Get a length up on the competition with cutting-edge technique, training, and racing information. Let the world’s top coaches, rowers, and sport scientists steer you to ultimate success, starting with sound training and racing principles and adding increasingly advanced instruction and insights all the way to the finish.
Rowing Faster is the most comprehensive and detailed guide for achieving excellence in the sport. You’ll find techniques for mastering every phase of the stroke; training strategies for increasing strength and efficiency for maximizing speed; and tapering plans for peak performance at the highest levels of competition.
With contributions from Olympic medalists and rowing experts from around the globe, Rowing Faster also includes the latest research on adaptive rowing, advice on managing a team, detailed plans for the long-term development of rowers, insights on training and competition for female rowers, and a look at the future of the sport from the general secretary of the FISA. From the technical details of equipment and training to classifications of boats and rowers, Rowing Faster has it all. Offering a truly global perspective and authoritative coverage of the sport, it is the one guide that every serious rower and coach should own.
Part I: The Philosophy of Rowing
Bryan Volpenheim
Chapter 1. Winning at All Costs: A Historical Perspective
Thomas E. Weil
Chapter 2. Developing a Coaching Philosophy
Angela J. Schneider
Part II: Long-Term Athlete Development
Marnie McBean
Chapter 3. How Rowers Learn
Joseph Baker and Jörg Schorer
Chapter 4. Ten Factors Influencing Athlete Development
Istvan Balyi
Chapter 5. Planning for the Long Term
Carolyn Trono
Part III: Rowing Science
Tim Foster
Chapter 6. Rowing Physiology
Ed McNeely
Chapter 7. Monitoring and Managing Your Training
Wolfgang Fritsch
Chapter 8. Loads on the Bodies of Rowers
Paul Francis
Chapter 9. Biomechanics of Rowing
Valery Kleshnev
Chapter 10. Using Equipment More Efficiently
Volker Nolte
Part IV: Training in Rowing
Katrin Rutschow
Chapter 11. The Mental Side of Rowing
Kirsten Barnes
Chapter 12. Training for Strength
Ed McNeely
Chapter 13. Effortless Rowing
Chris O’Brien
Chapter 14. Improving Performance With Nutrition
Peter W.R. Lemon
Chapter 15. Special Considerations for Adaptive Rowing
Karen M. Lewis
Chapter 16. Women in Rowing
Amanda Schweinbenz
Chapter 17. Managing a Team
Yasmin Farooq
Part V: Racing
Derek Porter
Chapter 18. Selecting Athletes and Crews
Al Morrow
Chapter 19. Tapering for Races
Ed McNeely
Chapter 20. Learning From Racing
Valery Kleshnev and Volker Nolte
Part VI: Future of Rowing
Trish Smith and Brad Alan Lewis
Chapter 21. Predicting the Future of Rowing
Wolfgang Fritsch and Volker Nolte
Chapter 22. Shaping the Sport of Rowing
Matt Smith
Volker Nolte is director of the rowing program and assistant professor at the University of Western Ontario, where he teaches coaching and biomechanics. Since 1993, he has led his men's rowing team to 10 Ontario University Athletics Championships and three Canadian University Championships. In 2008, his university crew won the German University Championships and the Temple Challenge Cup at the famous Henley Royal Regatta in England. He was the lightweight men’s national team coach with the German Rowing Association from 1984 to 1990 and with Rowing Canada from 1992 to 2000. His national team crews won an Olympic silver medal at the 1996 Atlanta Games, two world championship titles in 1993 and 2000, and several medals at recent world championships.
Nolte received both a physical education diploma (1976) and a civil engineering diploma (1979) from the University of Saarbrücken in Germany and a PhD (1984) in biomechanics from the German University of Sport Sciences in Cologne. Nolte is an internationally acknowledged expert in biomechanics. He presents frequently at scientific and coaching education conferences worldwide with his research focusing on coaching and biomechanics of high-performance sport, especially rowing. He is also a distinguished researcher in the field of sport equipment. His research has produced many papers in refereed journals and articles in various publications.
Nolte is an experienced rower, representing his home country of Germany at several world championships. He is still a keen competitor in masters events and lives in London, Ontario, Canada.
"Volker Nolte provides a blueprint for success in our sport. Rowing Faster is a must-read for all rowing coaches, from novice to elite." -- Mike Teti, Head Coach, Men's Rowing, University of California at Berkeley
“Rowing Faster is the book that I needed when training and competing in order to understand the theories behind the regimens and routines. Incredibly, Volker Nolte manages to capture not only the sport of rowing but also the elusive qualities of the art of rowing.” -- Kathleen Heddle, Three-Time Olympic Gold Medalist
Four ways to determine if someone is a rowing expert
In current explorations of expert performance in sport, two general rules are often used to classify whether someone has attained expert status.
What Are Experts, and What Can They Tell Us About How Athletes Learn?
What is an expert? This seems to be an easy question, but from a research standpoint, how you define expert is an important consideration. Is a world champion an expert? Consider the story of Graham Little, an Irish sports journalist who is also a member of the amateur world championship elephant polo team (seriously!). With no prior experience in the sport, Little and some friends participated in a week of competition in the Nepalese jungle, emerging with the amateur trophy. If we were to use world champion as our criterion of sporting expertise, the Irish elephant polo team would be experts, which is a bit of a problem in this case. Given the long-storied history of rowing coupled with the refinement of rowing technique and skill over time, using this type of system for defining rowing expertise is not such a problem—generally speaking, the Olympic or world champion in any rowing event represents an extremely high standard of achievement.
Another method for defining expertise is based on whether a person has met specific criteria. In current explorations of expert performance in sport, two general rules are often used to classify whether someone has attained expert status. The 10-year rule (Simon & Chase, 1973) and the 10,000-hour rule (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Romer, 1993) are both grounded in the notion that expertise results from extensive devotion to quality training.
The notion that training is king is grounded in considerable scientific evidence. Models that explain exceptional performance as a result of high quality training have flourished since the classic studies by de Groot (1965) and Simon and Chase (1973). Prior to this research, most believed that performance at the highest levels was governed by genetic factors. The work by de Groot and Simon and Chase was the beginning of the end for the view that biology preordained one's destiny. Their research revealed that differences between chess experts and nonexperts were related to knowledge of chess positions gathered over years of training and not superior cognitive functioning in general (i.e., expertise is domain specific and not general).
The researchers had players view chessboards with the pieces either displayed in a chess-specific structure (e.g., the King's Knight defense) or randomly placed on the board. The nonexperts performed similarly with both types of boards (around seven pieces could be recalled). Expert players, on the other hand, were able to recall much more information from the boards that were organized in a way that made sense in the world of chess. This finding showed that expert chess players are skilled at recalling chess-specific information but not information in general, which led the researchers to propose that cognitive expertise results from learning, not innate talent. This superior recognition of structured scenes by experts has been replicated in the sport domain by several studies (Allard, Graham, & Paarsalu, 1980; Allard & Starkes, 1980; Helsen & Pauwels, 1993; Starkes, 1987). From this initial research, the field of expert performance developed.
In 1991, Ericsson and Smith presented the expert-performance approach as a conceptual framework (for a recent review see Ericsson, Nandagopal, & Roring, 2009). Within this conceptual framework, examining expert performance in a given domain (rowing in our case) involves three steps (figure 3.1). In the first step, tests need to be found that capture expert performance. This is easy in rowing because at the end of a race there is a clear winner (i.e., the first boat over the line), but in other sports (e.g., sports with an aesthetic component such as figure skating or diving) the best performer is not so easy to identify.
The second step is to identify the mechanisms underlying this superior performance. Common techniques in sport expertise involve tracking experts' eye movements or asking them to describe their decision-making process, and coming from a cognitive psychology perspective, this is reasonable. However, for rowing, others factors might be more appropriate.
Studies on expertise in rowing have concentrated on four fields of sport science. First, researchers have considered whether expert and advanced rowers differ in anthropometric measures, or the dimensions of their bodies (e.g., Desgorces, Chennaoui, & Guezennec, 2004; Purge, Jürimäe, & Jürimäe, 2004). In a recent study, Kerr and colleagues (2007) compared anthropometric measures of rowers from varying expertise levels and noted significant differences between open-class and lightweight rowers and a control group of healthy young adults.
Second, researchers have examined differences in biomechanical patterns. Smith and Spinks (1995) showed differences among novice, good, and elite rowers in propulsive power per kilogram of body mass, stroke-to-stroke consistency, stroke smoothness, and propulsive work consistency.
Third, considerable attention has been paid to physiological aspects of rowing performance. Studies by Steinacker (1993); Ingham, Carter, Whyte, and Doust (2007); and Mikulic, Ruzic, and Oreb (2007) differentiated experts from novice and advanced rowers by oxygen uptake (V?O2max). Additionally, Huang, Nesser, and Edwards (2007) noted a range of strength and power variables associated with rowing performance, while others have investigated biochemical parameters for rowing performance (see Mäestu, Jürimäe, & Jurimäe, 2005, for a review).
Fourth, psychological skills that underpin successful rowing performance have been investigated. Raglin, Morgan, and Luchsinger (1990) noted significant differences between successful and unsuccessful rowers on measures of mood and self-motivation. More recently, Connolly and Janelle (2003) investigated attentional strategies and found that rowers were significantly faster when employing associative attentional styles (i.e., performance-related focus) compared with dissociative (i.e., distraction) or natural attentional strategies. Although more research is required in the four fields just described, this evidence reveals a number of parameters that distinguish expert rowers from their nonexpert counterparts.
Once distinguishing factors have been identified, the third step within the expert-performance approach considers how these factors can be explained: Are they innate capabilities or do they result from training?
Read more from Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
Adjusting to special circumstances helps turn rowers into experts
Setting the rowing equipment for normal practice is one thing, but adjusting the equipment to special circumstances is the next level that rowers and coaches need to achieve on their way to becoming experts.
Adjustment to Special Circumstances
Setting the rowing equipment for normal practice is one thing, but adjusting the equipment to special circumstances is the next level that rowers and coaches need to achieve on their way to becoming experts. All alterations follow logical reasons, but the possible combinations available can make decisions difficult. Table 10.4 gives an overview of possible circumstances that call for rigging adjustments. It is assumed that the rowing equipment is set for normal training usage and specific circumstances require intervention. Depending on the crew's situation, some of the suggested modifications may not work or may work only in conjunction with other adjustments. Therefore, the suggestions are general and need to be tested by the individual crew.
Some of the observed challenges could be fixed with technical interventions. Such interventions are not discussed in this chapter; instead, only equipment adjustments are suggested (see table 10.4). Nonetheless, it is assumed that coaches always check their crews' rowing technique before equipment changes are made. Also, it is important for the coach to evaluate the possible effects of the circumstances on the crew to identify the most important intervention to be performed first. The proposed modifications are in no particular order. Also, in most cases crews present a variety of technical problems at once, and one of the most challenging tasks for a coach is to decide which problem is the most important and must be addressed first. Ideally, the coach identifies the most pressing problem and chooses the most appropriate intervention.
With all these measurements and interventions, it is important to ask how accurate such measurements can be. The accuracy of the measurement is directly connected to the quality of the measurement equipment and the proficiency of the person using the equipment. However, only a certain level of accuracy is required in some circumstances. For example, some pitch meters can only measure to a full degree, so the coach must be skilled enough to distinguish a difference of 1° pitch. In this case, the accuracy with which the coach is performing the procedure is most likely better than that of the equipment.
A more expensive electronic pitch meter can measure to a tenth of a degree, but it is much more difficult to get the same number to the identical tenth of a degree when the measurement is repeated. In this case, the accuracy of the equipment is better than that of the coach, and much more skill is involved in using such equipment.
Accuracy can be checked by repeating the measurement, including zeroing the meter. Only if the same number is assessed for repeated measurements is the procedure performed accurately.
How accurate does one have to be? A boat is continuously pitching and rolling when rowed, which directly affects the pitch on the blade. For example, research has revealed that even world-class 8+ crews roll their boats up to about 2° with every stroke (Nolte & McLaughlin, 2005). This means that for some parts of the stroke, the lateral pitch would be +2° on one side and −2° on the other side. Less experienced crews and smaller boats tend to roll even more (novices up to a 6°-8° roll). Although such rolling movement is not intended nor seen as positive, it is evidently happening in every crew, so it is clear that rowers can indeed tolerate quite a bit of difference in pitch on the blade. In addition, today's bigger blades are less sensitive to pitch. Therefore, the accuracy of about 0.5° is sufficient for measuring pitch on the oarlock.
As long as the accuracy of the measurement is better than the desired accuracy, one can be satisfied. Otherwise, one would have to either acquire a better measurement tool or learn to perform the measurement more precisely. The same considerations apply to all other rigging measurements. The desired accuracy of the measurements can be seen in table 10.5.
The presented information is based on many studies and extensive experience, and it can be safely used as standard measurements. Measurements within a boat should generally stay the same. This will help with balance and make it easy to move rowers among various seats and boats. Sometimes individualized adjustments are necessary, but they should be kept to a minimum.
Read more about Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
The five elements of effortless rowing
Effortless crews do not waste a movement. Any movement should be well sequenced and have only a positive impact on the performance of the hull.
The Process of Effortless Rowing: No Waste, No Extras
Effortless crews do not waste a movement. Any movement should be well sequenced and have only a positive impact on the performance of the hull.
Platform
Effortless crews have a strong commitment to the platform of the boat. The word platform suggests a solid surface or base from which all activity can occur. In the case of rowing we are referring to the need to have the boat balanced from side to side. A number of factors contribute to boat balance, including seated position in the boat and handle heights. So many people do not sit squarely and evenly in the boat. If athletes are not in the intended start point, they are creating a challenge that should not have to be considered.
The oar is not only a propulsive device but also a major contributor to balance. All athletes in a boat must ensure that they are able to carry the oar handle on a consistent path yet be able to make fine adjustments as other variables affect the boat.
The Ginn example described previously is one where the boat did not have a good platform (due to conditions). The hands were possibly coming forward on the best plane they could, but the rigger sat somewhere above this path. It is possible that the athletes were knocked off their platform by a blade clipping the water on a previous stroke, leading to this loss of platform.
An excellent image of platform in rowing is the Great Britain men's pair in 2002 (James Cracknell and Matthew Pinsent). They not only were committed to a fast, aggressive start, but they also were committed with their bodies and hands to ensure that they had a platform from which they could work. Their racing intent would not have been achievable without their process intent of having a solid platform.
Stroke Length
Long, well-sequenced movements should be the aim of every crew. The challenge, however, is determining the optimal stroke length. Which stroke rate at race velocity is most effective to bring about the boat speed that will ultimately lead to victory?
Once again, this is where we introduce some compromises to the ideal, which will establish what is most effective for a particular crew. Crews must identify their optimal stroke length. Though there are variations in the arc of the stroke, the rowers will no doubt start out with the objective of wanting to row as long as they can. Over time they will start to make some compromises when they consider the effect of stroke length on other aspects of the stroke. For example, let's say a crew is rowing a sweep arc of 98° but cannot rate above 32 spm. What is the effective arc? What is the effect of only rowing 92°? In order to reduce the arc to an effective 92°, what changes should the crew make?
Allow the Boat to Work
Rowing is a series of compromises. The best crews have a good compromise between horsepower and boat movement efficiency.
A top-class crew will be able to accelerate the boat for the larger part of the complete stroke cycle, and for the remaining part of the time the boat will be experiencing deceleration. Top crews will continue to attempt to improve on this position, while less efficient crews will show more deceleration. Deceleration increases in two main ways. The first way is coming onto the footstretcher heavily as you move forward on the last part of the recovery. There will definitely be deceleration coming into the catch position, but it is a matter of doing this as smoothly and evenly as possible. A rush in the last part of the recovery or the body falling over the feet at the front will see a further deceleration of the boat.
There will also be a period of deceleration as rowers take the water and initiate the leg drive. However, this deceleration will occupy a greater percentage of the drive phase if rowers are not skillful in the introduction of the body and the arm draw.
Some top international crews appear to simply be muscling the boat along but still have optimized the time their boat is under acceleration. As with any consideration of acceleration and boat behavior, we want to ensure that the boat is achieving an acceptable velocity. Some successful crews clearly trade efficiency of acceleration for power.
Sequence and Added Extras
If you think through the list of all the possible technical problems that crews might display, most fall into one of two categories: movements performed in the incorrect sequence and extra movements in the stroke that should not be present. For example, if the body swing occurs too early, it adds unnecessary vertical movement and reduces the power of the legs. Or, if the handle moves up and down during the recovery, it spoils the platform. The effortless rower will not yield to these fundamental errors.
Blade Skills
Coaches can spend a lot of time coaching the body (that is, how the movements occur in the boat) and neglecting blade skills. We are all aware that what happens inside the boat dictates what happens with the blade, yet it is the blade that is our point of propulsive connection. If the blade is not suitably prepared by being squared and ready to go into the water, we are creating an inefficiency that should not be present. This inefficiency is incredibly costly.
The blade must be sufficiently high off the water so as to ensure that it can be squared soon enough to be placed into the water at the forward-most point of reach (figure 13.1a). This will ensure the possibility of a direct movement of the blade into the water.
A blade too close to or too far from the water results in inefficiency through the front turn of the stroke (figure 13.1b). The correct movement through the front turn is set up through a back turn that can be described as having shape and being bold. If we have sufficient step-out, we should be able to row a good line of the blade on the recovery and achieve the front turn as previously described. The blade should step cleanly from the water—out of the front of the puddle and clearly over it as it is carried forward on the recovery. Good crews make this look easy, but it is a skill that they have spent countless hours practicing.
Read more about Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
The five factors to consider when selecting test procedures
The best selection models are legitimate and based on solid criteria. In addition, they all start by letting rowers know the plan early and allowing them to practice the necessary test procedure as often as possible.
Selection Methods
When I rowed from 1965 to 1976, we used many methods of testing, including weightlifting tests, running tests, anatomical measures (e.g., height), rowing technique, and bicycle ergometer tests. In addition, coaches often used their intuition to set teams. For example, some coaches simply put the tallest or the most experienced athletes in the boat. One could accept such decisions out of respect for the coach, but it seems that there must be a better way.
When I began coaching in 1976, new rowing evaluation methods were developed, such as the rowing ergometer, physiological tests, and the Harry Parker seat-race model. This model is a system of races that uses two coxed fours. The crews face off against each other for 3-minute intervals at set stroke rates, and after each interval, the coach names two rowers to change opposite seats in the two fours and the race interval is repeated to evaluate which rower contributes most in moving the boat faster.
This method attracted my attention since it seemed to measure performance more objectively. As a young, motivated coach, I decided to develop my first model of seat racing, which is chronicled in the original Rowing Canada National Coaching Certification Program (NCCP) level 3 rowing manual. I first used it coaching at the University of British Columbia. To this day, I apologize to those young men for having to race as many as 36 750 m intervals in coxed fours over 2 days to select the varsity eight! This model was set up so that each rower raced in every possible boat and with every possible combination. It is an ambitious example of how the desire to gain information and keep the process fair can lead to an extreme method that goes beyond the initial goal. However, one by-product of this procedure was that the rowers exposed to this selection method became very race ready. One could have called this a survival of the fittest selection model.
The best selection models are legitimate and based on solid criteria. In addition, they all start by letting rowers know the plan early and allowing them to practice the necessary test procedure as often as possible.
Factors to Consider for Selection
Selection has important implications for an athlete and the success of a rowing program. Therefore, coaches should consider the following criteria when planning and implementing selection models: objectivity, validity, reliability, and economy. Any good test procedure must be conducted with these in mind.
Objectivity
An objective test measures a variable independent of the people conducting the test and the circumstances of the test. In other words, the test has to be fair.
Objective selection methods guarantee unbiased measures of the rower's ability. They all start with giving each rower the same information and encouragement. A good example of an objective test for selecting a single is all competitors racing off over 2,000 m in singles.
Validity
A test is valid if it measures a specified ability. It is a challenge to find valid test methods to select a crew from a group of athletes. Rowing requires a complex set of qualities that qualify someone as a valuable crew member.
For instance, an ergometer test measures power per stroke, ability to focus, certain aspects of good rowing (such as stroke length and proper sequencing), length, leg drive, and relaxation. Therefore, an ergometer test is a valid procedure to evaluate specific rowing skills, which is why it presents important information for crew selection. However, an ergometer test cannot answer all selection questions in rowing. For example, when it comes to assessing a rower's boat-moving qualities, the most valid test would be an evaluation in the targeted boat because it accurately measures all of the variables in rowing. Though a race-off in a single is a valid method to select the single and to identify general boat-moving abilities, many would debate that selection races in singles are a valid method to select a double or quad as well. Therefore, no one method is completely valid for crew selection.
Reliability
A test is reliable if it accurately measures a quality and is repeatable. In past years, USRowing introduced open trials in which crew selection is decided by whoever wins two out of three events. This is done to increase the reliability of the selection process, since crews have to demonstrate that they can repeat their performance. In this way, their win isn't just a random occurrence.
Therefore, if one chooses to use seat races as a selection model, the results should be the same if repeated. Though the times of seat races can be measured accurately, the time over a certain distance may vary for a crew, especially if rowers are not experienced or row in combinations that they have not practiced before. Also, wind conditions could have an influence on seat-racing results. Consequently, one has to set up a seat race carefully to make it reliable for crew selection.
It is possible to ensure the reliability of a test by carrying out more than one assessment. If all goes according to plan, the results of the second test should support those of the first test.
Economy
A test is economical if its overall costs are manageable for the program. Those costs could be money but also include time involved, necessary equipment, and personnel.
This criterion is easy to understand, and in a practical rowing setting, this may be an influential consideration. To conduct seat races, for instance, one needs fair water conditions, equal equipment, correct preparation of the rowers, and a manageable number of rowers. Therefore, such a selection method becomes too costly if the program has, for example, 40 rowers with not enough fours or pairs of equal quality. One would need to buy or bring in boats and would likely need 2 weeks of racing. This method may cost too much money and take too much time, in which case it would not work in this situation. In other words, testing and selection has to be achievable.
Every test needs to satisfy all four criteria (objectivity, validity, reliability, and economy) in order to select the best rowers. To apply these guidelines, the following are required:
The testing process must be known to all rowers and coaches well in advance.All rowers must have sufficient preparation time and equal time to row in each combination that will be tested.All rowers must be equally encouraged and motivated during the whole process.Equipment must be the same for all rowers.Water conditions need to be the same for all crews.
Read more about Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
Four ways to determine if someone is a rowing expert
In current explorations of expert performance in sport, two general rules are often used to classify whether someone has attained expert status.
What Are Experts, and What Can They Tell Us About How Athletes Learn?
What is an expert? This seems to be an easy question, but from a research standpoint, how you define expert is an important consideration. Is a world champion an expert? Consider the story of Graham Little, an Irish sports journalist who is also a member of the amateur world championship elephant polo team (seriously!). With no prior experience in the sport, Little and some friends participated in a week of competition in the Nepalese jungle, emerging with the amateur trophy. If we were to use world champion as our criterion of sporting expertise, the Irish elephant polo team would be experts, which is a bit of a problem in this case. Given the long-storied history of rowing coupled with the refinement of rowing technique and skill over time, using this type of system for defining rowing expertise is not such a problem—generally speaking, the Olympic or world champion in any rowing event represents an extremely high standard of achievement.
Another method for defining expertise is based on whether a person has met specific criteria. In current explorations of expert performance in sport, two general rules are often used to classify whether someone has attained expert status. The 10-year rule (Simon & Chase, 1973) and the 10,000-hour rule (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Romer, 1993) are both grounded in the notion that expertise results from extensive devotion to quality training.
The notion that training is king is grounded in considerable scientific evidence. Models that explain exceptional performance as a result of high quality training have flourished since the classic studies by de Groot (1965) and Simon and Chase (1973). Prior to this research, most believed that performance at the highest levels was governed by genetic factors. The work by de Groot and Simon and Chase was the beginning of the end for the view that biology preordained one's destiny. Their research revealed that differences between chess experts and nonexperts were related to knowledge of chess positions gathered over years of training and not superior cognitive functioning in general (i.e., expertise is domain specific and not general).
The researchers had players view chessboards with the pieces either displayed in a chess-specific structure (e.g., the King's Knight defense) or randomly placed on the board. The nonexperts performed similarly with both types of boards (around seven pieces could be recalled). Expert players, on the other hand, were able to recall much more information from the boards that were organized in a way that made sense in the world of chess. This finding showed that expert chess players are skilled at recalling chess-specific information but not information in general, which led the researchers to propose that cognitive expertise results from learning, not innate talent. This superior recognition of structured scenes by experts has been replicated in the sport domain by several studies (Allard, Graham, & Paarsalu, 1980; Allard & Starkes, 1980; Helsen & Pauwels, 1993; Starkes, 1987). From this initial research, the field of expert performance developed.
In 1991, Ericsson and Smith presented the expert-performance approach as a conceptual framework (for a recent review see Ericsson, Nandagopal, & Roring, 2009). Within this conceptual framework, examining expert performance in a given domain (rowing in our case) involves three steps (figure 3.1). In the first step, tests need to be found that capture expert performance. This is easy in rowing because at the end of a race there is a clear winner (i.e., the first boat over the line), but in other sports (e.g., sports with an aesthetic component such as figure skating or diving) the best performer is not so easy to identify.
The second step is to identify the mechanisms underlying this superior performance. Common techniques in sport expertise involve tracking experts' eye movements or asking them to describe their decision-making process, and coming from a cognitive psychology perspective, this is reasonable. However, for rowing, others factors might be more appropriate.
Studies on expertise in rowing have concentrated on four fields of sport science. First, researchers have considered whether expert and advanced rowers differ in anthropometric measures, or the dimensions of their bodies (e.g., Desgorces, Chennaoui, & Guezennec, 2004; Purge, Jürimäe, & Jürimäe, 2004). In a recent study, Kerr and colleagues (2007) compared anthropometric measures of rowers from varying expertise levels and noted significant differences between open-class and lightweight rowers and a control group of healthy young adults.
Second, researchers have examined differences in biomechanical patterns. Smith and Spinks (1995) showed differences among novice, good, and elite rowers in propulsive power per kilogram of body mass, stroke-to-stroke consistency, stroke smoothness, and propulsive work consistency.
Third, considerable attention has been paid to physiological aspects of rowing performance. Studies by Steinacker (1993); Ingham, Carter, Whyte, and Doust (2007); and Mikulic, Ruzic, and Oreb (2007) differentiated experts from novice and advanced rowers by oxygen uptake (V?O2max). Additionally, Huang, Nesser, and Edwards (2007) noted a range of strength and power variables associated with rowing performance, while others have investigated biochemical parameters for rowing performance (see Mäestu, Jürimäe, & Jurimäe, 2005, for a review).
Fourth, psychological skills that underpin successful rowing performance have been investigated. Raglin, Morgan, and Luchsinger (1990) noted significant differences between successful and unsuccessful rowers on measures of mood and self-motivation. More recently, Connolly and Janelle (2003) investigated attentional strategies and found that rowers were significantly faster when employing associative attentional styles (i.e., performance-related focus) compared with dissociative (i.e., distraction) or natural attentional strategies. Although more research is required in the four fields just described, this evidence reveals a number of parameters that distinguish expert rowers from their nonexpert counterparts.
Once distinguishing factors have been identified, the third step within the expert-performance approach considers how these factors can be explained: Are they innate capabilities or do they result from training?
Read more from Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
Adjusting to special circumstances helps turn rowers into experts
Setting the rowing equipment for normal practice is one thing, but adjusting the equipment to special circumstances is the next level that rowers and coaches need to achieve on their way to becoming experts.
Adjustment to Special Circumstances
Setting the rowing equipment for normal practice is one thing, but adjusting the equipment to special circumstances is the next level that rowers and coaches need to achieve on their way to becoming experts. All alterations follow logical reasons, but the possible combinations available can make decisions difficult. Table 10.4 gives an overview of possible circumstances that call for rigging adjustments. It is assumed that the rowing equipment is set for normal training usage and specific circumstances require intervention. Depending on the crew's situation, some of the suggested modifications may not work or may work only in conjunction with other adjustments. Therefore, the suggestions are general and need to be tested by the individual crew.
Some of the observed challenges could be fixed with technical interventions. Such interventions are not discussed in this chapter; instead, only equipment adjustments are suggested (see table 10.4). Nonetheless, it is assumed that coaches always check their crews' rowing technique before equipment changes are made. Also, it is important for the coach to evaluate the possible effects of the circumstances on the crew to identify the most important intervention to be performed first. The proposed modifications are in no particular order. Also, in most cases crews present a variety of technical problems at once, and one of the most challenging tasks for a coach is to decide which problem is the most important and must be addressed first. Ideally, the coach identifies the most pressing problem and chooses the most appropriate intervention.
With all these measurements and interventions, it is important to ask how accurate such measurements can be. The accuracy of the measurement is directly connected to the quality of the measurement equipment and the proficiency of the person using the equipment. However, only a certain level of accuracy is required in some circumstances. For example, some pitch meters can only measure to a full degree, so the coach must be skilled enough to distinguish a difference of 1° pitch. In this case, the accuracy with which the coach is performing the procedure is most likely better than that of the equipment.
A more expensive electronic pitch meter can measure to a tenth of a degree, but it is much more difficult to get the same number to the identical tenth of a degree when the measurement is repeated. In this case, the accuracy of the equipment is better than that of the coach, and much more skill is involved in using such equipment.
Accuracy can be checked by repeating the measurement, including zeroing the meter. Only if the same number is assessed for repeated measurements is the procedure performed accurately.
How accurate does one have to be? A boat is continuously pitching and rolling when rowed, which directly affects the pitch on the blade. For example, research has revealed that even world-class 8+ crews roll their boats up to about 2° with every stroke (Nolte & McLaughlin, 2005). This means that for some parts of the stroke, the lateral pitch would be +2° on one side and −2° on the other side. Less experienced crews and smaller boats tend to roll even more (novices up to a 6°-8° roll). Although such rolling movement is not intended nor seen as positive, it is evidently happening in every crew, so it is clear that rowers can indeed tolerate quite a bit of difference in pitch on the blade. In addition, today's bigger blades are less sensitive to pitch. Therefore, the accuracy of about 0.5° is sufficient for measuring pitch on the oarlock.
As long as the accuracy of the measurement is better than the desired accuracy, one can be satisfied. Otherwise, one would have to either acquire a better measurement tool or learn to perform the measurement more precisely. The same considerations apply to all other rigging measurements. The desired accuracy of the measurements can be seen in table 10.5.
The presented information is based on many studies and extensive experience, and it can be safely used as standard measurements. Measurements within a boat should generally stay the same. This will help with balance and make it easy to move rowers among various seats and boats. Sometimes individualized adjustments are necessary, but they should be kept to a minimum.
Read more about Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
The five elements of effortless rowing
Effortless crews do not waste a movement. Any movement should be well sequenced and have only a positive impact on the performance of the hull.
The Process of Effortless Rowing: No Waste, No Extras
Effortless crews do not waste a movement. Any movement should be well sequenced and have only a positive impact on the performance of the hull.
Platform
Effortless crews have a strong commitment to the platform of the boat. The word platform suggests a solid surface or base from which all activity can occur. In the case of rowing we are referring to the need to have the boat balanced from side to side. A number of factors contribute to boat balance, including seated position in the boat and handle heights. So many people do not sit squarely and evenly in the boat. If athletes are not in the intended start point, they are creating a challenge that should not have to be considered.
The oar is not only a propulsive device but also a major contributor to balance. All athletes in a boat must ensure that they are able to carry the oar handle on a consistent path yet be able to make fine adjustments as other variables affect the boat.
The Ginn example described previously is one where the boat did not have a good platform (due to conditions). The hands were possibly coming forward on the best plane they could, but the rigger sat somewhere above this path. It is possible that the athletes were knocked off their platform by a blade clipping the water on a previous stroke, leading to this loss of platform.
An excellent image of platform in rowing is the Great Britain men's pair in 2002 (James Cracknell and Matthew Pinsent). They not only were committed to a fast, aggressive start, but they also were committed with their bodies and hands to ensure that they had a platform from which they could work. Their racing intent would not have been achievable without their process intent of having a solid platform.
Stroke Length
Long, well-sequenced movements should be the aim of every crew. The challenge, however, is determining the optimal stroke length. Which stroke rate at race velocity is most effective to bring about the boat speed that will ultimately lead to victory?
Once again, this is where we introduce some compromises to the ideal, which will establish what is most effective for a particular crew. Crews must identify their optimal stroke length. Though there are variations in the arc of the stroke, the rowers will no doubt start out with the objective of wanting to row as long as they can. Over time they will start to make some compromises when they consider the effect of stroke length on other aspects of the stroke. For example, let's say a crew is rowing a sweep arc of 98° but cannot rate above 32 spm. What is the effective arc? What is the effect of only rowing 92°? In order to reduce the arc to an effective 92°, what changes should the crew make?
Allow the Boat to Work
Rowing is a series of compromises. The best crews have a good compromise between horsepower and boat movement efficiency.
A top-class crew will be able to accelerate the boat for the larger part of the complete stroke cycle, and for the remaining part of the time the boat will be experiencing deceleration. Top crews will continue to attempt to improve on this position, while less efficient crews will show more deceleration. Deceleration increases in two main ways. The first way is coming onto the footstretcher heavily as you move forward on the last part of the recovery. There will definitely be deceleration coming into the catch position, but it is a matter of doing this as smoothly and evenly as possible. A rush in the last part of the recovery or the body falling over the feet at the front will see a further deceleration of the boat.
There will also be a period of deceleration as rowers take the water and initiate the leg drive. However, this deceleration will occupy a greater percentage of the drive phase if rowers are not skillful in the introduction of the body and the arm draw.
Some top international crews appear to simply be muscling the boat along but still have optimized the time their boat is under acceleration. As with any consideration of acceleration and boat behavior, we want to ensure that the boat is achieving an acceptable velocity. Some successful crews clearly trade efficiency of acceleration for power.
Sequence and Added Extras
If you think through the list of all the possible technical problems that crews might display, most fall into one of two categories: movements performed in the incorrect sequence and extra movements in the stroke that should not be present. For example, if the body swing occurs too early, it adds unnecessary vertical movement and reduces the power of the legs. Or, if the handle moves up and down during the recovery, it spoils the platform. The effortless rower will not yield to these fundamental errors.
Blade Skills
Coaches can spend a lot of time coaching the body (that is, how the movements occur in the boat) and neglecting blade skills. We are all aware that what happens inside the boat dictates what happens with the blade, yet it is the blade that is our point of propulsive connection. If the blade is not suitably prepared by being squared and ready to go into the water, we are creating an inefficiency that should not be present. This inefficiency is incredibly costly.
The blade must be sufficiently high off the water so as to ensure that it can be squared soon enough to be placed into the water at the forward-most point of reach (figure 13.1a). This will ensure the possibility of a direct movement of the blade into the water.
A blade too close to or too far from the water results in inefficiency through the front turn of the stroke (figure 13.1b). The correct movement through the front turn is set up through a back turn that can be described as having shape and being bold. If we have sufficient step-out, we should be able to row a good line of the blade on the recovery and achieve the front turn as previously described. The blade should step cleanly from the water—out of the front of the puddle and clearly over it as it is carried forward on the recovery. Good crews make this look easy, but it is a skill that they have spent countless hours practicing.
Read more about Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
The five factors to consider when selecting test procedures
The best selection models are legitimate and based on solid criteria. In addition, they all start by letting rowers know the plan early and allowing them to practice the necessary test procedure as often as possible.
Selection Methods
When I rowed from 1965 to 1976, we used many methods of testing, including weightlifting tests, running tests, anatomical measures (e.g., height), rowing technique, and bicycle ergometer tests. In addition, coaches often used their intuition to set teams. For example, some coaches simply put the tallest or the most experienced athletes in the boat. One could accept such decisions out of respect for the coach, but it seems that there must be a better way.
When I began coaching in 1976, new rowing evaluation methods were developed, such as the rowing ergometer, physiological tests, and the Harry Parker seat-race model. This model is a system of races that uses two coxed fours. The crews face off against each other for 3-minute intervals at set stroke rates, and after each interval, the coach names two rowers to change opposite seats in the two fours and the race interval is repeated to evaluate which rower contributes most in moving the boat faster.
This method attracted my attention since it seemed to measure performance more objectively. As a young, motivated coach, I decided to develop my first model of seat racing, which is chronicled in the original Rowing Canada National Coaching Certification Program (NCCP) level 3 rowing manual. I first used it coaching at the University of British Columbia. To this day, I apologize to those young men for having to race as many as 36 750 m intervals in coxed fours over 2 days to select the varsity eight! This model was set up so that each rower raced in every possible boat and with every possible combination. It is an ambitious example of how the desire to gain information and keep the process fair can lead to an extreme method that goes beyond the initial goal. However, one by-product of this procedure was that the rowers exposed to this selection method became very race ready. One could have called this a survival of the fittest selection model.
The best selection models are legitimate and based on solid criteria. In addition, they all start by letting rowers know the plan early and allowing them to practice the necessary test procedure as often as possible.
Factors to Consider for Selection
Selection has important implications for an athlete and the success of a rowing program. Therefore, coaches should consider the following criteria when planning and implementing selection models: objectivity, validity, reliability, and economy. Any good test procedure must be conducted with these in mind.
Objectivity
An objective test measures a variable independent of the people conducting the test and the circumstances of the test. In other words, the test has to be fair.
Objective selection methods guarantee unbiased measures of the rower's ability. They all start with giving each rower the same information and encouragement. A good example of an objective test for selecting a single is all competitors racing off over 2,000 m in singles.
Validity
A test is valid if it measures a specified ability. It is a challenge to find valid test methods to select a crew from a group of athletes. Rowing requires a complex set of qualities that qualify someone as a valuable crew member.
For instance, an ergometer test measures power per stroke, ability to focus, certain aspects of good rowing (such as stroke length and proper sequencing), length, leg drive, and relaxation. Therefore, an ergometer test is a valid procedure to evaluate specific rowing skills, which is why it presents important information for crew selection. However, an ergometer test cannot answer all selection questions in rowing. For example, when it comes to assessing a rower's boat-moving qualities, the most valid test would be an evaluation in the targeted boat because it accurately measures all of the variables in rowing. Though a race-off in a single is a valid method to select the single and to identify general boat-moving abilities, many would debate that selection races in singles are a valid method to select a double or quad as well. Therefore, no one method is completely valid for crew selection.
Reliability
A test is reliable if it accurately measures a quality and is repeatable. In past years, USRowing introduced open trials in which crew selection is decided by whoever wins two out of three events. This is done to increase the reliability of the selection process, since crews have to demonstrate that they can repeat their performance. In this way, their win isn't just a random occurrence.
Therefore, if one chooses to use seat races as a selection model, the results should be the same if repeated. Though the times of seat races can be measured accurately, the time over a certain distance may vary for a crew, especially if rowers are not experienced or row in combinations that they have not practiced before. Also, wind conditions could have an influence on seat-racing results. Consequently, one has to set up a seat race carefully to make it reliable for crew selection.
It is possible to ensure the reliability of a test by carrying out more than one assessment. If all goes according to plan, the results of the second test should support those of the first test.
Economy
A test is economical if its overall costs are manageable for the program. Those costs could be money but also include time involved, necessary equipment, and personnel.
This criterion is easy to understand, and in a practical rowing setting, this may be an influential consideration. To conduct seat races, for instance, one needs fair water conditions, equal equipment, correct preparation of the rowers, and a manageable number of rowers. Therefore, such a selection method becomes too costly if the program has, for example, 40 rowers with not enough fours or pairs of equal quality. One would need to buy or bring in boats and would likely need 2 weeks of racing. This method may cost too much money and take too much time, in which case it would not work in this situation. In other words, testing and selection has to be achievable.
Every test needs to satisfy all four criteria (objectivity, validity, reliability, and economy) in order to select the best rowers. To apply these guidelines, the following are required:
The testing process must be known to all rowers and coaches well in advance.All rowers must have sufficient preparation time and equal time to row in each combination that will be tested.All rowers must be equally encouraged and motivated during the whole process.Equipment must be the same for all rowers.Water conditions need to be the same for all crews.
Read more about Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
Four ways to determine if someone is a rowing expert
In current explorations of expert performance in sport, two general rules are often used to classify whether someone has attained expert status.
What Are Experts, and What Can They Tell Us About How Athletes Learn?
What is an expert? This seems to be an easy question, but from a research standpoint, how you define expert is an important consideration. Is a world champion an expert? Consider the story of Graham Little, an Irish sports journalist who is also a member of the amateur world championship elephant polo team (seriously!). With no prior experience in the sport, Little and some friends participated in a week of competition in the Nepalese jungle, emerging with the amateur trophy. If we were to use world champion as our criterion of sporting expertise, the Irish elephant polo team would be experts, which is a bit of a problem in this case. Given the long-storied history of rowing coupled with the refinement of rowing technique and skill over time, using this type of system for defining rowing expertise is not such a problem—generally speaking, the Olympic or world champion in any rowing event represents an extremely high standard of achievement.
Another method for defining expertise is based on whether a person has met specific criteria. In current explorations of expert performance in sport, two general rules are often used to classify whether someone has attained expert status. The 10-year rule (Simon & Chase, 1973) and the 10,000-hour rule (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Romer, 1993) are both grounded in the notion that expertise results from extensive devotion to quality training.
The notion that training is king is grounded in considerable scientific evidence. Models that explain exceptional performance as a result of high quality training have flourished since the classic studies by de Groot (1965) and Simon and Chase (1973). Prior to this research, most believed that performance at the highest levels was governed by genetic factors. The work by de Groot and Simon and Chase was the beginning of the end for the view that biology preordained one's destiny. Their research revealed that differences between chess experts and nonexperts were related to knowledge of chess positions gathered over years of training and not superior cognitive functioning in general (i.e., expertise is domain specific and not general).
The researchers had players view chessboards with the pieces either displayed in a chess-specific structure (e.g., the King's Knight defense) or randomly placed on the board. The nonexperts performed similarly with both types of boards (around seven pieces could be recalled). Expert players, on the other hand, were able to recall much more information from the boards that were organized in a way that made sense in the world of chess. This finding showed that expert chess players are skilled at recalling chess-specific information but not information in general, which led the researchers to propose that cognitive expertise results from learning, not innate talent. This superior recognition of structured scenes by experts has been replicated in the sport domain by several studies (Allard, Graham, & Paarsalu, 1980; Allard & Starkes, 1980; Helsen & Pauwels, 1993; Starkes, 1987). From this initial research, the field of expert performance developed.
In 1991, Ericsson and Smith presented the expert-performance approach as a conceptual framework (for a recent review see Ericsson, Nandagopal, & Roring, 2009). Within this conceptual framework, examining expert performance in a given domain (rowing in our case) involves three steps (figure 3.1). In the first step, tests need to be found that capture expert performance. This is easy in rowing because at the end of a race there is a clear winner (i.e., the first boat over the line), but in other sports (e.g., sports with an aesthetic component such as figure skating or diving) the best performer is not so easy to identify.
The second step is to identify the mechanisms underlying this superior performance. Common techniques in sport expertise involve tracking experts' eye movements or asking them to describe their decision-making process, and coming from a cognitive psychology perspective, this is reasonable. However, for rowing, others factors might be more appropriate.
Studies on expertise in rowing have concentrated on four fields of sport science. First, researchers have considered whether expert and advanced rowers differ in anthropometric measures, or the dimensions of their bodies (e.g., Desgorces, Chennaoui, & Guezennec, 2004; Purge, Jürimäe, & Jürimäe, 2004). In a recent study, Kerr and colleagues (2007) compared anthropometric measures of rowers from varying expertise levels and noted significant differences between open-class and lightweight rowers and a control group of healthy young adults.
Second, researchers have examined differences in biomechanical patterns. Smith and Spinks (1995) showed differences among novice, good, and elite rowers in propulsive power per kilogram of body mass, stroke-to-stroke consistency, stroke smoothness, and propulsive work consistency.
Third, considerable attention has been paid to physiological aspects of rowing performance. Studies by Steinacker (1993); Ingham, Carter, Whyte, and Doust (2007); and Mikulic, Ruzic, and Oreb (2007) differentiated experts from novice and advanced rowers by oxygen uptake (V?O2max). Additionally, Huang, Nesser, and Edwards (2007) noted a range of strength and power variables associated with rowing performance, while others have investigated biochemical parameters for rowing performance (see Mäestu, Jürimäe, & Jurimäe, 2005, for a review).
Fourth, psychological skills that underpin successful rowing performance have been investigated. Raglin, Morgan, and Luchsinger (1990) noted significant differences between successful and unsuccessful rowers on measures of mood and self-motivation. More recently, Connolly and Janelle (2003) investigated attentional strategies and found that rowers were significantly faster when employing associative attentional styles (i.e., performance-related focus) compared with dissociative (i.e., distraction) or natural attentional strategies. Although more research is required in the four fields just described, this evidence reveals a number of parameters that distinguish expert rowers from their nonexpert counterparts.
Once distinguishing factors have been identified, the third step within the expert-performance approach considers how these factors can be explained: Are they innate capabilities or do they result from training?
Read more from Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
Adjusting to special circumstances helps turn rowers into experts
Setting the rowing equipment for normal practice is one thing, but adjusting the equipment to special circumstances is the next level that rowers and coaches need to achieve on their way to becoming experts.
Adjustment to Special Circumstances
Setting the rowing equipment for normal practice is one thing, but adjusting the equipment to special circumstances is the next level that rowers and coaches need to achieve on their way to becoming experts. All alterations follow logical reasons, but the possible combinations available can make decisions difficult. Table 10.4 gives an overview of possible circumstances that call for rigging adjustments. It is assumed that the rowing equipment is set for normal training usage and specific circumstances require intervention. Depending on the crew's situation, some of the suggested modifications may not work or may work only in conjunction with other adjustments. Therefore, the suggestions are general and need to be tested by the individual crew.
Some of the observed challenges could be fixed with technical interventions. Such interventions are not discussed in this chapter; instead, only equipment adjustments are suggested (see table 10.4). Nonetheless, it is assumed that coaches always check their crews' rowing technique before equipment changes are made. Also, it is important for the coach to evaluate the possible effects of the circumstances on the crew to identify the most important intervention to be performed first. The proposed modifications are in no particular order. Also, in most cases crews present a variety of technical problems at once, and one of the most challenging tasks for a coach is to decide which problem is the most important and must be addressed first. Ideally, the coach identifies the most pressing problem and chooses the most appropriate intervention.
With all these measurements and interventions, it is important to ask how accurate such measurements can be. The accuracy of the measurement is directly connected to the quality of the measurement equipment and the proficiency of the person using the equipment. However, only a certain level of accuracy is required in some circumstances. For example, some pitch meters can only measure to a full degree, so the coach must be skilled enough to distinguish a difference of 1° pitch. In this case, the accuracy with which the coach is performing the procedure is most likely better than that of the equipment.
A more expensive electronic pitch meter can measure to a tenth of a degree, but it is much more difficult to get the same number to the identical tenth of a degree when the measurement is repeated. In this case, the accuracy of the equipment is better than that of the coach, and much more skill is involved in using such equipment.
Accuracy can be checked by repeating the measurement, including zeroing the meter. Only if the same number is assessed for repeated measurements is the procedure performed accurately.
How accurate does one have to be? A boat is continuously pitching and rolling when rowed, which directly affects the pitch on the blade. For example, research has revealed that even world-class 8+ crews roll their boats up to about 2° with every stroke (Nolte & McLaughlin, 2005). This means that for some parts of the stroke, the lateral pitch would be +2° on one side and −2° on the other side. Less experienced crews and smaller boats tend to roll even more (novices up to a 6°-8° roll). Although such rolling movement is not intended nor seen as positive, it is evidently happening in every crew, so it is clear that rowers can indeed tolerate quite a bit of difference in pitch on the blade. In addition, today's bigger blades are less sensitive to pitch. Therefore, the accuracy of about 0.5° is sufficient for measuring pitch on the oarlock.
As long as the accuracy of the measurement is better than the desired accuracy, one can be satisfied. Otherwise, one would have to either acquire a better measurement tool or learn to perform the measurement more precisely. The same considerations apply to all other rigging measurements. The desired accuracy of the measurements can be seen in table 10.5.
The presented information is based on many studies and extensive experience, and it can be safely used as standard measurements. Measurements within a boat should generally stay the same. This will help with balance and make it easy to move rowers among various seats and boats. Sometimes individualized adjustments are necessary, but they should be kept to a minimum.
Read more about Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
The five elements of effortless rowing
Effortless crews do not waste a movement. Any movement should be well sequenced and have only a positive impact on the performance of the hull.
The Process of Effortless Rowing: No Waste, No Extras
Effortless crews do not waste a movement. Any movement should be well sequenced and have only a positive impact on the performance of the hull.
Platform
Effortless crews have a strong commitment to the platform of the boat. The word platform suggests a solid surface or base from which all activity can occur. In the case of rowing we are referring to the need to have the boat balanced from side to side. A number of factors contribute to boat balance, including seated position in the boat and handle heights. So many people do not sit squarely and evenly in the boat. If athletes are not in the intended start point, they are creating a challenge that should not have to be considered.
The oar is not only a propulsive device but also a major contributor to balance. All athletes in a boat must ensure that they are able to carry the oar handle on a consistent path yet be able to make fine adjustments as other variables affect the boat.
The Ginn example described previously is one where the boat did not have a good platform (due to conditions). The hands were possibly coming forward on the best plane they could, but the rigger sat somewhere above this path. It is possible that the athletes were knocked off their platform by a blade clipping the water on a previous stroke, leading to this loss of platform.
An excellent image of platform in rowing is the Great Britain men's pair in 2002 (James Cracknell and Matthew Pinsent). They not only were committed to a fast, aggressive start, but they also were committed with their bodies and hands to ensure that they had a platform from which they could work. Their racing intent would not have been achievable without their process intent of having a solid platform.
Stroke Length
Long, well-sequenced movements should be the aim of every crew. The challenge, however, is determining the optimal stroke length. Which stroke rate at race velocity is most effective to bring about the boat speed that will ultimately lead to victory?
Once again, this is where we introduce some compromises to the ideal, which will establish what is most effective for a particular crew. Crews must identify their optimal stroke length. Though there are variations in the arc of the stroke, the rowers will no doubt start out with the objective of wanting to row as long as they can. Over time they will start to make some compromises when they consider the effect of stroke length on other aspects of the stroke. For example, let's say a crew is rowing a sweep arc of 98° but cannot rate above 32 spm. What is the effective arc? What is the effect of only rowing 92°? In order to reduce the arc to an effective 92°, what changes should the crew make?
Allow the Boat to Work
Rowing is a series of compromises. The best crews have a good compromise between horsepower and boat movement efficiency.
A top-class crew will be able to accelerate the boat for the larger part of the complete stroke cycle, and for the remaining part of the time the boat will be experiencing deceleration. Top crews will continue to attempt to improve on this position, while less efficient crews will show more deceleration. Deceleration increases in two main ways. The first way is coming onto the footstretcher heavily as you move forward on the last part of the recovery. There will definitely be deceleration coming into the catch position, but it is a matter of doing this as smoothly and evenly as possible. A rush in the last part of the recovery or the body falling over the feet at the front will see a further deceleration of the boat.
There will also be a period of deceleration as rowers take the water and initiate the leg drive. However, this deceleration will occupy a greater percentage of the drive phase if rowers are not skillful in the introduction of the body and the arm draw.
Some top international crews appear to simply be muscling the boat along but still have optimized the time their boat is under acceleration. As with any consideration of acceleration and boat behavior, we want to ensure that the boat is achieving an acceptable velocity. Some successful crews clearly trade efficiency of acceleration for power.
Sequence and Added Extras
If you think through the list of all the possible technical problems that crews might display, most fall into one of two categories: movements performed in the incorrect sequence and extra movements in the stroke that should not be present. For example, if the body swing occurs too early, it adds unnecessary vertical movement and reduces the power of the legs. Or, if the handle moves up and down during the recovery, it spoils the platform. The effortless rower will not yield to these fundamental errors.
Blade Skills
Coaches can spend a lot of time coaching the body (that is, how the movements occur in the boat) and neglecting blade skills. We are all aware that what happens inside the boat dictates what happens with the blade, yet it is the blade that is our point of propulsive connection. If the blade is not suitably prepared by being squared and ready to go into the water, we are creating an inefficiency that should not be present. This inefficiency is incredibly costly.
The blade must be sufficiently high off the water so as to ensure that it can be squared soon enough to be placed into the water at the forward-most point of reach (figure 13.1a). This will ensure the possibility of a direct movement of the blade into the water.
A blade too close to or too far from the water results in inefficiency through the front turn of the stroke (figure 13.1b). The correct movement through the front turn is set up through a back turn that can be described as having shape and being bold. If we have sufficient step-out, we should be able to row a good line of the blade on the recovery and achieve the front turn as previously described. The blade should step cleanly from the water—out of the front of the puddle and clearly over it as it is carried forward on the recovery. Good crews make this look easy, but it is a skill that they have spent countless hours practicing.
Read more about Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
The five factors to consider when selecting test procedures
The best selection models are legitimate and based on solid criteria. In addition, they all start by letting rowers know the plan early and allowing them to practice the necessary test procedure as often as possible.
Selection Methods
When I rowed from 1965 to 1976, we used many methods of testing, including weightlifting tests, running tests, anatomical measures (e.g., height), rowing technique, and bicycle ergometer tests. In addition, coaches often used their intuition to set teams. For example, some coaches simply put the tallest or the most experienced athletes in the boat. One could accept such decisions out of respect for the coach, but it seems that there must be a better way.
When I began coaching in 1976, new rowing evaluation methods were developed, such as the rowing ergometer, physiological tests, and the Harry Parker seat-race model. This model is a system of races that uses two coxed fours. The crews face off against each other for 3-minute intervals at set stroke rates, and after each interval, the coach names two rowers to change opposite seats in the two fours and the race interval is repeated to evaluate which rower contributes most in moving the boat faster.
This method attracted my attention since it seemed to measure performance more objectively. As a young, motivated coach, I decided to develop my first model of seat racing, which is chronicled in the original Rowing Canada National Coaching Certification Program (NCCP) level 3 rowing manual. I first used it coaching at the University of British Columbia. To this day, I apologize to those young men for having to race as many as 36 750 m intervals in coxed fours over 2 days to select the varsity eight! This model was set up so that each rower raced in every possible boat and with every possible combination. It is an ambitious example of how the desire to gain information and keep the process fair can lead to an extreme method that goes beyond the initial goal. However, one by-product of this procedure was that the rowers exposed to this selection method became very race ready. One could have called this a survival of the fittest selection model.
The best selection models are legitimate and based on solid criteria. In addition, they all start by letting rowers know the plan early and allowing them to practice the necessary test procedure as often as possible.
Factors to Consider for Selection
Selection has important implications for an athlete and the success of a rowing program. Therefore, coaches should consider the following criteria when planning and implementing selection models: objectivity, validity, reliability, and economy. Any good test procedure must be conducted with these in mind.
Objectivity
An objective test measures a variable independent of the people conducting the test and the circumstances of the test. In other words, the test has to be fair.
Objective selection methods guarantee unbiased measures of the rower's ability. They all start with giving each rower the same information and encouragement. A good example of an objective test for selecting a single is all competitors racing off over 2,000 m in singles.
Validity
A test is valid if it measures a specified ability. It is a challenge to find valid test methods to select a crew from a group of athletes. Rowing requires a complex set of qualities that qualify someone as a valuable crew member.
For instance, an ergometer test measures power per stroke, ability to focus, certain aspects of good rowing (such as stroke length and proper sequencing), length, leg drive, and relaxation. Therefore, an ergometer test is a valid procedure to evaluate specific rowing skills, which is why it presents important information for crew selection. However, an ergometer test cannot answer all selection questions in rowing. For example, when it comes to assessing a rower's boat-moving qualities, the most valid test would be an evaluation in the targeted boat because it accurately measures all of the variables in rowing. Though a race-off in a single is a valid method to select the single and to identify general boat-moving abilities, many would debate that selection races in singles are a valid method to select a double or quad as well. Therefore, no one method is completely valid for crew selection.
Reliability
A test is reliable if it accurately measures a quality and is repeatable. In past years, USRowing introduced open trials in which crew selection is decided by whoever wins two out of three events. This is done to increase the reliability of the selection process, since crews have to demonstrate that they can repeat their performance. In this way, their win isn't just a random occurrence.
Therefore, if one chooses to use seat races as a selection model, the results should be the same if repeated. Though the times of seat races can be measured accurately, the time over a certain distance may vary for a crew, especially if rowers are not experienced or row in combinations that they have not practiced before. Also, wind conditions could have an influence on seat-racing results. Consequently, one has to set up a seat race carefully to make it reliable for crew selection.
It is possible to ensure the reliability of a test by carrying out more than one assessment. If all goes according to plan, the results of the second test should support those of the first test.
Economy
A test is economical if its overall costs are manageable for the program. Those costs could be money but also include time involved, necessary equipment, and personnel.
This criterion is easy to understand, and in a practical rowing setting, this may be an influential consideration. To conduct seat races, for instance, one needs fair water conditions, equal equipment, correct preparation of the rowers, and a manageable number of rowers. Therefore, such a selection method becomes too costly if the program has, for example, 40 rowers with not enough fours or pairs of equal quality. One would need to buy or bring in boats and would likely need 2 weeks of racing. This method may cost too much money and take too much time, in which case it would not work in this situation. In other words, testing and selection has to be achievable.
Every test needs to satisfy all four criteria (objectivity, validity, reliability, and economy) in order to select the best rowers. To apply these guidelines, the following are required:
The testing process must be known to all rowers and coaches well in advance.All rowers must have sufficient preparation time and equal time to row in each combination that will be tested.All rowers must be equally encouraged and motivated during the whole process.Equipment must be the same for all rowers.Water conditions need to be the same for all crews.
Read more about Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
Four ways to determine if someone is a rowing expert
In current explorations of expert performance in sport, two general rules are often used to classify whether someone has attained expert status.
What Are Experts, and What Can They Tell Us About How Athletes Learn?
What is an expert? This seems to be an easy question, but from a research standpoint, how you define expert is an important consideration. Is a world champion an expert? Consider the story of Graham Little, an Irish sports journalist who is also a member of the amateur world championship elephant polo team (seriously!). With no prior experience in the sport, Little and some friends participated in a week of competition in the Nepalese jungle, emerging with the amateur trophy. If we were to use world champion as our criterion of sporting expertise, the Irish elephant polo team would be experts, which is a bit of a problem in this case. Given the long-storied history of rowing coupled with the refinement of rowing technique and skill over time, using this type of system for defining rowing expertise is not such a problem—generally speaking, the Olympic or world champion in any rowing event represents an extremely high standard of achievement.
Another method for defining expertise is based on whether a person has met specific criteria. In current explorations of expert performance in sport, two general rules are often used to classify whether someone has attained expert status. The 10-year rule (Simon & Chase, 1973) and the 10,000-hour rule (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Romer, 1993) are both grounded in the notion that expertise results from extensive devotion to quality training.
The notion that training is king is grounded in considerable scientific evidence. Models that explain exceptional performance as a result of high quality training have flourished since the classic studies by de Groot (1965) and Simon and Chase (1973). Prior to this research, most believed that performance at the highest levels was governed by genetic factors. The work by de Groot and Simon and Chase was the beginning of the end for the view that biology preordained one's destiny. Their research revealed that differences between chess experts and nonexperts were related to knowledge of chess positions gathered over years of training and not superior cognitive functioning in general (i.e., expertise is domain specific and not general).
The researchers had players view chessboards with the pieces either displayed in a chess-specific structure (e.g., the King's Knight defense) or randomly placed on the board. The nonexperts performed similarly with both types of boards (around seven pieces could be recalled). Expert players, on the other hand, were able to recall much more information from the boards that were organized in a way that made sense in the world of chess. This finding showed that expert chess players are skilled at recalling chess-specific information but not information in general, which led the researchers to propose that cognitive expertise results from learning, not innate talent. This superior recognition of structured scenes by experts has been replicated in the sport domain by several studies (Allard, Graham, & Paarsalu, 1980; Allard & Starkes, 1980; Helsen & Pauwels, 1993; Starkes, 1987). From this initial research, the field of expert performance developed.
In 1991, Ericsson and Smith presented the expert-performance approach as a conceptual framework (for a recent review see Ericsson, Nandagopal, & Roring, 2009). Within this conceptual framework, examining expert performance in a given domain (rowing in our case) involves three steps (figure 3.1). In the first step, tests need to be found that capture expert performance. This is easy in rowing because at the end of a race there is a clear winner (i.e., the first boat over the line), but in other sports (e.g., sports with an aesthetic component such as figure skating or diving) the best performer is not so easy to identify.
The second step is to identify the mechanisms underlying this superior performance. Common techniques in sport expertise involve tracking experts' eye movements or asking them to describe their decision-making process, and coming from a cognitive psychology perspective, this is reasonable. However, for rowing, others factors might be more appropriate.
Studies on expertise in rowing have concentrated on four fields of sport science. First, researchers have considered whether expert and advanced rowers differ in anthropometric measures, or the dimensions of their bodies (e.g., Desgorces, Chennaoui, & Guezennec, 2004; Purge, Jürimäe, & Jürimäe, 2004). In a recent study, Kerr and colleagues (2007) compared anthropometric measures of rowers from varying expertise levels and noted significant differences between open-class and lightweight rowers and a control group of healthy young adults.
Second, researchers have examined differences in biomechanical patterns. Smith and Spinks (1995) showed differences among novice, good, and elite rowers in propulsive power per kilogram of body mass, stroke-to-stroke consistency, stroke smoothness, and propulsive work consistency.
Third, considerable attention has been paid to physiological aspects of rowing performance. Studies by Steinacker (1993); Ingham, Carter, Whyte, and Doust (2007); and Mikulic, Ruzic, and Oreb (2007) differentiated experts from novice and advanced rowers by oxygen uptake (V?O2max). Additionally, Huang, Nesser, and Edwards (2007) noted a range of strength and power variables associated with rowing performance, while others have investigated biochemical parameters for rowing performance (see Mäestu, Jürimäe, & Jurimäe, 2005, for a review).
Fourth, psychological skills that underpin successful rowing performance have been investigated. Raglin, Morgan, and Luchsinger (1990) noted significant differences between successful and unsuccessful rowers on measures of mood and self-motivation. More recently, Connolly and Janelle (2003) investigated attentional strategies and found that rowers were significantly faster when employing associative attentional styles (i.e., performance-related focus) compared with dissociative (i.e., distraction) or natural attentional strategies. Although more research is required in the four fields just described, this evidence reveals a number of parameters that distinguish expert rowers from their nonexpert counterparts.
Once distinguishing factors have been identified, the third step within the expert-performance approach considers how these factors can be explained: Are they innate capabilities or do they result from training?
Read more from Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
Adjusting to special circumstances helps turn rowers into experts
Setting the rowing equipment for normal practice is one thing, but adjusting the equipment to special circumstances is the next level that rowers and coaches need to achieve on their way to becoming experts.
Adjustment to Special Circumstances
Setting the rowing equipment for normal practice is one thing, but adjusting the equipment to special circumstances is the next level that rowers and coaches need to achieve on their way to becoming experts. All alterations follow logical reasons, but the possible combinations available can make decisions difficult. Table 10.4 gives an overview of possible circumstances that call for rigging adjustments. It is assumed that the rowing equipment is set for normal training usage and specific circumstances require intervention. Depending on the crew's situation, some of the suggested modifications may not work or may work only in conjunction with other adjustments. Therefore, the suggestions are general and need to be tested by the individual crew.
Some of the observed challenges could be fixed with technical interventions. Such interventions are not discussed in this chapter; instead, only equipment adjustments are suggested (see table 10.4). Nonetheless, it is assumed that coaches always check their crews' rowing technique before equipment changes are made. Also, it is important for the coach to evaluate the possible effects of the circumstances on the crew to identify the most important intervention to be performed first. The proposed modifications are in no particular order. Also, in most cases crews present a variety of technical problems at once, and one of the most challenging tasks for a coach is to decide which problem is the most important and must be addressed first. Ideally, the coach identifies the most pressing problem and chooses the most appropriate intervention.
With all these measurements and interventions, it is important to ask how accurate such measurements can be. The accuracy of the measurement is directly connected to the quality of the measurement equipment and the proficiency of the person using the equipment. However, only a certain level of accuracy is required in some circumstances. For example, some pitch meters can only measure to a full degree, so the coach must be skilled enough to distinguish a difference of 1° pitch. In this case, the accuracy with which the coach is performing the procedure is most likely better than that of the equipment.
A more expensive electronic pitch meter can measure to a tenth of a degree, but it is much more difficult to get the same number to the identical tenth of a degree when the measurement is repeated. In this case, the accuracy of the equipment is better than that of the coach, and much more skill is involved in using such equipment.
Accuracy can be checked by repeating the measurement, including zeroing the meter. Only if the same number is assessed for repeated measurements is the procedure performed accurately.
How accurate does one have to be? A boat is continuously pitching and rolling when rowed, which directly affects the pitch on the blade. For example, research has revealed that even world-class 8+ crews roll their boats up to about 2° with every stroke (Nolte & McLaughlin, 2005). This means that for some parts of the stroke, the lateral pitch would be +2° on one side and −2° on the other side. Less experienced crews and smaller boats tend to roll even more (novices up to a 6°-8° roll). Although such rolling movement is not intended nor seen as positive, it is evidently happening in every crew, so it is clear that rowers can indeed tolerate quite a bit of difference in pitch on the blade. In addition, today's bigger blades are less sensitive to pitch. Therefore, the accuracy of about 0.5° is sufficient for measuring pitch on the oarlock.
As long as the accuracy of the measurement is better than the desired accuracy, one can be satisfied. Otherwise, one would have to either acquire a better measurement tool or learn to perform the measurement more precisely. The same considerations apply to all other rigging measurements. The desired accuracy of the measurements can be seen in table 10.5.
The presented information is based on many studies and extensive experience, and it can be safely used as standard measurements. Measurements within a boat should generally stay the same. This will help with balance and make it easy to move rowers among various seats and boats. Sometimes individualized adjustments are necessary, but they should be kept to a minimum.
Read more about Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
The five elements of effortless rowing
Effortless crews do not waste a movement. Any movement should be well sequenced and have only a positive impact on the performance of the hull.
The Process of Effortless Rowing: No Waste, No Extras
Effortless crews do not waste a movement. Any movement should be well sequenced and have only a positive impact on the performance of the hull.
Platform
Effortless crews have a strong commitment to the platform of the boat. The word platform suggests a solid surface or base from which all activity can occur. In the case of rowing we are referring to the need to have the boat balanced from side to side. A number of factors contribute to boat balance, including seated position in the boat and handle heights. So many people do not sit squarely and evenly in the boat. If athletes are not in the intended start point, they are creating a challenge that should not have to be considered.
The oar is not only a propulsive device but also a major contributor to balance. All athletes in a boat must ensure that they are able to carry the oar handle on a consistent path yet be able to make fine adjustments as other variables affect the boat.
The Ginn example described previously is one where the boat did not have a good platform (due to conditions). The hands were possibly coming forward on the best plane they could, but the rigger sat somewhere above this path. It is possible that the athletes were knocked off their platform by a blade clipping the water on a previous stroke, leading to this loss of platform.
An excellent image of platform in rowing is the Great Britain men's pair in 2002 (James Cracknell and Matthew Pinsent). They not only were committed to a fast, aggressive start, but they also were committed with their bodies and hands to ensure that they had a platform from which they could work. Their racing intent would not have been achievable without their process intent of having a solid platform.
Stroke Length
Long, well-sequenced movements should be the aim of every crew. The challenge, however, is determining the optimal stroke length. Which stroke rate at race velocity is most effective to bring about the boat speed that will ultimately lead to victory?
Once again, this is where we introduce some compromises to the ideal, which will establish what is most effective for a particular crew. Crews must identify their optimal stroke length. Though there are variations in the arc of the stroke, the rowers will no doubt start out with the objective of wanting to row as long as they can. Over time they will start to make some compromises when they consider the effect of stroke length on other aspects of the stroke. For example, let's say a crew is rowing a sweep arc of 98° but cannot rate above 32 spm. What is the effective arc? What is the effect of only rowing 92°? In order to reduce the arc to an effective 92°, what changes should the crew make?
Allow the Boat to Work
Rowing is a series of compromises. The best crews have a good compromise between horsepower and boat movement efficiency.
A top-class crew will be able to accelerate the boat for the larger part of the complete stroke cycle, and for the remaining part of the time the boat will be experiencing deceleration. Top crews will continue to attempt to improve on this position, while less efficient crews will show more deceleration. Deceleration increases in two main ways. The first way is coming onto the footstretcher heavily as you move forward on the last part of the recovery. There will definitely be deceleration coming into the catch position, but it is a matter of doing this as smoothly and evenly as possible. A rush in the last part of the recovery or the body falling over the feet at the front will see a further deceleration of the boat.
There will also be a period of deceleration as rowers take the water and initiate the leg drive. However, this deceleration will occupy a greater percentage of the drive phase if rowers are not skillful in the introduction of the body and the arm draw.
Some top international crews appear to simply be muscling the boat along but still have optimized the time their boat is under acceleration. As with any consideration of acceleration and boat behavior, we want to ensure that the boat is achieving an acceptable velocity. Some successful crews clearly trade efficiency of acceleration for power.
Sequence and Added Extras
If you think through the list of all the possible technical problems that crews might display, most fall into one of two categories: movements performed in the incorrect sequence and extra movements in the stroke that should not be present. For example, if the body swing occurs too early, it adds unnecessary vertical movement and reduces the power of the legs. Or, if the handle moves up and down during the recovery, it spoils the platform. The effortless rower will not yield to these fundamental errors.
Blade Skills
Coaches can spend a lot of time coaching the body (that is, how the movements occur in the boat) and neglecting blade skills. We are all aware that what happens inside the boat dictates what happens with the blade, yet it is the blade that is our point of propulsive connection. If the blade is not suitably prepared by being squared and ready to go into the water, we are creating an inefficiency that should not be present. This inefficiency is incredibly costly.
The blade must be sufficiently high off the water so as to ensure that it can be squared soon enough to be placed into the water at the forward-most point of reach (figure 13.1a). This will ensure the possibility of a direct movement of the blade into the water.
A blade too close to or too far from the water results in inefficiency through the front turn of the stroke (figure 13.1b). The correct movement through the front turn is set up through a back turn that can be described as having shape and being bold. If we have sufficient step-out, we should be able to row a good line of the blade on the recovery and achieve the front turn as previously described. The blade should step cleanly from the water—out of the front of the puddle and clearly over it as it is carried forward on the recovery. Good crews make this look easy, but it is a skill that they have spent countless hours practicing.
Read more about Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
The five factors to consider when selecting test procedures
The best selection models are legitimate and based on solid criteria. In addition, they all start by letting rowers know the plan early and allowing them to practice the necessary test procedure as often as possible.
Selection Methods
When I rowed from 1965 to 1976, we used many methods of testing, including weightlifting tests, running tests, anatomical measures (e.g., height), rowing technique, and bicycle ergometer tests. In addition, coaches often used their intuition to set teams. For example, some coaches simply put the tallest or the most experienced athletes in the boat. One could accept such decisions out of respect for the coach, but it seems that there must be a better way.
When I began coaching in 1976, new rowing evaluation methods were developed, such as the rowing ergometer, physiological tests, and the Harry Parker seat-race model. This model is a system of races that uses two coxed fours. The crews face off against each other for 3-minute intervals at set stroke rates, and after each interval, the coach names two rowers to change opposite seats in the two fours and the race interval is repeated to evaluate which rower contributes most in moving the boat faster.
This method attracted my attention since it seemed to measure performance more objectively. As a young, motivated coach, I decided to develop my first model of seat racing, which is chronicled in the original Rowing Canada National Coaching Certification Program (NCCP) level 3 rowing manual. I first used it coaching at the University of British Columbia. To this day, I apologize to those young men for having to race as many as 36 750 m intervals in coxed fours over 2 days to select the varsity eight! This model was set up so that each rower raced in every possible boat and with every possible combination. It is an ambitious example of how the desire to gain information and keep the process fair can lead to an extreme method that goes beyond the initial goal. However, one by-product of this procedure was that the rowers exposed to this selection method became very race ready. One could have called this a survival of the fittest selection model.
The best selection models are legitimate and based on solid criteria. In addition, they all start by letting rowers know the plan early and allowing them to practice the necessary test procedure as often as possible.
Factors to Consider for Selection
Selection has important implications for an athlete and the success of a rowing program. Therefore, coaches should consider the following criteria when planning and implementing selection models: objectivity, validity, reliability, and economy. Any good test procedure must be conducted with these in mind.
Objectivity
An objective test measures a variable independent of the people conducting the test and the circumstances of the test. In other words, the test has to be fair.
Objective selection methods guarantee unbiased measures of the rower's ability. They all start with giving each rower the same information and encouragement. A good example of an objective test for selecting a single is all competitors racing off over 2,000 m in singles.
Validity
A test is valid if it measures a specified ability. It is a challenge to find valid test methods to select a crew from a group of athletes. Rowing requires a complex set of qualities that qualify someone as a valuable crew member.
For instance, an ergometer test measures power per stroke, ability to focus, certain aspects of good rowing (such as stroke length and proper sequencing), length, leg drive, and relaxation. Therefore, an ergometer test is a valid procedure to evaluate specific rowing skills, which is why it presents important information for crew selection. However, an ergometer test cannot answer all selection questions in rowing. For example, when it comes to assessing a rower's boat-moving qualities, the most valid test would be an evaluation in the targeted boat because it accurately measures all of the variables in rowing. Though a race-off in a single is a valid method to select the single and to identify general boat-moving abilities, many would debate that selection races in singles are a valid method to select a double or quad as well. Therefore, no one method is completely valid for crew selection.
Reliability
A test is reliable if it accurately measures a quality and is repeatable. In past years, USRowing introduced open trials in which crew selection is decided by whoever wins two out of three events. This is done to increase the reliability of the selection process, since crews have to demonstrate that they can repeat their performance. In this way, their win isn't just a random occurrence.
Therefore, if one chooses to use seat races as a selection model, the results should be the same if repeated. Though the times of seat races can be measured accurately, the time over a certain distance may vary for a crew, especially if rowers are not experienced or row in combinations that they have not practiced before. Also, wind conditions could have an influence on seat-racing results. Consequently, one has to set up a seat race carefully to make it reliable for crew selection.
It is possible to ensure the reliability of a test by carrying out more than one assessment. If all goes according to plan, the results of the second test should support those of the first test.
Economy
A test is economical if its overall costs are manageable for the program. Those costs could be money but also include time involved, necessary equipment, and personnel.
This criterion is easy to understand, and in a practical rowing setting, this may be an influential consideration. To conduct seat races, for instance, one needs fair water conditions, equal equipment, correct preparation of the rowers, and a manageable number of rowers. Therefore, such a selection method becomes too costly if the program has, for example, 40 rowers with not enough fours or pairs of equal quality. One would need to buy or bring in boats and would likely need 2 weeks of racing. This method may cost too much money and take too much time, in which case it would not work in this situation. In other words, testing and selection has to be achievable.
Every test needs to satisfy all four criteria (objectivity, validity, reliability, and economy) in order to select the best rowers. To apply these guidelines, the following are required:
The testing process must be known to all rowers and coaches well in advance.All rowers must have sufficient preparation time and equal time to row in each combination that will be tested.All rowers must be equally encouraged and motivated during the whole process.Equipment must be the same for all rowers.Water conditions need to be the same for all crews.
Read more about Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
Four ways to determine if someone is a rowing expert
In current explorations of expert performance in sport, two general rules are often used to classify whether someone has attained expert status.
What Are Experts, and What Can They Tell Us About How Athletes Learn?
What is an expert? This seems to be an easy question, but from a research standpoint, how you define expert is an important consideration. Is a world champion an expert? Consider the story of Graham Little, an Irish sports journalist who is also a member of the amateur world championship elephant polo team (seriously!). With no prior experience in the sport, Little and some friends participated in a week of competition in the Nepalese jungle, emerging with the amateur trophy. If we were to use world champion as our criterion of sporting expertise, the Irish elephant polo team would be experts, which is a bit of a problem in this case. Given the long-storied history of rowing coupled with the refinement of rowing technique and skill over time, using this type of system for defining rowing expertise is not such a problem—generally speaking, the Olympic or world champion in any rowing event represents an extremely high standard of achievement.
Another method for defining expertise is based on whether a person has met specific criteria. In current explorations of expert performance in sport, two general rules are often used to classify whether someone has attained expert status. The 10-year rule (Simon & Chase, 1973) and the 10,000-hour rule (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Romer, 1993) are both grounded in the notion that expertise results from extensive devotion to quality training.
The notion that training is king is grounded in considerable scientific evidence. Models that explain exceptional performance as a result of high quality training have flourished since the classic studies by de Groot (1965) and Simon and Chase (1973). Prior to this research, most believed that performance at the highest levels was governed by genetic factors. The work by de Groot and Simon and Chase was the beginning of the end for the view that biology preordained one's destiny. Their research revealed that differences between chess experts and nonexperts were related to knowledge of chess positions gathered over years of training and not superior cognitive functioning in general (i.e., expertise is domain specific and not general).
The researchers had players view chessboards with the pieces either displayed in a chess-specific structure (e.g., the King's Knight defense) or randomly placed on the board. The nonexperts performed similarly with both types of boards (around seven pieces could be recalled). Expert players, on the other hand, were able to recall much more information from the boards that were organized in a way that made sense in the world of chess. This finding showed that expert chess players are skilled at recalling chess-specific information but not information in general, which led the researchers to propose that cognitive expertise results from learning, not innate talent. This superior recognition of structured scenes by experts has been replicated in the sport domain by several studies (Allard, Graham, & Paarsalu, 1980; Allard & Starkes, 1980; Helsen & Pauwels, 1993; Starkes, 1987). From this initial research, the field of expert performance developed.
In 1991, Ericsson and Smith presented the expert-performance approach as a conceptual framework (for a recent review see Ericsson, Nandagopal, & Roring, 2009). Within this conceptual framework, examining expert performance in a given domain (rowing in our case) involves three steps (figure 3.1). In the first step, tests need to be found that capture expert performance. This is easy in rowing because at the end of a race there is a clear winner (i.e., the first boat over the line), but in other sports (e.g., sports with an aesthetic component such as figure skating or diving) the best performer is not so easy to identify.
The second step is to identify the mechanisms underlying this superior performance. Common techniques in sport expertise involve tracking experts' eye movements or asking them to describe their decision-making process, and coming from a cognitive psychology perspective, this is reasonable. However, for rowing, others factors might be more appropriate.
Studies on expertise in rowing have concentrated on four fields of sport science. First, researchers have considered whether expert and advanced rowers differ in anthropometric measures, or the dimensions of their bodies (e.g., Desgorces, Chennaoui, & Guezennec, 2004; Purge, Jürimäe, & Jürimäe, 2004). In a recent study, Kerr and colleagues (2007) compared anthropometric measures of rowers from varying expertise levels and noted significant differences between open-class and lightweight rowers and a control group of healthy young adults.
Second, researchers have examined differences in biomechanical patterns. Smith and Spinks (1995) showed differences among novice, good, and elite rowers in propulsive power per kilogram of body mass, stroke-to-stroke consistency, stroke smoothness, and propulsive work consistency.
Third, considerable attention has been paid to physiological aspects of rowing performance. Studies by Steinacker (1993); Ingham, Carter, Whyte, and Doust (2007); and Mikulic, Ruzic, and Oreb (2007) differentiated experts from novice and advanced rowers by oxygen uptake (V?O2max). Additionally, Huang, Nesser, and Edwards (2007) noted a range of strength and power variables associated with rowing performance, while others have investigated biochemical parameters for rowing performance (see Mäestu, Jürimäe, & Jurimäe, 2005, for a review).
Fourth, psychological skills that underpin successful rowing performance have been investigated. Raglin, Morgan, and Luchsinger (1990) noted significant differences between successful and unsuccessful rowers on measures of mood and self-motivation. More recently, Connolly and Janelle (2003) investigated attentional strategies and found that rowers were significantly faster when employing associative attentional styles (i.e., performance-related focus) compared with dissociative (i.e., distraction) or natural attentional strategies. Although more research is required in the four fields just described, this evidence reveals a number of parameters that distinguish expert rowers from their nonexpert counterparts.
Once distinguishing factors have been identified, the third step within the expert-performance approach considers how these factors can be explained: Are they innate capabilities or do they result from training?
Read more from Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
Adjusting to special circumstances helps turn rowers into experts
Setting the rowing equipment for normal practice is one thing, but adjusting the equipment to special circumstances is the next level that rowers and coaches need to achieve on their way to becoming experts.
Adjustment to Special Circumstances
Setting the rowing equipment for normal practice is one thing, but adjusting the equipment to special circumstances is the next level that rowers and coaches need to achieve on their way to becoming experts. All alterations follow logical reasons, but the possible combinations available can make decisions difficult. Table 10.4 gives an overview of possible circumstances that call for rigging adjustments. It is assumed that the rowing equipment is set for normal training usage and specific circumstances require intervention. Depending on the crew's situation, some of the suggested modifications may not work or may work only in conjunction with other adjustments. Therefore, the suggestions are general and need to be tested by the individual crew.
Some of the observed challenges could be fixed with technical interventions. Such interventions are not discussed in this chapter; instead, only equipment adjustments are suggested (see table 10.4). Nonetheless, it is assumed that coaches always check their crews' rowing technique before equipment changes are made. Also, it is important for the coach to evaluate the possible effects of the circumstances on the crew to identify the most important intervention to be performed first. The proposed modifications are in no particular order. Also, in most cases crews present a variety of technical problems at once, and one of the most challenging tasks for a coach is to decide which problem is the most important and must be addressed first. Ideally, the coach identifies the most pressing problem and chooses the most appropriate intervention.
With all these measurements and interventions, it is important to ask how accurate such measurements can be. The accuracy of the measurement is directly connected to the quality of the measurement equipment and the proficiency of the person using the equipment. However, only a certain level of accuracy is required in some circumstances. For example, some pitch meters can only measure to a full degree, so the coach must be skilled enough to distinguish a difference of 1° pitch. In this case, the accuracy with which the coach is performing the procedure is most likely better than that of the equipment.
A more expensive electronic pitch meter can measure to a tenth of a degree, but it is much more difficult to get the same number to the identical tenth of a degree when the measurement is repeated. In this case, the accuracy of the equipment is better than that of the coach, and much more skill is involved in using such equipment.
Accuracy can be checked by repeating the measurement, including zeroing the meter. Only if the same number is assessed for repeated measurements is the procedure performed accurately.
How accurate does one have to be? A boat is continuously pitching and rolling when rowed, which directly affects the pitch on the blade. For example, research has revealed that even world-class 8+ crews roll their boats up to about 2° with every stroke (Nolte & McLaughlin, 2005). This means that for some parts of the stroke, the lateral pitch would be +2° on one side and −2° on the other side. Less experienced crews and smaller boats tend to roll even more (novices up to a 6°-8° roll). Although such rolling movement is not intended nor seen as positive, it is evidently happening in every crew, so it is clear that rowers can indeed tolerate quite a bit of difference in pitch on the blade. In addition, today's bigger blades are less sensitive to pitch. Therefore, the accuracy of about 0.5° is sufficient for measuring pitch on the oarlock.
As long as the accuracy of the measurement is better than the desired accuracy, one can be satisfied. Otherwise, one would have to either acquire a better measurement tool or learn to perform the measurement more precisely. The same considerations apply to all other rigging measurements. The desired accuracy of the measurements can be seen in table 10.5.
The presented information is based on many studies and extensive experience, and it can be safely used as standard measurements. Measurements within a boat should generally stay the same. This will help with balance and make it easy to move rowers among various seats and boats. Sometimes individualized adjustments are necessary, but they should be kept to a minimum.
Read more about Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
The five elements of effortless rowing
Effortless crews do not waste a movement. Any movement should be well sequenced and have only a positive impact on the performance of the hull.
The Process of Effortless Rowing: No Waste, No Extras
Effortless crews do not waste a movement. Any movement should be well sequenced and have only a positive impact on the performance of the hull.
Platform
Effortless crews have a strong commitment to the platform of the boat. The word platform suggests a solid surface or base from which all activity can occur. In the case of rowing we are referring to the need to have the boat balanced from side to side. A number of factors contribute to boat balance, including seated position in the boat and handle heights. So many people do not sit squarely and evenly in the boat. If athletes are not in the intended start point, they are creating a challenge that should not have to be considered.
The oar is not only a propulsive device but also a major contributor to balance. All athletes in a boat must ensure that they are able to carry the oar handle on a consistent path yet be able to make fine adjustments as other variables affect the boat.
The Ginn example described previously is one where the boat did not have a good platform (due to conditions). The hands were possibly coming forward on the best plane they could, but the rigger sat somewhere above this path. It is possible that the athletes were knocked off their platform by a blade clipping the water on a previous stroke, leading to this loss of platform.
An excellent image of platform in rowing is the Great Britain men's pair in 2002 (James Cracknell and Matthew Pinsent). They not only were committed to a fast, aggressive start, but they also were committed with their bodies and hands to ensure that they had a platform from which they could work. Their racing intent would not have been achievable without their process intent of having a solid platform.
Stroke Length
Long, well-sequenced movements should be the aim of every crew. The challenge, however, is determining the optimal stroke length. Which stroke rate at race velocity is most effective to bring about the boat speed that will ultimately lead to victory?
Once again, this is where we introduce some compromises to the ideal, which will establish what is most effective for a particular crew. Crews must identify their optimal stroke length. Though there are variations in the arc of the stroke, the rowers will no doubt start out with the objective of wanting to row as long as they can. Over time they will start to make some compromises when they consider the effect of stroke length on other aspects of the stroke. For example, let's say a crew is rowing a sweep arc of 98° but cannot rate above 32 spm. What is the effective arc? What is the effect of only rowing 92°? In order to reduce the arc to an effective 92°, what changes should the crew make?
Allow the Boat to Work
Rowing is a series of compromises. The best crews have a good compromise between horsepower and boat movement efficiency.
A top-class crew will be able to accelerate the boat for the larger part of the complete stroke cycle, and for the remaining part of the time the boat will be experiencing deceleration. Top crews will continue to attempt to improve on this position, while less efficient crews will show more deceleration. Deceleration increases in two main ways. The first way is coming onto the footstretcher heavily as you move forward on the last part of the recovery. There will definitely be deceleration coming into the catch position, but it is a matter of doing this as smoothly and evenly as possible. A rush in the last part of the recovery or the body falling over the feet at the front will see a further deceleration of the boat.
There will also be a period of deceleration as rowers take the water and initiate the leg drive. However, this deceleration will occupy a greater percentage of the drive phase if rowers are not skillful in the introduction of the body and the arm draw.
Some top international crews appear to simply be muscling the boat along but still have optimized the time their boat is under acceleration. As with any consideration of acceleration and boat behavior, we want to ensure that the boat is achieving an acceptable velocity. Some successful crews clearly trade efficiency of acceleration for power.
Sequence and Added Extras
If you think through the list of all the possible technical problems that crews might display, most fall into one of two categories: movements performed in the incorrect sequence and extra movements in the stroke that should not be present. For example, if the body swing occurs too early, it adds unnecessary vertical movement and reduces the power of the legs. Or, if the handle moves up and down during the recovery, it spoils the platform. The effortless rower will not yield to these fundamental errors.
Blade Skills
Coaches can spend a lot of time coaching the body (that is, how the movements occur in the boat) and neglecting blade skills. We are all aware that what happens inside the boat dictates what happens with the blade, yet it is the blade that is our point of propulsive connection. If the blade is not suitably prepared by being squared and ready to go into the water, we are creating an inefficiency that should not be present. This inefficiency is incredibly costly.
The blade must be sufficiently high off the water so as to ensure that it can be squared soon enough to be placed into the water at the forward-most point of reach (figure 13.1a). This will ensure the possibility of a direct movement of the blade into the water.
A blade too close to or too far from the water results in inefficiency through the front turn of the stroke (figure 13.1b). The correct movement through the front turn is set up through a back turn that can be described as having shape and being bold. If we have sufficient step-out, we should be able to row a good line of the blade on the recovery and achieve the front turn as previously described. The blade should step cleanly from the water—out of the front of the puddle and clearly over it as it is carried forward on the recovery. Good crews make this look easy, but it is a skill that they have spent countless hours practicing.
Read more about Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
The five factors to consider when selecting test procedures
The best selection models are legitimate and based on solid criteria. In addition, they all start by letting rowers know the plan early and allowing them to practice the necessary test procedure as often as possible.
Selection Methods
When I rowed from 1965 to 1976, we used many methods of testing, including weightlifting tests, running tests, anatomical measures (e.g., height), rowing technique, and bicycle ergometer tests. In addition, coaches often used their intuition to set teams. For example, some coaches simply put the tallest or the most experienced athletes in the boat. One could accept such decisions out of respect for the coach, but it seems that there must be a better way.
When I began coaching in 1976, new rowing evaluation methods were developed, such as the rowing ergometer, physiological tests, and the Harry Parker seat-race model. This model is a system of races that uses two coxed fours. The crews face off against each other for 3-minute intervals at set stroke rates, and after each interval, the coach names two rowers to change opposite seats in the two fours and the race interval is repeated to evaluate which rower contributes most in moving the boat faster.
This method attracted my attention since it seemed to measure performance more objectively. As a young, motivated coach, I decided to develop my first model of seat racing, which is chronicled in the original Rowing Canada National Coaching Certification Program (NCCP) level 3 rowing manual. I first used it coaching at the University of British Columbia. To this day, I apologize to those young men for having to race as many as 36 750 m intervals in coxed fours over 2 days to select the varsity eight! This model was set up so that each rower raced in every possible boat and with every possible combination. It is an ambitious example of how the desire to gain information and keep the process fair can lead to an extreme method that goes beyond the initial goal. However, one by-product of this procedure was that the rowers exposed to this selection method became very race ready. One could have called this a survival of the fittest selection model.
The best selection models are legitimate and based on solid criteria. In addition, they all start by letting rowers know the plan early and allowing them to practice the necessary test procedure as often as possible.
Factors to Consider for Selection
Selection has important implications for an athlete and the success of a rowing program. Therefore, coaches should consider the following criteria when planning and implementing selection models: objectivity, validity, reliability, and economy. Any good test procedure must be conducted with these in mind.
Objectivity
An objective test measures a variable independent of the people conducting the test and the circumstances of the test. In other words, the test has to be fair.
Objective selection methods guarantee unbiased measures of the rower's ability. They all start with giving each rower the same information and encouragement. A good example of an objective test for selecting a single is all competitors racing off over 2,000 m in singles.
Validity
A test is valid if it measures a specified ability. It is a challenge to find valid test methods to select a crew from a group of athletes. Rowing requires a complex set of qualities that qualify someone as a valuable crew member.
For instance, an ergometer test measures power per stroke, ability to focus, certain aspects of good rowing (such as stroke length and proper sequencing), length, leg drive, and relaxation. Therefore, an ergometer test is a valid procedure to evaluate specific rowing skills, which is why it presents important information for crew selection. However, an ergometer test cannot answer all selection questions in rowing. For example, when it comes to assessing a rower's boat-moving qualities, the most valid test would be an evaluation in the targeted boat because it accurately measures all of the variables in rowing. Though a race-off in a single is a valid method to select the single and to identify general boat-moving abilities, many would debate that selection races in singles are a valid method to select a double or quad as well. Therefore, no one method is completely valid for crew selection.
Reliability
A test is reliable if it accurately measures a quality and is repeatable. In past years, USRowing introduced open trials in which crew selection is decided by whoever wins two out of three events. This is done to increase the reliability of the selection process, since crews have to demonstrate that they can repeat their performance. In this way, their win isn't just a random occurrence.
Therefore, if one chooses to use seat races as a selection model, the results should be the same if repeated. Though the times of seat races can be measured accurately, the time over a certain distance may vary for a crew, especially if rowers are not experienced or row in combinations that they have not practiced before. Also, wind conditions could have an influence on seat-racing results. Consequently, one has to set up a seat race carefully to make it reliable for crew selection.
It is possible to ensure the reliability of a test by carrying out more than one assessment. If all goes according to plan, the results of the second test should support those of the first test.
Economy
A test is economical if its overall costs are manageable for the program. Those costs could be money but also include time involved, necessary equipment, and personnel.
This criterion is easy to understand, and in a practical rowing setting, this may be an influential consideration. To conduct seat races, for instance, one needs fair water conditions, equal equipment, correct preparation of the rowers, and a manageable number of rowers. Therefore, such a selection method becomes too costly if the program has, for example, 40 rowers with not enough fours or pairs of equal quality. One would need to buy or bring in boats and would likely need 2 weeks of racing. This method may cost too much money and take too much time, in which case it would not work in this situation. In other words, testing and selection has to be achievable.
Every test needs to satisfy all four criteria (objectivity, validity, reliability, and economy) in order to select the best rowers. To apply these guidelines, the following are required:
The testing process must be known to all rowers and coaches well in advance.All rowers must have sufficient preparation time and equal time to row in each combination that will be tested.All rowers must be equally encouraged and motivated during the whole process.Equipment must be the same for all rowers.Water conditions need to be the same for all crews.
Read more about Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
Four ways to determine if someone is a rowing expert
In current explorations of expert performance in sport, two general rules are often used to classify whether someone has attained expert status.
What Are Experts, and What Can They Tell Us About How Athletes Learn?
What is an expert? This seems to be an easy question, but from a research standpoint, how you define expert is an important consideration. Is a world champion an expert? Consider the story of Graham Little, an Irish sports journalist who is also a member of the amateur world championship elephant polo team (seriously!). With no prior experience in the sport, Little and some friends participated in a week of competition in the Nepalese jungle, emerging with the amateur trophy. If we were to use world champion as our criterion of sporting expertise, the Irish elephant polo team would be experts, which is a bit of a problem in this case. Given the long-storied history of rowing coupled with the refinement of rowing technique and skill over time, using this type of system for defining rowing expertise is not such a problem—generally speaking, the Olympic or world champion in any rowing event represents an extremely high standard of achievement.
Another method for defining expertise is based on whether a person has met specific criteria. In current explorations of expert performance in sport, two general rules are often used to classify whether someone has attained expert status. The 10-year rule (Simon & Chase, 1973) and the 10,000-hour rule (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Romer, 1993) are both grounded in the notion that expertise results from extensive devotion to quality training.
The notion that training is king is grounded in considerable scientific evidence. Models that explain exceptional performance as a result of high quality training have flourished since the classic studies by de Groot (1965) and Simon and Chase (1973). Prior to this research, most believed that performance at the highest levels was governed by genetic factors. The work by de Groot and Simon and Chase was the beginning of the end for the view that biology preordained one's destiny. Their research revealed that differences between chess experts and nonexperts were related to knowledge of chess positions gathered over years of training and not superior cognitive functioning in general (i.e., expertise is domain specific and not general).
The researchers had players view chessboards with the pieces either displayed in a chess-specific structure (e.g., the King's Knight defense) or randomly placed on the board. The nonexperts performed similarly with both types of boards (around seven pieces could be recalled). Expert players, on the other hand, were able to recall much more information from the boards that were organized in a way that made sense in the world of chess. This finding showed that expert chess players are skilled at recalling chess-specific information but not information in general, which led the researchers to propose that cognitive expertise results from learning, not innate talent. This superior recognition of structured scenes by experts has been replicated in the sport domain by several studies (Allard, Graham, & Paarsalu, 1980; Allard & Starkes, 1980; Helsen & Pauwels, 1993; Starkes, 1987). From this initial research, the field of expert performance developed.
In 1991, Ericsson and Smith presented the expert-performance approach as a conceptual framework (for a recent review see Ericsson, Nandagopal, & Roring, 2009). Within this conceptual framework, examining expert performance in a given domain (rowing in our case) involves three steps (figure 3.1). In the first step, tests need to be found that capture expert performance. This is easy in rowing because at the end of a race there is a clear winner (i.e., the first boat over the line), but in other sports (e.g., sports with an aesthetic component such as figure skating or diving) the best performer is not so easy to identify.
The second step is to identify the mechanisms underlying this superior performance. Common techniques in sport expertise involve tracking experts' eye movements or asking them to describe their decision-making process, and coming from a cognitive psychology perspective, this is reasonable. However, for rowing, others factors might be more appropriate.
Studies on expertise in rowing have concentrated on four fields of sport science. First, researchers have considered whether expert and advanced rowers differ in anthropometric measures, or the dimensions of their bodies (e.g., Desgorces, Chennaoui, & Guezennec, 2004; Purge, Jürimäe, & Jürimäe, 2004). In a recent study, Kerr and colleagues (2007) compared anthropometric measures of rowers from varying expertise levels and noted significant differences between open-class and lightweight rowers and a control group of healthy young adults.
Second, researchers have examined differences in biomechanical patterns. Smith and Spinks (1995) showed differences among novice, good, and elite rowers in propulsive power per kilogram of body mass, stroke-to-stroke consistency, stroke smoothness, and propulsive work consistency.
Third, considerable attention has been paid to physiological aspects of rowing performance. Studies by Steinacker (1993); Ingham, Carter, Whyte, and Doust (2007); and Mikulic, Ruzic, and Oreb (2007) differentiated experts from novice and advanced rowers by oxygen uptake (V?O2max). Additionally, Huang, Nesser, and Edwards (2007) noted a range of strength and power variables associated with rowing performance, while others have investigated biochemical parameters for rowing performance (see Mäestu, Jürimäe, & Jurimäe, 2005, for a review).
Fourth, psychological skills that underpin successful rowing performance have been investigated. Raglin, Morgan, and Luchsinger (1990) noted significant differences between successful and unsuccessful rowers on measures of mood and self-motivation. More recently, Connolly and Janelle (2003) investigated attentional strategies and found that rowers were significantly faster when employing associative attentional styles (i.e., performance-related focus) compared with dissociative (i.e., distraction) or natural attentional strategies. Although more research is required in the four fields just described, this evidence reveals a number of parameters that distinguish expert rowers from their nonexpert counterparts.
Once distinguishing factors have been identified, the third step within the expert-performance approach considers how these factors can be explained: Are they innate capabilities or do they result from training?
Read more from Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
Adjusting to special circumstances helps turn rowers into experts
Setting the rowing equipment for normal practice is one thing, but adjusting the equipment to special circumstances is the next level that rowers and coaches need to achieve on their way to becoming experts.
Adjustment to Special Circumstances
Setting the rowing equipment for normal practice is one thing, but adjusting the equipment to special circumstances is the next level that rowers and coaches need to achieve on their way to becoming experts. All alterations follow logical reasons, but the possible combinations available can make decisions difficult. Table 10.4 gives an overview of possible circumstances that call for rigging adjustments. It is assumed that the rowing equipment is set for normal training usage and specific circumstances require intervention. Depending on the crew's situation, some of the suggested modifications may not work or may work only in conjunction with other adjustments. Therefore, the suggestions are general and need to be tested by the individual crew.
Some of the observed challenges could be fixed with technical interventions. Such interventions are not discussed in this chapter; instead, only equipment adjustments are suggested (see table 10.4). Nonetheless, it is assumed that coaches always check their crews' rowing technique before equipment changes are made. Also, it is important for the coach to evaluate the possible effects of the circumstances on the crew to identify the most important intervention to be performed first. The proposed modifications are in no particular order. Also, in most cases crews present a variety of technical problems at once, and one of the most challenging tasks for a coach is to decide which problem is the most important and must be addressed first. Ideally, the coach identifies the most pressing problem and chooses the most appropriate intervention.
With all these measurements and interventions, it is important to ask how accurate such measurements can be. The accuracy of the measurement is directly connected to the quality of the measurement equipment and the proficiency of the person using the equipment. However, only a certain level of accuracy is required in some circumstances. For example, some pitch meters can only measure to a full degree, so the coach must be skilled enough to distinguish a difference of 1° pitch. In this case, the accuracy with which the coach is performing the procedure is most likely better than that of the equipment.
A more expensive electronic pitch meter can measure to a tenth of a degree, but it is much more difficult to get the same number to the identical tenth of a degree when the measurement is repeated. In this case, the accuracy of the equipment is better than that of the coach, and much more skill is involved in using such equipment.
Accuracy can be checked by repeating the measurement, including zeroing the meter. Only if the same number is assessed for repeated measurements is the procedure performed accurately.
How accurate does one have to be? A boat is continuously pitching and rolling when rowed, which directly affects the pitch on the blade. For example, research has revealed that even world-class 8+ crews roll their boats up to about 2° with every stroke (Nolte & McLaughlin, 2005). This means that for some parts of the stroke, the lateral pitch would be +2° on one side and −2° on the other side. Less experienced crews and smaller boats tend to roll even more (novices up to a 6°-8° roll). Although such rolling movement is not intended nor seen as positive, it is evidently happening in every crew, so it is clear that rowers can indeed tolerate quite a bit of difference in pitch on the blade. In addition, today's bigger blades are less sensitive to pitch. Therefore, the accuracy of about 0.5° is sufficient for measuring pitch on the oarlock.
As long as the accuracy of the measurement is better than the desired accuracy, one can be satisfied. Otherwise, one would have to either acquire a better measurement tool or learn to perform the measurement more precisely. The same considerations apply to all other rigging measurements. The desired accuracy of the measurements can be seen in table 10.5.
The presented information is based on many studies and extensive experience, and it can be safely used as standard measurements. Measurements within a boat should generally stay the same. This will help with balance and make it easy to move rowers among various seats and boats. Sometimes individualized adjustments are necessary, but they should be kept to a minimum.
Read more about Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
The five elements of effortless rowing
Effortless crews do not waste a movement. Any movement should be well sequenced and have only a positive impact on the performance of the hull.
The Process of Effortless Rowing: No Waste, No Extras
Effortless crews do not waste a movement. Any movement should be well sequenced and have only a positive impact on the performance of the hull.
Platform
Effortless crews have a strong commitment to the platform of the boat. The word platform suggests a solid surface or base from which all activity can occur. In the case of rowing we are referring to the need to have the boat balanced from side to side. A number of factors contribute to boat balance, including seated position in the boat and handle heights. So many people do not sit squarely and evenly in the boat. If athletes are not in the intended start point, they are creating a challenge that should not have to be considered.
The oar is not only a propulsive device but also a major contributor to balance. All athletes in a boat must ensure that they are able to carry the oar handle on a consistent path yet be able to make fine adjustments as other variables affect the boat.
The Ginn example described previously is one where the boat did not have a good platform (due to conditions). The hands were possibly coming forward on the best plane they could, but the rigger sat somewhere above this path. It is possible that the athletes were knocked off their platform by a blade clipping the water on a previous stroke, leading to this loss of platform.
An excellent image of platform in rowing is the Great Britain men's pair in 2002 (James Cracknell and Matthew Pinsent). They not only were committed to a fast, aggressive start, but they also were committed with their bodies and hands to ensure that they had a platform from which they could work. Their racing intent would not have been achievable without their process intent of having a solid platform.
Stroke Length
Long, well-sequenced movements should be the aim of every crew. The challenge, however, is determining the optimal stroke length. Which stroke rate at race velocity is most effective to bring about the boat speed that will ultimately lead to victory?
Once again, this is where we introduce some compromises to the ideal, which will establish what is most effective for a particular crew. Crews must identify their optimal stroke length. Though there are variations in the arc of the stroke, the rowers will no doubt start out with the objective of wanting to row as long as they can. Over time they will start to make some compromises when they consider the effect of stroke length on other aspects of the stroke. For example, let's say a crew is rowing a sweep arc of 98° but cannot rate above 32 spm. What is the effective arc? What is the effect of only rowing 92°? In order to reduce the arc to an effective 92°, what changes should the crew make?
Allow the Boat to Work
Rowing is a series of compromises. The best crews have a good compromise between horsepower and boat movement efficiency.
A top-class crew will be able to accelerate the boat for the larger part of the complete stroke cycle, and for the remaining part of the time the boat will be experiencing deceleration. Top crews will continue to attempt to improve on this position, while less efficient crews will show more deceleration. Deceleration increases in two main ways. The first way is coming onto the footstretcher heavily as you move forward on the last part of the recovery. There will definitely be deceleration coming into the catch position, but it is a matter of doing this as smoothly and evenly as possible. A rush in the last part of the recovery or the body falling over the feet at the front will see a further deceleration of the boat.
There will also be a period of deceleration as rowers take the water and initiate the leg drive. However, this deceleration will occupy a greater percentage of the drive phase if rowers are not skillful in the introduction of the body and the arm draw.
Some top international crews appear to simply be muscling the boat along but still have optimized the time their boat is under acceleration. As with any consideration of acceleration and boat behavior, we want to ensure that the boat is achieving an acceptable velocity. Some successful crews clearly trade efficiency of acceleration for power.
Sequence and Added Extras
If you think through the list of all the possible technical problems that crews might display, most fall into one of two categories: movements performed in the incorrect sequence and extra movements in the stroke that should not be present. For example, if the body swing occurs too early, it adds unnecessary vertical movement and reduces the power of the legs. Or, if the handle moves up and down during the recovery, it spoils the platform. The effortless rower will not yield to these fundamental errors.
Blade Skills
Coaches can spend a lot of time coaching the body (that is, how the movements occur in the boat) and neglecting blade skills. We are all aware that what happens inside the boat dictates what happens with the blade, yet it is the blade that is our point of propulsive connection. If the blade is not suitably prepared by being squared and ready to go into the water, we are creating an inefficiency that should not be present. This inefficiency is incredibly costly.
The blade must be sufficiently high off the water so as to ensure that it can be squared soon enough to be placed into the water at the forward-most point of reach (figure 13.1a). This will ensure the possibility of a direct movement of the blade into the water.
A blade too close to or too far from the water results in inefficiency through the front turn of the stroke (figure 13.1b). The correct movement through the front turn is set up through a back turn that can be described as having shape and being bold. If we have sufficient step-out, we should be able to row a good line of the blade on the recovery and achieve the front turn as previously described. The blade should step cleanly from the water—out of the front of the puddle and clearly over it as it is carried forward on the recovery. Good crews make this look easy, but it is a skill that they have spent countless hours practicing.
Read more about Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
The five factors to consider when selecting test procedures
The best selection models are legitimate and based on solid criteria. In addition, they all start by letting rowers know the plan early and allowing them to practice the necessary test procedure as often as possible.
Selection Methods
When I rowed from 1965 to 1976, we used many methods of testing, including weightlifting tests, running tests, anatomical measures (e.g., height), rowing technique, and bicycle ergometer tests. In addition, coaches often used their intuition to set teams. For example, some coaches simply put the tallest or the most experienced athletes in the boat. One could accept such decisions out of respect for the coach, but it seems that there must be a better way.
When I began coaching in 1976, new rowing evaluation methods were developed, such as the rowing ergometer, physiological tests, and the Harry Parker seat-race model. This model is a system of races that uses two coxed fours. The crews face off against each other for 3-minute intervals at set stroke rates, and after each interval, the coach names two rowers to change opposite seats in the two fours and the race interval is repeated to evaluate which rower contributes most in moving the boat faster.
This method attracted my attention since it seemed to measure performance more objectively. As a young, motivated coach, I decided to develop my first model of seat racing, which is chronicled in the original Rowing Canada National Coaching Certification Program (NCCP) level 3 rowing manual. I first used it coaching at the University of British Columbia. To this day, I apologize to those young men for having to race as many as 36 750 m intervals in coxed fours over 2 days to select the varsity eight! This model was set up so that each rower raced in every possible boat and with every possible combination. It is an ambitious example of how the desire to gain information and keep the process fair can lead to an extreme method that goes beyond the initial goal. However, one by-product of this procedure was that the rowers exposed to this selection method became very race ready. One could have called this a survival of the fittest selection model.
The best selection models are legitimate and based on solid criteria. In addition, they all start by letting rowers know the plan early and allowing them to practice the necessary test procedure as often as possible.
Factors to Consider for Selection
Selection has important implications for an athlete and the success of a rowing program. Therefore, coaches should consider the following criteria when planning and implementing selection models: objectivity, validity, reliability, and economy. Any good test procedure must be conducted with these in mind.
Objectivity
An objective test measures a variable independent of the people conducting the test and the circumstances of the test. In other words, the test has to be fair.
Objective selection methods guarantee unbiased measures of the rower's ability. They all start with giving each rower the same information and encouragement. A good example of an objective test for selecting a single is all competitors racing off over 2,000 m in singles.
Validity
A test is valid if it measures a specified ability. It is a challenge to find valid test methods to select a crew from a group of athletes. Rowing requires a complex set of qualities that qualify someone as a valuable crew member.
For instance, an ergometer test measures power per stroke, ability to focus, certain aspects of good rowing (such as stroke length and proper sequencing), length, leg drive, and relaxation. Therefore, an ergometer test is a valid procedure to evaluate specific rowing skills, which is why it presents important information for crew selection. However, an ergometer test cannot answer all selection questions in rowing. For example, when it comes to assessing a rower's boat-moving qualities, the most valid test would be an evaluation in the targeted boat because it accurately measures all of the variables in rowing. Though a race-off in a single is a valid method to select the single and to identify general boat-moving abilities, many would debate that selection races in singles are a valid method to select a double or quad as well. Therefore, no one method is completely valid for crew selection.
Reliability
A test is reliable if it accurately measures a quality and is repeatable. In past years, USRowing introduced open trials in which crew selection is decided by whoever wins two out of three events. This is done to increase the reliability of the selection process, since crews have to demonstrate that they can repeat their performance. In this way, their win isn't just a random occurrence.
Therefore, if one chooses to use seat races as a selection model, the results should be the same if repeated. Though the times of seat races can be measured accurately, the time over a certain distance may vary for a crew, especially if rowers are not experienced or row in combinations that they have not practiced before. Also, wind conditions could have an influence on seat-racing results. Consequently, one has to set up a seat race carefully to make it reliable for crew selection.
It is possible to ensure the reliability of a test by carrying out more than one assessment. If all goes according to plan, the results of the second test should support those of the first test.
Economy
A test is economical if its overall costs are manageable for the program. Those costs could be money but also include time involved, necessary equipment, and personnel.
This criterion is easy to understand, and in a practical rowing setting, this may be an influential consideration. To conduct seat races, for instance, one needs fair water conditions, equal equipment, correct preparation of the rowers, and a manageable number of rowers. Therefore, such a selection method becomes too costly if the program has, for example, 40 rowers with not enough fours or pairs of equal quality. One would need to buy or bring in boats and would likely need 2 weeks of racing. This method may cost too much money and take too much time, in which case it would not work in this situation. In other words, testing and selection has to be achievable.
Every test needs to satisfy all four criteria (objectivity, validity, reliability, and economy) in order to select the best rowers. To apply these guidelines, the following are required:
The testing process must be known to all rowers and coaches well in advance.All rowers must have sufficient preparation time and equal time to row in each combination that will be tested.All rowers must be equally encouraged and motivated during the whole process.Equipment must be the same for all rowers.Water conditions need to be the same for all crews.
Read more about Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
Four ways to determine if someone is a rowing expert
In current explorations of expert performance in sport, two general rules are often used to classify whether someone has attained expert status.
What Are Experts, and What Can They Tell Us About How Athletes Learn?
What is an expert? This seems to be an easy question, but from a research standpoint, how you define expert is an important consideration. Is a world champion an expert? Consider the story of Graham Little, an Irish sports journalist who is also a member of the amateur world championship elephant polo team (seriously!). With no prior experience in the sport, Little and some friends participated in a week of competition in the Nepalese jungle, emerging with the amateur trophy. If we were to use world champion as our criterion of sporting expertise, the Irish elephant polo team would be experts, which is a bit of a problem in this case. Given the long-storied history of rowing coupled with the refinement of rowing technique and skill over time, using this type of system for defining rowing expertise is not such a problem—generally speaking, the Olympic or world champion in any rowing event represents an extremely high standard of achievement.
Another method for defining expertise is based on whether a person has met specific criteria. In current explorations of expert performance in sport, two general rules are often used to classify whether someone has attained expert status. The 10-year rule (Simon & Chase, 1973) and the 10,000-hour rule (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Romer, 1993) are both grounded in the notion that expertise results from extensive devotion to quality training.
The notion that training is king is grounded in considerable scientific evidence. Models that explain exceptional performance as a result of high quality training have flourished since the classic studies by de Groot (1965) and Simon and Chase (1973). Prior to this research, most believed that performance at the highest levels was governed by genetic factors. The work by de Groot and Simon and Chase was the beginning of the end for the view that biology preordained one's destiny. Their research revealed that differences between chess experts and nonexperts were related to knowledge of chess positions gathered over years of training and not superior cognitive functioning in general (i.e., expertise is domain specific and not general).
The researchers had players view chessboards with the pieces either displayed in a chess-specific structure (e.g., the King's Knight defense) or randomly placed on the board. The nonexperts performed similarly with both types of boards (around seven pieces could be recalled). Expert players, on the other hand, were able to recall much more information from the boards that were organized in a way that made sense in the world of chess. This finding showed that expert chess players are skilled at recalling chess-specific information but not information in general, which led the researchers to propose that cognitive expertise results from learning, not innate talent. This superior recognition of structured scenes by experts has been replicated in the sport domain by several studies (Allard, Graham, & Paarsalu, 1980; Allard & Starkes, 1980; Helsen & Pauwels, 1993; Starkes, 1987). From this initial research, the field of expert performance developed.
In 1991, Ericsson and Smith presented the expert-performance approach as a conceptual framework (for a recent review see Ericsson, Nandagopal, & Roring, 2009). Within this conceptual framework, examining expert performance in a given domain (rowing in our case) involves three steps (figure 3.1). In the first step, tests need to be found that capture expert performance. This is easy in rowing because at the end of a race there is a clear winner (i.e., the first boat over the line), but in other sports (e.g., sports with an aesthetic component such as figure skating or diving) the best performer is not so easy to identify.
The second step is to identify the mechanisms underlying this superior performance. Common techniques in sport expertise involve tracking experts' eye movements or asking them to describe their decision-making process, and coming from a cognitive psychology perspective, this is reasonable. However, for rowing, others factors might be more appropriate.
Studies on expertise in rowing have concentrated on four fields of sport science. First, researchers have considered whether expert and advanced rowers differ in anthropometric measures, or the dimensions of their bodies (e.g., Desgorces, Chennaoui, & Guezennec, 2004; Purge, Jürimäe, & Jürimäe, 2004). In a recent study, Kerr and colleagues (2007) compared anthropometric measures of rowers from varying expertise levels and noted significant differences between open-class and lightweight rowers and a control group of healthy young adults.
Second, researchers have examined differences in biomechanical patterns. Smith and Spinks (1995) showed differences among novice, good, and elite rowers in propulsive power per kilogram of body mass, stroke-to-stroke consistency, stroke smoothness, and propulsive work consistency.
Third, considerable attention has been paid to physiological aspects of rowing performance. Studies by Steinacker (1993); Ingham, Carter, Whyte, and Doust (2007); and Mikulic, Ruzic, and Oreb (2007) differentiated experts from novice and advanced rowers by oxygen uptake (V?O2max). Additionally, Huang, Nesser, and Edwards (2007) noted a range of strength and power variables associated with rowing performance, while others have investigated biochemical parameters for rowing performance (see Mäestu, Jürimäe, & Jurimäe, 2005, for a review).
Fourth, psychological skills that underpin successful rowing performance have been investigated. Raglin, Morgan, and Luchsinger (1990) noted significant differences between successful and unsuccessful rowers on measures of mood and self-motivation. More recently, Connolly and Janelle (2003) investigated attentional strategies and found that rowers were significantly faster when employing associative attentional styles (i.e., performance-related focus) compared with dissociative (i.e., distraction) or natural attentional strategies. Although more research is required in the four fields just described, this evidence reveals a number of parameters that distinguish expert rowers from their nonexpert counterparts.
Once distinguishing factors have been identified, the third step within the expert-performance approach considers how these factors can be explained: Are they innate capabilities or do they result from training?
Read more from Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
Adjusting to special circumstances helps turn rowers into experts
Setting the rowing equipment for normal practice is one thing, but adjusting the equipment to special circumstances is the next level that rowers and coaches need to achieve on their way to becoming experts.
Adjustment to Special Circumstances
Setting the rowing equipment for normal practice is one thing, but adjusting the equipment to special circumstances is the next level that rowers and coaches need to achieve on their way to becoming experts. All alterations follow logical reasons, but the possible combinations available can make decisions difficult. Table 10.4 gives an overview of possible circumstances that call for rigging adjustments. It is assumed that the rowing equipment is set for normal training usage and specific circumstances require intervention. Depending on the crew's situation, some of the suggested modifications may not work or may work only in conjunction with other adjustments. Therefore, the suggestions are general and need to be tested by the individual crew.
Some of the observed challenges could be fixed with technical interventions. Such interventions are not discussed in this chapter; instead, only equipment adjustments are suggested (see table 10.4). Nonetheless, it is assumed that coaches always check their crews' rowing technique before equipment changes are made. Also, it is important for the coach to evaluate the possible effects of the circumstances on the crew to identify the most important intervention to be performed first. The proposed modifications are in no particular order. Also, in most cases crews present a variety of technical problems at once, and one of the most challenging tasks for a coach is to decide which problem is the most important and must be addressed first. Ideally, the coach identifies the most pressing problem and chooses the most appropriate intervention.
With all these measurements and interventions, it is important to ask how accurate such measurements can be. The accuracy of the measurement is directly connected to the quality of the measurement equipment and the proficiency of the person using the equipment. However, only a certain level of accuracy is required in some circumstances. For example, some pitch meters can only measure to a full degree, so the coach must be skilled enough to distinguish a difference of 1° pitch. In this case, the accuracy with which the coach is performing the procedure is most likely better than that of the equipment.
A more expensive electronic pitch meter can measure to a tenth of a degree, but it is much more difficult to get the same number to the identical tenth of a degree when the measurement is repeated. In this case, the accuracy of the equipment is better than that of the coach, and much more skill is involved in using such equipment.
Accuracy can be checked by repeating the measurement, including zeroing the meter. Only if the same number is assessed for repeated measurements is the procedure performed accurately.
How accurate does one have to be? A boat is continuously pitching and rolling when rowed, which directly affects the pitch on the blade. For example, research has revealed that even world-class 8+ crews roll their boats up to about 2° with every stroke (Nolte & McLaughlin, 2005). This means that for some parts of the stroke, the lateral pitch would be +2° on one side and −2° on the other side. Less experienced crews and smaller boats tend to roll even more (novices up to a 6°-8° roll). Although such rolling movement is not intended nor seen as positive, it is evidently happening in every crew, so it is clear that rowers can indeed tolerate quite a bit of difference in pitch on the blade. In addition, today's bigger blades are less sensitive to pitch. Therefore, the accuracy of about 0.5° is sufficient for measuring pitch on the oarlock.
As long as the accuracy of the measurement is better than the desired accuracy, one can be satisfied. Otherwise, one would have to either acquire a better measurement tool or learn to perform the measurement more precisely. The same considerations apply to all other rigging measurements. The desired accuracy of the measurements can be seen in table 10.5.
The presented information is based on many studies and extensive experience, and it can be safely used as standard measurements. Measurements within a boat should generally stay the same. This will help with balance and make it easy to move rowers among various seats and boats. Sometimes individualized adjustments are necessary, but they should be kept to a minimum.
Read more about Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
The five elements of effortless rowing
Effortless crews do not waste a movement. Any movement should be well sequenced and have only a positive impact on the performance of the hull.
The Process of Effortless Rowing: No Waste, No Extras
Effortless crews do not waste a movement. Any movement should be well sequenced and have only a positive impact on the performance of the hull.
Platform
Effortless crews have a strong commitment to the platform of the boat. The word platform suggests a solid surface or base from which all activity can occur. In the case of rowing we are referring to the need to have the boat balanced from side to side. A number of factors contribute to boat balance, including seated position in the boat and handle heights. So many people do not sit squarely and evenly in the boat. If athletes are not in the intended start point, they are creating a challenge that should not have to be considered.
The oar is not only a propulsive device but also a major contributor to balance. All athletes in a boat must ensure that they are able to carry the oar handle on a consistent path yet be able to make fine adjustments as other variables affect the boat.
The Ginn example described previously is one where the boat did not have a good platform (due to conditions). The hands were possibly coming forward on the best plane they could, but the rigger sat somewhere above this path. It is possible that the athletes were knocked off their platform by a blade clipping the water on a previous stroke, leading to this loss of platform.
An excellent image of platform in rowing is the Great Britain men's pair in 2002 (James Cracknell and Matthew Pinsent). They not only were committed to a fast, aggressive start, but they also were committed with their bodies and hands to ensure that they had a platform from which they could work. Their racing intent would not have been achievable without their process intent of having a solid platform.
Stroke Length
Long, well-sequenced movements should be the aim of every crew. The challenge, however, is determining the optimal stroke length. Which stroke rate at race velocity is most effective to bring about the boat speed that will ultimately lead to victory?
Once again, this is where we introduce some compromises to the ideal, which will establish what is most effective for a particular crew. Crews must identify their optimal stroke length. Though there are variations in the arc of the stroke, the rowers will no doubt start out with the objective of wanting to row as long as they can. Over time they will start to make some compromises when they consider the effect of stroke length on other aspects of the stroke. For example, let's say a crew is rowing a sweep arc of 98° but cannot rate above 32 spm. What is the effective arc? What is the effect of only rowing 92°? In order to reduce the arc to an effective 92°, what changes should the crew make?
Allow the Boat to Work
Rowing is a series of compromises. The best crews have a good compromise between horsepower and boat movement efficiency.
A top-class crew will be able to accelerate the boat for the larger part of the complete stroke cycle, and for the remaining part of the time the boat will be experiencing deceleration. Top crews will continue to attempt to improve on this position, while less efficient crews will show more deceleration. Deceleration increases in two main ways. The first way is coming onto the footstretcher heavily as you move forward on the last part of the recovery. There will definitely be deceleration coming into the catch position, but it is a matter of doing this as smoothly and evenly as possible. A rush in the last part of the recovery or the body falling over the feet at the front will see a further deceleration of the boat.
There will also be a period of deceleration as rowers take the water and initiate the leg drive. However, this deceleration will occupy a greater percentage of the drive phase if rowers are not skillful in the introduction of the body and the arm draw.
Some top international crews appear to simply be muscling the boat along but still have optimized the time their boat is under acceleration. As with any consideration of acceleration and boat behavior, we want to ensure that the boat is achieving an acceptable velocity. Some successful crews clearly trade efficiency of acceleration for power.
Sequence and Added Extras
If you think through the list of all the possible technical problems that crews might display, most fall into one of two categories: movements performed in the incorrect sequence and extra movements in the stroke that should not be present. For example, if the body swing occurs too early, it adds unnecessary vertical movement and reduces the power of the legs. Or, if the handle moves up and down during the recovery, it spoils the platform. The effortless rower will not yield to these fundamental errors.
Blade Skills
Coaches can spend a lot of time coaching the body (that is, how the movements occur in the boat) and neglecting blade skills. We are all aware that what happens inside the boat dictates what happens with the blade, yet it is the blade that is our point of propulsive connection. If the blade is not suitably prepared by being squared and ready to go into the water, we are creating an inefficiency that should not be present. This inefficiency is incredibly costly.
The blade must be sufficiently high off the water so as to ensure that it can be squared soon enough to be placed into the water at the forward-most point of reach (figure 13.1a). This will ensure the possibility of a direct movement of the blade into the water.
A blade too close to or too far from the water results in inefficiency through the front turn of the stroke (figure 13.1b). The correct movement through the front turn is set up through a back turn that can be described as having shape and being bold. If we have sufficient step-out, we should be able to row a good line of the blade on the recovery and achieve the front turn as previously described. The blade should step cleanly from the water—out of the front of the puddle and clearly over it as it is carried forward on the recovery. Good crews make this look easy, but it is a skill that they have spent countless hours practicing.
Read more about Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
The five factors to consider when selecting test procedures
The best selection models are legitimate and based on solid criteria. In addition, they all start by letting rowers know the plan early and allowing them to practice the necessary test procedure as often as possible.
Selection Methods
When I rowed from 1965 to 1976, we used many methods of testing, including weightlifting tests, running tests, anatomical measures (e.g., height), rowing technique, and bicycle ergometer tests. In addition, coaches often used their intuition to set teams. For example, some coaches simply put the tallest or the most experienced athletes in the boat. One could accept such decisions out of respect for the coach, but it seems that there must be a better way.
When I began coaching in 1976, new rowing evaluation methods were developed, such as the rowing ergometer, physiological tests, and the Harry Parker seat-race model. This model is a system of races that uses two coxed fours. The crews face off against each other for 3-minute intervals at set stroke rates, and after each interval, the coach names two rowers to change opposite seats in the two fours and the race interval is repeated to evaluate which rower contributes most in moving the boat faster.
This method attracted my attention since it seemed to measure performance more objectively. As a young, motivated coach, I decided to develop my first model of seat racing, which is chronicled in the original Rowing Canada National Coaching Certification Program (NCCP) level 3 rowing manual. I first used it coaching at the University of British Columbia. To this day, I apologize to those young men for having to race as many as 36 750 m intervals in coxed fours over 2 days to select the varsity eight! This model was set up so that each rower raced in every possible boat and with every possible combination. It is an ambitious example of how the desire to gain information and keep the process fair can lead to an extreme method that goes beyond the initial goal. However, one by-product of this procedure was that the rowers exposed to this selection method became very race ready. One could have called this a survival of the fittest selection model.
The best selection models are legitimate and based on solid criteria. In addition, they all start by letting rowers know the plan early and allowing them to practice the necessary test procedure as often as possible.
Factors to Consider for Selection
Selection has important implications for an athlete and the success of a rowing program. Therefore, coaches should consider the following criteria when planning and implementing selection models: objectivity, validity, reliability, and economy. Any good test procedure must be conducted with these in mind.
Objectivity
An objective test measures a variable independent of the people conducting the test and the circumstances of the test. In other words, the test has to be fair.
Objective selection methods guarantee unbiased measures of the rower's ability. They all start with giving each rower the same information and encouragement. A good example of an objective test for selecting a single is all competitors racing off over 2,000 m in singles.
Validity
A test is valid if it measures a specified ability. It is a challenge to find valid test methods to select a crew from a group of athletes. Rowing requires a complex set of qualities that qualify someone as a valuable crew member.
For instance, an ergometer test measures power per stroke, ability to focus, certain aspects of good rowing (such as stroke length and proper sequencing), length, leg drive, and relaxation. Therefore, an ergometer test is a valid procedure to evaluate specific rowing skills, which is why it presents important information for crew selection. However, an ergometer test cannot answer all selection questions in rowing. For example, when it comes to assessing a rower's boat-moving qualities, the most valid test would be an evaluation in the targeted boat because it accurately measures all of the variables in rowing. Though a race-off in a single is a valid method to select the single and to identify general boat-moving abilities, many would debate that selection races in singles are a valid method to select a double or quad as well. Therefore, no one method is completely valid for crew selection.
Reliability
A test is reliable if it accurately measures a quality and is repeatable. In past years, USRowing introduced open trials in which crew selection is decided by whoever wins two out of three events. This is done to increase the reliability of the selection process, since crews have to demonstrate that they can repeat their performance. In this way, their win isn't just a random occurrence.
Therefore, if one chooses to use seat races as a selection model, the results should be the same if repeated. Though the times of seat races can be measured accurately, the time over a certain distance may vary for a crew, especially if rowers are not experienced or row in combinations that they have not practiced before. Also, wind conditions could have an influence on seat-racing results. Consequently, one has to set up a seat race carefully to make it reliable for crew selection.
It is possible to ensure the reliability of a test by carrying out more than one assessment. If all goes according to plan, the results of the second test should support those of the first test.
Economy
A test is economical if its overall costs are manageable for the program. Those costs could be money but also include time involved, necessary equipment, and personnel.
This criterion is easy to understand, and in a practical rowing setting, this may be an influential consideration. To conduct seat races, for instance, one needs fair water conditions, equal equipment, correct preparation of the rowers, and a manageable number of rowers. Therefore, such a selection method becomes too costly if the program has, for example, 40 rowers with not enough fours or pairs of equal quality. One would need to buy or bring in boats and would likely need 2 weeks of racing. This method may cost too much money and take too much time, in which case it would not work in this situation. In other words, testing and selection has to be achievable.
Every test needs to satisfy all four criteria (objectivity, validity, reliability, and economy) in order to select the best rowers. To apply these guidelines, the following are required:
The testing process must be known to all rowers and coaches well in advance.All rowers must have sufficient preparation time and equal time to row in each combination that will be tested.All rowers must be equally encouraged and motivated during the whole process.Equipment must be the same for all rowers.Water conditions need to be the same for all crews.
Read more about Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
Four ways to determine if someone is a rowing expert
In current explorations of expert performance in sport, two general rules are often used to classify whether someone has attained expert status.
What Are Experts, and What Can They Tell Us About How Athletes Learn?
What is an expert? This seems to be an easy question, but from a research standpoint, how you define expert is an important consideration. Is a world champion an expert? Consider the story of Graham Little, an Irish sports journalist who is also a member of the amateur world championship elephant polo team (seriously!). With no prior experience in the sport, Little and some friends participated in a week of competition in the Nepalese jungle, emerging with the amateur trophy. If we were to use world champion as our criterion of sporting expertise, the Irish elephant polo team would be experts, which is a bit of a problem in this case. Given the long-storied history of rowing coupled with the refinement of rowing technique and skill over time, using this type of system for defining rowing expertise is not such a problem—generally speaking, the Olympic or world champion in any rowing event represents an extremely high standard of achievement.
Another method for defining expertise is based on whether a person has met specific criteria. In current explorations of expert performance in sport, two general rules are often used to classify whether someone has attained expert status. The 10-year rule (Simon & Chase, 1973) and the 10,000-hour rule (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Romer, 1993) are both grounded in the notion that expertise results from extensive devotion to quality training.
The notion that training is king is grounded in considerable scientific evidence. Models that explain exceptional performance as a result of high quality training have flourished since the classic studies by de Groot (1965) and Simon and Chase (1973). Prior to this research, most believed that performance at the highest levels was governed by genetic factors. The work by de Groot and Simon and Chase was the beginning of the end for the view that biology preordained one's destiny. Their research revealed that differences between chess experts and nonexperts were related to knowledge of chess positions gathered over years of training and not superior cognitive functioning in general (i.e., expertise is domain specific and not general).
The researchers had players view chessboards with the pieces either displayed in a chess-specific structure (e.g., the King's Knight defense) or randomly placed on the board. The nonexperts performed similarly with both types of boards (around seven pieces could be recalled). Expert players, on the other hand, were able to recall much more information from the boards that were organized in a way that made sense in the world of chess. This finding showed that expert chess players are skilled at recalling chess-specific information but not information in general, which led the researchers to propose that cognitive expertise results from learning, not innate talent. This superior recognition of structured scenes by experts has been replicated in the sport domain by several studies (Allard, Graham, & Paarsalu, 1980; Allard & Starkes, 1980; Helsen & Pauwels, 1993; Starkes, 1987). From this initial research, the field of expert performance developed.
In 1991, Ericsson and Smith presented the expert-performance approach as a conceptual framework (for a recent review see Ericsson, Nandagopal, & Roring, 2009). Within this conceptual framework, examining expert performance in a given domain (rowing in our case) involves three steps (figure 3.1). In the first step, tests need to be found that capture expert performance. This is easy in rowing because at the end of a race there is a clear winner (i.e., the first boat over the line), but in other sports (e.g., sports with an aesthetic component such as figure skating or diving) the best performer is not so easy to identify.
The second step is to identify the mechanisms underlying this superior performance. Common techniques in sport expertise involve tracking experts' eye movements or asking them to describe their decision-making process, and coming from a cognitive psychology perspective, this is reasonable. However, for rowing, others factors might be more appropriate.
Studies on expertise in rowing have concentrated on four fields of sport science. First, researchers have considered whether expert and advanced rowers differ in anthropometric measures, or the dimensions of their bodies (e.g., Desgorces, Chennaoui, & Guezennec, 2004; Purge, Jürimäe, & Jürimäe, 2004). In a recent study, Kerr and colleagues (2007) compared anthropometric measures of rowers from varying expertise levels and noted significant differences between open-class and lightweight rowers and a control group of healthy young adults.
Second, researchers have examined differences in biomechanical patterns. Smith and Spinks (1995) showed differences among novice, good, and elite rowers in propulsive power per kilogram of body mass, stroke-to-stroke consistency, stroke smoothness, and propulsive work consistency.
Third, considerable attention has been paid to physiological aspects of rowing performance. Studies by Steinacker (1993); Ingham, Carter, Whyte, and Doust (2007); and Mikulic, Ruzic, and Oreb (2007) differentiated experts from novice and advanced rowers by oxygen uptake (V?O2max). Additionally, Huang, Nesser, and Edwards (2007) noted a range of strength and power variables associated with rowing performance, while others have investigated biochemical parameters for rowing performance (see Mäestu, Jürimäe, & Jurimäe, 2005, for a review).
Fourth, psychological skills that underpin successful rowing performance have been investigated. Raglin, Morgan, and Luchsinger (1990) noted significant differences between successful and unsuccessful rowers on measures of mood and self-motivation. More recently, Connolly and Janelle (2003) investigated attentional strategies and found that rowers were significantly faster when employing associative attentional styles (i.e., performance-related focus) compared with dissociative (i.e., distraction) or natural attentional strategies. Although more research is required in the four fields just described, this evidence reveals a number of parameters that distinguish expert rowers from their nonexpert counterparts.
Once distinguishing factors have been identified, the third step within the expert-performance approach considers how these factors can be explained: Are they innate capabilities or do they result from training?
Read more from Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
Adjusting to special circumstances helps turn rowers into experts
Setting the rowing equipment for normal practice is one thing, but adjusting the equipment to special circumstances is the next level that rowers and coaches need to achieve on their way to becoming experts.
Adjustment to Special Circumstances
Setting the rowing equipment for normal practice is one thing, but adjusting the equipment to special circumstances is the next level that rowers and coaches need to achieve on their way to becoming experts. All alterations follow logical reasons, but the possible combinations available can make decisions difficult. Table 10.4 gives an overview of possible circumstances that call for rigging adjustments. It is assumed that the rowing equipment is set for normal training usage and specific circumstances require intervention. Depending on the crew's situation, some of the suggested modifications may not work or may work only in conjunction with other adjustments. Therefore, the suggestions are general and need to be tested by the individual crew.
Some of the observed challenges could be fixed with technical interventions. Such interventions are not discussed in this chapter; instead, only equipment adjustments are suggested (see table 10.4). Nonetheless, it is assumed that coaches always check their crews' rowing technique before equipment changes are made. Also, it is important for the coach to evaluate the possible effects of the circumstances on the crew to identify the most important intervention to be performed first. The proposed modifications are in no particular order. Also, in most cases crews present a variety of technical problems at once, and one of the most challenging tasks for a coach is to decide which problem is the most important and must be addressed first. Ideally, the coach identifies the most pressing problem and chooses the most appropriate intervention.
With all these measurements and interventions, it is important to ask how accurate such measurements can be. The accuracy of the measurement is directly connected to the quality of the measurement equipment and the proficiency of the person using the equipment. However, only a certain level of accuracy is required in some circumstances. For example, some pitch meters can only measure to a full degree, so the coach must be skilled enough to distinguish a difference of 1° pitch. In this case, the accuracy with which the coach is performing the procedure is most likely better than that of the equipment.
A more expensive electronic pitch meter can measure to a tenth of a degree, but it is much more difficult to get the same number to the identical tenth of a degree when the measurement is repeated. In this case, the accuracy of the equipment is better than that of the coach, and much more skill is involved in using such equipment.
Accuracy can be checked by repeating the measurement, including zeroing the meter. Only if the same number is assessed for repeated measurements is the procedure performed accurately.
How accurate does one have to be? A boat is continuously pitching and rolling when rowed, which directly affects the pitch on the blade. For example, research has revealed that even world-class 8+ crews roll their boats up to about 2° with every stroke (Nolte & McLaughlin, 2005). This means that for some parts of the stroke, the lateral pitch would be +2° on one side and −2° on the other side. Less experienced crews and smaller boats tend to roll even more (novices up to a 6°-8° roll). Although such rolling movement is not intended nor seen as positive, it is evidently happening in every crew, so it is clear that rowers can indeed tolerate quite a bit of difference in pitch on the blade. In addition, today's bigger blades are less sensitive to pitch. Therefore, the accuracy of about 0.5° is sufficient for measuring pitch on the oarlock.
As long as the accuracy of the measurement is better than the desired accuracy, one can be satisfied. Otherwise, one would have to either acquire a better measurement tool or learn to perform the measurement more precisely. The same considerations apply to all other rigging measurements. The desired accuracy of the measurements can be seen in table 10.5.
The presented information is based on many studies and extensive experience, and it can be safely used as standard measurements. Measurements within a boat should generally stay the same. This will help with balance and make it easy to move rowers among various seats and boats. Sometimes individualized adjustments are necessary, but they should be kept to a minimum.
Read more about Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
The five elements of effortless rowing
Effortless crews do not waste a movement. Any movement should be well sequenced and have only a positive impact on the performance of the hull.
The Process of Effortless Rowing: No Waste, No Extras
Effortless crews do not waste a movement. Any movement should be well sequenced and have only a positive impact on the performance of the hull.
Platform
Effortless crews have a strong commitment to the platform of the boat. The word platform suggests a solid surface or base from which all activity can occur. In the case of rowing we are referring to the need to have the boat balanced from side to side. A number of factors contribute to boat balance, including seated position in the boat and handle heights. So many people do not sit squarely and evenly in the boat. If athletes are not in the intended start point, they are creating a challenge that should not have to be considered.
The oar is not only a propulsive device but also a major contributor to balance. All athletes in a boat must ensure that they are able to carry the oar handle on a consistent path yet be able to make fine adjustments as other variables affect the boat.
The Ginn example described previously is one where the boat did not have a good platform (due to conditions). The hands were possibly coming forward on the best plane they could, but the rigger sat somewhere above this path. It is possible that the athletes were knocked off their platform by a blade clipping the water on a previous stroke, leading to this loss of platform.
An excellent image of platform in rowing is the Great Britain men's pair in 2002 (James Cracknell and Matthew Pinsent). They not only were committed to a fast, aggressive start, but they also were committed with their bodies and hands to ensure that they had a platform from which they could work. Their racing intent would not have been achievable without their process intent of having a solid platform.
Stroke Length
Long, well-sequenced movements should be the aim of every crew. The challenge, however, is determining the optimal stroke length. Which stroke rate at race velocity is most effective to bring about the boat speed that will ultimately lead to victory?
Once again, this is where we introduce some compromises to the ideal, which will establish what is most effective for a particular crew. Crews must identify their optimal stroke length. Though there are variations in the arc of the stroke, the rowers will no doubt start out with the objective of wanting to row as long as they can. Over time they will start to make some compromises when they consider the effect of stroke length on other aspects of the stroke. For example, let's say a crew is rowing a sweep arc of 98° but cannot rate above 32 spm. What is the effective arc? What is the effect of only rowing 92°? In order to reduce the arc to an effective 92°, what changes should the crew make?
Allow the Boat to Work
Rowing is a series of compromises. The best crews have a good compromise between horsepower and boat movement efficiency.
A top-class crew will be able to accelerate the boat for the larger part of the complete stroke cycle, and for the remaining part of the time the boat will be experiencing deceleration. Top crews will continue to attempt to improve on this position, while less efficient crews will show more deceleration. Deceleration increases in two main ways. The first way is coming onto the footstretcher heavily as you move forward on the last part of the recovery. There will definitely be deceleration coming into the catch position, but it is a matter of doing this as smoothly and evenly as possible. A rush in the last part of the recovery or the body falling over the feet at the front will see a further deceleration of the boat.
There will also be a period of deceleration as rowers take the water and initiate the leg drive. However, this deceleration will occupy a greater percentage of the drive phase if rowers are not skillful in the introduction of the body and the arm draw.
Some top international crews appear to simply be muscling the boat along but still have optimized the time their boat is under acceleration. As with any consideration of acceleration and boat behavior, we want to ensure that the boat is achieving an acceptable velocity. Some successful crews clearly trade efficiency of acceleration for power.
Sequence and Added Extras
If you think through the list of all the possible technical problems that crews might display, most fall into one of two categories: movements performed in the incorrect sequence and extra movements in the stroke that should not be present. For example, if the body swing occurs too early, it adds unnecessary vertical movement and reduces the power of the legs. Or, if the handle moves up and down during the recovery, it spoils the platform. The effortless rower will not yield to these fundamental errors.
Blade Skills
Coaches can spend a lot of time coaching the body (that is, how the movements occur in the boat) and neglecting blade skills. We are all aware that what happens inside the boat dictates what happens with the blade, yet it is the blade that is our point of propulsive connection. If the blade is not suitably prepared by being squared and ready to go into the water, we are creating an inefficiency that should not be present. This inefficiency is incredibly costly.
The blade must be sufficiently high off the water so as to ensure that it can be squared soon enough to be placed into the water at the forward-most point of reach (figure 13.1a). This will ensure the possibility of a direct movement of the blade into the water.
A blade too close to or too far from the water results in inefficiency through the front turn of the stroke (figure 13.1b). The correct movement through the front turn is set up through a back turn that can be described as having shape and being bold. If we have sufficient step-out, we should be able to row a good line of the blade on the recovery and achieve the front turn as previously described. The blade should step cleanly from the water—out of the front of the puddle and clearly over it as it is carried forward on the recovery. Good crews make this look easy, but it is a skill that they have spent countless hours practicing.
Read more about Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
The five factors to consider when selecting test procedures
The best selection models are legitimate and based on solid criteria. In addition, they all start by letting rowers know the plan early and allowing them to practice the necessary test procedure as often as possible.
Selection Methods
When I rowed from 1965 to 1976, we used many methods of testing, including weightlifting tests, running tests, anatomical measures (e.g., height), rowing technique, and bicycle ergometer tests. In addition, coaches often used their intuition to set teams. For example, some coaches simply put the tallest or the most experienced athletes in the boat. One could accept such decisions out of respect for the coach, but it seems that there must be a better way.
When I began coaching in 1976, new rowing evaluation methods were developed, such as the rowing ergometer, physiological tests, and the Harry Parker seat-race model. This model is a system of races that uses two coxed fours. The crews face off against each other for 3-minute intervals at set stroke rates, and after each interval, the coach names two rowers to change opposite seats in the two fours and the race interval is repeated to evaluate which rower contributes most in moving the boat faster.
This method attracted my attention since it seemed to measure performance more objectively. As a young, motivated coach, I decided to develop my first model of seat racing, which is chronicled in the original Rowing Canada National Coaching Certification Program (NCCP) level 3 rowing manual. I first used it coaching at the University of British Columbia. To this day, I apologize to those young men for having to race as many as 36 750 m intervals in coxed fours over 2 days to select the varsity eight! This model was set up so that each rower raced in every possible boat and with every possible combination. It is an ambitious example of how the desire to gain information and keep the process fair can lead to an extreme method that goes beyond the initial goal. However, one by-product of this procedure was that the rowers exposed to this selection method became very race ready. One could have called this a survival of the fittest selection model.
The best selection models are legitimate and based on solid criteria. In addition, they all start by letting rowers know the plan early and allowing them to practice the necessary test procedure as often as possible.
Factors to Consider for Selection
Selection has important implications for an athlete and the success of a rowing program. Therefore, coaches should consider the following criteria when planning and implementing selection models: objectivity, validity, reliability, and economy. Any good test procedure must be conducted with these in mind.
Objectivity
An objective test measures a variable independent of the people conducting the test and the circumstances of the test. In other words, the test has to be fair.
Objective selection methods guarantee unbiased measures of the rower's ability. They all start with giving each rower the same information and encouragement. A good example of an objective test for selecting a single is all competitors racing off over 2,000 m in singles.
Validity
A test is valid if it measures a specified ability. It is a challenge to find valid test methods to select a crew from a group of athletes. Rowing requires a complex set of qualities that qualify someone as a valuable crew member.
For instance, an ergometer test measures power per stroke, ability to focus, certain aspects of good rowing (such as stroke length and proper sequencing), length, leg drive, and relaxation. Therefore, an ergometer test is a valid procedure to evaluate specific rowing skills, which is why it presents important information for crew selection. However, an ergometer test cannot answer all selection questions in rowing. For example, when it comes to assessing a rower's boat-moving qualities, the most valid test would be an evaluation in the targeted boat because it accurately measures all of the variables in rowing. Though a race-off in a single is a valid method to select the single and to identify general boat-moving abilities, many would debate that selection races in singles are a valid method to select a double or quad as well. Therefore, no one method is completely valid for crew selection.
Reliability
A test is reliable if it accurately measures a quality and is repeatable. In past years, USRowing introduced open trials in which crew selection is decided by whoever wins two out of three events. This is done to increase the reliability of the selection process, since crews have to demonstrate that they can repeat their performance. In this way, their win isn't just a random occurrence.
Therefore, if one chooses to use seat races as a selection model, the results should be the same if repeated. Though the times of seat races can be measured accurately, the time over a certain distance may vary for a crew, especially if rowers are not experienced or row in combinations that they have not practiced before. Also, wind conditions could have an influence on seat-racing results. Consequently, one has to set up a seat race carefully to make it reliable for crew selection.
It is possible to ensure the reliability of a test by carrying out more than one assessment. If all goes according to plan, the results of the second test should support those of the first test.
Economy
A test is economical if its overall costs are manageable for the program. Those costs could be money but also include time involved, necessary equipment, and personnel.
This criterion is easy to understand, and in a practical rowing setting, this may be an influential consideration. To conduct seat races, for instance, one needs fair water conditions, equal equipment, correct preparation of the rowers, and a manageable number of rowers. Therefore, such a selection method becomes too costly if the program has, for example, 40 rowers with not enough fours or pairs of equal quality. One would need to buy or bring in boats and would likely need 2 weeks of racing. This method may cost too much money and take too much time, in which case it would not work in this situation. In other words, testing and selection has to be achievable.
Every test needs to satisfy all four criteria (objectivity, validity, reliability, and economy) in order to select the best rowers. To apply these guidelines, the following are required:
The testing process must be known to all rowers and coaches well in advance.All rowers must have sufficient preparation time and equal time to row in each combination that will be tested.All rowers must be equally encouraged and motivated during the whole process.Equipment must be the same for all rowers.Water conditions need to be the same for all crews.
Read more about Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
Four ways to determine if someone is a rowing expert
In current explorations of expert performance in sport, two general rules are often used to classify whether someone has attained expert status.
What Are Experts, and What Can They Tell Us About How Athletes Learn?
What is an expert? This seems to be an easy question, but from a research standpoint, how you define expert is an important consideration. Is a world champion an expert? Consider the story of Graham Little, an Irish sports journalist who is also a member of the amateur world championship elephant polo team (seriously!). With no prior experience in the sport, Little and some friends participated in a week of competition in the Nepalese jungle, emerging with the amateur trophy. If we were to use world champion as our criterion of sporting expertise, the Irish elephant polo team would be experts, which is a bit of a problem in this case. Given the long-storied history of rowing coupled with the refinement of rowing technique and skill over time, using this type of system for defining rowing expertise is not such a problem—generally speaking, the Olympic or world champion in any rowing event represents an extremely high standard of achievement.
Another method for defining expertise is based on whether a person has met specific criteria. In current explorations of expert performance in sport, two general rules are often used to classify whether someone has attained expert status. The 10-year rule (Simon & Chase, 1973) and the 10,000-hour rule (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Romer, 1993) are both grounded in the notion that expertise results from extensive devotion to quality training.
The notion that training is king is grounded in considerable scientific evidence. Models that explain exceptional performance as a result of high quality training have flourished since the classic studies by de Groot (1965) and Simon and Chase (1973). Prior to this research, most believed that performance at the highest levels was governed by genetic factors. The work by de Groot and Simon and Chase was the beginning of the end for the view that biology preordained one's destiny. Their research revealed that differences between chess experts and nonexperts were related to knowledge of chess positions gathered over years of training and not superior cognitive functioning in general (i.e., expertise is domain specific and not general).
The researchers had players view chessboards with the pieces either displayed in a chess-specific structure (e.g., the King's Knight defense) or randomly placed on the board. The nonexperts performed similarly with both types of boards (around seven pieces could be recalled). Expert players, on the other hand, were able to recall much more information from the boards that were organized in a way that made sense in the world of chess. This finding showed that expert chess players are skilled at recalling chess-specific information but not information in general, which led the researchers to propose that cognitive expertise results from learning, not innate talent. This superior recognition of structured scenes by experts has been replicated in the sport domain by several studies (Allard, Graham, & Paarsalu, 1980; Allard & Starkes, 1980; Helsen & Pauwels, 1993; Starkes, 1987). From this initial research, the field of expert performance developed.
In 1991, Ericsson and Smith presented the expert-performance approach as a conceptual framework (for a recent review see Ericsson, Nandagopal, & Roring, 2009). Within this conceptual framework, examining expert performance in a given domain (rowing in our case) involves three steps (figure 3.1). In the first step, tests need to be found that capture expert performance. This is easy in rowing because at the end of a race there is a clear winner (i.e., the first boat over the line), but in other sports (e.g., sports with an aesthetic component such as figure skating or diving) the best performer is not so easy to identify.
The second step is to identify the mechanisms underlying this superior performance. Common techniques in sport expertise involve tracking experts' eye movements or asking them to describe their decision-making process, and coming from a cognitive psychology perspective, this is reasonable. However, for rowing, others factors might be more appropriate.
Studies on expertise in rowing have concentrated on four fields of sport science. First, researchers have considered whether expert and advanced rowers differ in anthropometric measures, or the dimensions of their bodies (e.g., Desgorces, Chennaoui, & Guezennec, 2004; Purge, Jürimäe, & Jürimäe, 2004). In a recent study, Kerr and colleagues (2007) compared anthropometric measures of rowers from varying expertise levels and noted significant differences between open-class and lightweight rowers and a control group of healthy young adults.
Second, researchers have examined differences in biomechanical patterns. Smith and Spinks (1995) showed differences among novice, good, and elite rowers in propulsive power per kilogram of body mass, stroke-to-stroke consistency, stroke smoothness, and propulsive work consistency.
Third, considerable attention has been paid to physiological aspects of rowing performance. Studies by Steinacker (1993); Ingham, Carter, Whyte, and Doust (2007); and Mikulic, Ruzic, and Oreb (2007) differentiated experts from novice and advanced rowers by oxygen uptake (V?O2max). Additionally, Huang, Nesser, and Edwards (2007) noted a range of strength and power variables associated with rowing performance, while others have investigated biochemical parameters for rowing performance (see Mäestu, Jürimäe, & Jurimäe, 2005, for a review).
Fourth, psychological skills that underpin successful rowing performance have been investigated. Raglin, Morgan, and Luchsinger (1990) noted significant differences between successful and unsuccessful rowers on measures of mood and self-motivation. More recently, Connolly and Janelle (2003) investigated attentional strategies and found that rowers were significantly faster when employing associative attentional styles (i.e., performance-related focus) compared with dissociative (i.e., distraction) or natural attentional strategies. Although more research is required in the four fields just described, this evidence reveals a number of parameters that distinguish expert rowers from their nonexpert counterparts.
Once distinguishing factors have been identified, the third step within the expert-performance approach considers how these factors can be explained: Are they innate capabilities or do they result from training?
Read more from Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
Adjusting to special circumstances helps turn rowers into experts
Setting the rowing equipment for normal practice is one thing, but adjusting the equipment to special circumstances is the next level that rowers and coaches need to achieve on their way to becoming experts.
Adjustment to Special Circumstances
Setting the rowing equipment for normal practice is one thing, but adjusting the equipment to special circumstances is the next level that rowers and coaches need to achieve on their way to becoming experts. All alterations follow logical reasons, but the possible combinations available can make decisions difficult. Table 10.4 gives an overview of possible circumstances that call for rigging adjustments. It is assumed that the rowing equipment is set for normal training usage and specific circumstances require intervention. Depending on the crew's situation, some of the suggested modifications may not work or may work only in conjunction with other adjustments. Therefore, the suggestions are general and need to be tested by the individual crew.
Some of the observed challenges could be fixed with technical interventions. Such interventions are not discussed in this chapter; instead, only equipment adjustments are suggested (see table 10.4). Nonetheless, it is assumed that coaches always check their crews' rowing technique before equipment changes are made. Also, it is important for the coach to evaluate the possible effects of the circumstances on the crew to identify the most important intervention to be performed first. The proposed modifications are in no particular order. Also, in most cases crews present a variety of technical problems at once, and one of the most challenging tasks for a coach is to decide which problem is the most important and must be addressed first. Ideally, the coach identifies the most pressing problem and chooses the most appropriate intervention.
With all these measurements and interventions, it is important to ask how accurate such measurements can be. The accuracy of the measurement is directly connected to the quality of the measurement equipment and the proficiency of the person using the equipment. However, only a certain level of accuracy is required in some circumstances. For example, some pitch meters can only measure to a full degree, so the coach must be skilled enough to distinguish a difference of 1° pitch. In this case, the accuracy with which the coach is performing the procedure is most likely better than that of the equipment.
A more expensive electronic pitch meter can measure to a tenth of a degree, but it is much more difficult to get the same number to the identical tenth of a degree when the measurement is repeated. In this case, the accuracy of the equipment is better than that of the coach, and much more skill is involved in using such equipment.
Accuracy can be checked by repeating the measurement, including zeroing the meter. Only if the same number is assessed for repeated measurements is the procedure performed accurately.
How accurate does one have to be? A boat is continuously pitching and rolling when rowed, which directly affects the pitch on the blade. For example, research has revealed that even world-class 8+ crews roll their boats up to about 2° with every stroke (Nolte & McLaughlin, 2005). This means that for some parts of the stroke, the lateral pitch would be +2° on one side and −2° on the other side. Less experienced crews and smaller boats tend to roll even more (novices up to a 6°-8° roll). Although such rolling movement is not intended nor seen as positive, it is evidently happening in every crew, so it is clear that rowers can indeed tolerate quite a bit of difference in pitch on the blade. In addition, today's bigger blades are less sensitive to pitch. Therefore, the accuracy of about 0.5° is sufficient for measuring pitch on the oarlock.
As long as the accuracy of the measurement is better than the desired accuracy, one can be satisfied. Otherwise, one would have to either acquire a better measurement tool or learn to perform the measurement more precisely. The same considerations apply to all other rigging measurements. The desired accuracy of the measurements can be seen in table 10.5.
The presented information is based on many studies and extensive experience, and it can be safely used as standard measurements. Measurements within a boat should generally stay the same. This will help with balance and make it easy to move rowers among various seats and boats. Sometimes individualized adjustments are necessary, but they should be kept to a minimum.
Read more about Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
The five elements of effortless rowing
Effortless crews do not waste a movement. Any movement should be well sequenced and have only a positive impact on the performance of the hull.
The Process of Effortless Rowing: No Waste, No Extras
Effortless crews do not waste a movement. Any movement should be well sequenced and have only a positive impact on the performance of the hull.
Platform
Effortless crews have a strong commitment to the platform of the boat. The word platform suggests a solid surface or base from which all activity can occur. In the case of rowing we are referring to the need to have the boat balanced from side to side. A number of factors contribute to boat balance, including seated position in the boat and handle heights. So many people do not sit squarely and evenly in the boat. If athletes are not in the intended start point, they are creating a challenge that should not have to be considered.
The oar is not only a propulsive device but also a major contributor to balance. All athletes in a boat must ensure that they are able to carry the oar handle on a consistent path yet be able to make fine adjustments as other variables affect the boat.
The Ginn example described previously is one where the boat did not have a good platform (due to conditions). The hands were possibly coming forward on the best plane they could, but the rigger sat somewhere above this path. It is possible that the athletes were knocked off their platform by a blade clipping the water on a previous stroke, leading to this loss of platform.
An excellent image of platform in rowing is the Great Britain men's pair in 2002 (James Cracknell and Matthew Pinsent). They not only were committed to a fast, aggressive start, but they also were committed with their bodies and hands to ensure that they had a platform from which they could work. Their racing intent would not have been achievable without their process intent of having a solid platform.
Stroke Length
Long, well-sequenced movements should be the aim of every crew. The challenge, however, is determining the optimal stroke length. Which stroke rate at race velocity is most effective to bring about the boat speed that will ultimately lead to victory?
Once again, this is where we introduce some compromises to the ideal, which will establish what is most effective for a particular crew. Crews must identify their optimal stroke length. Though there are variations in the arc of the stroke, the rowers will no doubt start out with the objective of wanting to row as long as they can. Over time they will start to make some compromises when they consider the effect of stroke length on other aspects of the stroke. For example, let's say a crew is rowing a sweep arc of 98° but cannot rate above 32 spm. What is the effective arc? What is the effect of only rowing 92°? In order to reduce the arc to an effective 92°, what changes should the crew make?
Allow the Boat to Work
Rowing is a series of compromises. The best crews have a good compromise between horsepower and boat movement efficiency.
A top-class crew will be able to accelerate the boat for the larger part of the complete stroke cycle, and for the remaining part of the time the boat will be experiencing deceleration. Top crews will continue to attempt to improve on this position, while less efficient crews will show more deceleration. Deceleration increases in two main ways. The first way is coming onto the footstretcher heavily as you move forward on the last part of the recovery. There will definitely be deceleration coming into the catch position, but it is a matter of doing this as smoothly and evenly as possible. A rush in the last part of the recovery or the body falling over the feet at the front will see a further deceleration of the boat.
There will also be a period of deceleration as rowers take the water and initiate the leg drive. However, this deceleration will occupy a greater percentage of the drive phase if rowers are not skillful in the introduction of the body and the arm draw.
Some top international crews appear to simply be muscling the boat along but still have optimized the time their boat is under acceleration. As with any consideration of acceleration and boat behavior, we want to ensure that the boat is achieving an acceptable velocity. Some successful crews clearly trade efficiency of acceleration for power.
Sequence and Added Extras
If you think through the list of all the possible technical problems that crews might display, most fall into one of two categories: movements performed in the incorrect sequence and extra movements in the stroke that should not be present. For example, if the body swing occurs too early, it adds unnecessary vertical movement and reduces the power of the legs. Or, if the handle moves up and down during the recovery, it spoils the platform. The effortless rower will not yield to these fundamental errors.
Blade Skills
Coaches can spend a lot of time coaching the body (that is, how the movements occur in the boat) and neglecting blade skills. We are all aware that what happens inside the boat dictates what happens with the blade, yet it is the blade that is our point of propulsive connection. If the blade is not suitably prepared by being squared and ready to go into the water, we are creating an inefficiency that should not be present. This inefficiency is incredibly costly.
The blade must be sufficiently high off the water so as to ensure that it can be squared soon enough to be placed into the water at the forward-most point of reach (figure 13.1a). This will ensure the possibility of a direct movement of the blade into the water.
A blade too close to or too far from the water results in inefficiency through the front turn of the stroke (figure 13.1b). The correct movement through the front turn is set up through a back turn that can be described as having shape and being bold. If we have sufficient step-out, we should be able to row a good line of the blade on the recovery and achieve the front turn as previously described. The blade should step cleanly from the water—out of the front of the puddle and clearly over it as it is carried forward on the recovery. Good crews make this look easy, but it is a skill that they have spent countless hours practicing.
Read more about Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
The five factors to consider when selecting test procedures
The best selection models are legitimate and based on solid criteria. In addition, they all start by letting rowers know the plan early and allowing them to practice the necessary test procedure as often as possible.
Selection Methods
When I rowed from 1965 to 1976, we used many methods of testing, including weightlifting tests, running tests, anatomical measures (e.g., height), rowing technique, and bicycle ergometer tests. In addition, coaches often used their intuition to set teams. For example, some coaches simply put the tallest or the most experienced athletes in the boat. One could accept such decisions out of respect for the coach, but it seems that there must be a better way.
When I began coaching in 1976, new rowing evaluation methods were developed, such as the rowing ergometer, physiological tests, and the Harry Parker seat-race model. This model is a system of races that uses two coxed fours. The crews face off against each other for 3-minute intervals at set stroke rates, and after each interval, the coach names two rowers to change opposite seats in the two fours and the race interval is repeated to evaluate which rower contributes most in moving the boat faster.
This method attracted my attention since it seemed to measure performance more objectively. As a young, motivated coach, I decided to develop my first model of seat racing, which is chronicled in the original Rowing Canada National Coaching Certification Program (NCCP) level 3 rowing manual. I first used it coaching at the University of British Columbia. To this day, I apologize to those young men for having to race as many as 36 750 m intervals in coxed fours over 2 days to select the varsity eight! This model was set up so that each rower raced in every possible boat and with every possible combination. It is an ambitious example of how the desire to gain information and keep the process fair can lead to an extreme method that goes beyond the initial goal. However, one by-product of this procedure was that the rowers exposed to this selection method became very race ready. One could have called this a survival of the fittest selection model.
The best selection models are legitimate and based on solid criteria. In addition, they all start by letting rowers know the plan early and allowing them to practice the necessary test procedure as often as possible.
Factors to Consider for Selection
Selection has important implications for an athlete and the success of a rowing program. Therefore, coaches should consider the following criteria when planning and implementing selection models: objectivity, validity, reliability, and economy. Any good test procedure must be conducted with these in mind.
Objectivity
An objective test measures a variable independent of the people conducting the test and the circumstances of the test. In other words, the test has to be fair.
Objective selection methods guarantee unbiased measures of the rower's ability. They all start with giving each rower the same information and encouragement. A good example of an objective test for selecting a single is all competitors racing off over 2,000 m in singles.
Validity
A test is valid if it measures a specified ability. It is a challenge to find valid test methods to select a crew from a group of athletes. Rowing requires a complex set of qualities that qualify someone as a valuable crew member.
For instance, an ergometer test measures power per stroke, ability to focus, certain aspects of good rowing (such as stroke length and proper sequencing), length, leg drive, and relaxation. Therefore, an ergometer test is a valid procedure to evaluate specific rowing skills, which is why it presents important information for crew selection. However, an ergometer test cannot answer all selection questions in rowing. For example, when it comes to assessing a rower's boat-moving qualities, the most valid test would be an evaluation in the targeted boat because it accurately measures all of the variables in rowing. Though a race-off in a single is a valid method to select the single and to identify general boat-moving abilities, many would debate that selection races in singles are a valid method to select a double or quad as well. Therefore, no one method is completely valid for crew selection.
Reliability
A test is reliable if it accurately measures a quality and is repeatable. In past years, USRowing introduced open trials in which crew selection is decided by whoever wins two out of three events. This is done to increase the reliability of the selection process, since crews have to demonstrate that they can repeat their performance. In this way, their win isn't just a random occurrence.
Therefore, if one chooses to use seat races as a selection model, the results should be the same if repeated. Though the times of seat races can be measured accurately, the time over a certain distance may vary for a crew, especially if rowers are not experienced or row in combinations that they have not practiced before. Also, wind conditions could have an influence on seat-racing results. Consequently, one has to set up a seat race carefully to make it reliable for crew selection.
It is possible to ensure the reliability of a test by carrying out more than one assessment. If all goes according to plan, the results of the second test should support those of the first test.
Economy
A test is economical if its overall costs are manageable for the program. Those costs could be money but also include time involved, necessary equipment, and personnel.
This criterion is easy to understand, and in a practical rowing setting, this may be an influential consideration. To conduct seat races, for instance, one needs fair water conditions, equal equipment, correct preparation of the rowers, and a manageable number of rowers. Therefore, such a selection method becomes too costly if the program has, for example, 40 rowers with not enough fours or pairs of equal quality. One would need to buy or bring in boats and would likely need 2 weeks of racing. This method may cost too much money and take too much time, in which case it would not work in this situation. In other words, testing and selection has to be achievable.
Every test needs to satisfy all four criteria (objectivity, validity, reliability, and economy) in order to select the best rowers. To apply these guidelines, the following are required:
The testing process must be known to all rowers and coaches well in advance.All rowers must have sufficient preparation time and equal time to row in each combination that will be tested.All rowers must be equally encouraged and motivated during the whole process.Equipment must be the same for all rowers.Water conditions need to be the same for all crews.
Read more about Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
Four ways to determine if someone is a rowing expert
In current explorations of expert performance in sport, two general rules are often used to classify whether someone has attained expert status.
What Are Experts, and What Can They Tell Us About How Athletes Learn?
What is an expert? This seems to be an easy question, but from a research standpoint, how you define expert is an important consideration. Is a world champion an expert? Consider the story of Graham Little, an Irish sports journalist who is also a member of the amateur world championship elephant polo team (seriously!). With no prior experience in the sport, Little and some friends participated in a week of competition in the Nepalese jungle, emerging with the amateur trophy. If we were to use world champion as our criterion of sporting expertise, the Irish elephant polo team would be experts, which is a bit of a problem in this case. Given the long-storied history of rowing coupled with the refinement of rowing technique and skill over time, using this type of system for defining rowing expertise is not such a problem—generally speaking, the Olympic or world champion in any rowing event represents an extremely high standard of achievement.
Another method for defining expertise is based on whether a person has met specific criteria. In current explorations of expert performance in sport, two general rules are often used to classify whether someone has attained expert status. The 10-year rule (Simon & Chase, 1973) and the 10,000-hour rule (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Romer, 1993) are both grounded in the notion that expertise results from extensive devotion to quality training.
The notion that training is king is grounded in considerable scientific evidence. Models that explain exceptional performance as a result of high quality training have flourished since the classic studies by de Groot (1965) and Simon and Chase (1973). Prior to this research, most believed that performance at the highest levels was governed by genetic factors. The work by de Groot and Simon and Chase was the beginning of the end for the view that biology preordained one's destiny. Their research revealed that differences between chess experts and nonexperts were related to knowledge of chess positions gathered over years of training and not superior cognitive functioning in general (i.e., expertise is domain specific and not general).
The researchers had players view chessboards with the pieces either displayed in a chess-specific structure (e.g., the King's Knight defense) or randomly placed on the board. The nonexperts performed similarly with both types of boards (around seven pieces could be recalled). Expert players, on the other hand, were able to recall much more information from the boards that were organized in a way that made sense in the world of chess. This finding showed that expert chess players are skilled at recalling chess-specific information but not information in general, which led the researchers to propose that cognitive expertise results from learning, not innate talent. This superior recognition of structured scenes by experts has been replicated in the sport domain by several studies (Allard, Graham, & Paarsalu, 1980; Allard & Starkes, 1980; Helsen & Pauwels, 1993; Starkes, 1987). From this initial research, the field of expert performance developed.
In 1991, Ericsson and Smith presented the expert-performance approach as a conceptual framework (for a recent review see Ericsson, Nandagopal, & Roring, 2009). Within this conceptual framework, examining expert performance in a given domain (rowing in our case) involves three steps (figure 3.1). In the first step, tests need to be found that capture expert performance. This is easy in rowing because at the end of a race there is a clear winner (i.e., the first boat over the line), but in other sports (e.g., sports with an aesthetic component such as figure skating or diving) the best performer is not so easy to identify.
The second step is to identify the mechanisms underlying this superior performance. Common techniques in sport expertise involve tracking experts' eye movements or asking them to describe their decision-making process, and coming from a cognitive psychology perspective, this is reasonable. However, for rowing, others factors might be more appropriate.
Studies on expertise in rowing have concentrated on four fields of sport science. First, researchers have considered whether expert and advanced rowers differ in anthropometric measures, or the dimensions of their bodies (e.g., Desgorces, Chennaoui, & Guezennec, 2004; Purge, Jürimäe, & Jürimäe, 2004). In a recent study, Kerr and colleagues (2007) compared anthropometric measures of rowers from varying expertise levels and noted significant differences between open-class and lightweight rowers and a control group of healthy young adults.
Second, researchers have examined differences in biomechanical patterns. Smith and Spinks (1995) showed differences among novice, good, and elite rowers in propulsive power per kilogram of body mass, stroke-to-stroke consistency, stroke smoothness, and propulsive work consistency.
Third, considerable attention has been paid to physiological aspects of rowing performance. Studies by Steinacker (1993); Ingham, Carter, Whyte, and Doust (2007); and Mikulic, Ruzic, and Oreb (2007) differentiated experts from novice and advanced rowers by oxygen uptake (V?O2max). Additionally, Huang, Nesser, and Edwards (2007) noted a range of strength and power variables associated with rowing performance, while others have investigated biochemical parameters for rowing performance (see Mäestu, Jürimäe, & Jurimäe, 2005, for a review).
Fourth, psychological skills that underpin successful rowing performance have been investigated. Raglin, Morgan, and Luchsinger (1990) noted significant differences between successful and unsuccessful rowers on measures of mood and self-motivation. More recently, Connolly and Janelle (2003) investigated attentional strategies and found that rowers were significantly faster when employing associative attentional styles (i.e., performance-related focus) compared with dissociative (i.e., distraction) or natural attentional strategies. Although more research is required in the four fields just described, this evidence reveals a number of parameters that distinguish expert rowers from their nonexpert counterparts.
Once distinguishing factors have been identified, the third step within the expert-performance approach considers how these factors can be explained: Are they innate capabilities or do they result from training?
Read more from Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
Adjusting to special circumstances helps turn rowers into experts
Setting the rowing equipment for normal practice is one thing, but adjusting the equipment to special circumstances is the next level that rowers and coaches need to achieve on their way to becoming experts.
Adjustment to Special Circumstances
Setting the rowing equipment for normal practice is one thing, but adjusting the equipment to special circumstances is the next level that rowers and coaches need to achieve on their way to becoming experts. All alterations follow logical reasons, but the possible combinations available can make decisions difficult. Table 10.4 gives an overview of possible circumstances that call for rigging adjustments. It is assumed that the rowing equipment is set for normal training usage and specific circumstances require intervention. Depending on the crew's situation, some of the suggested modifications may not work or may work only in conjunction with other adjustments. Therefore, the suggestions are general and need to be tested by the individual crew.
Some of the observed challenges could be fixed with technical interventions. Such interventions are not discussed in this chapter; instead, only equipment adjustments are suggested (see table 10.4). Nonetheless, it is assumed that coaches always check their crews' rowing technique before equipment changes are made. Also, it is important for the coach to evaluate the possible effects of the circumstances on the crew to identify the most important intervention to be performed first. The proposed modifications are in no particular order. Also, in most cases crews present a variety of technical problems at once, and one of the most challenging tasks for a coach is to decide which problem is the most important and must be addressed first. Ideally, the coach identifies the most pressing problem and chooses the most appropriate intervention.
With all these measurements and interventions, it is important to ask how accurate such measurements can be. The accuracy of the measurement is directly connected to the quality of the measurement equipment and the proficiency of the person using the equipment. However, only a certain level of accuracy is required in some circumstances. For example, some pitch meters can only measure to a full degree, so the coach must be skilled enough to distinguish a difference of 1° pitch. In this case, the accuracy with which the coach is performing the procedure is most likely better than that of the equipment.
A more expensive electronic pitch meter can measure to a tenth of a degree, but it is much more difficult to get the same number to the identical tenth of a degree when the measurement is repeated. In this case, the accuracy of the equipment is better than that of the coach, and much more skill is involved in using such equipment.
Accuracy can be checked by repeating the measurement, including zeroing the meter. Only if the same number is assessed for repeated measurements is the procedure performed accurately.
How accurate does one have to be? A boat is continuously pitching and rolling when rowed, which directly affects the pitch on the blade. For example, research has revealed that even world-class 8+ crews roll their boats up to about 2° with every stroke (Nolte & McLaughlin, 2005). This means that for some parts of the stroke, the lateral pitch would be +2° on one side and −2° on the other side. Less experienced crews and smaller boats tend to roll even more (novices up to a 6°-8° roll). Although such rolling movement is not intended nor seen as positive, it is evidently happening in every crew, so it is clear that rowers can indeed tolerate quite a bit of difference in pitch on the blade. In addition, today's bigger blades are less sensitive to pitch. Therefore, the accuracy of about 0.5° is sufficient for measuring pitch on the oarlock.
As long as the accuracy of the measurement is better than the desired accuracy, one can be satisfied. Otherwise, one would have to either acquire a better measurement tool or learn to perform the measurement more precisely. The same considerations apply to all other rigging measurements. The desired accuracy of the measurements can be seen in table 10.5.
The presented information is based on many studies and extensive experience, and it can be safely used as standard measurements. Measurements within a boat should generally stay the same. This will help with balance and make it easy to move rowers among various seats and boats. Sometimes individualized adjustments are necessary, but they should be kept to a minimum.
Read more about Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
The five elements of effortless rowing
Effortless crews do not waste a movement. Any movement should be well sequenced and have only a positive impact on the performance of the hull.
The Process of Effortless Rowing: No Waste, No Extras
Effortless crews do not waste a movement. Any movement should be well sequenced and have only a positive impact on the performance of the hull.
Platform
Effortless crews have a strong commitment to the platform of the boat. The word platform suggests a solid surface or base from which all activity can occur. In the case of rowing we are referring to the need to have the boat balanced from side to side. A number of factors contribute to boat balance, including seated position in the boat and handle heights. So many people do not sit squarely and evenly in the boat. If athletes are not in the intended start point, they are creating a challenge that should not have to be considered.
The oar is not only a propulsive device but also a major contributor to balance. All athletes in a boat must ensure that they are able to carry the oar handle on a consistent path yet be able to make fine adjustments as other variables affect the boat.
The Ginn example described previously is one where the boat did not have a good platform (due to conditions). The hands were possibly coming forward on the best plane they could, but the rigger sat somewhere above this path. It is possible that the athletes were knocked off their platform by a blade clipping the water on a previous stroke, leading to this loss of platform.
An excellent image of platform in rowing is the Great Britain men's pair in 2002 (James Cracknell and Matthew Pinsent). They not only were committed to a fast, aggressive start, but they also were committed with their bodies and hands to ensure that they had a platform from which they could work. Their racing intent would not have been achievable without their process intent of having a solid platform.
Stroke Length
Long, well-sequenced movements should be the aim of every crew. The challenge, however, is determining the optimal stroke length. Which stroke rate at race velocity is most effective to bring about the boat speed that will ultimately lead to victory?
Once again, this is where we introduce some compromises to the ideal, which will establish what is most effective for a particular crew. Crews must identify their optimal stroke length. Though there are variations in the arc of the stroke, the rowers will no doubt start out with the objective of wanting to row as long as they can. Over time they will start to make some compromises when they consider the effect of stroke length on other aspects of the stroke. For example, let's say a crew is rowing a sweep arc of 98° but cannot rate above 32 spm. What is the effective arc? What is the effect of only rowing 92°? In order to reduce the arc to an effective 92°, what changes should the crew make?
Allow the Boat to Work
Rowing is a series of compromises. The best crews have a good compromise between horsepower and boat movement efficiency.
A top-class crew will be able to accelerate the boat for the larger part of the complete stroke cycle, and for the remaining part of the time the boat will be experiencing deceleration. Top crews will continue to attempt to improve on this position, while less efficient crews will show more deceleration. Deceleration increases in two main ways. The first way is coming onto the footstretcher heavily as you move forward on the last part of the recovery. There will definitely be deceleration coming into the catch position, but it is a matter of doing this as smoothly and evenly as possible. A rush in the last part of the recovery or the body falling over the feet at the front will see a further deceleration of the boat.
There will also be a period of deceleration as rowers take the water and initiate the leg drive. However, this deceleration will occupy a greater percentage of the drive phase if rowers are not skillful in the introduction of the body and the arm draw.
Some top international crews appear to simply be muscling the boat along but still have optimized the time their boat is under acceleration. As with any consideration of acceleration and boat behavior, we want to ensure that the boat is achieving an acceptable velocity. Some successful crews clearly trade efficiency of acceleration for power.
Sequence and Added Extras
If you think through the list of all the possible technical problems that crews might display, most fall into one of two categories: movements performed in the incorrect sequence and extra movements in the stroke that should not be present. For example, if the body swing occurs too early, it adds unnecessary vertical movement and reduces the power of the legs. Or, if the handle moves up and down during the recovery, it spoils the platform. The effortless rower will not yield to these fundamental errors.
Blade Skills
Coaches can spend a lot of time coaching the body (that is, how the movements occur in the boat) and neglecting blade skills. We are all aware that what happens inside the boat dictates what happens with the blade, yet it is the blade that is our point of propulsive connection. If the blade is not suitably prepared by being squared and ready to go into the water, we are creating an inefficiency that should not be present. This inefficiency is incredibly costly.
The blade must be sufficiently high off the water so as to ensure that it can be squared soon enough to be placed into the water at the forward-most point of reach (figure 13.1a). This will ensure the possibility of a direct movement of the blade into the water.
A blade too close to or too far from the water results in inefficiency through the front turn of the stroke (figure 13.1b). The correct movement through the front turn is set up through a back turn that can be described as having shape and being bold. If we have sufficient step-out, we should be able to row a good line of the blade on the recovery and achieve the front turn as previously described. The blade should step cleanly from the water—out of the front of the puddle and clearly over it as it is carried forward on the recovery. Good crews make this look easy, but it is a skill that they have spent countless hours practicing.
Read more about Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
The five factors to consider when selecting test procedures
The best selection models are legitimate and based on solid criteria. In addition, they all start by letting rowers know the plan early and allowing them to practice the necessary test procedure as often as possible.
Selection Methods
When I rowed from 1965 to 1976, we used many methods of testing, including weightlifting tests, running tests, anatomical measures (e.g., height), rowing technique, and bicycle ergometer tests. In addition, coaches often used their intuition to set teams. For example, some coaches simply put the tallest or the most experienced athletes in the boat. One could accept such decisions out of respect for the coach, but it seems that there must be a better way.
When I began coaching in 1976, new rowing evaluation methods were developed, such as the rowing ergometer, physiological tests, and the Harry Parker seat-race model. This model is a system of races that uses two coxed fours. The crews face off against each other for 3-minute intervals at set stroke rates, and after each interval, the coach names two rowers to change opposite seats in the two fours and the race interval is repeated to evaluate which rower contributes most in moving the boat faster.
This method attracted my attention since it seemed to measure performance more objectively. As a young, motivated coach, I decided to develop my first model of seat racing, which is chronicled in the original Rowing Canada National Coaching Certification Program (NCCP) level 3 rowing manual. I first used it coaching at the University of British Columbia. To this day, I apologize to those young men for having to race as many as 36 750 m intervals in coxed fours over 2 days to select the varsity eight! This model was set up so that each rower raced in every possible boat and with every possible combination. It is an ambitious example of how the desire to gain information and keep the process fair can lead to an extreme method that goes beyond the initial goal. However, one by-product of this procedure was that the rowers exposed to this selection method became very race ready. One could have called this a survival of the fittest selection model.
The best selection models are legitimate and based on solid criteria. In addition, they all start by letting rowers know the plan early and allowing them to practice the necessary test procedure as often as possible.
Factors to Consider for Selection
Selection has important implications for an athlete and the success of a rowing program. Therefore, coaches should consider the following criteria when planning and implementing selection models: objectivity, validity, reliability, and economy. Any good test procedure must be conducted with these in mind.
Objectivity
An objective test measures a variable independent of the people conducting the test and the circumstances of the test. In other words, the test has to be fair.
Objective selection methods guarantee unbiased measures of the rower's ability. They all start with giving each rower the same information and encouragement. A good example of an objective test for selecting a single is all competitors racing off over 2,000 m in singles.
Validity
A test is valid if it measures a specified ability. It is a challenge to find valid test methods to select a crew from a group of athletes. Rowing requires a complex set of qualities that qualify someone as a valuable crew member.
For instance, an ergometer test measures power per stroke, ability to focus, certain aspects of good rowing (such as stroke length and proper sequencing), length, leg drive, and relaxation. Therefore, an ergometer test is a valid procedure to evaluate specific rowing skills, which is why it presents important information for crew selection. However, an ergometer test cannot answer all selection questions in rowing. For example, when it comes to assessing a rower's boat-moving qualities, the most valid test would be an evaluation in the targeted boat because it accurately measures all of the variables in rowing. Though a race-off in a single is a valid method to select the single and to identify general boat-moving abilities, many would debate that selection races in singles are a valid method to select a double or quad as well. Therefore, no one method is completely valid for crew selection.
Reliability
A test is reliable if it accurately measures a quality and is repeatable. In past years, USRowing introduced open trials in which crew selection is decided by whoever wins two out of three events. This is done to increase the reliability of the selection process, since crews have to demonstrate that they can repeat their performance. In this way, their win isn't just a random occurrence.
Therefore, if one chooses to use seat races as a selection model, the results should be the same if repeated. Though the times of seat races can be measured accurately, the time over a certain distance may vary for a crew, especially if rowers are not experienced or row in combinations that they have not practiced before. Also, wind conditions could have an influence on seat-racing results. Consequently, one has to set up a seat race carefully to make it reliable for crew selection.
It is possible to ensure the reliability of a test by carrying out more than one assessment. If all goes according to plan, the results of the second test should support those of the first test.
Economy
A test is economical if its overall costs are manageable for the program. Those costs could be money but also include time involved, necessary equipment, and personnel.
This criterion is easy to understand, and in a practical rowing setting, this may be an influential consideration. To conduct seat races, for instance, one needs fair water conditions, equal equipment, correct preparation of the rowers, and a manageable number of rowers. Therefore, such a selection method becomes too costly if the program has, for example, 40 rowers with not enough fours or pairs of equal quality. One would need to buy or bring in boats and would likely need 2 weeks of racing. This method may cost too much money and take too much time, in which case it would not work in this situation. In other words, testing and selection has to be achievable.
Every test needs to satisfy all four criteria (objectivity, validity, reliability, and economy) in order to select the best rowers. To apply these guidelines, the following are required:
The testing process must be known to all rowers and coaches well in advance.All rowers must have sufficient preparation time and equal time to row in each combination that will be tested.All rowers must be equally encouraged and motivated during the whole process.Equipment must be the same for all rowers.Water conditions need to be the same for all crews.
Read more about Rowing Faster 2nd Edition by Volker Nolte.
Related Books
