Straws for hand heights
Rower101
heights during the recover. I have never used them before and was
wondering if anyone has any advice on this. Do youput the straws at
body over position or further up the slide?
thanks
kc
Straws for hand height? I don't think I've ever seen this. I've seen
them used to encourage proper reach. How are they used for hand height?
-KC
wmar...@gmail.com
One crew used to try to lock the handle to a path that was two inches
above the gunwale (not a physical lock, just made sure the handle
stayed there). You could set up an array of straws with the tops at
whatever height you wanted and make sure that you were just brushing
the tops of the straws...
kda...@kidare.com
I heard the GB Oly 4- at Athens were doing this in practice just
before the regatta. May have been just a psychological wind-up of
course.
Kit
James.
that it seems that slim cable ties are more durable than using actual
straws, they still flex out of the way but are much harder to break. I
have yet to have a set of straws last more than a fortnight, but my
current set of cable ties have been in place for months now!
Rower101
straws to get all the hands going along the same path on the way
forward as some tap down lots and others very little, has anyone any
other advice for coaching this or exercises
thanks
jmh
solid? The plan being to only just miss the surface of the water
during the recovery. Getting crews mates wet from backsplash tends to
get the message across quite quickly via internal governance, and it
can become quite competitive as the coxswain gets the final say on
whose blade was most consistently in the right place.
jmh
KC
Yes, encourage those who tap down lots to be more like those tap down
very little. Preferably, your rowers eventually eliminate the tap-down
all together and release flat (except in rough water).
Square blade rowing drills are IMO, for the release, useless at best,
and harmful at worst.
We've discussed this here on RSR extensively in the past (actually not
too long ago, IIRC) and it is a point of contention, but I still say
that a true square bladed release is impossible to do (especially at
race pace & pressure) without (a) washing out, or (b) backwatering a
bit, or (c) both. An efficient, effective release must be combined with
the feathering of the blade. This is not an easy thing to do either, so
might as well work at it, and not waste time developing skills to do a
square bladed release, which is useless & pointless, even for novices.
At the release, there is no reason for the blade to be high enough above
the water for the blade to be square. This height is only necessary
right before the catch. Quarters are often pretty tight at the release
(in sweep rowing anyway), why make it (unnecessarily) worse?
-KC
Edgar
> Square blade rowing drills are IMO, for the release, useless at best, and
> harmful at worst.
>
> We've discussed this here on RSR extensively in the past (actually not too
> long ago, IIRC) and it is a point of contention, but I still say that a
> true square bladed release is impossible to do (especially at race pace &
> pressure) without (a) washing out, or (b) backwatering a bit, or (c) both.
> An efficient, effective release must be combined with the feathering of
> the blade. This is not an easy thing to do either, so might as well work
> at it, and not waste time developing skills to do a square bladed release,
> which is useless & pointless, even for novices.
>
> At the release, there is no reason for the blade to be high enough above
> the water for the blade to be square. This height is only necessary right
> before the catch. Quarters are often pretty tight at the release (in
> sweep rowing anyway), why make it (unnecessarily) worse?
>
> -KC
I doubt whether you can wash out and backwater at the same time so do not
accept your (c).
I think it is perfectly possible to release with square blade by simply
removing all power for a fraction of a second at the moment of release-no
forward power, no backing power, just no power at all while the blade
continues to move aft at boat speed while you lift it out of the water.
Square blade is an exercise for balance coming forward and for getting a
quick catch.
The sculling squad of my UK club always start their training outings with
square blade rowing. 2 minutes each of :- arms only/body swing/quarter
slide/half slide/ three quarter slide/ full slide/rest.
This is all firm paddling and puts them at least a mile down river. Then
comes along a varied outing with pyramids etc.totalling about 12 miles.
I think that if you can do that on a regular basis releasing while
feathering is a doddle.
KC
>> Square blade rowing drills are IMO, for the release, useless at best, and
>> harmful at worst.
>>
>> We've discussed this here on RSR extensively in the past (actually not too
>> long ago, IIRC) and it is a point of contention, but I still say that a
>> true square bladed release is impossible to do (especially at race pace &
>> pressure) without (a) washing out, or (b) backwatering a bit, or (c) both.
>> An efficient, effective release must be combined with the feathering of
>> the blade. This is not an easy thing to do either, so might as well work
>> at it, and not waste time developing skills to do a square bladed release,
>> which is useless & pointless, even for novices.
>>
>> At the release, there is no reason for the blade to be high enough above
>> the water for the blade to be square. This height is only necessary right
>> before the catch. Quarters are often pretty tight at the release (in
>> sweep rowing anyway), why make it (unnecessarily) worse?
>>
>> -KC
>
> I doubt whether you can wash out and backwater at the same time so do not
> accept your (c).
It certainly is possible, I've seen it. In fact 90% of rowers I've
watched on a square blade drill do this. Maybe your definition of "wash
out" is different than mine.
> I think it is perfectly possible to release with square blade by simply
> removing all power for a fraction of a second at the moment of release-no
> forward power, no backing power, just no power at all while the blade
> continues to move aft at boat speed while you lift it out of the water.
And in what way would this be a preferable style to applying useful
pressure throughout that portion which you require zero force? What
you've described sounds to me a lot like what I consider "washing out"
i.e. a wasted, short finish.
> Square blade is an exercise for balance coming forward and for getting a
> quick catch.
Yes, exactly. Square blade rowing is a decent drill for the catch.
It's useless for developing a good release, because a square bladed
release is a poor release.
Instead, release normally, and square up immediately after the release.
this way you drill your balance and catch, without sacrificing a
proper release.
> The sculling squad of my UK club always start their training outings with
Congratulations. Your club's sculling squad does a warm up similar to
90% of the rowing clubs out there. I'm not saying it's not common. I'm
saying it's a poor drill for a good release. It emphasizes washing out
(because one *must* wash out to release square) and thus ingrains poor
handle path at the release when rowing on the feather (people end up
washing out when feathering even though they needn't).
Besides, I specifically noted that square blade releases are much easier
in sculling than sweep, since the handles are generally free from the
body & legs. In sweep, too much "tap down" and your handle is bound up
in your lap & tummy. Furthermore, the OP mentioned training in eights,
not sculling.
> square blade rowing. 2 minutes each of :- arms only/body swing/quarter
> slide/half slide/ three quarter slide/ full slide/rest.
> This is all firm paddling and puts them at least a mile down river. Then
> comes along a varied outing with pyramids etc.totalling about 12 miles.
> I think that if you can do that on a regular basis releasing while
> feathering is a doddle.
I'm not familiar with the term "doddle". In America, "dawddle" means
wasting time & being generally slow. Parents often scold kids thus:
"hurry up! Quit your dawddling!"
From your context, I'd guess that "doddle" means "cinch" or "an easy
thing". I don't disagree, that a feathered release seems easy after
rowing square bladed for a mile. My point is that your feathered
release will be less effective than it otherwise might be if you didn't
train your self to wash out on the square.
-KC
Christopher Kerr
>
> Besides, I specifically noted that square blade releases are much easier
> in sculling than sweep, since the handles are generally free from the
> body & legs. In sweep, too much "tap down" and your handle is bound up
> in your lap & tummy. Furthermore, the OP mentioned training in eights,
> not sculling.
>
In my opinion, square bladed releases are more useful (I don't know about
easier) in sweep than in sculling because they minimise the effect on balance
of the inevitable slight mis-timings between rowers in the finish.
When rowing sweep I aim to take the blade out fully square (although video
shows that I probably start feathering with the blade about half-way out
when at high rate). If you bounce the handle off your ribs then you can do
this relatively quickly (rather than a slow, washed-out extraction),
although to do this you have to have held onto enough pressure into the
finish that the blade is still bent, otherwise the water catches up with the
blade before you can get it out and you crab.
When sculling, however, I feather out quite obviously (unless in rough
conditions - differences in wave height between the two sides have the same
effect on balance as differences in timing, so again the square release is
easier). I remember when I first tried doing this a couple of years ago after
reading about it on RSR - I immediately noticed a difference in boat run, and
was able to put it into practice in races after only a few outings.
KC
> KC wrote:
>
>> Besides, I specifically noted that square blade releases are much easier
>> in sculling than sweep, since the handles are generally free from the
>> body & legs. In sweep, too much "tap down" and your handle is bound up
>> in your lap & tummy. Furthermore, the OP mentioned training in eights,
>> not sculling.
>>
>
> In my opinion, square bladed releases are more useful (I don't know about
> easier) in sweep than in sculling because they minimise the effect on balance
> of the inevitable slight mis-timings between rowers in the finish.
Why would a flat release cause more mis-timings than a rounded
("tap-down", "square", whatever) release? That makes no sense
whatsoever. Timing is not dependent on the style used. Proper timing
can be had with any technique.
> When rowing sweep I aim to take the blade out fully square (although video
> shows that I probably start feathering with the blade about half-way out
Your video shows the truth. It's impossible to take the blade out fully
square and not backwater or wash out.
> when at high rate). If you bounce the handle off your ribs then you can do
> this relatively quickly (rather than a slow, washed-out extraction),
"Bounce the handle off your ribs"???? Can you please explain how it is
possible to extract a squared blade from the water while underway when
the handle is touching your trunk, without feathering the blade? The
only way I can see to do it would backwater the blade.
> although to do this you have to have held onto enough pressure into the
> finish that the blade is still bent, otherwise the water catches up with the
> blade before you can get it out and you crab.
> When sculling, however, I feather out quite obviously (unless in rough
> conditions - differences in wave height between the two sides have the same
> effect on balance as differences in timing, so again the square release is
> easier). I remember when I first tried doing this a couple of years ago after
> reading about it on RSR - I immediately noticed a difference in boat run, and
> was able to put it into practice in races after only a few outings.
If you notice a beneficial difference in boat run when sculling, why do
you think this same benefit could not be had while sweeping? It can,
and it should be had.
-KC
Mike Sullivan
"KC" <kc_...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:gq8n1p$e2r$1...@gist.usc.edu...
> Rower101 wrote:
snip
> We've discussed this here on RSR extensively in the past (actually not too
> long ago, IIRC) and it is a point of contention, but I still say that a
> true square bladed release is impossible to do (especially at
nonsense.
Releasing flat is impossible to do with a buried blade at any
pressure. The very fact that the center of the oar shaft extended
through the blade is below the surface of the water defines that there must
be
upward movement of the blade at release.
Plenty of people go damn fast without finishing their stroke, and
can release just like every recreational piker with no coaching that
rows the oar out, feathers it to call it a release, and holds the boat
up for a moment with the blades until they get away from their bodies.
Learn to finish the stroke - drop the training wheels.
But we've already done this. Our next step was to go take a pair
out or singles so I could show you, but I note that you wanted
to row a pair with Jed, not me.
No worries, I would have had to go later anyway, we were short of really
old
guys.
Edgar
"KC" <kc_...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:gq8usr$fdg$1...@gist.usc.edu...
>> I think it is perfectly possible to release with square blade by simply
>> removing all power for a fraction of a second at the moment of release-no
>> forward power, no backing power, just no power at all while the blade
>> continues to move aft at boat speed while you lift it out of the water.
>
> And in what way would this be a preferable style to applying useful
> pressure throughout that portion which you require zero force? What
> you've described sounds to me a lot like what I consider "washing out"
> i.e. a wasted, short finish.
There is no reason why a square finish should be short and the zero force
period I mentioned would be so brief as to be negligible and certainly
preferable to extracting square while applying force which seems to me a
certain way of washing out,whatever your definition of that may be.
After all, we are agreed that square blade is a drill for a good balance
leading to a good catch. Drills for improving the finish can be carried out
as a seperate issue.
Sorry about 'doddle'. yes, 'cinch' means exactly the same and is more widely
used.
KC
> "KC" <kc_...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:gq8n1p$e2r$1...@gist.usc.edu...
>> Rower101 wrote:
>
> snip
>
>> We've discussed this here on RSR extensively in the past (actually not too
>> long ago, IIRC) and it is a point of contention, but I still say that a
>> true square bladed release is impossible to do (especially at
>
> nonsense.
Is not!
> Releasing flat is impossible to do with a buried blade at any
You've forgotten from the last thread on this topic that the term
"releasing flat" doesn't mean ZERO vertical motion of the handle... just
a tiny fraction of what's required to release with & keep the blade square.
> pressure. The very fact that the center of the oar shaft extended
> through the blade is below the surface of the water defines that there must
> be
> upward movement of the blade at release.
Yep. But not much. Not nearly as much as one needs to row a square
blade drill.
> Plenty of people go damn fast without finishing their stroke, and
Yes. Michelle Guerette as recently discussed, is one.
> can release just like every recreational piker with no coaching that
> rows the oar out, feathers it to call it a release, and holds the boat
> up for a moment with the blades until they get away from their bodies.
>
> Learn to finish the stroke - drop the training wheels.
Whose using training wheels? In our last discussion you finally
admitted that you do in fact feather as you release. If this is the
case, then all the "tap down" is unnecessary vertical motion, and the
mental image that (& the square blade rowing drills) the blade is coming
out square (even though it can't) causes most people to wash out.
I agree with one thing though - FINISH THE STROKE. If you're okay with
finishing early so that you can imagine that your blade is coming out
square, causing you to wash out, fine. But in my world, that's not a
finished stroke. A proper stroke is pulled all the way to the body (or
very nearly so). Some people may argue the difference is minimal. I
say if it's a small but unnecessary (& potentially problematic/harmful)
thing, eliminate it.
Anyway, what happened to your new found open-mindedness about the worth
of other styles? I've rowed & been taught/coached both ways
extensively. We rowed square bladed by all eights quite well in 1992 &
94 under Dan Emrich. When did you train extensively to release flat,
hmmm? :^)
> But we've already done this. Our next step was to go take a pair
> out or singles so I could show you, but I note that you wanted
> to row a pair with Jed, not me.
You may recall we were pulled in to an eight. While it might be fun, I
don't think going out in a pair together would facilitate the lesson.
> No worries, I would have had to go later anyway, we were short of really
> old guys.
So why'd you guys turn around after the bridge? Just curious. I didn't
expect a Lido lap or anything, but thought you guys would tool around
longer than that.
-KC
Mike Sullivan
"KC" <kc_...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:gqbd62$aj$1...@gist.usc.edu...
causes? nope. Hundreds of people I've seen learn to row didn't go
through the square blade routine, and still wash out.
Washing out is the easiest way to release, that's why most ppl do
it whether they've been given square blade drills or no.
I'll repeat, rowing square doesn't teach deep releases.
One can finish deep with a minimal 'tap down', yes. One can
finish deep with a larger 'tap down' which has many advantages
over minimal as I've detailed before, and no downside compared
to flatter release.
>
> I agree with one thing though - FINISH THE STROKE. If you're okay with
> finishing early so that you can imagine that your blade is coming out
> square, causing you to wash out, fine. But in my world, that's not a
> finished stroke. A proper stroke is pulled all the way to the body (or
> very nearly so). Some people may argue the difference is minimal. I say
> if it's a small but unnecessary (& potentially problematic/harmful) thing,
> eliminate it.
Who does it, and got a pic? Everybody I've ever seen who rows flat
handle trajectory has the handle dropping during the drive. Got
a counter example?
>
> Anyway, what happened to your new found open-mindedness about the worth of
> other styles? I've rowed & been taught/coached both ways extensively. We
> rowed square bladed by all eights quite well in 1992 & 94 under Dan
> Emrich. When did you train extensively to release flat, hmmm? :^)
my tolerance of the worth of other 'styles' is not new found. Indeed I've
argued
that some ways of rowing that seem abysmally inefficient to me are very
effective for certain people/bodies/personalities, and I've said that as
long
as I've been on the forum.
See my multiple comments on Janet Evans' swimming.
But there is a difference between understanding how it is that someone
can go very fast, fastest in history even, rowing with suboptimal mechanics
or efficiency, and necessarily adopting that for all other rowing bodies and
minds.
>
>> But we've already done this. Our next step was to go take a pair
>> out or singles so I could show you, but I note that you wanted
>> to row a pair with Jed, not me.
>
> You may recall we were pulled in to an eight. While it might be fun, I
> don't think going out in a pair together would facilitate the lesson.
>
>> No worries, I would have had to go later anyway, we were short of
>> really old guys.
>
> So why'd you guys turn around after the bridge? Just curious. I didn't
> expect a Lido lap or anything, but thought you guys would tool around
> longer than that.
One of the people in the boat was not feeling well,( seven man). I was
recovering from ear infection from bodysurfing at end of storm from week
before, so couldn't hear what was going on, but Bruce was protecting
seven by insisting we go in, and at the same time purposely not trying to
point
out that seven was not up to it, so it seemed at the time that Bruce was
the one not wanting to jam with everyone. BTW, Bruce ergs an hour
every year on his birthday, 1:50 average, the bastid.
The part I enjoyed most was when the 3 man behind me kept whining
about wanting to race, I turned to him and asked him why suddenly at
age 45 or so he wanted to row hard when he never pulled a hard stroke
in college? Probably didn't do much for donations, I suppose, but I
thought the look on his face was pretty funny. I was coaching frosh
when he was on varsity and watched crews he was in get pasted by
my third frosh/novice eight.
It occurred to me when we came in how stupid we can be at these
alum events. Some guys get roped into rowing in a boat who are badly
badly out of shape, then pressure from old comrades puts him in a position
where he could hurt himself. When I coached there, alums were not that
old, but I'm certain then that I wouldn't have thought of it.
We did absolutely the correct and prudent thing to come in.
I told the three man where he could find a master's crew in his area. Seven
is fairly fit, takes good care of himself, but with 60 year old guys who
are
feeling a bit faint, haven't rowed in a few years, you don't take chances.
KC
That s/b "Who's". Nice one, KC.
>> that you do in fact feather as you release. If this is the case, then all
>> the "tap down" is unnecessary vertical motion, and the mental image that
>> (& the square blade rowing drills) the blade is coming out square (even
>> though it can't) causes most people to wash out.
>
> causes? nope. Hundreds of people I've seen learn to row didn't go
> through the square blade routine, and still wash out.
Of course. I didn't say it was the only cause, or thing, that leads to
washed out releases. But you absolutely have to start the tap down and
take off pressure, earlier when rowing square bladed than you do if you
feather through the release. This is, IMO, "washing out". So if you do
DRILLS on the square, you are drilling washing out. The purpose of
drills is to ingrain proper technique/habbits. Why would you want to
ingrain washing out? No two ways about it, AFAICS.
BTW, this is a separate issue from releasing flat. Relase flat, or
release high, it's not as big an issue, as long as you feather a bit on
the release so you don't have to wash out. If you row a perfectly
square release you MUST wash out, therefore DON'T practice square bladed
releases.
You might as well force your crews to row 3 miles while actively
emphasizing missing water at the catch.
I do think that a big amount of vertical at the release is pointless &
potentially harmful, but not as harmful as practicing square bladed
releases. NO ONE releases perfectly square when racing, so why practice
it? If you like a big tap down, well okay, so long as it's not washed out.
> Washing out is the easiest way to release, that's why most ppl do
> it whether they've been given square blade drills or no.
>
> I'll repeat, rowing square doesn't teach deep releases.
Repeat? When did you say that? If so I missed it. Anyway, I agree, as
I just said, rowing square teaches shallow washed out finishes, not good
deep ones.
> One can finish deep with a minimal 'tap down', yes. One can
> finish deep with a larger 'tap down' which has many advantages
> over minimal as I've detailed before, and no downside compared
> to flatter release.
The downside is it encourages, or more readily allows, washing out (I'll
stop short of using "causes"). Your advantages as I remember them, are
hardly advantages, since the same things can be drilled (timing, equal
handle heights, etc.) with any style. In fact, a "flat" (again nor
truly flat which is impossible) release forces equal handle heights.
>
>> I agree with one thing though - FINISH THE STROKE. If you're okay with
>> finishing early so that you can imagine that your blade is coming out
>> square, causing you to wash out, fine. But in my world, that's not a
>> finished stroke. A proper stroke is pulled all the way to the body (or
>> very nearly so). Some people may argue the difference is minimal. I say
>> if it's a small but unnecessary (& potentially problematic/harmful) thing,
>> eliminate it.
>
> Who does it, and got a pic? Everybody I've ever seen who rows flat
> handle trajectory has the handle dropping during the drive. Got
> a counter example?
That doesn't make sense. If their handle is dropping during the drive,
then they don't have a flat release. Don't count those people among
those who release flat.
>
>> Anyway, what happened to your new found open-mindedness about the worth of
>> other styles? I've rowed & been taught/coached both ways extensively. We
>> rowed square bladed by all eights quite well in 1992 & 94 under Dan
>> Emrich. When did you train extensively to release flat, hmmm? :^)
>
> my tolerance of the worth of other 'styles' is not new found. Indeed I've
Hmmm... newly admitted publicly then? :-) Firstly, I'm just poking fun
on this point. Secondly, I was referring to your recent comments to
Charles about having regretted not learning Duvall's style (or others'
flip catch styles.)
> argued
> that some ways of rowing that seem abysmally inefficient to me are very
> effective for certain people/bodies/personalities, and I've said that as
> long
> as I've been on the forum.
>
> See my multiple comments on Janet Evans' swimming.
>
> But there is a difference between understanding how it is that someone
> can go very fast, fastest in history even, rowing with suboptimal mechanics
> or efficiency, and necessarily adopting that for all other rowing bodies and
> minds.
Of course. Again, Guerette is a perfect example. I wouldn't
necessarily adopt her style to teach my rowers, but it works for her.
But while we can be tolerant of unique styles for unique individuals,
there are still fundamentals that generally hold true for the mean +/- 1
std. deviation of all rowers.
> BTW, Bruce ergs an hour
> every year on his birthday, 1:50 average, the bastid.
I was wondering how fit he still was. What was his VO2 back in the day,
do you know (& how much did he weigh in 80/84)?
> The part I enjoyed most was when the 3 man behind me kept whining
> about wanting to race, I turned to him and asked him why suddenly at
> age 45 or so he wanted to row hard when he never pulled a hard stroke
> in college? Probably didn't do much for donations, I suppose, but I
> thought the look on his face was pretty funny. I was coaching frosh
> when he was on varsity and watched crews he was in get pasted by
> my third frosh/novice eight.
I think my tongue was bleeding more than my hands (which were raw -
hadn't held an oar in ages - since Nov.08 before that day). I sat 7
also, and the guy at 6 was similar to your 3. Six rowed in high school,
came to UCI as the sole experienced guy his frosh year, quickly got out
done by several novices, barely holding on to his seat for the season.
Quit UCI crew 1/2 way through his soph year. And of course wouldn't
shut up about "how we used to do it" while sitting behind me that day
(oh, and he held water wrong, which proved he wasn't on the team long,
since EVERYONE who rowed under Duvall holds water the right way.)
> It occurred to me when we came in how stupid we can be at these
> alum events. Some guys get roped into rowing in a boat who are badly
> badly out of shape, then pressure from old comrades puts him in a position
> where he could hurt himself. When I coached there, alums were not that
I had similar thoughts when you guys were heading in.
> old, but I'm certain then that I wouldn't have thought of it.
>
> We did absolutely the correct and prudent thing to come in.
snip
> with 60 year old guys who are
> feeling a bit faint, haven't rowed in a few years, you don't take chances.
>
Agreed. Again, I was just curious. I didn't expect you guys to do any
hard pieces, just surprised you didn't paddle around a bit more than you
did. I didn't even get a chance to watch you go by!
Charles Carroll
How can you say Michelle Guerette doesn't finish her stroke?
Consider the angles of Michelle's oar shaft with respect to the rowline.
Rowline is a Frank Cunningham term. Cunningham defines it as "A line
perpendicular to the centerline of the boat passing across the working face
of the oarlock."
It seems to me that Michelle has a quick entry with a very little v-shaped
splash on either side of her blades. It also seems to me that her oar shafts
at entry are a little more than 45 degrees from the rowline. My conclusion
is that the blades and oar shafts are pretty much ideal. Aren't they where
they are supposed to be? Michelle doesn't look like she is cutting her
stroke short at the catch. But aren't we all agreed on this?
It is the finish that bothers everyone.
But look at the angle of Michelle's oar shafts at the finish with respect to
the rowline. It seems to me that this angle is a little greater than 40
degrees. And isn't 40 degrees also close to ideal?
Forget about Michelle's hands being six inches in front of her body at the
finish. Focus instead on where her oar shafts and blades are. If you focus
just on the angle of the oar shafts and blades with respect to the rowline,
does it look like Michelle is cutting her stroke short at the finish? It
doesn't to me.
So here is my question. If Michelle already has an ideal angle of the oar
shafts with respect to the rowline at the finish, how would she benefit by
increasing this angle, that is, by pulling the oar handles six inches nearer
to her body?
I have put this question to a number of people now, including a couple of
coaches, and no one has offered an answer.
Can one really argue that someone is cutting the stroke short at the finish
when the angle of the oarshaft with respect to the rowline is ideal?
Kieran, you may be thinking something like, "Ah, Charles! Ever the student
of Fairbairn!" And in some sense you are right. Fairbairn time and again
told people not to coach for body position. He stressed that if you coached
for good bladework, the body would unconsciously adapt to what it needed to
do to position the blade correctly.
Cordially,
Charles
Christopher Kerr
> Christopher Kerr wrote:
>> KC wrote:
>>
>>> Besides, I specifically noted that square blade releases are much easier
>>> in sculling than sweep, since the handles are generally free from the
>>> body & legs. In sweep, too much "tap down" and your handle is bound up
>>> in your lap & tummy. Furthermore, the OP mentioned training in eights,
>>> not sculling.
>>>
>>
>> In my opinion, square bladed releases are more useful (I don't know about
>> easier) in sweep than in sculling because they minimise the effect on
>> balance of the inevitable slight mis-timings between rowers in the
>> finish.
>
> Why would a flat release cause more mis-timings than a rounded
> ("tap-down", "square", whatever) release? That makes no sense
> whatsoever. Timing is not dependent on the style used. Proper timing
> can be had with any technique.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Flat releases do not cause mis-timings,
merely amplify their effect. A flat release generates a larger vertical force
on the blade, and thus a larger turning moment, than a squared release. If
the blades on opposite sides are released at slightly different times, this
will destabilise the boat more if the blades are released flat than if they
are released square.
>
>> When rowing sweep I aim to take the blade out fully square (although
>> video shows that I probably start feathering with the blade about
>> half-way out
>
> Your video shows the truth. It's impossible to take the blade out fully
> square and not backwater or wash out.
>
>> when at high rate). If you bounce the handle off your ribs then you can
>> do this relatively quickly (rather than a slow, washed-out extraction),
>
> "Bounce the handle off your ribs"???? Can you please explain how it is
> possible to extract a squared blade from the water while underway when
> the handle is touching your trunk, without feathering the blade? The
> only way I can see to do it would backwater the blade.
When the handle reaches your ribcage, the oar shaft is still bent under the
force of you pulling on it. There will inevitably also be (despite Carl's
disapproval) a build-up of water in front of the blade and a hollow behind
it (good technique and spoon design can minimise but not eliminate this).
Both of these effects give a split second before the water catches up with
the blade and it starts backwatering. Also, particularly when the lungs are
filled just before breathing out at the finish, there is space for the handle
to continue to travel backwards a few centimetres into the hollow of the
stomach after hitting the ribs (remember, I'm a lightweight rower). Bouncing
the blade off the bottom of the ribcage merely provides a way of accelerating
the handle downwards very quickly, reducing the time taken to get the spoon
out of the water. As you say, it really doesn't have to drop all that far.
>
>> although to do this you have to have held onto enough pressure into the
>> finish that the blade is still bent, otherwise the water catches up with
>> the blade before you can get it out and you crab.
>> When sculling, however, I feather out quite obviously (unless in rough
>> conditions - differences in wave height between the two sides have the
>> same effect on balance as differences in timing, so again the square
>> release is easier). I remember when I first tried doing this a couple of
>> years ago after reading about it on RSR - I immediately noticed a
>> difference in boat run, and was able to put it into practice in races
>> after only a few outings.
>
> If you notice a beneficial difference in boat run when sculling, why do
> you think this same benefit could not be had while sweeping? It can,
> and it should be had.
>
> -KC
If I was a coach working on a programme for a 4-year Olympiad, with top-
quality athletes and plenty of time for crews to come together, then I would
coach sweep rowers to feather their blades out of the water. However, for
reasons discussed above, trying to get rowers to feather early when they
only have a few weeks to forge a racing crew from nine individuals would be
counterproductive.
Race photographers normally only take photos around the catch, so I could
only find one photo of our crew at the finish:
http://www.jetphotographic.com/showphoto.php?id=181594
Strokeside are all well clear of the water and mostly feathered, while you
can just see my (Bow's) oar still half-covered - the rest of bowside are
probably similar. With square releases this is an imperfection that can be
coped with, but if we had been feathering the blade out then our balance
would have been all over the shop.
Carl Douglas
I always get uneasy when anyone seeks to define an angle, any angle, of
oar to boat or to perpendicular as "ideal" for any purpose.
Why should 40 deg be the ideal finish angle?
>
> Kieran, you may be thinking something like, "Ah, Charles! Ever the
> student of Fairbairn!" And in some sense you are right. Fairbairn time
> and again told people not to coach for body position. He stressed that
> if you coached for good bladework, the body would unconsciously adapt to
> what it needed to do to position the blade correctly.
>
> Cordially,
>
> Charles
It is this seeking after some definable numerical correctness that makes
me so uneasy. I would suggest that it must depend on the load history
you have on the blade up to that point, & the catch angle, & the depth
profile followed, & whether you finish square or, as makes far better
hydrodynamic sense, you feather out. The rowing stroke is far too
complex, too little studied & too little understood for simple rules to
be imposed. You are rowing with a blade hung out on the far end of a
whippy stick, so its alignment to that line from handle to neck is
highly load dependent, as its its angle of attack in the water &, as a
result, so are its hydrodynamics. And different blades are of different
shapes, all with so little real science in the mix.
Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
Mike Sullivan
"Charles Carroll" <charles...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:72vehuF...@mid.individual.net...
> Ok Kieran,
>
> How can you say Michelle Guerette doesn't finish her stroke?
rough water, I know, and it's impossible to stop motion these youtube
thingies.
But I saw the same thing in the Oly tape on flat water.
Watch in the closeup moments, say 2:00 to 2:30, and rewind and watch the
same
dozen strokes again and again. 3:00 to 3:30 is even better.
Here's a couple clues:
1. watch the oar handle path from mid drive to release
2. see if you can watch her and put yourself in her seat as she's rowing.
Does it look like she's maintaining the pressure on the
oars right to her body, or does it look like it eases off in the last 10
inches of the drive?
3. Look where her hands finish, she's pulled into a flat release coming
straight in and straight out, do you believe she's
kept her blade buried?
kc
> Ok Kieran,
>
> How can you say Michelle Guerette doesn't finish her stroke?
Because it doesn't look like she does. But for her, it obviously works
well.
> Consider the angles of Michelle's oar shaft with respect to the rowline.
> Rowline is a Frank Cunningham term. Cunningham defines it as "A line
> perpendicular to the centerline of the boat passing across the working
> face of the oarlock."
Given that the oarlock rotates with the oar, this angle would be very,
very, very small most of the time, with minima at the beginning and end
of each stroke and a maxima somewhere before halfway through the stroke
(i.e. peak force).
If you mean a line perpendicular to the long axis of the boat, and
parallel to the water, well, that's different. But a line by
Cunningham's definition would have to dynamically follow the oarlock.
To answer your question, I like Carl's response. Who's to define that
some angle is the proper one? All I'm saying is that usually we look
for people to pull all the way to their bodies (or close to it) and
Guerette doesn't seem to do this. But for her, it works. But for a
generic style that we can use as a starting point for the generic rower,
I wouldn't recommend it. I prefer to see the handle pulled (almost) all
the way to the body.
I must repeat though, that my perspective is decidedly skewed toward
sweep rowing. I've never coached sculling, never raced in a sculling
boat, and have very little experience even messing around in a sculling
boat.
-KC
kc
> Given that the oarlock rotates with the oar, this angle would be very,
> very, very small most of the time, with minima at the beginning and end
> of each stroke and a maxima somewhere before halfway through the stroke
s/b "maximum". :^)
Charles Carroll
I agree with you that Michelle Guerette does not maintain pressure on the
oars right to her body. In the films I have seen of her, she appears to be
cutting her stroke short at the finish.
But if the angle of her oar shaft is effective and where it should be for a
good finish, what would she gain by continuing to maintain pressure on the
Oars right to her body?
Isn't it true that when you pull past a certain angle at the finish, the
effectiveness of your work diminishes?
If so, is there an angle of the oar shaft that you should not try to go
beyond, that is, an angle when you start putting more work into moving the
blades than you do into moving the boat?
Let's take an extreme case as an example. Say it were possible to pull all
the way through to where the oar shaft was parallel to the boat. Would there
be any advantage in pulling an oar this far sternwards?
I guess another way of saying this is at what point in the final phase of
the drive does the angle of the oar shaft become so ineffective that it is
no longer an angle worth having?
By the way, I would say that if such an angle exists, then just before you
reach this angle would be the ideal place to finish. Of course this
presupposes an ideal sculler.
I am not trying to be argumentative. I am just trying to understand Volker
Nolte's argument and whether it holds water. (Sorry. I couldn't resist.)
Cordially,
Charles
Charles Carroll
I have no reason to think that you are not absolutely right in saying that
there "so little real science in the mix."
But does this mean that we should automatically disdain every observation
that has been made about sculling in the last two hundred years?
The Louis M. Davies Symphony Hall in San Francisco is the home of the San
Francisco Symphony and was designed according to the best theories of modern
acoustical science. Yet when musician are asked about their favorite
Symphonic Halls, almost to a man they mention the Vienna Musikverein, which
was opened on 6 January 1870. It is famous for its acoustics, it is
considered one of the three finest concert halls in the world, and it was
not built with all the advantage of modern acoustical science. One might
even be tempted to say that its celebrated acoustics were achieved by
nothing more than the lowly human ear.
Do you think it is possible that someone a hundred years ago might have
studied the sculling stroke and made some accurate observations?
I, too, get uneasy whenever someone tries to dictate "the ideal." You ask
why Frank Cunningham thinks that 40 deg is the ideal finish angle. And I don't
know. But Cunningham spent a lifetime as a rower and observer of rowers, so
I am also uneasy about simply dismissing what he has observed by saying that
there is so little real science in the mix of his observations.
In any event, it seems to me that my question still remains unanswered. Is
Michelle Guerette cutting short her stroke at the finish, and if so, why?
I'll put to you the same question I just put to Mike. Can an oar shaft be
pulled so far sternwards in the final phase of the drive that it makes an
angle not worth having?
Cordially,
Charles
sully
wrote:
> Mike,
>
> I agree with you that Michelle Guerette does not maintain pressure on the
> oars right to her body. In the films I have seen of her, she appears to be
> cutting her stroke short at the finish.
>
> But if the angle of her oar shaft is effective and where it should be for a
> good finish, what would she gain by continuing to maintain pressure on the
> Oars right to her body?
>
> Isn't it true that when you pull past a certain angle at the finish, the
> effectiveness of your work diminishes?
>
> If so, is there an angle of the oar shaft that you should not try to go
> beyond, that is, an angle when you start putting more work into moving the
> blades than you do into moving the boat?
>
> Let's take an extreme case as an example. Say it were possible to pull all
> the way through to where the oar shaft was parallel to the boat. Would there
> be any advantage in pulling an oar this far sternwards?
>
> I guess another way of saying this is at what point in the final phase of
> the drive does the angle of the oar shaft become so ineffective that it is
> no longer an angle worth having?
Of course there are angles that are too extreme to be useful to making
the boat go much faster, but she's nowhere even near that.
Indeed, the angle she is finishing to, she has lost her lock on the
water and is washing out and feathering the blade out like every other
sculler does.
It's more obvious with her, because she also doesn't finish as close
into her body when she washes out.
For her to make an effective finish would mean overhaul of her power
impulse, a lot of drilling, maybe some upper body strength work
basically to gain a tad less than a length over 2k. Maybe she thinks
she can get more than that by skipping the finish and working harder
on the drive and just getting stronger.
That could work too.
mruscoe
> Mike,
>
> I agree with you that Michelle Guerette does not maintain pressure on
> the oars right to her body. In the films I have seen of her, she appears
> to be cutting her stroke short at the finish.
>
>
> I am not trying to be argumentative. I am just trying to understand
> Volker Nolte's argument and whether it holds water. (Sorry. I couldn't
> resist.)
>
> Cordially,
>
> Charles
I took a look at Olympic final video, and in the only stern-on shot she
is getting no separation between the ends of the handles - that's a
pretty short finish angle. From the overhead shots, it looks like she is
getting a longer catch angle than any of the other scullers, but it's
not long by taller men's standards. My guess is that the long catch
works for her, and to race at the rate she wants, she hasn't got time to
pull the finish any longer.
Nolte is saying that her catch angle makes her efficient, but my
question would be why not scale the rig a bit more (shorter blades and
inboards, narrower span) to get a more normal finish angle as well,
without sacrificing rate. Most people are pretty conservative about
rigging, and don't change oar lengths very much which leaves athletes
with a shorter reach at a disadvantage (except in the adaptive singles
which changed into a different sport over the last 3 years because of
improvements in rigging).
Charles Carroll
Thanks.
Believe it or not, I wasn't completely sure that "there are angles that are
too extreme to be useful to making the boat go much faster." I needed to
hear you say it.
Also, do you realize that you have just made "The Argument" for Michelle
Guerette's finish having cost her gold?
If an "effective finish" and an "overhaul of her power impulse" and some
"upper body strength work" would have gained her "a tad less than a length
over 2k," she would have had the gold.
So I am back to the question Kieran raised last August. Why did Charlie
Butts not coach for a better finish?
If I recall, didn't Ewoud suggest that maybe Charlie Butts looked at the
stopwatch and realized that he didn't have enough time to prepare Michelle
properly, so went with what he had - an enormously strong catch with a
washed out finish.
What I still don't understand is why Nolte proposes that this "the technique
for the future." Maybe we can get him to elaborate in another piece.
Cordially,
Charles
Charles Carroll
I have the same question you have: why not scale Michelle Guerette's "rig a
bit more (shorter blades and inboards, narrower span) to get a more normal
finish angle?"
After re-reading Frank Cunningham, I took a look at the way I have rigged
Carl's shell.
I have pushed the footstretcher sternwards and moved the tracks so that I
get way through the pins. This allows me to get my reach while keeping my
back straight. At the finish I have just enough space to get a pretty good
separation between the oar handles.
But I wanted the check the angles. Measuring from the rowline, the catch
angle measures 43 to 44 deg, at the finish it is 37 to 38 deg. Cunningham
recommends something around 45 deg and 40 deg respectively. So I am not that
far off.
Nevertheless I started to think of how I could re-rig to get Cunningham's
angles.
Moving the footstretcher bowards would give me a slightly better angle at
the finish but force me to over compress at the catch. Moving it sternwards
would let me get through the pins a little more, but would reduce the angle
at the finish.
The only thing I could think of was to change the spread. But the spread, at
158cm, already seems narrow enough.
So what to do?
And just how important is it anyway to have a 45 deg angle at the catch, and
a 40 deg angle at the finish?
Like Carl, I tend to get uneasy when I hear someone positing "an ideal."
And I like the way the shell is currently rigged. I am used to it. But I
also know that these arguments support my natural inertia. To put it mildly,
I am a bit lazy.
Cordially,
Charles
Carl Douglas
Charles -
I still don't see her allegedly washed-out finish. To me, in those
trial race sequences & despite the foul water, it looks clean. Where am
I missing it?
Nor do I think we can or should criticise the lady's finishes without
knowing the actual load she has on her sculls as she approaches the
finish. Good sculling looks effortless, so the best way to get that
loading is by a strain gauge, which we can't do. As a second best, you
might be able to get some measure of her stroke-force profile by trying
to see from the film how much flex there is on her looms as she moves
from catch to finish. It'd be laborious, but I'm sure it'd be feasible.
Volker Nolte will, I think, like her technique because he will believe
that she invests relatively little of her stroke effort into the
low-efficiency stall phase. I think that makes sense.
Mike Sullivan
> Mike,
>
> Thanks.
>
> Believe it or not, I wasn't completely sure that "there are angles that
> are too extreme to be useful to making the boat go much faster." I needed
> to hear you say it.
>
> Also, do you realize that you have just made "The Argument" for Michelle
> Guerette's finish having cost her gold?
>
> If an "effective finish" and an "overhaul of her power impulse" and some
> "upper body strength work" would have gained her "a tad less than a length
> over 2k," she would have had the gold.
It's not that simple. It's not just a matter of learning how to do it
and doing it, that changed drive impulse has to be incorporated into
her system/muscle physiology with training.
>
> So I am back to the question Kieran raised last August. Why did Charlie
> Butts not coach for a better finish?
Don't know but after all of my RSR criticism, I'll tell you that
I might not have either. Maybe I'd be second guessing myself now
after winning silver instead of gold.
We have had sculling coaches in the US that have had
singular notions about what the ideal stroke should be and
get their scullers to row that way. I can't see a difference in
results, though, from the scullers who were hammers and the
coaches just cheerled, at least in the singles.
>
> If I recall, didn't Ewoud suggest that maybe Charlie Butts looked at the
> stopwatch and realized that he didn't have enough time to prepare Michelle
> properly, so went with what he had - an enormously strong catch with a
> washed out finish.
Ewoud say that too? I thought I did a while back.
>
> What I still don't understand is why Nolte proposes that this "the
> technique for the future." Maybe we can get him to elaborate in another
> piece.
in 1980s, Janet Evans swam distance records that were untouchable
even by the drugged up E. Euros of the day, and have only this last year
been beaten. She had a radical high turnover/shorter arm pull than
the commonly accepted ideal free swim stroke of the day, along with
a windmill recovery. It looked like thrashing. Just by
luck, I had attended the US Swimming coaching college then, a week
long program at the Oly center in Colo. Springs to certify coaches.
I was there to present a report to US Rowing who was beginning
to develop our coaching certification program. I was to see what
should/shouldn't be applied from their program, make recommendations.
I remember a presentation by the coach from a midwest university
analyzing Janet's technique and explaining why it was superior to the
long pulls and slower rates of the day. Debate was fairly lively,
as Janet wasn't quite as dominant just yet, she was the best in the world
but her extreme records were still to come. I was surprised at how
many diverse opinions there were on proper swimming technique, I thought
everybody read Counsilman's outstanding book, Swimming Faster, and
did that.
I heard later that many many coaches got their young swimmers to swim like
Janet to complete disaster.
So MG is effective, and another in the small parade of US silver medals in
single sculling.
Mike Sullivan
"Carl Douglas" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
news:73cg63F...@mid.individual.net...
> Charles Carroll wrote:
>> Mike,
>>
snip
> Charles -
> I still don't see her allegedly washed-out finish. To me, in those trial
> race sequences & despite the foul water, it looks clean. Where am I
> missing it?
It's impossible to see the bladework at that resolution in the
rough water. Where I saw the blade work was in the Oly semi
vids, which are not on youtube. The body here does the same thing
she does in the Olys, and my comments in the trials vid are from watching
only the body.
I go to 1:57, and do a click through pauses. It takes patience.
The legs are down, the body has done all the swing it's going to use,
and there's still a bit more arm finish to do. This part of the finish
is eased, the blades float up so she can do her flat release, and
that lack of push through the finish gives her an unstable platform
at the finish, so there's unnecessary whack and slap on the early
recovery. She has more room for her arm pull to separate and
more body swing to use if she wants, but gives up that part of the
stroke.
This doesn't disagree that she is very efficient on the drive she does
do.
Contrast the body with what this silver medalist from 2000 does:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s8e_eH3iqE&feature=related
Go to 4:03 where there's a shot from the stern, and do the stop
action. You can't see the blades, but you can see pressure and
movement added to the blades all the way to the finish. What I
really like is the leg lock that demonstrates that he's connected from
the handle to the feet all the way to the release.
When the legs are down, the body mass continues a little bit
past vertical to help the arms finish. This is body mass he has moved
down the race course with his leg drive that he utilizes to get a bit
more acceleration out of the last inches of the drive.
And while it's totally unfair because of the differences in glassy water
and the rough water, I've seen this sculler sculling in very rough
conditions, and he doesn't whack and slap his way down the course
he can stay stable and quiet even in rough water.
>
> Nor do I think we can or should criticise the lady's finishes without
> knowing the actual load she has on her sculls as she approaches the
> finish. Good sculling looks effortless, so the best way to get that
From the very first of this and the previous thread about this,
I've been very clear that 'this is not near enough information' and is based
upon the observation of what I do see, and while youtube is almost
worthless as a useful training film, it is worlds better than hearsay.
This is RSR for discussion purposes, and we can certainly see
what we see and remark on it, or at least I can since I don't
have any dogs in the hunt these days.
I guess if it got back to Michelle that Sully thinks her finishes
suck, she'd say: who the f*** is Sully and why should I give
a s***? I'd agree BTW! :^)
And, to be very fair, I have vids out there of me rowing that
AFAIC are totally open season, not going to hurt my feelings,
and a couple ppl have already taken me apart.
If I were CD, though, or if I had a stable of competitors I was
coaching, I might behave very very differently on RSR.
And BTW, thank you for pointing out that you don't see what
I see. It's why I asked Charles not to take my word for what
I see in these vids, but to watch it himself, and decide for himself.
Watching rowing and seeing what's happening is very difficult,
and takes practice.
I've learned even in good films with good slo mo and good
resolution you can have two guys see two different things,
(especially if one of the guys is the one rowing).
wmar...@gmail.com
wrote:
(snip)
> I see in these vids, but to watch it himself, and decide for himself.
> Watching rowing and seeing what's happening is very difficult,
> and takes practice.
>
> I've learned even in good films with good slo mo and good
> resolution you can have two guys see two different things,
> (especially if one of the guys is the one rowing).
Haven't looked at the vids - slow (very slow) connection - it would
take an hour to load a 5 minute Youtube. In an hour I'm picking up
friends for the airport.
When I play a video for people who were rowing, the first question I
usually ask is "What do you see?" - before I go into what I think I
see...
W
sully
Very wise, W. I learned to have scullers watch a number of times at
regular speed, then watch slo mo a couple times before any comment.