> Fmax = (L * W) / H
> where L is the distance between the seat and the feet, (actually the
> distance between the c.m. of the rower and the feet) and H is the height
> of the handle above the feet (actually the minimum distance between the
> feet and the force vector)
>
> I just hopped on my erg with a tape measure, and at the catch, for me, L
> is roughly equal to H, so the max force I can apply at the catch w/o
> lifting off is roughly equal to my weight.
>
Correction:
At the catch your body's centre of mass (or gravity) will be some
distance astern of the contact point with the seat - you are leaning to
the stern, your head is astern of your torso, as are your arms & legs.
So, depending on posture, you should knock as much as 20-30cm off your
measured value for L. That puts your C of G (especially for those with
short legs, long body & much body swing) at as little as 30-40cm the
balls of the feet contact point maybe 12cm closer to the heel contact point.
The vertical difference in level between the heel & ball of the foot
stretcher contacts will again be ~12cm, whereas hand height above the
ball of the foot may be ~40cm (all back-of-envelope figures).
So at the catch the ratio of maximum force to body weight might range
between:
for balls of feet contact - 40/40 = 1.0 (or more)
for heels contact - 28/52 = 0.54 (or less!)
These are _not_ trivial differences.
> HOWEVER! as soon as you start the drive, L increases quickly, so the
> force you can apply increases in direct proportion to that increase in
> L. Peak force nearly always occurs somewhere near mid stroke, or at
> least in the middle 40% of the drive depending on style/technique ;^),
> thus a max force limitation in the first few moments of the drive is not
> really a limitation (and this is kind of what I was thinking in my first
> reply to your question... max force occurs later in the stroke due to
> biomechanical factors like muscle lengths and joint angles and there it
> is not limited by geometry). Near mid-drive, for me, my seat (& roughly
> my c.g.) is about 1 meter from the feet. The handle is about .5m above
> the feet. Thus I have a factor of two times my weight as a limitation
> if I don't want to lift of my seat. My max pull force during rowing is
> nowhere near twice my body weight, so it's not a limitation.
Again you mistakenly assume that your arms & legs are weightless. And
you assume too much for the rate at which the C of G moves away from the
catch (even with a ridiculous bum-shove). Remember that the rate of
blade rotation is rather slow at the catch due to the acute angle of
blade to flow axis, & fastest just after mid-stroke.
What you are more likely explaining is not why you don't lift off at the
catch but why most rowers generate less-than-ideal bell-shaped force
curves rather than teh faster rise.
>
> Upon looking at the RBN you referenced, it seems Valery and I generally
> agree (thankfully). :-)
>
> I referenced a paper in my thesis that tests max pull force versus foot
> stretcher height. I'll see if I can find the reference... but I don't
> think it's available online. Basically (no surprise) they found that
> the higher the feet the better, to a point. As I recall, I was
> generally disappointed with the quality of the study, as they didn't
> publish force curves and how they changed shape with changing foot
> height which would have been MUCH more interesting (to me anyway).
Something not yet considered in this discussion is that when the feet
are higher, the rower's C of G is not so far astern of the contact with
the seat because, even though the bodily compression is the same, the
raising of the feet has rotated the whole body towards the bow. So for
the same catch position the stretcher has to move astern & the finish
has to be more laid-back. But in that position you can pull harder on
the catch without lifting off.
Carl
Yup. And I've sent Charles a little sketch of my own which i hope
illustrates the point even further.
However, I think that reference's final paragraph was more than a little
fanciful:
"Try to increase weight lift at the second half of
the drive, because rotating moment already does not
limit the handle force (distance Lw became much
longer), but you can lift the boat and decrease drag
resistance. To do this you should push the footstretcher
with your heels and pull the handle higher."
Just how much vertical lift are you really going to get towards the
finish of the stroke, where the load is falling off? And how much can
you influence that lift? I would suggest that the answer to both
questions will effectively nil.
KC
Agreed.
-Kieran
KC
> KC wrote:
>
>> In that case, the maximum amount of force you can apply without
>> lifting off the seat is limited by the height of the handle above the
>> feet and the distance of the seat from the feet, and the rower's
>> weight, such that
>> Fmax = (L * W) / H
>> where L is the distance between the seat and the feet, (actually the
>> distance between the c.m. of the rower and the feet) and H is the
>> height of the handle above the feet (actually the minimum distance
>> between the feet and the force vector)
>>
>> I just hopped on my erg with a tape measure, and at the catch, for me,
>> L is roughly equal to H, so the max force I can apply at the catch w/o
>> lifting off is roughly equal to my weight.
>>
>
> Correction:
> At the catch your body's centre of mass (or gravity) will be some
> distance astern of the contact point with the seat - you are leaning to
> the stern, your head is astern of your torso, as are your arms & legs.
> So, depending on posture, you should knock as much as 20-30cm off your
> measured value for L. That puts your C of G (especially for those with
I stand corrected. Thanks.
I disagree. Assuming (for simplicity) that, during the initial phases
of the drive, all parts of the body maintain their positions relative to
the seat except for the legs&feet (which of course must move) the c.g.
of the rower will travel to stern at nearly the same rate as the seat
(slightly less, since as your seat travels to bow, you are leaving
behind more and more of your mass, i.e. your legs & feet).
> catch (even with a ridiculous bum-shove). Remember that the rate of
A bum-shove (seat travel toward bow w/o oar rotation about the pin)
would help your case, not mine. IOW, bum-shoving leaves part of the
body behind the seat than should be, thus shifting the cg more aft
relative to the seat than it was before the shoved bum occurred. A
*good* drive (where the arms slightly flex and the back and shoulders
slightly extend, as the legs are beginning their extension) would move
the c.g. to bow at a speed even closer to that of the seat, & might,
depending on your timing of such movements even move the cg closer to
the seat before any appreciable oar rotation occurs.
> blade rotation is rather slow at the catch due to the acute angle of
> blade to flow axis, & fastest just after mid-stroke.
I think we're only concerned at the moment with how fast the c.g. moves
toward bow during the initial part of the drive. My point was only that
as the drive progresses, the c.g. moves to bow, thus allowing more force
application w/o lifting off the seat. We can debate the RATE at which
this happens, but it does happen.
> What you are more likely explaining is not why you don't lift off at the
I was actually trying to aim more at what the maximum force applied can
be - Paul's question - not why you *don't* lift off, but you could look
at it this way too, I guess. :-)
> catch but why most rowers generate less-than-ideal bell-shaped force
> curves rather than teh faster rise.
I do comment on this in my paper (it's one of the main areas of
concern). I think that the muscle mechanics drive the location of peak
force more than the geometry of the stroke does. But, with better
geometry, one could possibly get a faster rise in force in the early
drive, yes. The problem with changing the feet height is that many
rowers then have trouble getting their body over their knees at the
catch, having to reach arms around their knees rather than a more
comfortable (and longer) position where their arms reach over their
knees. Of course, there are trade offs: you get the longer stroke at
the expense of less ability to "get on it" quickly. With a position
where the feet are higher, your catch angle is less acute (shorter
stroke) but you can apply force more quickly. (I'll remind everyone
that nearly all my thinking about the stroke is relative to sweep
rowing, as I am not (much of) a sculler).
Given that the hydrodynamics of the blade are optimal in the first 1/3
of the stroke, it's desirable to emphasize power in this region. But if
we get more force by raising the feet, we make smaller (shorter,
briefer) the hydrodynamically optimal region of the stroke.
So in layman's terms, it all boils down to find the best compromise for
"reach as far as you can and pull has hard as you can, as quickly as you
can." ;^)
-Kieran
Carl
What? During the stroke, the C of G must travel towards the _bow_.
>
>> catch (even with a ridiculous bum-shove). Remember that the rate of
>
>
> A bum-shove (seat travel toward bow w/o oar rotation about the pin)
> would help your case, not mine.
It helps no one's case, since a bum-shove indicates a leg drive not
being coupled to either the back or, therefore, the handle. Instead,
leg drive is being mis-directed into kicking the boat backwards by
reaction against lower body inertia due to a lack of full connection
through the back. Energy is thus being diverted into rapid motion of
masses without regard to pulling the handle so, despite an over-rapidly
increasing stretcher-CofG distance, there will be correspondingly less
load on the blade.
IOW, bum-shoving leaves part of the
> body behind the seat than should be, thus shifting the cg more aft
> relative to the seat than it was before the shoved bum occurred. A
> *good* drive (where the arms slightly flex and the back and shoulders
> slightly extend, as the legs are beginning their extension) would move
> the c.g. to bow at a speed even closer to that of the seat, & might,
> depending on your timing of such movements even move the cg closer to
> the seat before any appreciable oar rotation occurs.
In real life I see no means by which the CofG will be induced to
approach the stretcher in that way, so I think you may be over-working
your argument ;)
>
>> blade rotation is rather slow at the catch due to the acute angle of
>> blade to flow axis, & fastest just after mid-stroke.
>
>
> I think we're only concerned at the moment with how fast the c.g. moves
> toward bow during the initial part of the drive. My point was only that
> as the drive progresses, the c.g. moves to bow, thus allowing more force
> application w/o lifting off the seat. We can debate the RATE at which
> this happens, but it does happen.
The devil is in the detail. If the CofG moves rapidly to the bow at the
catch, when of course the speed of movement of the hands towards the bow
is inescapably constrained by the severe effective gearing of the catch,
then by definition there is poor connection to the handle, reduced load
on the blade & a low rate of rise of that load. So you won't be getting
lift-off from the seat.
>
>> What you are more likely explaining is not why you don't lift off at the
>
>
> I was actually trying to aim more at what the maximum force applied can
> be - Paul's question - not why you *don't* lift off, but you could look
> at it this way too, I guess. :-)
>
>> catch but why most rowers generate less-than-ideal bell-shaped force
>> curves rather than teh faster rise.
>
>
> I do comment on this in my paper (it's one of the main areas of
> concern). I think that the muscle mechanics drive the location of peak
> force more than the geometry of the stroke does.
I would suggest that it is more the negative responses of rowers to
suggestions that things might be done better which limits what we
actually achieve. Such responses would terminate a gymnastic career at
an early stage, yet seem acceptable in our rather simple, sit-down
sport. And I think it is because we make so few dynamic, as opposed to
plain physical, demands on ourselves that we feel indisposed to
seriously explore what we really might do to gain small improvements
which together might bring big rewards.
But, with better
> geometry, one could possibly get a faster rise in force in the early
> drive, yes. The problem with changing the feet height is that many
> rowers then have trouble getting their body over their knees at the
> catch, having to reach arms around their knees rather than a more
> comfortable (and longer) position where their arms reach over their
> knees. Of course, there are trade offs: you get the longer stroke at
> the expense of less ability to "get on it" quickly. With a position
> where the feet are higher, your catch angle is less acute (shorter
> stroke) but you can apply force more quickly. (I'll remind everyone
> that nearly all my thinking about the stroke is relative to sweep
> rowing, as I am not (much of) a sculler).
You fell into such an obvious trap there, even though to prevent that
I'd specifically referred in the final paragraph of my post (& you've
excised it!) the need to extend the stretcher position to preserve catch
angle if you raise your feet.
No, you don't have to compress further. Please drop the mistaken notion
that the visual perception of a body leaning more or less to the stern
bears any precise relationship to how much the rower has compressed at
the catch. Compression is determined solely by the angle subtended at
the hip between the knee shoulder, not by any reference to the vertical
or horizontal planes. You seek an supposedly appropriate degree of
compression - neither too much, nor too little. And you achieve that
compression not by flopping the body into the boat (which checks the
boat) but by actively coiling yourself up. And then you move the
stretcher location out until that "appropriate" compression gives you an
"appropriate" catch angle.]
It is sad, & potentially damaging, that folk do not always see the
difference between actual compression & visible body swing past the
perpendicular. A few months back a lad came into my shop with 2
stretchers, saying coach wanted the shoes in their new 2x lowered so he
& his mate "Could compress properly". I asked him if he expected me to
put speed bumps into the shell, or would it be OK just to let the heels
rub away on the bottom of the boat. He was at first genuinely confused.
Anyway, I made some adjustments (to the limit available), while
pointing out that had we known this coach wanted this amount of
sternwards lean at the catch, then we'd have given higher seats & rig
when building the boat.
As we were chatting, it transpired that both lads had developed lower
back pain under this coach. Why? Because, regardless of the
geometrical limitations, coach was still demanding of them that they
both got their backs well past the vertical. B being keen lads, that's
what they were doing. And coach was oblivious to the potential harm
being inflicted in order to achieve the desired visual perception (as
opposed to reality) of compression.
>
> Given that the hydrodynamics of the blade are optimal in the first 1/3
> of the stroke, it's desirable to emphasize power in this region. But if
> we get more force by raising the feet, we make smaller (shorter,
> briefer) the hydrodynamically optimal region of the stroke.
No. Not at all, as explained above.
>
> So in layman's terms, it all boils down to find the best compromise for
> "reach as far as you can and pull has hard as you can, as quickly as you
> can." ;^)
Everything is a compromise & all solutions are, therefore, optimal not
optimum. But those compromises should be guided by a real understanding
of the mechanics of the situation, rather than by a system of beliefs
not founded in reality
KC
OK Carl, come on, give me some credit and allow me to make a typo once
in a while. "stern" s/b "bow" in that sentence, which should have been
clear since I was talking about the c.g traveling in the same direction
of the seat.
>
>>
>>> catch (even with a ridiculous bum-shove). Remember that the rate of
>>
>>
>>
>> A bum-shove (seat travel toward bow w/o oar rotation about the pin)
>> would help your case, not mine.
>
>
> It helps no one's case, since a bum-shove indicates a leg drive not
Again, read it in context please? You said that the c.g. moves to bow
much slower than the seat, "even with a ridiculous bum-shove" implying
that in the case of a "ridiculous bum-shove" the c.g. would travel to
bow at a rate more similar to that of the seat. All I was saying is
that if anything a bum-shove would SLOW the bow-ward progression of the
c.g. even more. Now do you see my point?
> being coupled to either the back or, therefore, the handle. Instead,
Yes, which I effectively said with "(seat travel toward bow w/o oar
rotation about the pin)".
> leg drive is being mis-directed into kicking the boat backwards by
> reaction against lower body inertia due to a lack of full connection
> through the back. Energy is thus being diverted into rapid motion of
> masses without regard to pulling the handle so, despite an over-rapidly
> increasing stretcher-CofG distance, there will be correspondingly less
> load on the blade.
Again, not the point, I was only talking about the rate at which the
c.g. travels to bow. How and why bum-shoving is a bad thing is neither
important here, nor being disputed.
>
> IOW, bum-shoving leaves part of the
>
>> body behind the seat than should be, thus shifting the cg more aft
>> relative to the seat than it was before the shoved bum occurred. A
>> *good* drive (where the arms slightly flex and the back and shoulders
>> slightly extend, as the legs are beginning their extension) would move
>> the c.g. to bow at a speed even closer to that of the seat, & might,
>> depending on your timing of such movements even move the cg closer to
>> the seat before any appreciable oar rotation occurs.
>
>
> In real life I see no means by which the CofG will be induced to
> approach the stretcher in that way, so I think you may be over-working
> your argument ;)
Re-read it now that I've clarified the typo above. I never said that
the c.g. would "approach the stretcher". I did say that in the case of
a bum-shove the c.g.'s bow-ward progress would be even slower (RELATIVE
TO THE SEAT'S BOWARD VELOCITY) than with a good stroke.
>
>>
>>> blade rotation is rather slow at the catch due to the acute angle of
>>> blade to flow axis, & fastest just after mid-stroke.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think we're only concerned at the moment with how fast the c.g.
>> moves toward bow during the initial part of the drive. My point was
>> only that as the drive progresses, the c.g. moves to bow, thus
>> allowing more force application w/o lifting off the seat. We can
>> debate the RATE at which this happens, but it does happen.
>
>
> The devil is in the detail. If the CofG moves rapidly to the bow at the
> catch, when of course the speed of movement of the hands towards the bow
> is inescapably constrained by the severe effective gearing of the catch,
I think you have gotten away from my original statemtent(s) which you
said were wrong. I had mistakenly used the SEAT's bow-ward velocity as
an indicator of how fast the c.g. was moving to bow (and thus how fast
the the seat lifting moment arm was changing.) I then accepted that I
made a mistake and said that in the case where there is good connection
from the hips through the hands (i.e. no bum-shoving) that the c.g. does
travel to bow at a speed very close to that of the seat (due to the
"good connection" from hips through hands).
Now you're talking about the c.g. moving to bow while the hands are
constrained by the gearing at the catch... sounds to me like you're
still stuck on the bum-shoving case, which as you stated, helps no one.
To get back on point: I say that in the case of a good, connected
stroke, with no bum-shoving of any kind, that the c.g. of the rower will
travel to bow at almost the same rate as the seat (only slightly
slower). This movement of the c.g. to bow quickly increases the amount
of force the rower can apply without lifting off the seat.
> then by definition there is poor connection to the handle, reduced load
> on the blade & a low rate of rise of that load. So you won't be getting
> lift-off from the seat.
>
>>
>>> What you are more likely explaining is not why you don't lift off at the
>>
>>
>>
>> I was actually trying to aim more at what the maximum force applied
>> can be - Paul's question - not why you *don't* lift off, but you could
>> look at it this way too, I guess. :-)
>>
>>> catch but why most rowers generate less-than-ideal bell-shaped force
>>> curves rather than teh faster rise.
>>
>>
>>
>> I do comment on this in my paper (it's one of the main areas of
>> concern). I think that the muscle mechanics drive the location of
>> peak force more than the geometry of the stroke does.
>
>
> I would suggest that it is more the negative responses of rowers to
> suggestions that things might be done better which limits what we
Yes, you always seem to blame the negative responses of rowers or
coaches to suggestions of novel technique suggestions. I however, am
not so dis-inclined to such suggestions, and I have tried very many
variations on technique, and I still maintain that the absolute peak
force on the handle is going to be somewhere around mid-stroke due to
the muscle mechanics. At the catch, most of the primary working muscles
are in a very lengthened position. As I've mentioned before, and I
think you've picked up, muscle force is a function of both contraction
velocity (decreasing ~logarythmically with increasing contraction
velocity) and muscle length (having a somewhat inverted parabola shape
with minimal force available in the long and short ranges of muscle
contraction, and peak force available in the mid-length range of the
muscle.) Since the catch position has most of the main muscles in a
quite lengthened state, max muscle force can not be applied until the
muscles can shorten up a bit, which happens later in the stroke, as the
joint angles begin to open up.
This is just my theory of course, based on my understanding of the
geometry and muscle mechanics and the testing I've done by my self on a
transducer equiped erg. I have not done any real multi-subject
statistically significant tests in this regard.
> actually achieve. Such responses would terminate a gymnastic career at
> an early stage, yet seem acceptable in our rather simple, sit-down
> sport. And I think it is because we make so few dynamic, as opposed to
> plain physical, demands on ourselves that we feel indisposed to
> seriously explore what we really might do to gain small improvements
> which together might bring big rewards.
>
> But, with better
>
>> geometry, one could possibly get a faster rise in force in the early
>> drive, yes. The problem with changing the feet height is that many
>> rowers then have trouble getting their body over their knees at the
>> catch, having to reach arms around their knees rather than a more
>> comfortable (and longer) position where their arms reach over their
>> knees. Of course, there are trade offs: you get the longer stroke at
>> the expense of less ability to "get on it" quickly. With a position
>> where the feet are higher, your catch angle is less acute (shorter
>> stroke) but you can apply force more quickly. (I'll remind everyone
>> that nearly all my thinking about the stroke is relative to sweep
>> rowing, as I am not (much of) a sculler).
>
>
> You fell into such an obvious trap there, even though to prevent that
> I'd specifically referred in the final paragraph of my post (& you've
> excised it!) the need to extend the stretcher position to preserve catch
> angle if you raise your feet.
I do admit to having overlooked the last paragraph from your post. I
apologize for that. However, I've fallen into no such "obvious trap".
First of all, in the case of a sweep rower, I believe that it is very
important for the rower to have his/her arms over their knees, not
trying to reach around & between the knees at the catch. I mad NO
STATEMENT WHATSOEVER that the forward lean of the body relative to the
hull was important.
>
> No, you don't have to compress further. Please drop the mistaken notion
> that the visual perception of a body leaning more or less to the stern
I assume that this request is directed to me and not the general RSR
readership, in which case, see above, I never indicated that I held such
a "mistaken notion".
> bears any precise relationship to how much the rower has compressed at
> the catch. Compression is determined solely by the angle subtended at
> the hip between the knee shoulder, not by any reference to the vertical
> or horizontal planes. You seek an supposedly appropriate degree of
> compression - neither too much, nor too little. And you achieve that
> compression not by flopping the body into the boat (which checks the
> boat) but by actively coiling yourself up. And then you move the
> stretcher location out until that "appropriate" compression gives you an
> "appropriate" catch angle.]
Secondly, I personally have no room to move my stretcher location
forward in nearly all sweep boats I've been in. Vespoli, Filipi,
Hudson, Empacher... all full-sized heavy weight boats, my feet are as
far forward as allowed by the stretcher adjustments. Therefore, moving
my feet higher does indeed decrease the oar angle I can reach at the catch.
I'll concede though, that I was mistaken to use myself as the nominal
case, since at 2m in height I am hardly average (although for hwt rowing
men, I'm not as far from average as for the general population!)
>
> It is sad, & potentially damaging, that folk do not always see the
> difference between actual compression & visible body swing past the
> perpendicular. A few months back a lad came into my shop with 2
> stretchers, saying coach wanted the shoes in their new 2x lowered so he
> & his mate "Could compress properly". I asked him if he expected me to
> put speed bumps into the shell, or would it be OK just to let the heels
> rub away on the bottom of the boat. He was at first genuinely confused.
> Anyway, I made some adjustments (to the limit available), while
> pointing out that had we known this coach wanted this amount of
> sternwards lean at the catch, then we'd have given higher seats & rig
> when building the boat.
>
> As we were chatting, it transpired that both lads had developed lower
> back pain under this coach. Why? Because, regardless of the
> geometrical limitations, coach was still demanding of them that they
> both got their backs well past the vertical. B being keen lads, that's
> what they were doing. And coach was oblivious to the potential harm
> being inflicted in order to achieve the desired visual perception (as
> opposed to reality) of compression.
Yes, Paul recently commented on being surprised that rowers were still
suffering from back problems... the solution is well-known, but many
coaches are either blind/deaf to the suggestions, or just ignorant. :-(
Keep in mind though Carl: the solution is to keep the lordotic curve to
the lumbar spine, throughout the stroke (or try to anyway). As you
stated, full compression is full compression, regardless of whether the
feet are raised higher, thus rotating the compressed body bow-ward, thus
giving the appearance of a more upright posture. While the torso may
appear more upright relative to the boat, if the hips are just as
compressed, then the lumbar curve is likely just as absent, and lumbar
injury just as likely as if the feet were lower. In fact, given that
the higher feet allow higher forces at the catch (when the lumbar spine
is in its weakest position) injury MIGHT be even more likely in this case.
>
>>
>> Given that the hydrodynamics of the blade are optimal in the first 1/3
>> of the stroke, it's desirable to emphasize power in this region. But
>> if we get more force by raising the feet, we make smaller (shorter,
>> briefer) the hydrodynamically optimal region of the stroke.
>
>
> No. Not at all, as explained above.
And, as explained above, it depends on the size of the rower and the
boat. For someone my size, in most boats, it is indeed a limitation.
Given that most elite heavyweight mens crews are made of guys close to
my size (or larger sometimes), I would think that this limitation would
not be uncommon.
>
>>
>> So in layman's terms, it all boils down to find the best compromise
>> for "reach as far as you can and pull has hard as you can, as quickly
>> as you can." ;^)
>
>
> Everything is a compromise & all solutions are, therefore, optimal not
> optimum. But those compromises should be guided by a real understanding
> of the mechanics of the situation, rather than by a system of beliefs
> not founded in reality
I couldn't agree more. :^)
-Kieran
Carl Douglas
> Carl wrote:
>
>> KC wrote:
>>
>>>> Again you mistakenly assume that your arms & legs are weightless.
>>>> And you assume too much for the rate at which the C of G moves away
>>>> from the
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I disagree. Assuming (for simplicity) that, during the initial
>>> phases of the drive, all parts of the body maintain their positions
>>> relative to the seat except for the legs&feet (which of course must
>>> move) the c.g. of the rower will travel to stern at nearly the same
>>> rate as the seat (slightly less, since as your seat travels to bow,
>>> you are leaving behind more and more of your mass, i.e. your legs &
>>> feet).
>>
>>
>>
>> What? During the stroke, the C of G must travel towards the _bow_.
>
>
> OK Carl, come on, give me some credit and allow me to make a typo once
> in a while. "stern" s/b "bow" in that sentence, which should have been
> clear since I was talking about the c.g traveling in the same direction
> of the seat.
>
Of course you made a typo. But not every reader would realise.
>>
>>>
>>>> catch (even with a ridiculous bum-shove). Remember that the rate of
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A bum-shove (seat travel toward bow w/o oar rotation about the pin)
>>> would help your case, not mine.
>>
>>
>>
>> It helps no one's case, since a bum-shove indicates a leg drive not
>
>
> Again, read it in context please? You said that the c.g. moves to bow
> much slower than the seat, "even with a ridiculous bum-shove" implying
> that in the case of a "ridiculous bum-shove" the c.g. would travel to
> bow at a rate more similar to that of the seat. All I was saying is
> that if anything a bum-shove would SLOW the bow-ward progression of the
> c.g. even more. Now do you see my point?
No, I don't. Please explain? A bum shove represents a lump of flesh
moving towards the bow without moving the hands. Since the hands can
only move, at the catch at the speed closely determined by the boat
speed & the catch angle, their speed of movement there is almost
independent of the load applied. So shoving out the bum is the only way
you can increase the rate of motion of the body's CofG towards the bow.
With which, as explained, I disagree.
See later.
>
>> then by definition there is poor connection to the handle, reduced
>> load on the blade & a low rate of rise of that load. So you won't be
>> getting lift-off from the seat.
>>
>>>
>>>> What you are more likely explaining is not why you don't lift off at
>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I was actually trying to aim more at what the maximum force applied
>>> can be - Paul's question - not why you *don't* lift off, but you
>>> could look at it this way too, I guess. :-)
>>>
>>>> catch but why most rowers generate less-than-ideal bell-shaped force
>>>> curves rather than teh faster rise.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I do comment on this in my paper (it's one of the main areas of
>>> concern). I think that the muscle mechanics drive the location of
>>> peak force more than the geometry of the stroke does.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would suggest that it is more the negative responses of rowers to
>> suggestions that things might be done better which limits what we
>
>
> Yes, you always seem to blame the negative responses of rowers or
> coaches to suggestions of novel technique suggestions. I however, am
> not so dis-inclined to such suggestions, and I have tried very many
> variations on technique, and I still maintain that the absolute peak
> force on the handle is going to be somewhere around mid-stroke due to
> the muscle mechanics.
No, I didn't accuse you of being negative ;)
At the catch, most of the primary working muscles
> are in a very lengthened position. As I've mentioned before, and I
> think you've picked up, muscle force is a function of both contraction
> velocity (decreasing ~logarythmically with increasing contraction
> velocity) and muscle length (having a somewhat inverted parabola shape
> with minimal force available in the long and short ranges of muscle
> contraction, and peak force available in the mid-length range of the
> muscle.) Since the catch position has most of the main muscles in a
> quite lengthened state, max muscle force can not be applied until the
> muscles can shorten up a bit, which happens later in the stroke, as the
> joint angles begin to open up.
And I would not dispute that either. However, if we want to do better
we need to compromise between what is best for biomechanical
effectiveness & what is best for hydrodynamic efficiency. The overall
best outcome will thus be less than best for either for both, so we
should not base any argument on what is optimum for either 1 or another
contributing factor in the overall mix.
No apologies needed.
However, I've fallen into no such "obvious trap".
> First of all, in the case of a sweep rower, I believe that it is very
> important for the rower to have his/her arms over their knees, not
> trying to reach around & between the knees at the catch. I mad NO
> STATEMENT WHATSOEVER that the forward lean of the body relative to the
> hull was important.
I take your point that personal geometry can impose limits, but I think
we see that all the time without needing to factor in an inch or so's
differential in shoe height. There are some rowers whose knees are
always in their faces at the catch, but they cope, just as others will
never have that problem. Again, it's all about compromise.
That said, I have seen no quantifiable evidence or data to suggest that
there are rowers who would not be able to row just as well with their
feet significantly higher than most presently have them, since a change
of foot height of 2 cm probably means only a rotation of posture about
the transverse axis of about 3 degrees, or moving the stretcher out by
3cm for the same catch angles
>
>>
>> No, you don't have to compress further. Please drop the mistaken
>> notion that the visual perception of a body leaning more or less to
>> the stern
>
>
> I assume that this request is directed to me and not the general RSR
> readership, in which case, see above, I never indicated that I held such
> a "mistaken notion".
Although argued above that a few degrees of postural rotation, due to
raising the feet, would somehow cause an unacceptable clash of arms & legs?
>
>> bears any precise relationship to how much the rower has compressed at
>> the catch. Compression is determined solely by the angle subtended at
>> the hip between the knee shoulder, not by any reference to the
>> vertical or horizontal planes. You seek an supposedly appropriate
>> degree of compression - neither too much, nor too little. And you
>> achieve that compression not by flopping the body into the boat (which
>> checks the boat) but by actively coiling yourself up. And then you
>> move the stretcher location out until that "appropriate" compression
>> gives you an "appropriate" catch angle.]
>
>
> Secondly, I personally have no room to move my stretcher location
> forward in nearly all sweep boats I've been in. Vespoli, Filipi,
> Hudson, Empacher... all full-sized heavy weight boats, my feet are as
> far forward as allowed by the stretcher adjustments. Therefore, moving
> my feet higher does indeed decrease the oar angle I can reach at the catch.
>
> I'll concede though, that I was mistaken to use myself as the nominal
> case, since at 2m in height I am hardly average (although for hwt rowing
> men, I'm not as far from average as for the general population!)
>
We all start from the unique viewpoints of our own experience. IMHO
boat builders are failing to appreciate that rowers are not getting any
shorter, & that this may necessitate lengthening staterooms to suit.
I've seen a few very uncomfortably folded >2m rowers in recent years,
which one never did years ago.
Please tell that to a few more coaches, & all this chat will have done
some real good.
>>
>>>
>>> Given that the hydrodynamics of the blade are optimal in the first
>>> 1/3 of the stroke, it's desirable to emphasize power in this region.
>>> But if we get more force by raising the feet, we make smaller
>>> (shorter, briefer) the hydrodynamically optimal region of the stroke.
>>
>>
>>
>> No. Not at all, as explained above.
>
>
> And, as explained above, it depends on the size of the rower and the
> boat. For someone my size, in most boats, it is indeed a limitation.
> Given that most elite heavyweight mens crews are made of guys close to
> my size (or larger sometimes), I would think that this limitation would
> not be uncommon.
>
>>
>>>
>>> So in layman's terms, it all boils down to find the best compromise
>>> for "reach as far as you can and pull has hard as you can, as quickly
>>> as you can." ;^)
>>
>>
>>
>> Everything is a compromise & all solutions are, therefore, optimal not
>> optimum. But those compromises should be guided by a real
>> understanding of the mechanics of the situation, rather than by a
>> system of beliefs not founded in reality
>
>
> I couldn't agree more. :^)
So where shall we compromise on this one?