Leaning into Riggers
BenKoush
rigger. I don't know why one should do this, but I have been told that it
increases power. Can anyone please explain this to me? Thank you.
Ben Koush
Sullys Maze
I don't know that it increases power, but once a crew learns how to
do this it really increases confidence in finishing well. THAT will
increase power to accelerating the boat through the whole cycle. It
is a confidence drill that a crew can learn in an outing or two to
avoid pulling AWAY from the rigger at the finish as each rower is
trying to guarantee the safety of his own release.
A straight pair is the ideal tool for this, and I think this is one
of the most fun I've ever had teaching when you feel the lunk in the
other seat finally figure this one out.
I've heard some coaches say that following the arc of the oar handle
into the finish adds power, but I don't believe them, though I do
advocate the technique as a wonderful thing to learn.
Mike
John Hill
The first is by ensuring that the outside arm remains at right angles to
the handle of the blade. The upper body (from the hip up) rotates so
that, at the finish, the chest is facing away from the side on which one
rows. This, in effect, causes the rower to lean / turn into the rigger.
The second meaning of this phrase may refer to the style associated with
Harry Mahon, New Zealand, Cambridge University and all points successful.
With this technique, the rower effectively rows at an angle inclined
towards his or her rigger. Although at an angle inclined to the
vertical, the body remains square to the footplate (and therefore the
direction of work - but see above) and able to row as efficiently as a
rower who remains "upright". However, by leaning towards the rigger, the
rower is closer to his / her pin and therefore able to reach further (by
cutting the corner). This allows a crew to row as if it had inches of
extra height per person with all the associated benefits of longer
stroke arcs etc.
I suspect this may the basis of what you have heard.
John Hill
Muldoon Timothy
the catch enables one to get a longer "effective" catch-- too often
rowers tend to overextend the outside shoulder, thereby skying the oar
just before the catch. By leaning into the rigger, keeping the outside
shoulder up (that is, the line of the shoulders should be parallel to the
shaft of the oar), and twisting at the torso into the rigger, one is able
to maintain the quickness at the catch which is vital for proper leg
drive. The lean into the rigger at the finish enables a quicker hands
away, which usually translates into slower slide and more run.
It makes sense that there is a natural lean into the rigger, by virtue of
the fact that one's shoulders should correspond to where one's hands
are-- the outside one is naturally higher than the inside one. Unless
one is tensing up the shoulders (which should happen very little in
rowing), this lean position is the natural one.
Tim
Three Rivers Rowing
RowSquats
as rotating your torso into a position more appropriate for greater
strength and better connection. You wouldn't try to lift a weight equal to
your body weight by twisting your torso away from the weight bar. If you
did, you would definitely hurt yourself.
Also, by falling away from your rigger at the release, you actually
decrease the room available for your ora handle to move down and away from
your body.
RowS...@aol.com
Sullys Maze
the finish, and not the catch and answered it as such.
The reason is that I do NOT advocate leaning into the rigger at the
catch. The additional reach that you need to swing with the arc of
the oar handle in the catch should be achieved by rotating your
torso at the hips as you approach the catch. Obviously(to me
anyway) the act of doing that is going to move the center of your
body weight into the rigger some, but the emphasis should be on
rotation, balance, relaxation, and rolling your seat into the catch,
and there is no additional benefit to concentrating on leaning into
the rigger with your body weight at that point.
If you look at an elite crew at the catch, the bodies are split
definitely out at the catch, and the midline of the torso is pressed
against the inside leg, but it best comes from a trunk rotation and
is a RESULT and side effect rather than the goal, if that makes
sense.
Mike
Derrick G. Pitard
>Mike
Yes; I think this is very clear an correct and I would even add a point or
two from my experience. I was taught to row (at Oxford--sorry!) by leaning
into your rigger/coming around your rigger, and, in me for some time and in
lots of rowers there this resulted in lots of dropped outside shoulders as
people tried to rotate in an arc around the rigger pin. The result too
often is--because of the language used to coach it rahter than the
idea--that people twist their torsos instead fo swinging forward
relaxed. A much better way of explaing the concept is to tell the rower to
aim to swing over so that the middle of the chest is on top of his or her
inside thigh. Its a classic novice problem which is incredibly easy to
overcome if the image is conveyed correctly, and since I have learned to
coach it this way I see the problem much more rarely.
my 0.02 pence.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Derrick G. Pitard dg...@troi.cc.rochester.edu
Pain is inevitable. The question, therefore, becomes not how
to avoid it, but how to respond to it.
hilsy
> Obviously(to me
> anyway) the act of doing that is going to move the center of your
> body weight into the rigger some, but the emphasis should be on
> rotation, balance, relaxation, and rolling your seat into the catch,
> and there is no additional benefit to concentrating on leaning into
> the rigger with your body weight at that point.
>
> If you look at an elite crew at the catch, the bodies are split
> definitely out at the catch, and the midline of the torso is pressed
> against the inside leg, but it best comes from a trunk rotation and
> is a RESULT and side effect rather than the goal, if that makes
> sense.
>
> Mike
I agree Mike. When comes to reach at the catch I try to get the
rowers to think about reaching up and towrds the pin. This
emphasizes keeping the body up and not letting the outside
shoulder drop while still getting that extra length. I usually
only work on the more experienced (i.e. one season or so) rowers.
On top of leaning into the rigger at the finish, I also try to
get them to keep lateral pressure against the oarlock to insure
better control.
Jim Hilsenteger
Oregon Rowing Unlimited/Oaks Park
"life is too long for bad coffee"
Beth Mazur
dg...@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Derrick G. Pitard) wrote:
> ... A much better way of explaing the concept is to tell the rower to
> aim to swing over so that the middle of the chest is on top of his or her
> inside thigh. Its a classic novice problem which is incredibly easy to
> overcome if the image is conveyed correctly, and since I have learned to
> coach it this way I see the problem much more rarely.
My version of this is chin over the inside knee. I figure if it works for
Marnie McBean and Kathleen Heddle (i.e., the Hudson Boat Works ad in
American Rowing), that's good enough for me.
Beth Mazur "Bill Buxton always asks why the urinals at O'Hare
MAYA Design airport are more interactive than the Macintosh."
Pittsburgh, PA -- Joy Mountford,
http://www.maya.com/Local/mazur/ Interactivity, May/June '95
Charles Ehrlich
Derrick G. Pitard <dg...@troi.cc.rochester.edu> wrote:
>
>Yes; I think this is very clear an correct and I would even add a point or
>two from my experience. I was taught to row (at Oxford--sorry!) by leaning
>into your rigger/coming around your rigger, and, in me for some time and in
>lots of rowers there this resulted in lots of dropped outside shoulders as
>people tried to rotate in an arc around the rigger pin. The result too
>often is--because of the language used to coach it rahter than the
>idea--that people twist their torsos instead fo swinging forward
>aim to swing over so that the middle of the chest is on top of his or her
>inside thigh. Its a classic novice problem which is incredibly easy to
>overcome if the image is conveyed correctly, and since I have learned to
>coach it this way I see the problem much more rarely.
I tried a bit of an experiment this year with my heavyweight women which
many people in Oxford found a bit bizarre. (I model my technique after a
cross between the Notts County and Harvard techniques, something that makes
quite a contrast with most other crews in Oxford and Britain in general.) This
year, I chose to take the upright and catch-oriented style to an extreme.
Besides having my rowers set their footstretchers off the frontstops (something
I always do anyway), I moved the tracks forward substancially. This meant
that the rowers got to their pins after minimal forward body lean (essentially,
when the wrists passed the knees they had already reached the pin and they
were not to get any more body rock). Any reach beyond the pin actually
shortens the stroke by limiting range of motion relative to the pin and
forcing the outboard shoulder down. By setting the rowers in the boat
so far forward relative to the pin, this forces the crew to sit upright and
twist their upper bodies around the pin.
I moved their tracks forward a lot mid-way through the racing season, and it
produced a noticeable increase in their length in the water and with that
added boatspeed.
I did a series of drills with them where I actually got them to face the bank
with their torsos as they came forward to the catch. While they do not get
quite that much twist normally, it got them to lengthen their strokes not by
over-reaching but by sitting up and twisting. Then, since the emphasis of the
stroke I teach is sharply on the catch, the legs went down hard while the body
merely twisted around with the oar handle. This relieved a lot of the
pressure on their lower backs, as well.
One thing that works with this technique is to focus on what the _inboard_
shoulder is doing. On the recovery, when the body is coming forward on the
slide, the rower has already passed the pin. The inboard shoulder should be
twisting backwards towards bow. Doing wide-grip drills emphasises this. At
the catch, the inboard elbow may even be bent slightly as the normal grip is
even slightly wider than what most people prefer. Then, during the drive, the
inboard shoulder pushes forward while the outboard arm and lat draw around.
Thus, there will naturally be a good deal of "leaning into the rigger" at the
catch. Ideally, the butt will stay firmly centered on the seat, the torso will
be twisted right around, and the head will be facing forward. Because of the
torso twist, the head will be off-center. If the inboard shoulder is
relatively down and behind, the body will be "leaning in." In fact, the body
is rather upright, as the body has not gone for any extra body-reach after the
very beginning of the recovery.
This sort of thing would not apply, I don't think, to the standard style
preferred in Oxford and most of Britain. So many people set off backstops and
have the tracks in the normal places. These techniques call for lots of
forward body lean because the rower is set further back relative to the pin.
Therefore, there will be less twist around the frontside of the pin.
Charles Ehrlich
Wolfson College (Oxford)
John Hill
<snip)
.. tell the rower to aim to swing over so that the middle of the chest
is on top of his or her inside thigh ...
<snip>
.. the upright and catch-oriented style ...
<snip>
.. my rowers set their footstretchers off the frontstops ...
<snip>
.. I moved the tracks forward substantially ...
<snip>
.. rowers got to their pins after minimal forward body lean
<snip>
.. when the wrists passed the knees ... they were not to get any more
body rock
<snip>
.. this forces the crew to sit upright and twist their upper bodies
<snip>
.. face the bank with their torsos as they came forward
<snip>
.. by sitting up and twisting ...
<snip>
.. the legs went down hard while the body ... twisted around
<snip>
.. The inboard shoulder should be twisting backwards towards bow
<snip>
.. the inboard shoulder pushes forward while the outboard arm and lat
draw around
<snip>
.. the butt will stay firmly centered on the seat, the torso will
be twisted right around, and the head will be facing forward
.. the head will be off-center
<snip>
.. the body will be "leaning in."
<snip>
.. the body is rather upright, as the body has not gone for any extra
***
I'm sorry, Charles. Would you run that one past me again a little more
slowly?
John.
PS:
CE also wrote:
>This sort of thing would not apply, I don't think, to the standard style
>preferred in Oxford and most of Britain.
I am impressed that you recognise the slightest signs of standardisation
in Oxford or Britain. I concede that a target style is beginning to
emerge with some degree of consistency and this style does not borrow
much from your particular interpretations of rowing technique.
If you have good reason to experiment with college crews, I would be
interested to know the pros and cons of your proposals when compared with
the more regular technical style to which we might otherwise refer.
Although your article states differences, it says little about benefits.
I look forward to your next submission with due anticipation.
JH
Sullys Maze
ehr...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Charles Ehrlich) writes:
>
deleted.
>
>I moved their tracks forward a lot mid-way through the racing season, and it
>produced a noticeable increase in their length in the water and with that
>added boatspeed.
how much was a lot? Were your rowers rolling up to the front stops
and how many cm through the pin did you set the front stops? A very
upright style using more leg compression and less forward reach
requires you to rig through the pin more, with heavy men as much as
10 cm. Am I understanding you correctly?
Are you really achieving more length, or are you catching more
parallel ie: less perpendicular? to the boat? If you rig through
the pin more, you move the arc of the stroke to bow, but adding
length means actually increasing the length of the arc. The
effective length of arc is truly the tall person's advantage in this
sport, anything a rower learns to increase the length of the arc
is going to achieve speed gains.
>
>I did a series of drills with them where I actually got them to face the bank
>with their torsos as they came forward to the catch. While they do not get
>quite that much twist normally, it got them to lengthen their strokes not by
>over-reaching but by sitting up and twisting. Then, since the emphasis of the
>stroke I teach is sharply on the catch, the legs went down hard while the body
>merely twisted around with the oar handle. This relieved a lot of the
>pressure on their lower backs, as well.
This makes sense to me, and it's one of those very difficult things
to teach - getting a rower to be longer in the water by reaching
less.
more leg compression, less reach forward.
One of the really neat things you can do with a young crew is to
take videos and do stop action when the blade is anchored and draw
the angles of the legs on a white sheet of paper to show the rower
how little of their legs they are using. This is a common thing
among many collegiate crews.
>
>This sort of thing would not apply, I don't think, to the standard style
>preferred in Oxford and most of Britain. So many people set off backstops and
>have the tracks in the normal places. These techniques call for lots of
>forward body lean because the rower is set further back relative to the pin.
>Therefore, there will be less twist around the frontside of the pin.
I want to verify that the rowers we are talking about are actually
getting to the front stops no matter where they are set. My
experience is that a great many don't get there anyway and caution
coaches not to replace teaching rowers to compress into the catch
with rigging changes.
Useful stuff, Charles.
Mike
Stuart Fogg
Charles Ehrlich <ehr...@sable.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
# snip #
>By setting the rowers in the boat so far forward relative to the pin, this
>forces the crew to sit upright and twist their upper bodies around the pin.
# snip #
I assume forward means toward the stern.
I like this idea. I find the resulting extreme angle of the oar relative
to the hull at the catch much easier to deal with than the extreme angle at
the finish which results from setting the rowers farther back.
Sitting upright also does make it easier for the rowers to twist and to keep
their outside shoulders up. However, the length lost by sitting upright must
be made up by rolling farther up the slide. I have found that to be very hard
on my knees. I hope you don't ask your crews to run stairs between rows!
--
Stuart Fogg
Diablo Valley College
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
sf...@dvc.edu
M. Fountain
> length means actually increasing the length of the arc. The
> effective length of arc is truly the tall person's advantage in this
> sport
Is this really the case? The "effective" length of the is a function of
at least three things.
1. The portion of the arc that actually contributes to the
boward motion of the boat.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(A long tight arc will "pinch" the boat)
2. The portion of the arc during which the rower can actually apply a
significant force.
^^^^^
(A very shallow subtended arc results in a poor lockup and no force
generated, no matter how long it is.)
3. The length is very easily manipulated by rigging .
> anything a rower learns to increase the length of the arc
> is going to achieve speed gains.
Except ducking their head and shooting their butt, as many are wont to do.
The objective of putting the oar in the water is to apply maximum FORCE.
A short hard pull, although technically difficult is physically
equivalent to a long weak one. However one must be cognizant of the
factors involved, and rig to them. It is not a simple issue.
\|/
/|\MAJIK
Sullys Maze
test applications up this week, and the T911 display in TROUBLE is
ready now to use - though I'm certain to install many changes.
Any time but the noon hour is great.
Mike
Sullys Maze
Speaking of rowing geeks.... I wonder what my boss is reading
right now, and I wonder if I should try and find out.... oops :^)
Mike
Paul Thomas
Charles E. Ehrlich <ehr...@sable.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
[the CE method snipped]
>I would say there are lots of benefits from this technique, especially
>when it is adapted to the needs of the particular crew. Most of the fine
>points of what I'm saying, though, would not apply to your crews, for
>example, as you emphasize different aspects. All I would have to say to
>that is: make sure everyone in your crews rows the same way! Exactly
>what way that is is up to you.
It might be an idea for Oxford college coaches to study the style and
technique used by the Blue Boats, rather than something different, so
that college athletes can progress to the university squads without
serious retraining. Maybe then the squad coaches can devote more time
to making the Blues go faster, instead of spending the winter just
trying to get the rowers to fit together?
Many of the Blues in Oxford learnt to row with their colleges,
and their coaches should remember that when considering what type of
style to teach.
I'm definitely not getting at Charles, I just point out the extra
responsibility college coaches have these days.
Paul.
-
paul....@eng.ox.ac.uk
Amy Abbot
>As I tell anyone I coach, though, there are many theories of rowing, and
>many of them have proven successful. The important thing about technique
>is that everyone in a crew row the same technique.
I can't agree more. I have rowed for many clubs over my years of rowing
and every club/coach has had a slightly different style and emphasis on
the stroke. What is striking is that a good crew can win using any of a
multitude of techniques IF they all do it the SAME! Similarly, a good
crew will founder in the wakes if the individuals in the boat don't match.
>With the upright technique, there is less tension on the lower back. The
>body sits up over the legs, and the legs take the catch entirely.
It seems that many US crews are also migrating towards a very upright
technique. For many years it seemed coaches were pushing for a lot of
body angle and forward reach at the catch, with large extension of the
outside shoulder to extend the reach without diving.
The philosophy of Upright technique is that since the back is weaker than
the legs, if your body is extended well forward it will be difficult for
the back to support the drive of the legs, resulting in shooting of the
slide at the catch, especially as the oarsperson gets tired. Also, when
the back does engage it is in a fairly weak position and has a lot of
work to do, thus again reducing the effectiveness of the drive and
leaving the oarsperson susceptible to injury. With a more upright
position, it is easier for all the oarspersons to match their body
positions at the catch, without diving or adding extra motion. Also the
back is in a much stronger position to take up the load, thus supporting
the leg drive and having the strength and momentum to swing into the bow.
>I moved the tracks forward after the second weekend of the racing
At least in the US, it seems setting the through the pin distance has
become almost anomolous. With the introduction of extra long tracks, I
find that it is impossible for me to set by either set of stops. Rather,
I set by my oar angle at my catch and finish positions, adjusting such
that the arc of my pull through is the way that I prefer (I'm being vague
only in that I do not feel like addressing whether to have a longer,
pinched arc, catch vs. finish, etc... Again so long as all the members
of the boat match....)
Another post brought up the idea of uniformity (national?) in training
style in order to reduce the difficulty and time of integrating new
oarspersons into a crew. There is some merit to this idea, yet I believe
every coach will still put varying emphasis on different parts of the
stroke and will train their rowers a bit differently. One can learn
something from every coach. A good oarsperson is flexible enough to
learn the style of the coach or crew for whom he/she is rowing at a
particular time.
I have often been in the position of being asked to row for a team other
than my own for a particular race. Often the two different coaches have
very different ideas of a "perfect" stroke. I can usually work out the
nuances within one or two practices, especially if I row with that group
exclusively. I would assume that oarspersons of national caliber could
adjust with even greater ease.
Just my $0.02
Amy Abbot
Any seat, any side....
Stuart Fogg
M. Fountain <maj...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
# snip #
>(A very shallow subtended arc results in a poor lockup and no force
>generated, no matter how long it is.)
# snip #
I wonder if this poor lockup is real or a misleading sensation. If the
catch angle is large (oars nearly parallel to the hull) the initial drive
will move the blades in a direction nearly perpendicular to the hull. Of
course the water isn't moving that way, so the blades will appear to lock
up as well as when starting from rest. Since the oars are only pinching
the boat in that position nothing is gained.
If the catch angle is small (oars nearly perpendicular to the hull) the
initial drive will move the blades nearly parallel to the hull. In that
direction the water is moving by at considerable speed relative to the
blades. Though it will take a little time to generate any force, that
force will be in a direction which will move the boat.
I'd love to try rowing with REALLY long oars to experiment with a shallow
subtended arc. The only "easy" way I can think of to do this would be to
row a single with a pair of sweeps. Unfortunately I lack the skill to make
or the funds to purchase a suitable set of riggers.
Charles E. Ehrlich
On 1 Aug 1995, John Hill wrote:
> I'm sorry, Charles. Would you run that one past me again a little more
> slowly?
>
> I am impressed that you recognise the slightest signs of standardisation
> in Oxford or Britain. I concede that a target style is beginning to
> emerge with some degree of consistency and this style does not borrow
> much from your particular interpretations of rowing technique.
>
> If you have good reason to experiment with college crews, I would be
> interested to know the pros and cons of your proposals when compared with
> the more regular technical style to which we might otherwise refer.
> Although your article states differences, it says little about benefits.
>
> I look forward to your next submission with due anticipation.
>
> JH
Well, explaining the finer complexities of a rowing stroke on the 'net is
not easy. I could deal with some visual aid. I'd be happy to explain the
technique I coach in person - you know where to find me! This applies to
anyone else who is curious and is passing this way. Of course, you could
just skip me and go directly to the people who coach styles I've adapted
mine from...
I have noticed that there is no absolute "standard" British technique.
However, there are some peculiarities I noticed very quickly when I
arrived in this country and observed other crews (the first boat club I was
associated with in the UK - NCRA - did _not_ row like typically British
crews). Some basic points I noticed a lot of crews doing to some degree:
1 - setting off backstops, which produces two corrolaries:
a - emphasizing the finish
b - putting the rower further behind the pin
2 - lots of forward body rock (result of 1b, actually)
3 - weak catches (result of 1a, partially)
4 - saving the legs to finish together with the arms (helps with 1a)
5 - lifting early with the back (see 1a and 3)
6 - breaking the arms early (more in line with 4)
7 - holding the legs flat longer on the recovery
I found this about as odd as you find what I teach. (Especially odd when
taken to the extreme of what I call the "toe-touching" technique some
crews employ. Check out Somerville College coached by Phil Halliday, for
example.)
As I tell anyone I coach, though, there are many theories of rowing, and
many of them have proven successful. The important thing about technique
is that everyone in a crew row the same technique. So, for example, it
is often fun to watch composite crews in their first outings together and
guess who rowed for which college merely by watching their differing
techniques. That said, my technique varies considerably from the Oxford
norm - I would say that even without standardization, most Oxford (and
British) crews row with variations on the same basic technique.
As for the advantages of my style- well, it's the one I think works best,
and the experiments I did with it this year were tailored to the specific
crew I was referring to. The first eight was a crew of very
inexperienced (i.e. almost all novice) women who averaged 11 stones 4
pounds (= 158 lbs = 72 kgs). That's a lot of weight to have crashing
around, and early-on they had a serious rush going. By rowing upright,
their bodies did not flop around as much. Also, they could get onto
their slides sooner, thus giving them more time to slide and meaning they
could do recoveries of the same speed with a slower slide. By the middle
of the racing season, they were doing a base rating of 38-39 without
rushing. Then there was the matter of hatchet blades. They used macons
until one week before their first race. When they switched, I expected
they would have back problems as so many other people do. With the
upright technique, there is less tension on the lower back. The body
sits up over the legs, and the legs take the catch entirely. For novices
who sometimes missed their catches, they couldn't afford to let too much
weight fall onto their backs mid-stroke either, so I wanted to reduce
body-swing even more. They did have back trouble which forced me to cut
back a little on their training, but it could have been worse had they
been using their backs even more. Of course, nothing substitutes a sharp
catch, but I would argue against taking any of that catch in the back as
many crews over here do.
I moved the tracks forward after the second weekend of the racing
season, and they went from fast to faster. They were very strong, and
this enabled them to keep their bodies taller and kick their legs even
harder. Then, since they were a heavy crew, they could use their body
weight effectively laying back on the oar - throwing that weight forward
on the recovery would have only made them crash around and rush, but
laying it back on the drive let them utilize it in a good way.
A recap: Legs go down with outboard lat connected and drawing around, body
surges open, arms draw out and hands spin - arms lead body and slide
away, swinging body to knees, sitting it up to ankles, and twisting it
'round to catch. Simple!
I would say there are lots of benefits from this technique, especially
when it is adapted to the needs of the particular crew. Most of the fine
points of what I'm saying, though, would not apply to your crews, for
example, as you emphasize different aspects. All I would have to say to
that is: make sure everyone in your crews rows the same way! Exactly
what way that is is up to you.
Charles Ehrlich
>
>It might be an idea for Oxford college coaches to study the style and
>technique used by the Blue Boats, rather than something different, so
>that college athletes can progress to the university squads without
>serious retraining. Maybe then the squad coaches can devote more time
>to making the Blues go faster, instead of spending the winter just
>trying to get the rowers to fit together?
Funny you should mention this. One of my favorite rowing films that I like
to show my rowers at some point is of the 1993 men's heavyweight boat race.
That year, a heavily favored Oxford crew with a Leander-based coaching
staff went up against a strong but less-known Cambridge crew with a Notts
County-based coaching staff. While almost all of the pundits were wrong on
this prediction, I did not find the result at all surprising: a convincing
win for underdog Cambridge. The contrast in styles between the two crews was
notable. Anyway, it's worth watching and learning from.
The other boat race that I found useful was this year's women's heavyweights
(blue boats and second boats). I went down to Henley to cheer for Oxford,
and I biked alongside the races. I was extremely impressed by Cambridge
(no, Alistair didn't pay me to say that). Again, there was a notable
difference in the techniques employed, and I picked up a few ideas from
watching Cambridge. I taped the race when it was shown on television and
compared tapes of this year's Cambridge women with the 1993 Cambridge women
(a truly spectacular crew with a very high average weight - much heavier even
than my first eight this year) and noted that the CUWBC technique has changed
greatly - I don't know if they've had a coaching change. Anyway, these were
fast women's crews doing different things, and worth studying.
Maybe the problem is that I'm coaching in the wrong town. ;^)
As to your point about retraining... I'm not sure I agree. A few of the
Wolfson women decided to trial for squad after Henley but before Nationals.
In doing so, they had to relearn all of their technique in a very short time.
They did. No prob.
Second, all of these women were first coached by our women's novice coach
James Hopkins. James coaches a more "orthodox" Oxford technique. After
learning to row with him, they were passed on to me in January (as our
novices became our top squad), and I had no trouble teaching them my way.
James is continuing to coach novice crews and doing a great job getting them
into the sport and giving me the material to work with. It doesn't matter to
me that he coaches them differently. We're now busy training up the next lot
(I was out tonight with a 4+ composed of second eight rowers preparing for
Oxford City Regatta).
Third, look at the Cambridge men's heavyweight blue boat of 1994. I was out
of the country for several months and never saw it race or even row - I have
not even gotten a hold of the films. However, consensus seems to peg it as
the best Cambridge Blue Boat ever. The articles I have seen written about it
talk about its clear technique. Now, almost all of those rowers had learned
to row elsewhere, and had learned diverse techniques. Some of them, like the
German stern pair, had only arrived in Cambridge that year. With a great
coaching staff of Sean Bowden and John Wilson, along with finishing coach
Harry Mahon, they had no problems picking up the Notts County technique in
under a year. Oxford could do the same under Dan Topolski and Penny Chuter,
not to mention the coaches of the other squads.
I have already noted the drastic change in technique by the Cambridge women's
heavies between 1993 and 1995. So, where's the problem here?
>Many of the Blues in Oxford learnt to row with their colleges,
>and their coaches should remember that when considering what type of
>style to teach.
I disagree. I want to make my lot go fast. If I get it wrong, that's my
fault. While I keep an open mind to other techniques - indeed, I watch
lots of crews rowing in order to broaden my perspective - I don't want to
be dictated to by the coach of a program entirely unrelated to mine. My
angle on this has merely been to try to explain the "Oxford style," if you
will, to my rowers so that they understand the differences between their tech
and (in this case) Kevin McWilliams' tech.
Now that Sean Bowden is the British heavyweight coach, does that mean that
Dan Topolski should adopt Sean's techniques on the chance that some Oxford
Blues might go on to row for Britain (assuming Oxford were to have any
British blues ;^)? Topolski's technique has little to do with the NCRA one
that Sean will now likely adapt to the British heavies. And Topolski is
entitled to coach his crew however he thinks will work best.
>I'm definitely not getting at Charles, I just point out the extra
>responsibility college coaches have these days.
What "extra responsibility?" Isn't the idea of being a coach to coach
as best we can, do make the best of the resources - human and financial - to
produce the fastest crews we know how? Has that changed?
Charles Ehrlich
that "leaning into the rigger" (if it is indeed that) is more of a by-product
of doing other things rather than an end in and of itself. I would agree.
This thread is now well off-subject.
CEE
Paul Thomas
John Hill <jjs...@brookes.ac.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>Penny (Chuter - Chief Coach OUBC and ex-Principal National Coach GB
>squad) has done much with her series of lectures to publish the hymn
>sheet from which we should all sing.
I agree with this, but I still say the message isn't getting through.
>the newer and more impressionable areas of their squads. In the
>meantime, we should all look to OUBC for the leadership commensurate with
>their responsibility for representing and encouraging rowing excellence
>within the entire University system, as I feel they are now doing.
Taking an example from the Women's summer eights, I saw Wolfson, Summerville
and St Hildas all doing something different. So what if Penny and
the OUBC are outlining a style, when college coaches are doing their
own thing?
Paul.
-
paul....@eng.ox.ac.uk
Paul Thomas
Charles Ehrlich <ehr...@sable.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <3vq2a8$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>, Paul Thomas <tpf...@dutch.eng> wrote:
>>
>>It might be an idea for Oxford college coaches to study the style and
>>technique used by the Blue Boats, rather than something different, so
>>that college athletes can progress to the university squads without
>>serious retraining. Maybe then the squad coaches can devote more time
>>to making the Blues go faster, instead of spending the winter just
>>trying to get the rowers to fit together?
>
>I have already noted the drastic change in technique by the Cambridge women's
>heavies between 1993 and 1995. So, where's the problem here?
My point is that changing technique is fraught with problems, and should
be avoided where possible. Do you notice that all these technique changes
have occurred with the introduction of the big blades? That is a once-in-
a-decade event, not something you should have to worry about every year.
Despite the speed with which crews can be coached to a different style,
it still wastes training time.
>>Many of the Blues in Oxford learnt to row with their colleges,
>>and their coaches should remember that when considering what type of
>>style to teach.
>
>I disagree. I want to make my lot go fast. If I get it wrong, that's my
>fault. While I keep an open mind to other techniques - indeed, I watch
>lots of crews rowing in order to broaden my perspective - I don't want to
>be dictated to by the coach of a program entirely unrelated to mine.
But you have said that the thing common to all fast crews is that, despite
how they elect to row, all the athletes are doing the same thing. It's
up to the coach to choose, you said. So why not fit in with the local
style and make it easier for your rowers to progress to the squads?
Whatever you say, given two otherwise equal rowers, one rowing the OUWBC
style and one rowing the Wolfson style, the conformist will get in the
boat because there is no need to retrain.
>>I'm definitely not getting at Charles, I just point out the extra
>>responsibility college coaches have these days.
>
>What "extra responsibility?" Isn't the idea of being a coach to coach
>as best we can, do make the best of the resources - human and financial - to
>produce the fastest crews we know how? Has that changed?
I was referring to the fact that OUWBC once was able to rely on
international rowers more than college oarswomen, but that was before
our time. I might add that the standard of Varsity rowing is going up,
but there are still only two or three years to train rowers to that
level.
Paul.
-
paul....@eng.ox.ac.uk
A.J. Potts
in my tuppence-worth.
I'm sure you're absolutely right in observing differences between the
1993 crew and the 1995 crew. I can't comment: I wasn't around then. But,
it is worth pointing out that there have been no changes in coaching
staff between that time, and no change of emphasis on 'how to row'. The
difference in techinique that you observe must, therefore, be owing to
something more subtle than a deliberate attempt to change the intricacies
of the stroke pattern.
I would suggest the reason is this: the level of coaching for CUWBC is far
less than one might expect. There is no full-time coaching position, and
we must have got through half-a-dozen coaches in the run up to the race.
All Blue Boats are finished by Ron Needs, but his input by then has
naturally to be far more 'fine tuning' than anything else. Apart from the
fundamentals, our crew was very much left to 'get on with it' as far as
just how the stroke should be. I imagine this was the same in 93, and that
very big crew ended up rowing very differently to our crew (we had very
tall girls and very short ones, and quite light too). Both crews won, and
probably naturally evolved into the sort of rowing that best suited them.
It's a very risky policy, because you could quite conceivably totally lose
your way. But it is necessitated by lack of money. There is, perhaps, a
further point. Martin Haycock did a lot of coxing in the first term, and
when I took over at Christmas I too was essentially a CUBC cox. To some
extent, greater or lesser, the NCRA form must have slipped through, if not
wholly then to a greater extent than previous years. I think the crucial
point is we _thought_ a lot about what we were doing. It wasn't so much a
case of rowing like "this", but more of all doing it together.
Anyway, the point is this. I think ultra-prescriptive rowing technique is
the wrong path. Every crew rows differently, and though it is good to
mould them within the broader picture of a certain type of style, it is
to be expected that some things work for some and others for others. The
trouble is, there's often no very good reason why. Sometimes you just
have to say "well, it works", shrug your shoulders and be happy that
you're going fast.
After all, as the Jesus lot will tell you, "Pretty is as pretty does."
Alistair James Potts.
[redundant coxswain]
William Wadsworth
>Paul,
>Your comment about consistency in approach beween college and
>University crew rowing styles
lots of reasonable stuff
>Those few colleges that have consistent coaches have made progress
>towards maintaining consistency with the style now publicly promoted by
>the OUBC. It is, as you highlight, for those colleges to continue and
>the others to start introducing better designed programs run by better
>taught (qualified?) coaches and instructors to cascade these skills to
>the newer and more impressionable areas of their squads.
We at present have a BIG problem here. OUBC consistently refuse all
requests for help from Colleges. They do not see the college base as
relevent to their squad (!). That leaves colleges basically on their
own, and with virtually no money et their disposal qualified coaches are
out of the question (even if there were any not already tied up, have you
looked at how short the list of ARA qualified coaches is?). Basically,
friendly ex-OUBC or OULRC oarsmen and old College members are all that is
available. Some are very good, but there can be little consistency from
year to year or college to college.
> In the
>meantime, we should all look to OUBC for the leadership commensurate with
>their responsibility for representing and encouraging rowing excellence
>within the entire University system, as I feel they are now doing.
>John Hill
>
Well, Here's Hoping ;-)
William.W.
ECBC
Nick Buffinger
[snip]
>I'd love to try rowing with REALLY long oars to experiment with a shallow
>subtended arc. The only "easy" way I can think of to do this would be to
>row a single with a pair of sweeps. Unfortunately I lack the skill to make
>or the funds to purchase a suitable set of riggers.
>
>--
>Stuart Fogg
>Diablo Valley College
>Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
>sf...@dvc.edu
There's a guy in my club that tried a set-up in his single using REALLY long oars (with
an extended spread in the boat as well). He's pretty tall with long legs, and he
wanted to take advantage of his extra leverage. Apparently the rig worked great in
short workout pieces, so he took it racing. He was off like a rocket in the first 500,
then came the lactic acid....
Nick
Stanford RC
Sullys Maze
ehr...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Charles Ehrlich) writes:
>In article <3vq2a8$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>, Paul Thomas <tpf...@dutch.eng> wrote:
>>
>
>>I'm definitely not getting at Charles, I just point out the extra
>>responsibility college coaches have these days.
>
>What "extra responsibility?" Isn't the idea of being a coach to coach
>as best we can, do make the best of the resources - human and financial - to
>produce the fastest crews we know how? Has that changed?
>
I agree wholeheartedly with Charles. A coach has to teach what
he/she knows. The best coaches are always lifelong students of the
sport, but can't simply be parrotting whatever the latest trends
in style. One also can't steadfastly attach himself to his favorite
dogma simply because "that's how we did it in the old days" either.
Mike
Sullys Maze
ehr...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Charles Ehrlich) writes:
>
deleted
>To tie into the thread on flip-catches: is the Cal-Irvine coach doing his
>rowers a disservice by coaching them to row with 1950s-style flip-catches,
>knowing that should any of them want to progress onto the US National Team
>Mike Spracklen certainly does not use flip catches? By your argument, it is
>people like him who are slowing the US down. Sure, his rowers will have to
>relearn a lot if they want to progress on the US team - but they can, and
>Spracklen is a good enough coach to teach them.
>
somewhat related to this, I believe the most important part of
learning to row is not the particular style or technique, but the
relationship of the technique to making the boat go. The
predominant way I've seen US college rowers row is pretty similar
(in style, maybe not execution) but there are huge discrepancies in
the understandings of how they use their bodies effectively. Often
a rower will perform an action 'to shut the coach up' as opposed to
relate it to moving the boat.
This sort of argument has been used, by the way, and often. I have
heard from college guys who felt they were cut from the camp because
they rowed a different style. I'm not saying it is valid, but yes,
it has been used.
A great many rowers understanding of technique is limited to:
pull hard, don't hang at the catch, don't rush.
If you got great athletes, sometimes this is enough. :^)
Mike
Charles Ehrlich
>In article <3vs336$o...@news.ox.ac.uk>,
>Charles Ehrlich <ehr...@sable.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>heavies between 1993 and 1995. So, where's the problem here?
>
>be avoided where possible. Do you notice that all these technique changes
>have occurred with the introduction of the big blades?
The 1993 Cambridge women used hatchets. In fact, the only University crews
not to use hatchets that year were the Oxford women's lightweights (who got
time-zoned by a stellar Cambridge crew) and the men's heavyweight Blue Boat,
which resisted the new technology. In both cases, though, I don't think it
was the blades that made the difference. The winning crew was far superior -
in the case of the men's heavies, due to more sensible training (I can't
comment on the women's lights, but losing to that Cambridge crew was no
disgrace).
>So why not fit in with the local style and make it easier for your rowers to
>progress to the squads? Whatever you say, given two otherwise equal rowers,
>one rowing the OUWBC style and one rowing the Wolfson style, the conformist
>will get in the boat because there is no need to retrain.
But there is a whole year to do so. No matter what the technique, rowing is
rowing. The more you do, the better you (should) get. Retraining is time-
consuming, but a coach needs to work out the basic technique anyway. I don't
think it interferes with progress in the long run.
I agree that if the Blue Boats were to be formed on one week's notice that
those who rowed the style would get in, but not if they have a year to learn.
That is part of the reasoning behind development squads (both university
d-squads and national d-squads) - to expose interested candidates to the
methods and styles of the higher-level program. Then, when it's time to start
training together, everyone comes in with an idea.
To tie into the thread on flip-catches: is the Cal-Irvine coach doing his
rowers a disservice by coaching them to row with 1950s-style flip-catches,
knowing that should any of them want to progress onto the US National Team
Mike Spracklen certainly does not use flip catches? By your argument, it is
people like him who are slowing the US down. Sure, his rowers will have to
relearn a lot if they want to progress on the US team - but they can, and
Spracklen is a good enough coach to teach them.
Most coaches around here learned to row around here, so it's not surprising
they do things similarly. I didn't learn my rowing in Oxford. It is only
natural that a serious crew I coach will not row the local style. I might add,
that for the less serious crews I have coached and for the OUWBC development
boat I coached in 1994 I have used a different style so as to fit in with the
needs of the particular crew. But if left to coach serious crews which have
as an aim to do well themselves, I use the style I see as best for them. And
that style has been very little influenced by Oxford (although I have noted
other crews' techniques with great interest).
I am an eyeball person. I don't believe in fancy gizmos. I let my eyes read
boat-moving, and I make adjustments in technique, rig, gearing, training,
whatever, accordingly. I think Alistair has the right idea when he talks of
feeling right, adapting to the crew, finding something that works. The only
problem here is that we are all coming at it from different angles. There is
no point having a war over "whose technique is better." You and I have both
noted Somerville's "toe-touching" technique. In past years, that has proved
very successful for them. Good for Phil Halliday - I watched his crews with
interest, but did not choose to adopt anything he was doing with them.
However, I did learn something and get new insights by watching his crews.
>I might add that the standard of Varsity rowing is going up, but there are
>still only two or three years to train rowers to that level.
UL used to have a Freshman crew (not quite as developed as a US Freshman
crew, and without any other Freshman crews to compete against). Is this
still true? Did it work (given that this is not the US)? Penny Chuter
has the right idea about the Cherwell development boat - although with
all the work they put in they still failed even to qualify for Henley this
year - a weak year, probably. But development crews are a good idea, even if
they only practice once a week during the year. Kevin McWilliams wanted badly
to do the same thing with OUWBC this year but was prevented (I don't know why).
flem...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
> CUWBC coaching stuff schnipped
> Anyway, the point is this. I think ultra-prescriptive rowing technique is
> the wrong path. Every crew rows differently, and though it is good to
> mould them within the broader picture of a certain type of style, it is
> to be expected that some things work for some and others for others. The
> trouble is, there's often no very good reason why. Sometimes you just
> have to say "well, it works", shrug your shoulders and be happy that
> you're going fast.
I like this. I think there's been some confusion on this thread between the way
a crew is coached and the way it rows (or 'looks'). A description of a
technique is not a film of a stroke being rowed, precisely specifying the joint
angles and attitudes frame by frame. If it were, you could only coach identical
clones. That would be an 'ultra prescriptive' method, if used in coaching. But
real coaching is much less literal, more figurative than that. You use
examples, pictures, analogies, exercises etc. to get people to aim at things,
to concentrate on various bits of their rowing action which you feel can be
improved, or used to improve the crew's rowing. And equally important, you
listen to the crewmembers and their worries and reports, and feed that back in
to your approach. It hardly needs saying that the (best) result will not be the
same with each crew.
Style is in the head, not the legs. What makes it difficult to fit a new rower
into a coherent crew is not the shear number of strokes s/he's rowed in a
different way, but all the ideas, pictures, emphases s/he brings along. Sure,
in the very short run, people tend to keep moving the way they used to. But if
they're actually conscious in the boat, they'll be taking in loads of cues from
what's going on around them to guide their movements.
Crew coaching is a partnership trying to solve a problem: how to make the boat
go fast. Each partner has different resources they can bring to bear on the
problem: the crew can feel how the work goes, the cox how the boat feels, the
coach how it looks from the side; they all have heads (yes, not just the coach)
full of ideas about what is to be done. By pooling and coordinating all these
resources they achieve more than a crew on its own.
So what should a college coach, ambitious for his/her rowers and their chances
in uni squads, do? Not slavishly repeat Uni rowing formulas, exercises, and so
on, which may well not be appropriate for every Uni crew, let alone a college
crew of (comparatively) raw weaklings. If coaching is a partnership, and one
that benefits the crew, you should be making your rowers good partners (!) -
ie. people who can contribute.
Enough management waffle - what does this really mean? It means, make sure your
rowers have their heads switched on: that they know why they are doing things,
that they are sensitive to, and can express, what is going on in the boat. Be
aware of what the University style/program is, but don't necessarily follow it;
just make sure everyone knows why you are or are not doing so. Given that the
best style is not the same for each crew combination, the challenge is to be
flexible, and that flexibility can only come from an intelligent attitude to
the problem of making the boat move.
To put it another way: you want to coach your crew to be coachable. Then you
benefit, because as long as they stay with you, they will be more responsive to
your approach; but they benefit, because when they go on to greater things, and
meet greater coaching minds, they will better be able to benefit from them. It
goes without saying that you don't want to coach them to row badly as a crew in
the meantime.
Tom (wearing a false white beard and saying 'Krishna' alot)
Charles E. Ehrlich
DO NOT ATTEMPT THIS AT HOME! ;^)
This discussion about leaning into riggers has gotten a bit off-topic.
That's fine. But this thread is heading off to trying to understand some
vagueries of differing techniques/riggings which often do not necessarily
mix. While it's good to understand what other people are doing and why,
it is one thing to discuss it and another thing to see it work (or not
work) for the particular crew in question. This is why, after mentioning
what I had done, I threw in the bit about it not applying to most British
crews.
On 1 Aug 1995, Sullys Maze wrote:
> In article <3vjt94$g...@news.ox.ac.uk>,
> ehr...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Charles Ehrlich) writes:
> >I moved their tracks forward a lot mid-way through the racing season, and it
> >produced a noticeable increase in their length in the water and with that
> >added boatspeed.
>
> how much was a lot?
Case in point. I have no secret to what I did here, but I still can't
tell you any measurements. Why? Because I don't know any. I don't own
a tape measure (or a stroke watch or any of the usual coaches' gizmos).
As I've said before, I use my eyes a lot. I was not happy with the way
the crew looked, and decided that I should move their tracks forward -
and that I should do so to an extreme. I eyeballed the amount I wanted,
measuring the tracks only to make sure they were in the same positions. The
ploy worked. The boat got faster. That's all it was.
Would I do the same thing with another crew? Maybe not. I've never done
this to such an extreme before. It worked, but I did what I did for
the specific crew because that's what I thought the crew needed. It's
good to know about the options, but the decision to make any changes in
rigging has to be made with the crew being coached in mind. This is what
coaching is about.
> Were your rowers rolling up to the front stops
Of course. I look for what Charlie Butt calls "long-legged recoveries."
> and how many cm through the pin did you set the front stops? A very
> upright style using more leg compression and less forward reach
> requires you to rig through the pin more, with heavy men as much as
> 10 cm. Am I understanding you correctly?
Yep. And I combined this with heavy gearing without narrowing the span
to compensate. Worked best at higher ratings (i.e., this specific crew
did a base cadence of 38-39, which was the rating at which it went
fastest for a sustainable amount of time - below 37, it slowed down
appreciably, too far above 40 it could not always sustain for too long).
Again, all these decisions were taken without any grand formula - I used
my eyes.
> Are you really achieving more length, or are you catching more
> parallel ie: less perpendicular? to the boat? If you rig through
> the pin more, you move the arc of the stroke to bow, but adding
> length means actually increasing the length of the arc. The
> effective length of arc is truly the tall person's advantage in this
> sport, anything a rower learns to increase the length of the arc
> is going to achieve speed gains.
Since it helped the rowers sit up without overreaching, it lengthened the
arc. Also, as the oar does not move parallel with the boat but does
sweep an arc, it's got to come around somewhere. I'd rather have it come
around a bit at the catch than come around too much at the finish. Teaching
the rowers to twist around the pin also negated some of the disadvantage
of being short - flexibility at the hips now counted for more.
I completely agree with the rest of what you wrote. I'd only add that:
All decisions must be taken with the crew in mind. Applying some of
the changes mentioned in this thread without coaching a compatible style
or without judging the needs of the specific crew will mean that the
changes will not necessarily work, nor will they be beneficial.
Also, for those clubs which often field composite crews, it is (as Paul
Thomas pointed out) important to use compatible styles. I generally
don't like to form composite crews for this reason (although we did at
Bewdley, for which we only had 2.5 outings to prepare with three women
from St. John's College - it was a win, but the St. John's women found
the rigging very difficult, and the rigging combined with their own style
of rowing produced in them shorter, less powerful strokes even though
they were all good rowers). A few of the members of my crew will be
returning to Oxford about four days before Oxford City Regatta in two weeks,
the empty seats being taken by rowers from previous years. While one of
these did row with me in 1994, she didn't row with the tracks moved this
far forwards and she has never used hatchets. Another (stroke of the
1990 Henley-winning crew) has never rowed with me, and will doubtless be
uncomfortable. I won't be around for the racing, though. But assuming
the rest of my crew remembers how to row after so much time off, it
should be easy to pick out those who didn't race with them this year.
> Mike
Charles
Jim Kreuziger
SNIP!
>
>To tie into the thread on flip-catches: is the Cal-Irvine coach doing his
>rowers a disservice by coaching them to row with 1950s-style flip-catches,
>knowing that should any of them want to progress onto the US National Team
>Mike Spracklen certainly does not use flip catches? By your argument, it is
>people like him who are slowing the US down. Sure, his rowers will have to
>relearn a lot if they want to progress on the US team - but they can, and
>Spracklen is a good enough coach to teach them.
>
The flip catch that we have learned here at UC Irvine is a modified version
of the Stan Pocock 50's style. Our coach, Duvall Hecht, learned the flip
catch in the 50's from Stan Pocock. He has taken the knowledge imparted
onto him and modified/fitted it to what he thinks is best. In my opinion,
this is what most coaches (in any sport) will do. They will form opinions
as to what will work best for the athletes that they have.
IMO, Duvall's first job as a coach should be to teach his athletes to row
with consistant (good) technique. Now, we may disagree as to what good
technique is. It might even be different to what Mike Spracklen does. But
the good athletes will learn to do that which makes the boat go fast. A good
coach will recognize if what he is teaching isn't working. I think that
he would change our style is a heartbeat if we could get a significant
increase in boat speed.
I think that what might slow the US down is the same thing that would slow
anybody down: failure to adapt. I can't tell you if anybody on our team
will make it to the National team because they row with the flip catch.
It might be the case that by the time any of us get to that level, the
rowing style will have changed. In reality, most of us have spent at least
one year rowing a more conventional style. But if the (modified) flip catch
is what it takes, then that's what we will do.
I guess what I am trying to say is that I see our style as a benifit.
It gives us more to draw upon as we delve further into rowing.
>whatever, accordingly. I think Alistair has the right idea when he talks of
>feeling right, adapting to the crew, finding something that works. The only
>problem here is that we are all coming at it from different angles. There is
=============================================
>no point having a war over "whose technique is better." You and I have both
By "coming at it from different angles" we all try to arrive at the same
thing: Making the boat go fast. I don't see this as a problem. I see
it as an opportunity to learn.
____________________________________________________________
Jim Kreuziger You can only be
University of California Irvine young once...
Department of Physics
e-mail j...@galaxy.ps.uci.edu But you can be
UCI Varsity Crew immature forever...
____________________________________________________________