Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rowing Faster - 2nd Edition (PDFDrive)
Rowing Faster - 2nd Edition (PDFDrive)
Rowing
Faster
Volker Nolte
Editor
Human Kinetics
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Rowing faster / Volker Nolte, editor. -- 2nd ed.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN-13: 978-0-7360-9040-7 (soft cover)
ISBN-10: 0-7360-9040-1 (soft cover)
1. Rowing. I. Nolte, Volker, 1952-
GV791.R66 2011
797.123--dc22
2011013078
ISBN-10: 0-7360-9040-1 (print)
ISBN-13: 978-0-7360-9040-7 (print)
Copyright © 2011, 2005 by Human Kinetics, Inc.
All rights reserved. Except for use in a review, the reproduction or utilization of this work in any form or by any
electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including xerography, photocopying,
and recording, and in any information storage and retrieval system, is forbidden without the written permission
of the publisher.
Notice: Permission to reproduce the following material is granted to instructors and agencies who have purchased
Rowing Faster, Second Edition: pp. 23, 24, 154, 157, 158, 160. The reproduction of other parts of this book is
expressly forbidden by the above copyright notice. Persons or agencies who have not purchased Rowing Faster,
Second Edition, may not reproduce any material.
The web addresses cited in this text were current as of May 2011, unless otherwise noted.
Acquisitions Editor: Tom Heine; Managing Editor: Laura Podeschi; Assistant Editor: Claire Gilbert; Copyeditor
and Indexer: Alisha Jeddeloh; Permissions Manager: Martha Gullo; Graphic Designer: Bob Reuther; Graphic
Artist: Francine Hamerski; Cover Designer: Keith Blomberg; Photographer (cover): Katie Steenman (taken at the
start of the 2010 World Championships in Karapiro, New Zealand and showing the Canadian lightweight women’s
double, Tracy Cameron of Shubenacadie, NS, and Lindsay Jennerich of Victoria, BC, who won gold in the event);
Photographer (interior): Volker Nolte, unless otherwise noted; Photo Production Manager: Jason Allen; Art
Manager: Kelly Hendren; Associate Art Manager: Alan L. Wilborn; Illustrations: © Human Kinetics, unless
otherwise noted; Printer: Sheridan Books, Inc.
Human Kinetics books are available at special discounts for bulk purchase. Special editions or book excerpts can
also be created to specification. For details, contact the Special Sales Manager at Human Kinetics.
Printed in the United States of America 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
The paper in this book is certified under a sustainable forestry program.
Human Kinetics
Website: www.HumanKinetics.com
United States: Human Kinetics Australia: Human Kinetics
P.O. Box 5076 57A Price Avenue
Champaign, IL 61825-5076 Lower Mitcham, South Australia 5062
800-747-4457 08 8372 0999
e-mail: humank@hkusa.com e-mail: info@hkaustralia.com
Canada: Human Kinetics New Zealand: Human Kinetics
475 Devonshire Road Unit 100 P.O. Box 80
Windsor, ON N8Y 2L5 Torrens Park, South Australia 5062
800-465-7301 (in Canada only) 0800 222 062
e-mail: info@hkcanada.com e-mail: info@hknewzealand.com
Europe: Human Kinetics
107 Bradford Road
Stanningley
Leeds LS28 6AT, United Kingdom
+44 (0) 113 255 5665
e-mail: hk@hkeurope.com
E5068
To successfully finish such a wonderful project requires the
support of many dedicated people, all of whom I wish to thank
for joining the journey. I am especially grateful to my family for
their unwavering support; they help me to fulfill my dreams.
Contents
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Brad Alan Lewis
iv ◾
Part III Rowing Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Tim Foster
◾ v
vi ◾ Contents
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
About the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316
About the Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
Foreword
◾ vii
viii ◾ Foreword
Panic set in. Fight or flee? No real debate: Flee. Hop in the car or run like a rabbit.
Starbucks or El Pollo Loco? Or both? But the paint on my roller was drying, and the
paint in the tray was starting to skim over like a mug of hot chocolate allowed to cool
on a granite countertop.
I really do not like to start a job and then not finish it. Carl, my old construction
mentor, would take umbrage with me if I didn’t finish the job straightway. Despite not
having seen Carl in two decades, I still did not want to risk it.
The white vans parked, and rowers piled out and walked in my direction.
The rowers were from UC Davis. I knew their coach, Sam Sweitzer. (I know quite a
few rowers and coaches. “Remember that time we raced each other at the 1981 Canadian
Henley? I was ahead by about a length, and then this really big wake rolled through
the course and. . . .” Yeah, oddly enough I usually do remember. We raced so few times
through the course of a season that without much prodding I can pretty much recall
any race.)
“Hey guys,” Sam said as his rowers crowded around. “This is Brad Lewis, Olympic
champion. Some of you might have read his book, Assault on Lake Casitas. No, no, let me
start off by asking, have any of you not read Assault on Lake Casitas?” Hands went up in
unison. “Well, you should. Anyway, this is the author, Brad Lewis. Famous rower. Brad
can you say a few words to my crew?”
I stood stock still for a moment, just another guy wearing painted-up clothes and a
weird floppy hat. I had the paint roller in one hand, paint tray in the other. I recalled a
line I’d heard recently on TMZ: “Celebrity is just obscurity biding its time.” This was the
in-between time, between celebrity and obscurity, the bardo, as they say in Buddhism.
My celebrity is scaled for rowing, of course, which is to say, miniscule. I cannot even
imagine being a real celebrity—not being able to walk into Costco and eat a half-dozen
samples of those amazingly good potstickers without some nick-nack–pally-wack taking
a video with his cell phone and uploading it to YouTube with 15,000 hits before you’ve
even made it back to your car, potsticker-less since you’ve eaten enough to last a week.
I took a deep breath and thought back on my many Crew Classic experiences, set-
tling on my favorite Crew Classic: 1977. I was brand new to sculling. I’d been training
in Long Beach with Tom McKibbon’s LBRA (Long Beach Rowing Association) scullers,
a tough, motivated group that included John Van Blom and Joan Lind (who regularly
trounced me in 500 m pieces for the first 20 weeks or so until I got the hang of things).
Back in ’77, sculling was part of the Crew Classic program—a different time, to say
the least. I had the amazing good fortune to be racing the double scull with John Van
Blom. To say Van Blom was a beautiful sculler is like saying that Michelangelo’s David
is a nice sculpture. Van Blom’s rhythm was flawless, his balance impeccable. He had
body control and blade control in spades. He rowed the same perfect stroke in flat water,
headwind, crosswind, and tailwind.
Van Blom sat in bow. We sat at the starting line of the 1977 San Diego Crew Classic
double sculls event. Two lanes over on our port side was Canada’s best double, Pat Wal-
ters and Bruce Ford. Overall, this was a special time for sculling in both Canada and the
United States. Our crews regularly made the finals at the worlds and even won medals.
It’ll cycle around again one of these days. (Hopefully.)
The handles of my blades knocked together like drumsticks, my hands shaking at the
start of the race. I’m fairly certain that this was the most nervous I’d ever been in my life.
Finally the starter gave the commands and we charged off the line. After seven strokes,
Foreword ◾ ix
Van Blom said, “We got ’em.” Those were the three most beautiful words I could have
imagined. We got ’em. If John Van Blom says we got ’em, then I guess we got ’em. I just
relaxed, settled in, and tugged on the oars, trying not to crash through the front stops on
the recovery. To row with a master like John Van Blom is a magical event. You cannot
help but think to yourself, Oh, so this is the way the catch is supposed to feel. This is
the way the power is supposed to be applied. This is the way the rhythm of a properly
rowed stroke should feel. If you have a first-rate memory, and if you keep good notes
in your journal, an hour in the company of a master like Van Blom will be sufficient to
last you a lifetime. A few minutes later, the finish-line horn confirmed that Van Blom
had been right. We won.
Failure discourages; success encourages. I was encouraged.
The sun beat down. The UC Davis rowers waited impatiently. The paint dried on the
roller.
“Welcome to JL,” I said. “The lady who started JL is a good friend of mine, Joline
Esparza. Back in 1982, before you guys were born, Joline began making rowing clothes.
She started in her garage—no, that’s wrong, she started in a spare bedroom of her house.
I was one of her first clients, I’m proud to say.
“In 1984, Joline and I were both training for the Olympic team. She didn’t make the
team. However, she did go on to build her rowing clothing business into a success. JL
clothing is used the world over. Joline’s perseverance, her amazing spirit, her love of
rowing and rowers—it shows in every piece of clothing that leaves this shop.
“Those of you who have read Assault will know that I did make the ’84 Olympic team.
My partner and I went on to win a gold medal in the toughest event in all rowing, the
double sculls. (The event in which one competes is the toughest event in rowing. Forgot
to mention that to the UC Davis guys, but they’d figured that out.)
“Here’s the point: To create an amazing business like JL—or to win a gold medal at
the Olympics—you need an inordinate amount of discipline. I got my discipline when I
rowed for Bob Ernst at UC Irvine. Joline got her discipline when she rowed at Stanford.
“If you look at the syllabus of Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, UC Irvine, UC
Davis, you will not see a class titled Discipline. But you need it. In fact, I would argue
that discipline is the pillar on which all difficult, worthy accomplishments rest. Joline
and I learned our discipline in college on our respective rowing teams. You are learning
discipline while rowing for Coach Sam at UC Davis. Given time and perseverance, you
will become masters of discipline. Good luck this weekend in San Diego.”
The rowers said their thanks and walked into JL headquarters.
You know, for a moment I could almost see myself in one or two of the UC Davis
rowers—tall, gangly guys with iffy complexions and a surplus of energy. I supposed that
in the big picture these rowers looked pretty much like the rowers from when I was
competing in college, and we had looked like rowers from when my dad was compet-
ing at UCLA.
Blade shapes change, training programs evolve. But the best parts of rowing are
unchanging: rowers finding themselves and securing their place in the universe through
the discipline of rowing.
Brad Alan Lewis was a gold medalist in the double sculls at the 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles.
x ◾ Foreword
Volker Nolte
W hen the publisher approached me to edit a second edition of this book, it was
immediately clear that it would be no small task. You, the readers, made the first
edition the most successful technical rowing book in recent history, if not ever. In a poll
conducted by the International Federation of Rowing Associations (FISA) in the spring
of 2010, the first edition of Rowing Faster was overwhelmingly voted the most often read
rowing book. Of course, such feedback brings about an extraordinary responsibility to
continue with the quality that the readers saw in the first edition.
The concept, having top experts from around the world share their insights into
our sport, was well received. The various ideas that were brought together through
this concept were so enjoyed and valued that the first edition was even used in some
university programs as a textbook for activity courses in rowing. Therefore, it was clear
that we would continue with the approach of having specialists represent their fields
of expertise. We went out of our way to attract highly recognized authorities to share
their insights in this book.
We still believe in providing a well-founded and complete-as-possible overview of
what a rower and coach need to know in order to row faster. However, we wanted to
expand on the first edition. First, we wanted to update the information, and second,
we wanted to broaden the scope of our presentation. Of course, technical details are
interesting and important, so we focused on them again, especially since new informa-
tion is now available. However, we wanted to go one step further and present essential
information about the foundation of our rowing programs.
One of the main factors of a successful program is its philosophy. The values and
beliefs behind the goals, coaching, and training can make a program strong enough
to withstand the challenges that always come up over time. A proper philosophy also
avoids short-sided decision making that may bring the program into ethical conflicts.
We then propose to plan for the long term. Too often goals and plans are laid out only
for the moment, and the rowers’ development over the long run is forgotten. The long-
term athlete development (LTAD) model is a movement that many sport organizations
all over the world, including Rowing Canada, now take as their basis.
Of course, a large part of this book is reserved for the spectrum of technical informa-
tion on rowing. The authors present the newest positions in sport science and training.
◾ xi
xii ◾ Preface
Additionally, new to this edition is information on adaptive rowing and women in rowing.
Rowing was successfully included for the first time in the 2008 Paralympic Games, and
more adaptive athletes have joined our sport since then. Many coaches asked for more
information about these specific boat classes, and this book is the first to provide an
overview of the technical details. We also try to shed some light on the challenges that
women face in our sport and especially hope to encourage more women to take over
coaching duties.
In addition, we thought it was important to provide some ideas on how to manage
a rowing team. There are great examples out there to learn from, and the effect good
management can have on a team’s success is impressive.
At the end, we dare to look into the future of our sport. What can clubs as well as
national and international sport organizations do to keep our sport viable and energetic?
We hope a lively discussion will come from these presentations that will indeed invigo-
rate further development.
We added a unique feature in this book when we invited successful rowers to introduce
the six sections of the book with their own experiences and thoughts about the topic.
All of these athletes know the competitive facets of rowing since they all participated
in at least one Olympic Games. Moreover, these athletes all did something absolutely
exceptional on their way to excellence.
Brad Lewis overcame adversity when he left the U.S. national team training camp
on his longer and harder way to Olympic gold in 1984. Bryan Volpenhein stroked the
U.S. men’s eight to gold at the 2004 Athens Olympics by setting the fastest time ever
rowed over 2,000 m. Marnie McBean has four Olympic medals—three of them gold—in
four boat classes in two Games to her credit. Tim Foster came back after a delicate back
surgery to win Olympic gold in the famous British Fab Four. Katrin Rutschow won two
gold medals at the Olympic Games while rowing for two countries—first in the quad for
the German Democratic Republic and then in the single for the united Germany. Derek
Porter switched seats days before the Olympic final to stroke the Canadian men’s eight
to a gold medal in 1992, only to switch seats again to win gold at the 1993 world cham-
pionships in the single. Tricia Smith, executive commission member of FISA, started at
the 1976 Olympic Games, the first to include women’s rowing events. These were the
first of four Olympic Games that she participated in, ultimately winning a silver medal
in 1984. Recently, she received the outstanding distinction to become a Member of the
Order of Canada, where the Canadian Government recognized her special influence on
the rowing community.
These extraordinary athletes provide very special access to our sport that is deeply
touching. Each of their stories expands the horizon of the respective topic to a new level
of understanding.
The book is put together for all athletes, coaches, and rowing supporters who love
our sport and look to expand their knowledge. It does this with factual information but
also with many stories that make the book both lively and practical. Some people will
appreciate most the detailed information about specific, technical rowing questions,
while others will enjoy the larger picture that is drawn. Therefore, one can read the
book from the beginning to the end as a story about rowing faster, but one can also
pick and choose specific topics of interest. The book is intended to serve the reader for
many years to come.
Rowing is an interesting sport because there is very little in between not being inter-
ested in it and being hooked. The readers of this book are probably in the second group
and can relate to me—I got into rowing by accident. The unexpected coincidence of
Preface ◾ xiii
watching a single sculler rowing on the river and turning his boat right in front of me
while I was riding my bike on the bank awakened my interest in the sport. The subse-
quent visit to the local rowing club and my first row on the water were the beginning
of a deep relationship that now has lasted more than 45 years. I loved the sport right
away. The interaction with the water and the neat boat technique are a small challenge
every time I go out on the water.
Readying the equipment; getting the feel for the oars, the crew, and movement;
watching and listening to the water running by the hull; realizing the distance that we
travel every stroke and the wonderful workout for the whole body—all of this is amaz-
ing; every time is new for me. In addition, the challenge to work together in a team and
appreciating how speed can be gained by moving well together make this sport even
more appealing. Finally, there are so many fine people involved in this sport who have
enriched my life so many times.
Rowing is so much more invigorating when it is done well and the boat is moving fast.
The book tries to bring this excitement of our sport to all the readers in several ways:
engage with the very special stories of the most charismatic athletes of our sport, learn
from the many ideas of how excellence can be achieved, and appreciate the thorough
scientific approach that lends power to the arguments.
Part I
The Philosophy
of Rowing
Bryan Volpenhein
I learned how to row in a dungeon. Well, it was really just the basement of the theater
department, but it did have a bar, a bowling alley, and an unpleasant feel. You had to
walk though a heavy steel door that said Do Not Enter.
I almost missed the first scheduled recruitment meeting for the rowing team. I was
sitting around my dorm room watching The Price Is Right when a roommate walked in
and asked if I still wanted to go to the crew meeting. I reluctantly got up and thought
to myself, Oh yeah, that’s tonight, got my coat and headed down to the boathouse. The
Ohio State University rowing team launched their boats out of the bottom floor of the
Drake Union, an unpopular, solitary place for students to hang out. It looked more like
a futuristic electric power station from a low-budget movie or a building that would
house servers for a cell phone company than it did a theater or a cozy student union.
The boathouse was a large room in the center of the basement. The entrance was
down a musty hallway, a heavy steel door with a small window was at the other end.
Walking through that door, however, led to another world. It was all solid concrete walls
supporting 30 ft (9 m) ceilings that were covered with disco balls, spinning colored lights,
and dusty old singles. The locker room was a sectioned-off corner at the north end of the
room, segregated by red curtains and a few benches. The ground was also concrete and
sloped down to the west so water could drain, which meant that all ergometer training
was done downhill. Strange sounds of zipping chains and howling wind echoed down
the hallway. Commands were being shouted, but only by a few voices that seemed to
be in another language. I stopped to listen to the commotion before I went in. Then one
voice bellowed above all the noise: “Everyone listen up!” It wasn’t an oppressive voice,
but when it spoke, everything stopped. I walked down the steps toward the other end
of the boathouse into my first rowing practice and never looked back.
◾ 1
2 ◾ Volpenhein
Ohio State University is a gigantic institution, both in landscape and population. With
60,000 students and classrooms that could be an hour away, it is easy to get lost in the
mix. As a result, people look for organizations to join to make it seem smaller or help
them to develop a more intimate sense of community. The Drake Union housed several
organizations that helped encourage smaller communities, and they all seemed to be
fringe groups that needed a secluded place to go about their business.
The theater department owned the building. They ruled the top two floors with offices,
workshops, rehearsals, shows, and all-night study sessions, while the basement was
filled every evening, like the galleys of a ship, with an army of rowers toiling away in
the muted florescent lights; heavy, confined air; and cold concrete. The janitors, main-
tenance workers, and facility department also had offices and break rooms there. The
fringe life of a major American campus seemed to gather there to work, study, relax,
and do the things for which they had found no other place. The building was an outcast,
tucked away on a dirty, winding river on the wrong edge of campus, meant to be used
by students looking for a place of their own. This is where I learned to row.
There was something about the place that inspired philosophical perspective. Where
you come from, the environment you are surrounded by, and the people you are involved
with all have a deep influence on your perspective and the things you are trying to do
with your life. The boathouse and the people who used it for this quirky, unknown
sport inspired me.
Boathouses have a spirit that I have found in few other places. They are cathedrals of
effort, and this one especially had a strong meritocratic presence. There were no games
being played here. There were no politics. Individual effort would be rewarded by the
group, and then the group would go on to do great things by combining those individual
efforts. Though it goes against the philosophy that rowing is the ultimate team sport,
I’ve found that the more an individual rower worries solely about himself, the better
he will be, the better he will cooperate with others in a boat, and the more respect he
will get from teammates.
This was, of course, only the beginning of my career, but it would be the basis of my
attitude and philosophy going forward. As I got better and started to get some results
(and a bigger ego) and experience, my attitude changed and my philosophy developed.
My first team was operated by the athletes. We elected officers, hired and fired coaches,
recruited new athletes, and bought new equipment. This gave me a great sense of own-
ership in the sport. It allowed me to develop the belief that what I did and the choices I
made had a huge impact on the team. We were an upstart team in the grand scheme of
the sport. We weren’t supposed to be good. We weren’t even supposed to try to be good.
However, that was not what we were taught or what we believed, and it wasn’t even the
nature of the building in which we trained. We simply wanted to beat the best, and so
our philosophy was simple: In order to beat the best, we had to be like the best, which at
that time meant we had to be like the Ivy League schools.
How were we going to do that? We didn’t have the money, couldn’t get the same
equipment, couldn’t hire the same coaches, and couldn’t recruit the same athletes. We
only had two things: ourselves and the will to work. So, that is what we did. We worked.
We put our noses down and did what we thought we had to do. We erged, we biked,
we rowed, and we lifted weights, all in our dungeon of a boathouse, filled with our
fringe cohorts urging us on in shared obscurity. Our somewhat absurd goal inspired me
to believe that I could do anything in this sport if I just put in the work.
To illustrate this point, I’ll share a story about the power of that perspective. We
used the honor system to record ergometer tests. There was a 6 × 5 ft (183 × 152 cm)
The Philosophy of Rowing ◾ 3
chalkboard leaning against the wall near the ergometers. On test day, you would show
up when you had a break in your schedule, do the test, and then write your score on
the board. One day my sophomore year when I showed up to do my test, I saw that one
of my teammates, who happened to be a lightweight, had gone before me and posted
5:55 as his score. I had limited knowledge about what was good and what people around
the world were doing; I only knew that if I had 40 lb (18 kg) on this guy, I should be
able to beat him on the erg, so that is what I set out to do. My personal best at the time
was 6:15, but within the year I was down to 6:03. Later that summer I learned that my
teammate’s time was fabricated, but the damage was done; I was convinced that I could
beat his score, and by the next year I had. As a result I received an invitation to a U23
national team camp and was on my way to the next phase of my rowing career.
To this day I have conflicting feelings about that experience. I did nothing other than
simply pull harder because I believed I was supposed to be able to, but I know now that
it’s more complicated. Physiology, timing, and a little luck all factor into it, but I hope
that this sport doesn’t stray from the idea that if you do the work, you will go far and put
yourself in a position to perform well. The power of the mind should never be under-
estimated. It is this philosophy that was developed by a group of committed athletes in
a boathouse not built for rowing that will stay with me throughout my rowing career. I
believe philosophy is more about the question than the answer, and I keep coming back
to one question throughout my life that originates from the time I spent learning how
to row at an obscure program in a makeshift boathouse: Why not?
The next years of my life would take me places I never thought I would see, in a way
I never thought would happen, and would teach me lessons I never expected to learn.
The ergometer was the gateway to the Olympics for me. It got me in the door and got
me the benefit of the doubt, probably more times than I knew. As I moved forward with
rowing, everything became more intense. No longer was I isolated and safe in obscurity;
4 ◾ Volpenhein
every practice was a threat. I was surrounded by bigger, better, more experienced athletes
and coaches whose only interest was making fast boats. Things had to change. I had to
develop. I was now officially in the American system.
The first thing I realized was how much each practice matters in a camp environment.
I don’t want to say that it was ruthless and everyone was out for themselves; for the
most part, we became friends. But there was an unspoken understanding that most of
us were out for the same seats, and although we would eventually be on the same team,
there would be no letting up during the selection process. Every practice, every stroke,
every seat race, every technical change counted. Each day could be your last shot. This
awareness can put a large group of competitive people on edge, to say the least, but it
can also make the group rise to a new level. In an environment like this, winning is the
only thing that counts. Is your boat ahead? Did you win that switch? Did you win by
enough? Do you have to win again, or will the pressure let up? These are the questions
you ask yourself every day, and usually the answer is no. Even if the answer is yes, the
tactic I employed was to assume the answer is no.
I took the approach that whatever I was doing was never enough. I didn’t win enough,
my boat was not ahead by enough, they hadn’t switched me enough to be convinced to
pick me—the more I thought like this, the more I found myself in boats that were win-
ning. In the beginning, this way of thinking produced good results both on the micro
level of day-to-day successes during practice and the macro level of winning world
championships and trying to defend those titles.
However, the more races I won over the next couple of years, the more pressure I
felt. It became more difficult to get mentally ready for practice. Anxiety about being at
the top became stronger than the desire to be there. As soon as that anxiety was there,
focusing on performance became more difficult. The world shrank and instead of taking
risks and developing as an athlete, things got tight, and I started holding onto the results
of the past. The more I believed winning was everything, the harder it was to even think
about a result other than first place. All of a sudden I had something to lose, and it was
unthinkable to lose it. I became mentally trapped. Gripped by the anxiety and fear of
losing along with the pressure to perform to a certain level, you become unable to see
through your daily battles and set real expectations based on where you are and where
you need to be. You are afraid to lose and to make mistakes. You are afraid to make
changes and adapt to whatever the current situation presents. Stuck in the mind-set
of how things should be, you become too afraid to race to find out how things will be.
Winning at all costs is an expensive philosophy. There is a sense of urgency that never
relents in an environment that thrives on winning. Losing is unacceptable, and, if you
start to lose, you are dropped off the back of the wagon. That urgency can lift a group
like nothing else and create extraordinary results, but at the same time it caters to the
few at the top and doesn’t do much to develop the middle of the group who may have
other issues such as injuries, fixable technical problems, rigging, overtraining, poor nutri-
tion, and so on. It becomes unsustainable. It is unbalanced and fragile, and sometimes
the only way to break out of it is to lose an important race.
The Sydney Olympic Games is a perfect example of how this happened to me. We
were three-time defending world champions and expected to win the eight for the first
time in 40 years. But, as the selection went on, things began to go wrong; we became
wrapped up in our own little world, holding on tight to what we thought we had. We
were trapped by circumstance without the ability to adapt and find a new approach.
After Sydney, I knew something had to change, but I wasn’t sure exactly what. I took
the next 4 years leading up to Athens to prepare my attitude and mind as much as my
The Philosophy of Rowing ◾ 5
body and physiology. I went back to the beginning and tried to think about what got
me to where I was. I realized that my main advantage coming from Ohio State was that
I had nothing to lose. I was never supposed to be an elite rower. I was already doing
better than I should have been, so what did results matter? I began to look at the process
as more important than the result.
I carried this attitude throughout the next phases of my rowing. I began to look at
the preparation from two points of view: (1) I looked at the day-to-day training, racing,
rowing, and selection as means to the end, and (2) that end was the larger goal of Olympic
gold. If I didn’t feel something was making me better, or if I thought it was hindering
my chances at winning the Olympics, the next time I fought it and didn’t do it again
if I had the choice (sometimes in a group you don’t have any option but complaining,
and I did that a lot). I treated each year separately but also as part of a bigger plan, so
winning every time I pushed off a dock wasn’t necessary—racing itself was merely part
of a bigger goal.
This perspective gave me the mental freedom to take risks, try new things, argue
with coaches and teammates, experiment with technique, and take the time to learn at
my pace, but most important, it gave me the confidence to lose. By the time I got to the
Olympics, winning wasn’t on my mind. I wanted to win, but I didn’t need to win. I knew
that I had gotten to the point where, if I simply did my best, it could be good enough to
win, and it was going to take somebody else’s best to beat me. I was no longer afraid to
fail, and that gave me the freedom to perform.
Now I’m moving into another chapter in my rowing: coaching. As a coach I’ve gained
even more perspective that I wish I would have had earlier in my career. I’ve only been
coaching for a year now, so I have no real authority on the subject, but I will say that
there are several themes that I’ve taken from my experiences as a rower. First, rowing
should be fun. Training is difficult enough without a coach creating an environment
that people don’t want to be in. I’m also trying to be adaptable, not only in the variety
of situations that present themselves but also with my coaching methods. Each athlete
is different. They learn differently, understand differently, and express themselves dif-
ferently. I try to coach to the athlete, not to a method. And finally, I don’t yell . . . yet.
Chapter 1
4 29 BC. As the 20 fastest Spartan triremes, the sleek wooden darts carrying three tiers
of oarsmen and the classic warships of the day, pursued the 11 remaining Athenian
vessels toward Naupactus, the outcome of the battle seemed certain. With his fleet already
routed by superior numbers in the Gulf of Corinth, the Athenian admiral Phormio trailed
his surviving warships as they rowed desperately for haven in the protected port. Even
if they found refuge, they faced being trapped by a Spartan blockade. The lead enemy
vessel, carrying the Spartan commander, was quickly overtaking Phormio’s battle-weary
crew. Then inspiration struck.
Seeing a large merchant vessel moored ahead, Phormio sped toward it, followed eagerly
by his pursuers. As he approached it on his starboard side, he ordered a racing turn around
the cargo ship. While the Spartan commander’s vision was obscured by the bulk of the
merchantman, he forged resolutely ahead in pursuit of his prey. One can only imagine
his shock and horror when he saw Phormio’s circling flagship emerge at full speed from
behind the anchored hull, its great bronze ram aimed squarely at the Spartan’s flank.
Rowing for their city and their survival, the Athenian oarsmen drove their armored
beak into the enemy vessel at the waterline, shattering limbs, lives, and timbers and
reducing the Spartan flagship to a crippled hulk. Overwhelmed by humiliation at his
disgrace, the Spartan admiral fell upon his sword. Their flagship destroyed and their
commander dead, the rest of the Spartan fleet dissolved into a confused mass. Seeing
the chaos unfolding behind them, the fleeing Athenian triremes turned to the attack,
routing the leaderless Spartans. Once again, Athens had been saved by the skill, cour-
age, and tenacity of her oarsmen.
◾ 7
8 ◾ Weil
For most of human history, the purpose of rowing was primarily the making of a
livelihood; frequently, it was the saving or taking of lives that was at stake. Perhaps
in the former case, and certainly in the latter, there would have been little question
of the lengths to which the oarsman or crew would go to succeed. Rowing was often
a matter of life and death. The propriety of a winning-at-all-costs attitude would not
have been challenged.
Rowing is the only team sport that can claim such brutal roots. Whether Phoenician,
Greek, Viking, or Venetian raiders; deep-sea fishermen or whalers; or crews of cargo,
transport, or lifesaving boats, the work of oarsmen was vital. The advance and defense of
empires, the feeding and transport of populations, and the support of commerce justified
the effort that was put into, and the risks attendant to, rowing. Every other team sport
is a game taken from child’s play. Rowing, on the other hand, is a tough, raw form of
work taken from adults doing it for a living and adapted for sport, exercise, and amuse-
ment. Rowing was not, and in essence is not now, a game.
Though this great legacy may provide inspiration to modern coaches and athletes, the
relevance of winning at all costs must be considered from perspectives other than those
of our rowing ancestors. For our purposes, we will assume that the phrase winning at
all costs carries a pejorative meaning: a willingness to take excessive measures, or even
to violate the rules of the game, in order to achieve victory. This chapter provides an
overview of some beyond-the-pale behaviors that oarsmen have engaged in over two
centuries of sport rowing, and it offers historical anecdotes, context, and insights as a
guide to the shaping of attitudes toward winning. It is not the place of this commentary
to determine which debatable behaviors are acceptable and which are not; those judg-
ments must lie with the reader and with the institutions that oversee the sport.
Historical Background
Following the birth of organized sport rowing in the Doggett’s Coat and Badge matches
in London at the beginning of the 18th century, boat racing in singles and team boats,
for both amateurs and professionals, became more common as the years wore on, espe-
cially on the Thames.
Watermen were the taxi and truck drivers of their day, and most lived in near poverty.
The chance to win cash or a valuable prize from a match could be a lifeline, and win-
ning at any cost would have been far more significant to such men than to any amateur.
Amateur rowing began to attain critical mass in the waning days of the 18th century,
when it took hold at Eton College where they used watermen as mentors, guides, boat-
men, and even coxswains. There are few records of early racing at Eton, and we know
from scattered sources that the activity was not subject to many rules. An anything-goes
point of view prevailed, and it could well be justified: Nobody got hurt (usually), not much
damage was done, and, most significantly on the amateur side, not much was at stake.
However, as boat-racing customs evolved and the activity began to become formalized,
it was shaped by the development of rules—rules of qualifications, of river use, and of
racing. As this increased regulation cut down on what winning at any cost might allow,
the scope of permissible behavior was also narrowed by the development of a code of
conduct for men of a certain place, class, and status that defined them as gentlemen.
Ever since, rowing has debated what constitutes acceptable behavior.
As the oarsmen of Eton and Westminster, Eton’s legendary early rival, went on to
Oxford and Cambridge and formed the amateur rowing clubs of London, they carried
Winning at All Costs: A Historical Perspective ◾ 9
these behavioral norms with them. This culture went on to permeate the highly refined
version of the sport as practiced by this cohort, especially at Henley, where the best of
this privileged class gathered annually from 1839 on to determine who would take
what aquatic honors. In these amateur settings, the notion of winning at any cost was
unthinkable. The concepts of fairness, good manners, and being a good sport were cen-
tral to their code of conduct. If a competitor suffered an accident at the beginning of a
contest, it wasn’t sporting to continue down the course alone. The point was to have a
good race in which each boat could demonstrate its ability, so the leading crew would
be expected to either wait for the trailing crew to catch up or to restart the race.
But the Oxbridge class had no monopoly on boat racing, and this narrow approach
to competitive values was not shared by most other oarsmen. The watermen who mid-
wifed amateur English rowing well understood how they could profit from boat racing.
Whatever pride watermen might take in victory, the primary motivation for most was
the prize and whatever title might be at stake. A cash purse or a wager boat spoke for
itself, and if the award was a silver trophy, the announcement might state the cash value.
These two mind-sets, one valuing fairness and the other the prize, competed until the
demise of professional rowing. Fifty years passed before Cold War politics and the pull
of the medal stand reintroduced behaviors aimed at winning at any cost.
These questions have come up constantly over the history of sport rowing, and simi-
lar circumstances have resulted in different conclusions from era to era and boathouse
to boathouse. Some examples of clear violations versus those in the murkier record of
excessive, unfair, or unseemly behavior illustrate these thin distinctions.
throwing the race for a substantial sum, and their statements regarding his behavior
supported their suspicions, which also encompassed the earlier defeats in England. Given
the amount of money at stake in these times, it is perhaps surprising that there were
not more amateur examples of losing at all costs.
One of the most prevalent and striking illegal acts in modern athletics may have been
the systematic use of anabolic steroids in the East German sport program in the 1970s
and 1980s. Winning at all costs was embedded in the practices of Eastern Bloc nations,
which saw sport as a weapon of foreign policy, and there is convincing evidence of wide-
spread doping on East German teams during this time. There seems to be little doubt
that the coaches understood the nature of the so-called medicines and supplements that
the team doctors and trainers gave to athletes. However, one could believe the athletes’
claims that they were told that the pills or injections were for legitimate reasons and
that they were unaware of the systematic violations, from which some of the athletes
suffered severe health consequences.
Testimony varies as to the extent of doping among East German rowers (none ever
failed the rudimentary drug tests of the time), and the fact that these programs were
also developing and applying cutting-edge practices in athlete selection, conditioning,
training, and technique obscured the source and effect of any doping. Unable to prove
their suspicions, observers could not call the violators to account, and the records still
reflect innumerable championships that were won under a cloud, regardless of whether
the athletes may have triumphed without steroids.
At the same time that great benefits were offered to victorious Eastern Bloc athletes,
coercion, by direct threats or blackmail, was applied to keep the athletes in line. The
result of this win-or-die attitude was a huge harvest of Olympic and world champion-
ship medals from countries that had never been global athletic powers. That these rogue
states were never punished for their abuses by any international sport governing body
presents a compelling example that Realpolitik reigned.
reductions in nonpulling weight were relatively insignificant, but once the much lighter
shell was created, the coxswain’s weight became a bigger factor, and crews often sought
younger, smaller, and lighter coxswains to minimize the disadvantage. The trend to win
at all costs with lighter coxswains reached its peak at the Henley Royal Regatta in 1868
with the appearance of a 65 lb (29.5 kg) coxswain as steersman in the Stewards’ Cup for
both the London Rowing Club and the Oscillators Club. There was no problem until both
crews reached the event finals, and neither would agree to relinquish its prize bantam.
The quandary was resolved by finding two new coxswains, each weighing about 112 lb
(51 kg), and ensuing discussions led to the imposition of minimum coxswain weights
in the interest of a more level playing field.
If you couldn’t gain advantage with a lighter coxswain, why not get rid of him
altogether? One of the more notable incidents of trying to beat the boat class system
took place in the same event in the same year, when Brasenose oarsman W.B. “Guts”
Woodgate announced his intention to enter the Stewards’ Cup, hitherto always coxed,
with a straight four, presenting the argument that a crew willing to risk steering itself
should be allowed to shed the weight of a passenger. Turned down by the Stewards’,
who insisted that the boat show up with a coxswain, Woodgate instructed his steersman,
Frederic Weatherly, to jump out of the four immediately after the start, which he did
and came close to drowning in a bed of water lilies in the process. Brasenose won their
heat by 100 yd (91 m) but were disqualified for violating the spirit of the rule. In the
end, pressure on the committee led to the recasting of the Stewards’ as a straight-fours
event in 1873. (On another happy note, Weatherly, having combined his first moment
of fame with a near-death experience, went on to much greater visibility as a popular
songwriter, best known as the author of the fabled Irish ballad “Danny Boy.”)
time the ARA and the less exclusionary National Amateur Rowing Association (NARA)
merged in 1956, the issue of amateurism had leapt from the banks of the Thames into
international relations.
The Eastern Bloc practices that set up national team rowing programs through state
support recast the whole question of amateurism. Non-Bloc nations complained bitterly
about the state-funded squads that dominated international rowing for over two decades,
but with the abandonment of any meaningful criteria for defining amateurs and the
adoption of national team development and support systems by non-Communist nations,
the whole notion of winning at all costs was raised to a new level. Today, the question
of amateurism in rowing survives in a Jekyll-and-Hyde world. On the one hand, the
NCAA permits athletic scholarships but has looked askance at the century-old custom
of betting shirts and limits training time for student-athletes. On the other hand, some
national teams offer the equivalent of a full salary to team members, with substantial
cash bonuses for winning medals—one way to effectively quantify the costs of winning!
Recruiting
Recruiting can be intensively competitive; not infrequently, the caliber of the roster
at the outset of the season is the key factor in squad success. Recruiting is well over a
century old—a student without great intellectual gifts had a good shot at acceptance at
certain Oxford or Cambridge colleges if he proved his mettle on the water for Eton or
Westminster—but intensive selection reached new heights when Eastern Bloc countries
focused on sport as a weapon in their political arsenal and on Olympic medal counts as a
political philosophy. Perhaps no country adopted as rigorous a selection process as East
Germany, where an extensive physical testing program identified children as potentially
exceptional athletes and routed them into special training classes and routines designed
to reveal the truly gifted, who were then recruited for the national team. Removed from
their families, subjected to intense training routines, and denied both the pleasures of
adolescence and education for a normal life, these athletes were some of the first poster
children for winning-at-all-costs sport programs.
In the United States today, recruiting poses a challenge for rowing coaches at first-tier
universities. To what extent should they go in order to admit a stellar rower? NCAA
rules prohibit a wide array of recruiting practices, so the coach’s battlefield may be the
admissions office—what does it take to get a candidate in? Given the value of one extra-
ordinary rower to a boat, the temptation to win at all costs in recruiting by exaggerating
the recruit’s record to the admissions committee (as well as convincing the recruit to
choose the school) can be enticing. Today, the focus for many U.S. universities is the
junior international from overseas, giving a literal twist to the question, “How far will
you go to get a star?” Though the high quality of education in many rowing nations
may help with academic eligibility, the costs alone will raise the burden of winning at
all costs in recruiting.
The tension between the competing agendas of sport and academics has permeated
rowing throughout its existence. For decades, going out on the Thames was officially
forbidden at Eton, but in light of the popularity and success of the Eton crews, the
administration turned a blind eye to aquatic activity. Across the Atlantic, the father of a
Harvard oarsman in 1869 wrote in concern to a friend about his son wishing to travel
abroad to race instead of focusing on his studies. The friend’s response reassured the wor-
ried parent that his son was doing well in his studies, was a campus leader, and should
be allowed to go to England to race Oxford (an event that may have popularized sport
rowing in the United States more than anything else).
A few years later, renowned printmakers Currier and Ives published a satirical cari-
cature titled “A Modern College Scull: Graduating With All the Honors” (see figure 1.1).
The colorful lithograph shows a sculler with an enormous head (a visual pun on scull)
emerging from under a bridge named Pons Asinorum (Bridge of Fools) in his single filled
with trophies dated 1873, 1874, 1875, and 1876, showing that he had done nothing in
college but row—a comment on abandoning studies for winning at all costs. The intensity
of training for rowing has increased dramatically over the last two centuries, from the
days when the only training might be a pull together before a race to the 24–7 pace of
today’s international rowers.
Figure 1.1 Hand-colored lithograph, “A Modern College Scull: Graduating With All the Honors.”
Mystic Seaport Museum, Thomas E. Weil Collection. Artist: Thomas Worth.
Winning at All Costs: A Historical Perspective ◾ 17
Concern about excessive training has manifested itself historically in at least two other
areas. One was the pragmatic understanding that an overtrained crew can go stale and not
give its best performance on the day of the race. The second was, literally, much closer to
the heart. As one of the most strenuous athletic activities of the 19th century, rowing pro-
vided doctors with many of the first cases of sports medicine. Boils were the most common
problem, but it is not surprising that doctors saw oarsmen, many of whom had not trained
enough to be fit to row, in varying states of distress, and the notion soon circulated that
rowing was bad for the heart and would lead to an early death. Eventually this concern
was shown not to be as serious as originally thought. In the first study in sports medicine,
Morgan (1873) gathered statistics on the lives and deaths of Oxford and Cambridge Boat
Race alumni and showed that these men lived longer than their nonrowing classmates.
Despite this rebuttal of the view that rowing was dangerous, the myth continued to cir-
culate, gaining traction with every report of an oarsman collapsing after a race.
Though there are few instances of rowers actually dying in or after a race, one such
event had a disproportionately big impact. In 1871, James Renforth, the reigning world
champion in sculling, collapsed in a 7 mi (11 km) race for the world championship four
title on the Kennebecasis River in Canada, and he died hours later. Those who believed
rowing to be harmful pointed to this unhappy occasion as the result of trying to win at
all costs, but it is likely that Renforth suffered an unpredictable aneurysm and had no
opportunity to lessen his effort or call for a halt in the race.
The revolution in training methods that began in the 1950s and gathered force in the
1960s with Karl Adam at Ratzeburg, West Germany, and in the Eastern Bloc countries
again raised the question of whether training was being skewed to embrace winning at
all costs. Coaches and athletes on Bloc teams were subjected to significant governmental
pressure to produce, and there were penalties for not succeeding. One way to win was
to work harder on strength and conditioning. The carrots and sticks of non-Communist
countries were much more benign; however, some coaches, like Harry Parker and Ted
Nash, were quick to take squad workouts to new levels of intensity, and the results
showed on the water. This ramp-up in training may have seemed brutal, but it would
not be fair to characterize it as winning at all costs—it was simply what was required to
stay in the game, and it set new standards for world-class rowing.
Training is one of the areas in which the athlete can easily lose perspective on winning
at all costs. As long as it does not interfere with the team schedule, few coaches will try
to dissuade a rower from doing another cycle of lifts or taking another long run—indeed,
extra training is a classic area in which leadership can be demonstrated within the crew.
So where does the drive to win cross the line and become undesirable? Except in the
case of physical harm, the answer will vary with the individual and a variety of factors
such as competing class, employment, and family obligations.
Training methods bring a panoply of regimens and techniques to the table, and the
issue of winning at all costs becomes much harder to differentiate. How much time
should be spent on the ergometer, on the water, in the weight room, or for running?
What exercises should be done on the water? How much steady-state, full-pressure,
or distance training should be done? These and other choices present the coach with
numerous options to do too much. For well-funded programs, there may be more choices,
such as whether to travel to certain venues for seasonal reasons or higher altitudes for
oxygen conditioning.
Fund-raising provides another way to win at all costs. To what extent does the commu-
nity go in order to provide the rowing program with resources? Do community members
18 ◾ Weil
hold labor-intensive car washes and cookie sales? Are there heavy parental contributions
for travel to distant regattas? When a wealthy donor appears or a municipal council
allocates funds from a new bond issue, does the money go into a new boathouse and
shells, into travel so that crews have more racing opportunities, or into a new assistant
coach or rigger position so that the head coach can spend more time coaching? Any of
these choices can be criticized at some level for excessive focus on winning at all costs,
but if the principal motivation behind the spending is to give all of the stakeholders
more opportunities to excel, an undeniably worthy goal, the question may be one of
priorities. In many cases, the debate may take place at a higher level of conflict over
resources, in which an institution has a choice between a rowing-related budget line
item and another competing need. Then, not just the issue of winning at all costs but
the very worth of rowing may be at the center of the discussion.
Conclusion
Noted U.S. football coach Vince Lombardi is quoted as saying, “Winning isn’t everything,
it’s the only thing.” This is a debatable proposition for many reasons, the most obvious
of which is that more crews lose races than win them. Assuming that everyone wants
to win, the question is, what are the permissible boundaries of behavior in striving to
achieve that goal? Rowing and society have laid down numerous decrees and regula-
tions that state what is acceptable, but there are always niches to be exploited to gain an
advantage. Though violations of hard rules are unacceptable, there is no magic test to
determine what is excessive, unfair, or unseemly behavior; that is judged by individual
subjectivity and evolving community norms. But so long as rowing offers more intangible
benefits than it does fame and fortune, winning-at-all-costs acts and attitudes may be
the exception rather than the rule.
Chapter 2
Developing a
Coaching Philosophy
Angela J. Schneider
Alternative Approaches
One of the easier ways to develop a coaching philosophy for rowing is to start with a
series of questions. The purpose of the questions is to start thinking about the big picture.
Sometimes we need to take a step back to gain perspective and see where we are going.
Here are some suggested questions to start the process:
◾ 19
20 ◾ Schneider
There are a variety of possible answers to those questions. Following are four examples
of possible answers. It is instructive to walk through them with some analysis as we go.
As we can see, different ways of seeing the purpose, value, and function of rowing lead
to different perspectives on coaching, and these perspectives lead to different ways of
teaching sporting skills and presenting the sport experience to athletes. The reality of
coaching is that it includes elements of all of these perspectives. Coaches enter sport
for a variety of reasons and come from a wide range of backgrounds. One task could be
to identify where the emphasis should lie—in essence, just what the coaching philoso-
phy should be. In developing a coaching philosophy, coaches and rowing clubs could
modify their programs, experiences, and educational services with a comprehensive,
sound foundation.
Developing a Coaching Philosophy ◾ 21
Philosophy in Practice
It is generally accepted that the reinforcement given to athletes should be positive rather
than negative (Barker, 2003; Simkin, 2009). Everyone can recite horror stories of the coach
who demeans and belittles athletes. Less well known is the fact that some forms of positive
reinforcement, such as rewards and trophies, can also be destructive for an athlete’s self-
esteem and intrinsic motivation. For example, Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999) performed a
meta-analysis of 128 studies examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation.
They concluded that engagement-contingent rewards (based on actually engaging in the activ-
ity), completion-contingent rewards (based on completion of the activity), and performance-
contingent rewards (based on the performance outcome in the activity) significantly undermined
free-choice intrinsic motivation, as did all tangible rewards and all expected rewards.
Engagement-contingent and completion-contingent rewards also significantly under-
mined self-reported interest, as did tangible rewards and expected rewards. Positive feedback
enhanced both free-choice behavior and self-reported interest. Tangible rewards tended to
be more detrimental for children than college students, and verbal rewards tended to be less
enhancing for children than college students. There is still some debate about the extent of
the negative effects of tangible rewards on intrinsic motivation, but generally this area has
been identified as one that needs to be addressed. Regardless, it may be better for coaches
to focus on developing rowers’ intrinsic motivation through positive feedback rather than
focusing on external rewards.
How competition, winning, losing, success, and failure are presented and explained
make all the difference to the creation of a quality sport experience for all athletes—even
for those who are the most successful.
The philosophy of coaching could improve not only the quality of coaching but also
the operation of the club by enabling the practical application of the agreed-upon values.
◾ 23
24 ◾ Schneider
Whereas sexual exploitation is a serious issue for athletes, and Whereas the coach/athlete
relationship is sometimes the occasion for sexual relations,
Be it resolved that:
We request the Coaching Association adopt the following policy:
It prohibits any sexual relations between coaches and athletes.
In the event that any sexual relationship is shown to have occurred between a coach and an
athlete, that coach will be expelled from the Coaching Association and his or her Coaching
Certification rescinded.
I am sure you will agree that this is a serious issue that requires the strongest possible
measures. I look forward to your earliest response.
Yours faithfully,
Joe Doe
Executive Director
Association for _____________________
From V. Nolte, 2011, Rowing faster, 2nd ed. (Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics).
Participants should receive the material in advance so they can determine how they
feel about it. More specific guidance is often sought on the issue of what is appropriate
for coaching (particularly in regard to sexual relations between athletes and coaches);
help can be derived from working out a coaching philosophy.
The purpose of the two previous cases is to generate a discussion that allows the
identification of underlying values. This analysis of underlying values is then compared
with the values expressed in the retirement speech. The point of this comparison is to
establish whether a set of core values underlying a common philosophy of coaching
can be identified.
For the most part, this method is successful, but there will be times when the iden-
tification of conflicting values presents a problem. When conflicting values are identi-
fied in the discussion, it is important to develop agreement about what would count as
the overriding priority for the coaches. This approach allows the participants to work
toward a consensus in most cases. On rare occasions there will be an objection to what
most think is the appropriate outcome. Often, this is not really an objection to what
Developing a Coaching Philosophy ◾ 25
the majority thought were the important underlying values but rather an objection to a
particular interpretation of a particular set of events. Thus, this kind of objection usually
can be sorted out by fact finding.
From the case discussions it will become apparent whether or not there is general
agreement that a philosophy of coaching rowing must entail more than just the develop-
ment of technical expertise. (Although this is always one goal, many feel that a quality
coach must exhibit proficiency in more than just skill acquisition). During this process,
concern is often expressed that the focus for coaches has been on technical aspects and
that coaches need training and education in treating athletes, as well as themselves, as
people first. One of the main values that surfaces consistently in this regard is expressed
through discussions about a holistic approach to coaching. A holistic approach entails
looking at a broader perspective of the issue and not just one small part. It is concerned
with wholes or with complete systems rather than with the analysis of parts. For example,
what effects will this behavior have on the whole system?
In the case of lending a rowing shell to a competitor, it is clear that the coach has
a role in guiding the decision. Is it about the value of sport and the experience the
athlete can take from it? It is also clear that this kind of guidance requires a phi-
losophy of coaching and competency in moral and psychological issues surround-
ing sport. There is obviously a need for competency in more than just the technical
side of sport. The underlying ethical and social issues in this case are not only more
important than any technical issues but are issues that strike at the heart of sport
itself. Further, discussion regarding the case about sexual relations between coaches
and athletes will demonstrate that a philosophy of coaching must be able to address
coaches and athletes on a personal level, viewing them as whole individuals who
have a life outside sport.
During the workshop discussions, it may become apparent that some coaches
have a sound coaching philosophy and know the right thing to do, but they feel
they do not have the support to act appropriately. Thus, it is not enough to merely
state what the coaching philosophy is; there must be support in place to help coaches
practice it as well. The major challenge in practicing sound ethical and philosophi-
cal approaches to coaching is the perceived and actual rewards of the win-at-all-
costs attitude. When the coaching philosophy is solely focused on the development
of winning athletes or teams, quality is measured and rewarded purely based on
rankings. When this philosophy dominates the system, which is the case in many
countries, anyone who does not support it does not reap the benefits of the reward
system and may even be penalized. Most groups will recognize that there is a logical
distinction between winning and excellence and that a coaching philosophy should
foster excellence. Recognizing this distinction, however, does not always translate
to actual behavior. In the case of lending the rowing shell, a discussion of this dis-
tinction will involve wanting to win because you were the best and not because of
some mishap that eliminated the best competitor that day. When this issue is tied
back to the retirement speech, it puts in perspective the importance of excellence
in sport over the win.
In some instances during the case discussions, some participants may become over-
whelmed by the prospect of a coaching philosophy that requires them to be experts in
the character development of young people. When it becomes clear to them that their
actions will influence their athletes’ moral development whether they recognize it or not
and that the question may be one of competency and not expertise, they will become
more comfortable with the discussion.
26 ◾ Schneider
Additionally, there will be a recognition that coaching concerns more than the
delivery of technical expertise. First, the technical aspects of rowing fit within a set
of attitudes toward sport. The case discussion about sharing a shell with a competitor
identifies the widely held view that coaching needs to address more general issues
and attitudes toward sport. It is also accepted that some athletes need more help
in these areas than others. Many coaches are not well equipped to explain those
broader messages about sport and life. The model of the coach–athlete relationship
will emerge, and it is often more that of a respected teacher, than, for instance, a
driving instructor.
The discussion of sexual relations between athletes and coaches is instructive as
well. The blanket prohibition against such relations is often seen as failing to treat both
athletes and coaches as full human beings. It is absurd, for instance, that current poli-
cies would prohibit a woman or man from coaching her or his spouse in an individual
sport in a masters event or vice versa. A philosophy of coaching that emphasizes treat-
ing athletes as human beings and that stresses their development must be sensitive to
particular situations.
Conclusion
Dominant themes and principles usually arise in discussions among coaches regarding
a philosophy of coaching:
To summarize, there are four main outcomes in the development of a coaching phi-
losophy to achieve.
1. There should be some mention of the kind of relationship one is trying to achieve;
for example, “Coaching is a relationship with an athlete as a person.”
2. There should be some prioritizing of the first commitment of the coach; for
example, “The first commitment is to an athlete’s development as a human being.”
3. There should be some identification of the coach’s role; for example, “Coaches
are educators.”
4. There should be some mention of the role of the sport and the coach in life; for
example, “Sport fits within an athlete’s life, and the technical components of
Developing a Coaching Philosophy ◾ 27
sport fit within a set of attitudes toward sport as a whole. The role of the coach
is to help athletes develop the skills and characteristics that allow them to excel
at sport and to integrate their sport into excellent lives.”
Individual rowing coaches will come up with differing examples for each of the
four outcomes, but the most important part of this exercise is the process of critical
self-reflection. It is through this process that we can better know ourselves as coaches
so that when we are challenged, we can better identify, explain, and adhere to what
we believe in.
Part II
Long-Term Athlete
Development
Marnie McBean
I ’ve had the opportunity to go to Africa with Right To Play, a group whose purpose is
to bring sport and play into communities that have been devastated by war, famine,
drought, and HIV. I’ve been to refugee camps and communities where some of the
children have previously been soldiers, some have been tasked with taking care of each
other because their adults have been killed by war or HIV, and all have no clean water,
no electricity, and no organized education. Right To Play is there to bring sport and play
into the community while using that platform to teach HIV awareness, gender equity,
respect, and social values.
What does this have to do with the discussion of long-term athlete development?
The truth is, when Right To Play goes into these communities, the children are already
playing. Children will always figure out how to play—be it with a long-sleeved T-shirt
tied up to make a soccer ball, an old steel rim from a barrel to roll and run with, or a
stick and rock to play baseball or cricket with. These children aren’t going to learn the
same social values. They have no structure to their play, and they will not develop into
sporting heroes. But like cream rising to the top, they will play.
Similar to the children who find play regardless of the world around them, I became
an elite rower outside of the Canadian rowing system (though I will not pretend the
hardships are even close to being the same). There was no planned, athlete development
model when I learned to row, and it became a bit of a joke, because although so many
things worked out for me to navigate the gaps and advance, it was as if the system were
creating roadblock after roadblock to slow my development.
When I was 16 years old, I saw rowing in a TV commercial and also in a movie.
It looked interesting and piqued my curiosity. I was a multisport athlete at my high
school, but we had no rowing program. I knew only one person who rowed, and that
was a cousin who lived on the other side of the country. I knew it was easy to sign up
◾ 29
30 ◾ McBean
for swimming, gymnastics, tennis, and even guitar lessons, so how tough could it be
to sign up for rowing lessons? I rode my bike down to a Toronto rowing club. There
was no learn-to-row information posted, so I rode home and looked up the club in the
phone book. No one answered the phone until about my fourth or fifth try. In hindsight
this was the first laugh—no one was supposed to answer the phone – I had phoned an
amateur club without an office! A club member simply happened to answer the phone
and knew about the upcoming learn-to-row program. I signed up. Had that phone not
been answered, would my curiosity have found some other direction?
After the 4-week program, the other learn-to-row girls and I were asked if we wanted
to try recreational rowing or competitive rowing. The recreational team was pushed at
me because they said I was too young (17), and we weren’t good enough yet to move
into a competitive boat. I didn’t care. I wanted to compete! I hovered around the club,
waiting for any opportunity—someone to be late or absent so I could jump in the boat.
I was discouraged and even ridiculed for my tenacity, but I coxed, rowed port, rowed
starboard—any seat, any time. I started to move boats, and by the end of that season, I
was not only racing but winning races, much to the chagrin of some of the club veter-
ans who fought over whether my strength and boat-moving ability were worth putting
me in the top boat. I didn’t care; I just wanted to race. I was actually happier in the less
political second boat where all we wanted to do was row.
My next break—really, my first big break—was getting into the junior national pro-
gram. Was I recruited? No. Did I know what opportunities existed for a 17-year-old
rower? I had no idea! My birthday is in January, and a club rower from Ottawa—one
of the only rowers I knew who was my age—called to wish me a happy birthday and to
ask if was going to try out for the Rowing Canada junior national team. I didn’t know
it was an option. She mentioned a Gjessing ergometer test. She gave me the number of
the coach, and I called to find out that I had 5 days to submit a score. Yikes!
I had no idea what the test would look like or what it would take physically to per-
form it, let alone where to find a testing location. I was given an extra week but no help
or direction. But before I knew it, 7 months later I had a bronze medal from the junior
world championships around my neck. The coaches said they’d never seen anyone
go so fast and look so bad during selection, but I was far too naive to think that was
a problem; I just loved to pull hard and row. Looking back, it was only because I kept
surprising everyone with good erg scores that the door stayed open for me. The system
did not encourage me at all.
The first 5 years of my rowing career continued in much the same vein. The next step
was never presented to me but often arrived in some weird and random way. Frequently
I was discouraged from pursuing the next step because I wasn’t ready for it, or (ah, club
politics!) someone at one club didn’t agree with someone at another club.
I named my first boat Fate because I thought it was fate that had brought me to the
sport. Fate had encouraged me to take each step and explore the next one. (I did also
think it was kind of cool that if you were racing against me, you were racing against
fate!) I continued to use the word fate in the name of all of my singles. It was fate that
helped me get into and navigate through the rowing system, not any development
model. It was fate, and a tremendous amount of work, that helped me accumulate 12
world championship and Olympic medals, 6 of which are gold.
So again, does this have anything to do with long-term athlete development? Abso-
lutely! Although there will always be athletes who find their way to the podium despite
the system, it is essential to create a system that encourages, if not recruits, participation
at all levels. An entire system designed to allow an athlete to flow from one level to
Long-Term Athlete Development ◾ 31
another is the healthy way forward. Too often each level squeezes the life from rowers
before it releases them to the next level instead of preparing them for bigger and better
things. When sport levels work as microcosms and either overdevelop and overtrain or
restrict and hamper growth, then the politics of sport will kill the passion.
I didn’t row in a high school program. In my first few years, I only got to row during
the summer and the fall with my club. At the time I thought I was missing out, but now I
think this is one of the reasons why my career was so long. Later as I rowed and coached
at university, I saw athletes coming out of serious high school programs so burned out
from the stress that they’d lost their passion for the sport.
The university season where I rowed is short. At first I thought this put me at a dis-
advantage, but then I realized that I could turn it to my advantage. Cross training, balancing
life, and, as the ice melted each year, a strong reminder that I chose this sport and loved
it allowed me to hold onto play while at the same time staying focused while training.
Some athletes will always find the way. Like the water that forged the Grand Canyon,
they will forge a path and are unstoppable. But forging such a path comes at an energy
cost, and many athletes will be broken down. There are so many out there who cannot
find the next rung up their sport ladder—or even sometimes the first rung. The power
and potential of these athletes for club recreational rowing, for high school and univer-
sity competitive rowing, and for national team rowing should never be underestimated.
Though work and effort come naturally to them, finding and forging a path may not be
in their nature—so it must be nurtured.
One of the things I was told on my first day of rowing was, “Rowing is all politics, and if
you can’t take it, get out now.” That was on day one! You might think that it was terrible
advice, but it became a golden rule for me. I needed to survive despite the system; I was
being told to not let it break me down. The point of the long-term athlete development
(LATD) model is to remove the politics, to illuminate the path, and to nurture a lifelong
passion for a sport that is so compelling that others see it almost as a cult.
Chapter 3
T he science of skill acquisition has revealed many common factors related to how
athletes develop and maintain performance at the highest levels of competition.
Although there has been relatively little research examining the development of elite
rowers in particular, examinations of athletes ranging from elite triathletes and Olympic
gymnasts to NBA basketball players and NHL hockey players reveal startling commonali-
ties within the training backgrounds of high-performance athletes. In this chapter we
introduce the field of skill acquisition and expertise and reveal the common pathways
that athletes follow on the way to the highest levels of achievement.
◾ 33
34 ◾ Baker and Schorer
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 perfor-
mance developed.
In 1991, Ericsson and Smith presented the expert-performance approach as a con-
ceptual 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 anthropo-
metric measures, or the dimensions of their bodies (e.g., Desgorces, Chennaoui, & Gue-
zennec, 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 perfor-
mance. 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 (V̇O2max). 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? In the following sections we introduce a
model that gives additional insight into the myriad factors affecting athletes’ development.
Primary Influences
Primary influences directly affect athlete development and include all elements that
athletes contribute (either intentionally or unintentionally) to their own performance.
The main primary factors identified in research so far are genes, training, and individual
psychological factors. A brief synopsis of each factor is presented next.
36 ◾ Baker and Schorer
Genes
The discussion of genetic factors and human performance largely relates to the presence
or absence of specific genetic markers (i.e., whether someone has a specific marker or
not). More than 200 genetic variants related to physical fitness and performance have
been identified (Bray et al., 2009). Perhaps most relevant to rowing, researchers have
noted a significant relationship between genetic factors and maximal aerobic capacity
(V̇O2max), a variable positively related to rowing performance both in the boat and on the
ergometer. Although research examining specific genetic markers in the human genome
has not provided conclusive evidence of individual genes affecting athletic performance,
several candidate genes have been proposed. For instance, there is some evidence that
variations in the gene for angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) can influence perfor-
mance in rowing (Amhetov et al., 2008; Gayagay et al., 1998), among other sports (see
Woods, Humphries, & Montgomery, 2000, for a review of research on the ACE gene).
Training
Considerable research emphasizes the accumulated effects of prolonged practice and
the rate of learning. According to the power law of practice, which is one of the more
empirically sound profiles of how practice affects skill acquisition, learning occurs at
a rapid rate after the onset of practice but decreases over time as practice continues.
Eventually performance reaches a point, or asymptote, where even the smallest improve-
ment requires a considerable investment in training. Because of the robust relationship
between practice and learning, few scientists would argue about the primacy of training
in developing elite athletes.
In an extension of this research, Ericsson and colleagues (1993) developed the notion
of deliberate practice, a theory grounded in the concept that it is not simply training of
any type but rather prolonged engagement in a highly specific type of training that is
necessary for the attainment of expertise. Although these relationships have not been
examined in rowers specifically, researchers have tested the concept of deliberate practice
in sports such as wrestling and basketball (Hodges & Starkes, 1996; Helsen, Starkes, &
Hodges, 1998), games such as chess (Charness, Krampe, & Mayr, 1996) and darts (Duffy,
Baluch, & Ericsson, 2004), and medical (Moulaert, Verwijnen, Rikers, & Scherpbier,
2004) and musical (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Römer, 1993) domains. Though these
studies have had varying degrees of success in testing the tenets of deliberate practice,
a consistent finding has been the relationship between quality training and expertise.
Expertise
Genes
Figure 3.2 Baker and Horton model of primary and secondary influences on athletic expertise.
Adapted from J. Baker and S. Horton, 2004, “A review of primary and secondary influences on sport expertise,” High Ability Studies 15(2):
211-228.
Secondary Influences
Although most attention has been paid to interactions among the primary factors,
the ability to maximize training and development opportunities is affected by a host
of secondary factors. Some of the more prominent ones identified in sport science
research are presented in figure 3.2. To a large extent, these variables affect the ease
with which an athlete can amass the enormous amounts of training necessary for
specific performance adaptations. For the developing rower, for instance, support from
parents, coaches, peers, and siblings is an invaluable resource. Less well known but
equally (if not more) important are factors associated with an athlete’s early devel-
opmental environment.
Birthplace
Birthplace effects are a relatively new finding. They highlight the importance of early
exposure to essential resources in the development of athletic talent. This research has
shown that elite athletes are more likely to come from medium-sized cities rather than
small towns (<1,000 inhabitants) or large cities (>3 million). Although the exact cause of
this effect is not yet known, it seems robust in North American sports, including rowing
(Baker et al., 2009).
Birth Date
Another secondary influence relates to advantages provided to athletes simply because
of their birth date. Sports that organize athletes into age groups using arbitrary cutoff
dates perpetuate a phenomenon known as the relative age effect. Relative age effects
have been demonstrated in several sports (see Cobley, Wattie, Baker, & McKenna, 2009,
for an extensive review) and are thought to be the result of maturation and selection
policies when identifying talent in younger age groups. More specifically, the factors that
coaches look for when identifying talent are typically related to maturation, including
speed, strength, and size. As a result, coaches are more likely to choose athletes who
are older than the rest of their peer group because they appear more talented, but in
reality they are simply older.
To our knowledge, no one has considered the relative age effect in rowing. We con-
sidered birth dates for the national rowing teams for Germany and Canada (N = 355).
As seen in figure 3.3, we found a small but statistically significant relative age effect for
these rowers, suggesting that this phenomenon may affect talent selection in rowing,
although critical factors such as event type, weight class (open versus lightweight), and
country were not taken into account in these preliminary analyses.
Conclusion
Research from the field of expert performance can inform our understanding of rowing
expertise. What seems clear from this research is that early training resources are criti-
cal. Data on birth date and birthplace effects highlight the importance of early training
resources; indeed, these effects are predicated on these resources. Without them, the
effects would not exist.
Perhaps more significant, the research in this area consistently indicates that training
is the best predictor of skill level. At first glance, this finding suggests that training is
the most important variable to consider in athlete development. However, although we
don’t want to undersell the importance of quality training in promoting skill acquisition,
we don’t want to oversell it, either. Although there is considerable evidence indicating
large training differences between experts and nonexperts, it is entirely possible, even
probable, that the training differences between performers at various levels reflect the
influence of other variables, such as genetic predisposition to training at a high level
without getting injured, motivation to continue training in the face of negative conse-
quences, and the good luck to be in the right place at the right time.
Due to the unique physiological, biomechanical, anthropometrical, and psychologi-
cal factors underpinning success in rowing, this sport will continue to be of interest to
sport scientists in a range of fields. For researchers in sport expertise, rowing presents a
relatively untapped field but one consistent with general rules of expertise development.
Despite the potential for rowing to increase our understanding of how athletes acquire
skills, we know little about the nuances of a rower’s learning process. Future work in
this area is critical to determine the value of part versus whole training (i.e., practicing
part of the stroke versus the whole stroke) as well as whether techniques perfected on
the ergometer or in indoor tanks are immediately transferrable to outdoor settings.
These questions are fundamental for researchers in skill acquisition and motor learning,
and they have considerable relevance to coaches and athletes. Better interaction between
coaches and researchers would improve knowledge generation (e.g., by researchers
asking the right questions as determined by their value to coaches and athletes) and
translation (by ensuring that relevant research results disseminate more rapidly from
academic journals to the coaching front lines). Collectively, better integration among
coaches, athletes, and applied sport scientists would result in a more comprehensive
understanding of how rowers learn in the short term and develop over the long term.
Chapter 4
In short, the author observed many elite athletes who trained extremely hard and
performed well. However, they might have achieved even better performances had
they been given the opportunity to acquire the fundamental movement competencies
during childhood.
The questions then were, “What’s wrong with this picture?”, and more important,
“What can be done to improve coaching for the next generation?” The result was the
LTAD model described here. This chapter is derived from the Canadian Sport for Life’s
general LTAD model and from Rowing Canada’s sport-specific LTAD model. Rowing
Canada’s LTAD model is the result of collaboration and input from many talented people
within the Canadian rowing community, including Dr. Volker Nolte, the editor of this
book. The goal is for the LTAD model to benefit every active person and to contribute
to everyone’s enjoyment of sport, rowing, and physical activity.
What Is LTAD?
Since the 1950s, the sport community has recognized the importance of a long-term
model for athletic development. Several attempts have been made to formulate a model
that could accurately predict stages of athlete development over time. The majority of
these earlier models used chronological age as the main determinant of athletic readiness.
In the early 1990s, a new long-term development model was introduced. This model
identified specific developmental and biological markers that occur as athletes progress
through childhood and adolescence. Coaches can use these markers to design individu-
alized training programs.
The LTAD model represents an approach to sport and physical activity that is fun-
damentally different from its predecessors. It emphasizes developmental readiness as
the key determinant to successful training and skill acquisition, and it identifies stages
of athlete development that are based on specific biological markers rather than on
chronological age. It is also inclusive: The principles that underpin the LTAD model are
equally applicable to people of all ages and abilities.
This model represents a philosophically unique approach to sport and physical activ-
ity. One of the goals of the LTAD model is physical literacy, as well as full sport-system
alignment and integration. Physical literacy is defined as the mastery of fundamental
movement skills and sport skills: “A physically literate person moves with poise, econ-
omy and confidence in a wide variety of physically challenging situations, is perceptive
in reading all aspects of the physical environment. He/she anticipates the movement
needs or possibilities, and responds appropriately with intelligence and imagination”
(Whitehead, 2001)
Long-Term Athlete Development: Canadian Sport for Life (Balyi, Cardinal, Higgs, Norris, &
Way, 2005) identified seven stages of a generic LTAD model: Active Start, FUNdamentals,
Learn to Train, Train to Train, Train to Compete, Train to Win, and Active for Life.
Figure 4.1 illustrates how the Active Start, FUNdamentals, and Learn to Train stages
provide for physical literacy. The Train to Train, Train to Compete, and Train to Win
stages then develop excellence in sport, as well as the transition at any age to the Active
for Life stage, or lifelong participation in physical activity.
Ten key factors have been identified that influence the model and set it apart from
other long-term development models. These factors are outlined in the following section.
Ten Factors Influencing Athlete Development ◾ 43
Excellence
for life
Train to
compete
Train to
train
Physical literacy
Learn to train
First contact
Awareness
FUNdamentals
4. Specialization
In 2001, Balyi and Hamilton introduced early- and late-specialization sports and rec-
ommended that these categories be used to classify all sports for purposes of athlete
development modeling. Early-specialization sports are those sports where early specific
training is essential to be successful. They include gymnastics, rhythmic gymnastics,
diving, swimming, and table tennis. Late-specialization sports are defined as open-skill
sports or engine sports, where early specialization is not essential for future excellence.
They include athletics, soccer, rugby, rowing, volleyball, and combative and racket sports.
Many of the most successful athletes participated in a wide variety of sports and
physical activities during childhood. The movement and sport skills that were developed
at that time helped the athletes attain a high level of achievement. Early exposure to
many sports and physical activities will develop the physical and movement attributes
that are crucial to later success, including agility, balance, conditioning, speed, core body
strength, stamina, suppleness, and eye–hand–foot coordination.
Early specialization in rowing and other late-specialization sports can contribute to
◾◾ one-sided preparation,
◾◾ an unbalanced musculoskeletal system,
◾◾ poor development of fundamental movement and sport skills,
◾◾ overuse injuries,
◾◾ early burnout, and
◾◾ premature retirement from training and from the sport of rowing.
5. Trainability
Trainability refers to a person’s responsiveness to a training stimulus at various stages
of growth and maturation. All physiological systems are always trainable, but there are
sensitive periods in development when the body is more responsive to specific training.
During these sensitive periods, accelerated adaptation to training occurs.
Instructors and coaches should capitalize on these sensitive periods of trainability
when planning their training programs. The five Ss of training and performance were
introduced in Long-Term Athlete Development: Canadian Sport for Life (Balyi et al., 2005),
and they include stamina, strength, speed, skill, and suppleness.
Stamina (Endurance) One of the sensitive periods of trainability for stamina occurs
at the onset of peak height velocity (PHV), commonly known as the growth spurt.
Aerobic capacity training is recommended after the onset of the growth spurt but before
athletes reach PHV. Aerobic power should be introduced progressively after the growth
rate decelerates.
Strength The sensitive period for strength trainability differs according to gender.
For girls, this period occurs immediately after PHV and at the onset of menarche.
For boys, this period occurs 12 to 18 months after PHV. General strength should be
developed before puberty by using the athlete’s own body weight, medicine balls, and
exercise balls.
Speed As in the case of strength, the periods of sensitivity for speed training are gender
specific. For boys, the first sensitive period for speed training occurs between the ages of 7
and 9, and the second occurs between ages 13 and 16. For girls, the first sensitive period
for speed training is between ages 6 and 8, and the second is between ages 11 and 13.
46 ◾ Balyi
Skill For skill training, the sensitive period for boys is between ages 9 and 12. For girls
it’s between 8 and 11, or before the onset of the growth spurt, assuming that the funda-
mental movement skills discussed earlier have been mastered before the growth spurt.
Suppleness (Flexibility) The period of sensitivity for suppleness training occurs
between the ages of 6 and 10 for both sexes. Coaches should emphasize flexibility
training during PHV, because rapidly increasing limb lengths can result in a temporary
decrease in flexibility.
Figure 4.3 shows the approximate timing of the sensitive periods of trainability in
females and males. Exact timing will vary as a function of the onset of PHV.
Since the introduction of the five basic Ss of training and performance, an additional
five Ss have been added to the list: stature, psychology, sustenance, schooling, and
sociocultural realms of participation.
Suppleness
Stamina
Skills
Strength
Speed 1 Speed 2
Rate of growth
Physical, mental (cognitive), emotional development
Figure 4.3 Periods of trainability for girls and boys depending on their rate of growth.
Courtesy of Canadian Sport for Life, Istvan Balyi, and Richard Way
This component recognizes stature (height) before, during, and after maturation,
guiding an instructor, coach, or parent to the measurements needed to track growth.
Tracking stature as a guide to developmental age allows planning to address the sensitive
periods of physical (endurance, strength, speed, and flexibility) and skill development.
By monitoring the growth of each participant, one can identify these sensitive periods
of accelerated adaptation to training, gaining information that is essential to designing
and implementing optimal participation or training, competition, and recovery programs.
Psychology Sport is a physical and mental challenge. Developing the mental toughness
for success at high levels requires training programs that are tailored to the participant’s
gender and developmental stage. Training programs should include key mental compo-
nents identified by sport psychologists: concentration, confidence, motivation, and poise.
As a participant progresses through LTAD stages, mental training will evolve from having
fun with respectful opponents, to visualization and self-awareness, and finally to goal
setting, relaxation, and positive self-talk. The participant learns to master the mental chal-
lenge of physical activity by testing these basic skills in increasingly difficult competitive
environments. Ultimately, the planning, implementing, and refining of mental strategies
for high-level competition will determine podium performances. Mental training is critical
at any LTAD stage since dealing with success and failure will determine continuation in
sport and physical activity, and therefore dramatically affect one’s lifestyle.
Sustenance Sustenance covers a broad range of components with the central theme of
replenishing the body. This is to prepare the participant for the demands of competitive
training volume and intensity as well as for living life to the fullest. Components include
nutrition, hydration, rest, sleep, and regeneration, all of which need to be applied to
training plans based on the current LTAD stage. Underlining sustenance is the need for
optimal recovery management and identification of fatigue. As the participant moves
toward becoming a 24/7 athlete, a high degree of importance is placed on activities away
from the field of play. Fatigue can come in many forms, including metabolic, neurologi-
cal, psychological, environmental, and travel. Overtraining and overcompeting can lead
to burnout, and improperly addressing sustenance can lead to the same result.
Schooling School demands must be considered in the development of and participation
in training programs. This not only includes the demands of school sports and physi-
cal education classes but also academic loads, extracurricular activities, school-related
stresses, and timing of exams. When possible, training camps and competition tours
should support, not conflict with, the timing of major school events.
Participants should be monitored carefully for overstress. Overstress includes the
everyday stresses of life, including schooling, exams, peer groups, family, and relation-
ships, as well as increased training volume and intensities.
Interference from other school sports and physical activities should be minimized,
which means communication between instructors and coaches is essential. A good bal-
ance should be established among all factors—the coach, instructor, and parents should
be working on this area together.
Sociocultural Realms of Participation The sociocultural aspects of participation
are significant and must be managed through proper planning. Socialization via sport
ensures that general societal values and norms will be internalized through sport partici-
pation. This socialization begins at the community level and, as a participant progresses
through the LTAD stages, it can lead to international exposure and can broaden one’s
perspective in such areas as ethnicity awareness and national diversity. Recovery time
during events away from home can include exposure to other aspects of the competition
48 ◾ Balyi
location, including history, geography, architecture, cuisine, literature, music, and visual
arts. Proper planning can allow the participant to experience much more than simply
commuting between hotel room and competitive venue.
Sport socialization must also address sport subculture. Instructors, coaches, and parents
must guard against group dynamics that create a culture of abuse or bullying. Ethics
and values training should be integrated into participation, training, and competition
plans at all stages of LTAD.
Together, the 10 Ss create a holistic training, competition, and recovery program. For
further information on trainability, visit the www.canadiansportforlife.ca.
At all levels of LTAD, competition and event calendars must be coordinated, and compe-
titions must be selected according to the priorities of the athletes’ specific stage of develop-
ment to ensure meaningful and developmentally appropriate competitions. Competition
calendar planning is one of the most important factors in LTAD. If competition dates are
properly selected in the annual training, competition, and recovery programs, the coaches
of developmental elite rowers have no choice but to plan and periodize properly. Thus,
a proper competition structure is a blueprint for optimal periodization and performance.
8. Ten-Year Rule
Scientific research in sport has concluded that a minimum of 10 years, or 10,000 hours of
deliberate training, is needed for a talented participant to reach elite levels (see page 36
of chapter 3). This translates into more than 3 hours of training daily for 10 years.
There are no shortcuts; participant development is a long-term process (Gibbons, 2002).
Short-term performance goals must never be allowed to undermine long-term athlete
development (Viru, 1995). During puberty, the biological processes of growth should
take priority versus forcing demanding competition schedules on growing adolescents.
Competition and performance are secondary to optimal training.
Stages of LTAD
As mentioned earlier, the stages of LTAD are based on the concept that sports can be
classified as early- or late-specialization sports. Again, rowing is a late-specialization
sport. The more sports future rowers participate in, the better for future excellence,
50 ◾ Balyi
2. FUNdamentals Stage
Ages: Females aged 6 to 8 and males aged 6 to 9
Objective: Learn fundamental movement skills.
Key outcomes: At the end of this stage, children will be competent in fundamental
movement skills and will be able to swim.
Skill development during the FUNdamentals stage should be well structured and fun.
However, it should not be overstructured. Free play or deliberate play is an important
part of programming. Children should participate in a variety of sports and physical
activity to develop a variety of skills, including the ABCS of athleticism (agility, balance,
coordination, and speed) and the run, jump, and throw movements of athletics, which
are the basis of all sports.
The first window of optimal speed development is ages 6 to 8 for girls and 7 to 9 for
boys. This period does not involve training the energy systems but rather the central
nervous system, thus developing agility, change of direction, and quickness.
Again, rowing does not have a direct role during the FUNdamentals stage other than
to support organizations that promote physical activity and physical literacy.
During the Learn to Train stage, children should be introduced to a variety of water-
based activities, including sculling. Playing around with boats will build children’s con-
fidence on the water, water sense, and basic boat-handling skills. These early water and
boat skills should be developed through fun activities in a safe environment. Rowing
clubs should consider forming partnerships with schools, recreation centers, and sports
such as canoeing, kayaking, and sailing to offer fun, well-structured water-based activi-
ties and multisport camps for children.
In addition to developing physical literacy toward the end of the stage, the basic
concept of mental preparation and ethics in sport should be introduced. The concepts
of warming up, cooling down, hydration, nutrition, stretching, and strength exercises
with medicine balls, exercise balls, and body weight should be introduced.
The Active for Life stage may also involve moving from competitive sport to the following:
◾◾ Recreational activities such as running, swimming, hiking, and cycling
◾◾ Lifelong competitive sport through age-group competition such as masters
competition
◾◾ Sport-related careers such as coaching, officiating, sport administration, small busi-
ness enterprises, or media
◾◾ Volunteer positions as coaches, officials, or administrators
Training, racing, and recovery programs should fit the needs of the athletes for whom
they are intended. For instance, masters need programs that take into account how aging
affects strength, flexibility, and endurance. A positive experience in sport is the key to
retaining participants after they leave the competitive stream.
Conclusion
The LTAD model is a philosophy and a vehicle for change. It is athlete centered, is rel-
evant throughout a person’s lifetime, and promotes the acquisition and enjoyment of
physical activity by encouraging physical literacy. The model also provides a framework
for reviewing current practices, developing new initiatives, and standardizing programs.
LTAD is a paradigm shift:
◾◾ Bases training and competition programs on developmental stage and not on
chronological age
◾◾ Uses easily measurable biological markers during puberty to exploit the sensitive
periods of accelerated adaptation to training
◾◾ Provides the proper system of competition for all stages of athlete development
◾◾ Establishes a clear development pathway from playground to podium and being
active for life
◾◾ Identifies shortcomings in the sport system and provides guidelines for problem
solving
◾◾ Provides guidelines for planning for optimal performance at all stages of participant
development
◾◾ Identifies and engages key stakeholders in delivering change and provides them
with a coordinated structure and plan for change
◾◾ Provides an aligned and integrated model for delivering LTAD
◾◾ Encourages long-term coaching development
◾◾ Encourages physical activity and sport programs and services in recreational orga-
nizations, clubs, and schools
The LTAD model is relevant to all levels of athlete preparation, from the beginner to
the elite. Developmentally appropriate training, competition, and recovery programs
should be identified for early, intermediate, and late training ages. This involves a multi-
disciplinary approach that addresses the needs of athletes at various levels of training
and performance. Developing physical literacy for the next generation will hopefully
result in lifelong physical activity for everyone.
Chapter 5
Planning for
the Long Term
Carolyn Trono
T he world of rowing has enormous potential to grow. Countries work to increase partici-
pation and improve rankings on the international stage. Although we explicitly identify
these things as important, many programming traditions work against these objectives.
Frequently, we see beginning rowers racing far too soon. They have been on the water
perhaps 3 weeks and are immediately preparing for their first race. Due to cold weather,
these novices have not been able to get on the water sooner. However, the regatta calendar
is in place and there is pressure to race. The rowers arrive at the regatta, and they don’t
know the rules and don’t have the technical skills to manage effectively on the water, let
alone race. Rowers are late to the starting gates, where they are yelled at by the umpires.
They can’t back their shell into the gates and are immediately flustered and frustrated.
Because they don’t row well, they are trounced by the opposition.
Umpires complain because these novices are not prepared to race. Athletes are
frustrated by the experience but don’t understand how it could be different. Coaches
continue to buy into a regatta structure that doesn’t fit with the proper priorities for a
novice rower. Administrators and leaders wonder why membership retention is low.
High-performance coaches are concerned about the size of the athlete pool and their
rowers’ lack of technical skills. This example shows that our traditions, common practices,
and systems need to be reviewed with an eye toward the big picture.
All systems, from education systems to health systems to sport systems, are built around
tradition, beliefs, and incremental changes that are sometimes linked to new research
findings. It is challenging to change a system due to the fixtures that reach across many
sectors and involve many groups of stakeholders. Yet, even when there is substantial
research to support change, we are often hesitant to embrace it. Too many modifications
in a system can create instability, and too few create complacency that leads to stagnation.
Common practices in rowing and its many traditions often result in the belief that
“We can’t change that” or “We’ve always done it that way.” In many cases, however,
◾ 55
56 ◾ Trono
the system of developing athletes is not as effective as it could be because of the many
interconnected sport fixtures that are built on tradition and are due for a review. For
example, in North America, student-athletes who participate in rowing throughout
the entire year could have a number of coaches as they participate in school, club, and
college rowing. It is beneficial for athletes to row year round; however, if an athlete is
moving from one program to another, one should question the continuity of the overall
training program. Within each season, the coach of every program will have identified
the priority competition, which results in three or four priority regattas in one year for
an athlete. This, of course, will be counterproductive to a more long-term approach to
the rower’s development.
Many common practices in rowing work in opposition to the important factors out-
lined in the LTAD philosophy (see chapter 4). This may result in decreasing the size of
the athlete pool, reducing the size of the membership, and compromising the trajectory
of a potential high-performance athlete who could excel on the international stage.
Leadership at any level—international, national, regional, or club—is challenged to
view the big picture and to critically reflect on rowing systems and structures. Do some of
the current structures actually undermine our work and vision for the sport of rowing?
The LTAD model provides a lens to reexamine the sport system, and it has been adopted
in a number of countries. This model encompasses important factors that contribute to
a healthier sport system. LTAD focuses on
1. optimal development based on sound training, competition, and recovery plans;
2. equal opportunities for recreation and competition;
3. a balanced approach to sport based on developmental age; and
4. an athlete-centered and coach-driven structure.
When we are considering the 10,000 hours of deliberate practice in our sport, we
must be explicit about what tasks should be done in what sequence to ensure the best
overall development of the rower. The LTAD model promotes a stage-by-stage approach
that is conducive to the creation of a rowing curriculum. What are the foundation skills
and movements that must be mastered within an LTAD stage in order for the rower to
progress successfully to the next stage? When is it appropriate to increase the number
of hours of practice? The adage “Perfect practice makes perfect” applies here. If the skill
is being performed incorrectly, increasing the number of repetitions will only make it
more difficult to correct. The error has been performed repeatedly and is now part of
the neuromuscular memory, making it difficult to relearn the skill correctly.
Therefore, it is logical that coaches working with beginning rowers (e.g., Learn to Train
through Train to Train stages) should have considerable expertise in teaching, analyzing,
and correcting the fundamentals of rowing technique. Coaches working with beginners
must provide appropriate environments for optimal learning that include proper rigging
and equipment, practice in small boats and big boats, and maximized opportunities to
perform in a variety of stable and unstable environments. Rowers need to row well
before they can row fast.
In the majority of countries, one shortcoming of the current athlete development
system is that the most experienced coaches work at more advanced levels. In rowing,
novices usually receive instruction from nonexpert coaches. Baker and colleagues (2003)
contend that strong technical coaching skills are critical to advance the athlete’s progress
to a higher level, whereas other researchers have identified enthusiasm and a caring
attitude as the most important factors for coaches of beginners (Côté & Hay, 2002).
These two traits do not have to be mutually exclusive, however. The critical factor in
the early stages is to help rowers enjoy the sport so that they continue to participate.
Part of the enjoyment is feeling successful, such as being able to perform the skill or
realizing competency gained, and the other part is creating a welcoming environment.
According to Baker, the coach plays a critical role in whether or not athletes advance
in their sport. This primarily relates to how the coach creates an effective environment for
learning in practice. Expert coaches provide specific and precise feedback to optimize the
skill improvement in their athletes, while novice coaches tend to provide vague suggestions
to improve technical performance. Further, expert coaches usually spend considerably more
time planning their practices. With meticulous attention to detail, expert coaches are more
likely to identify practice goals and objectives with an effective plan to achieve the articulated
goals. As a result of effective planning and use of precise feedback, minimal time is wasted
in practice and athletes are focused on components that are vital to their development.
If we are to create conditions for optimal rower development, then we must be clear
about what is taught at each stage of development. If we cannot get the expert coaches
working with the novice athletes, then we must create effective lesson plans that align
with the rowing curriculum. This will ensure that the what and how are being taught
during the early stages and that nonexpert coaches are given the tools needed to optimize
learning during practice. In the classroom, a teacher is given a curriculum and lesson
plans that can be modified based on the developmental level of the students. In other
words, there is a road map, and clear outcomes are provided.
The 10-year rule emphasizes that there are no shortcuts to reaching a high perfor-
mance level. In addition, it is critical that the introduction to rowing be well managed
to ensure that the important beginning stage is not wasted and that new rowers learn
the foundational rowing skills. The 10-year (or 10,000-hour) rule must be planned for
systematic development of the rower.
58 ◾ Trono
Research on sleep patterns has revealed that each person has a natural sleep pattern.
Some people are morning types, going to bed early and rising early, while others prefer
late nights and tend to sleep later in the day. If left without normal life commitments,
people would follow their natural circadian rhythms that determine quantity and qual-
ity of sleep (Samuels, 2008).
Approximately 93% of adolescents are evening types, whereas adults are more likely
to be morning types (Schmidt, Collette, Cajochen, & Peigneux, 2007). Several authors
have concluded that the number of hours of sleep needed per night varies from person
to person (Samuels, 2008; Schmidt et al., 2007; Van Cauter et al., 2007). However, there
seems to be general agreement that a young adult (10-17 years old) needs approximately
9 hours of sleep (Schmidt et al., 2007), and a young athlete may need even more to
recover from training. If early morning training continually disrupts the athlete’s natural
sleep patterns, two questions arise: Is the adolescent rower getting enough sleep? And,
if approximately 9 hours per night are required, what will be the sleep debt by the end
of the week?
Average U.S. adolescents do not satisfy their sleep needs; mean self-reported sleep
duration is under 9 hours at all ages and decreases markedly from 11 to 18 years of
age. Students in 6th grade (11 to 12 years of age) were reported to sleep an average 8.4
hours per day. This amount steadily decreased to 7.6 hours per day for students in 9th
grade (14 to 15 years of age) and to 6.9 hours per day for students in 12th grade (17 to
19 years of age) (Van Cauter et al., 2007). This means that adolescents aged 16 to 18
appear to have an average sleep deficit of roughly 2 hours per day during the week. An
individual who is rowing in the morning is likely to get up at least 1 hour earlier. The
adolescent rower may go to bed earlier but may have difficulty falling asleep. Given that
approximately 93% of adolescents are evening types, it is not unreasonable to think that
these rowers are not getting a full 9 hours per night and the sleep debt will be larger in
the adolescent rowing population.
Apart from rowers being tired at practice or missing practice because they have over-
slept, there are other problems associated with sleep loss. Sleep restriction can negatively
affect critical restorative physiological functions whereby the growth hormone peaks are
eliminated (Schmidt et al., 2007). Considerable research has also raised concerns about
sleep loss, motor skill, and cognitive function (Blischke & Erlacher, 2007).
60 ◾ Trono
Experts have identified the following important roles of sleep in the general popula-
tion (Blischke & Erlacher, 2007; Samuels, 2008):
Challenges
◾◾ Coordination of resources (e.g., equipment, coaches) may be difficult.
◾◾ Adolescent athletes tend to have many scheduling conflicts, including work, other sports,
family and social commitments, and of course school.
◾◾ Rowing later in the day may prove challenging due to wind conditions (however, these
practice times will simulate regatta conditions).
Best Practices
A private school in Canada, Shawnigan Lake School, runs a comprehensive rowing program
that introduces the sport to students from grades 8 to 12. Rowers in the Train to Train and
Learn to Compete stages row four times per week and during after-school hours only. The
school has access to water throughout the entire season; however, students are only allowed
to participate in two out of the three rowing seasons, encouraging developing athletes to have
a variety of sport experiences.
Planning for the Long Term ◾ 61
of the 10 Ss, which include schooling. If student-rowers are sleep deprived, does this
negatively affect their academic pursuits, including their ability to focus in class and their
performance on year-end exams?
As discussed in chapter 4, rowing is a late-specialization sport. One of the premises
of LTAD is that early specialization in a late-specialization sport can lead to injury and
burnout. In many forums, the value of junior rowing for producing world-class rowers
has been questioned. Do junior competitive rowing programs actually feed the senior
national team? In North America, many university programs are the big feeder systems
for the national team. Is that because the way we structure junior rowing is contrary to
an athlete-centered approach?
Balyi (2006), an LTAD expert, has said in numerous presentations, “It is in the Learn-
ing to Train stage and Training to Train stage that you make or break an athlete.” Per-
haps the common practices in some rowing programs, such as early morning training
sessions, are reducing the athlete pool before we even have the chance to determine if
we have an athletic genius within our midst. Perhaps our membership base is depleted
because many junior rowers quit due to early burnout as a result of fatigue. Perhaps
few junior rowers are getting to the national teams because their training environment
is not developmentally appropriate for optimizing their potential.
The model in figure 4.1 on page 43 shows how people should move within sport.
The intent is to keep people active and involved in sport for life. Only a small percent-
age of rowers reach elite levels, but having a larger athlete pool would address many
organizational issues.
concepts. If a learning outcome focuses on addition and subtraction, the unit test is not
on multiplication even though there is a relationship among these concepts. Further,
the tests are scheduled based on what is accomplished in the classroom during the aca-
demic unit. The teacher does not test the students every day when they are learning a
new concept, nor does the teacher wait until the end of the school year to test. There is
a good balance of testing throughout the term.
The LTAD model identifies the technical, physical, tactical, and psychological competen-
cies that the athlete should have within each developmental stage. The identification of
these competencies should assist the coach in creating a periodized plan. The challenge
is that in rowing, performance is measured using one standardized test: the 2,000 m
race. Admittedly, there are shorter and longer races, such as the head races and 500 m
sprints. However, the pinnacle race of a season is the 2,000 m race.
Similar to teachers preparing their students to perform well on a government-
sanctioned standardized test, coaches prepare their athletes to row fast over 2,000 m.
Umpires have often complained about the inability of beginning rowers to manage the
basics of racing because they lack the foundational technical skills required to complete
a race, such as backing into the starting gates. Some coaches have questioned the com-
petition calendar, suggesting that the racing season begins too soon, which encourages
coaches to begin race preparation before important technical skills are learned. This would
be like the teacher of an elementary school class preparing for a test in division before
students have mastered basic numeracy skills. These are issues that must be addressed
if new rowers are to reach their full potential.
In sport, we often take the test that is appropriate for a seasoned athlete and expect
beginning rowers to develop effectively within the same competitive structure. Because
coaches and their athletes want to win, competition often drives training and dictates the
type, volume, and timing of the training. Coaches know intuitively that the developing
rower has technical, physical, tactical, and psychological capabilities that are evolving,
yet the traditional competition model does not reinforce this.
The LTAD model has identified competition structure and planning as a critical ele-
ment in the sport system that should be reviewed considering the following:
◾◾ The development of abilities required in the technical matrix of rowing
◾◾ The type of training and competition environment required for each LTAD stage,
including beginner, elite, and rowing-for-life athletes
◾◾ The optimal training-to-competition ratio at each stage
◾◾ The timing and frequency of competition to ensure optimal development
As Grove (2008, pp.2) points out, “In a democratic society, the only way to make a
change is to modify the competitive structure to change behavior.” Therefore, a coher-
ent system of competition must provide opportunities that are appropriate for athletes
in each stage of development. This system must align with and reinforce the objectives
and outcomes of each developmental stage. Competition provides an opportunity for
both the coach and the rower to gauge improvement, providing motivation for addi-
tional work and continued improvement. Rowing Canada Aviron (2007) has reviewed
its competition structure and is proposing some changes, as cited in table 5.1.
Therefore, the technical matrix for the sport helps articulate the sport curriculum, and
the competition tests the athlete’s mastery of the various outcomes. All coaching educa-
tion programs must focus on the sport curriculum to ensure that coaches thoroughly
understand it and have the ability to teach the important components to their athletes.
Planning for the Long Term ◾ 63
Table 5.1
Overview of Proper Competition Structure
Race type Definition Starting stage
Skill competition To test the rower’s boatmanship and rowing skills, Learning to Train
including boat maneuvers with no time constraint. Training to Train
It could include an obstacle course, slalom racing,
starting and stopping, and so on.
Timed skill To test the rower’s boatmanship and rowing skills, Learning to Train (late stage)
competition as well as physical abilities under time constraints Training to Train (early stage)
(strength, endurance, speed).
Long-distance races To test aerobic endurance and technical abilities. Training to Train
Races should be greater than 2,500 m with
standard race distances of 4 km and 6 km.
Sprint races To test the anaerobic alactic system (100 m), Training to Train (100 m)
anaerobic lactic system (500 m, 1000 m), and Learning to Compete (500 m,
anaerobic and aerobic system (2,000 m). 1,000 m, 2,000 m)
Reprinted, by permission, from Rowing Canada Aviron, 2007, LTAD competition review. Unpublished.
Previously, the Quebec Swimming Federation was cited as creating an innovative way
to use competition to reinforce important skills in the swimming curriculum. These are
the skills that are required to make a highly competent and skilled swimmer:
While adult swimmers win by going from one end of the pool to another in the shortest
time, this doesn’t mean that children and youth should use the same measure of success.
Indeed a winning result is a process of doing many things well: a start, a stroke, a turn
and a finish. All require different technical abilities, and yet these specifics are often
overlooked in early training. Changing the measure of success to encourage correct tech-
nique for young swimmers has been key to Quebec Swimming’s success. (Grove, 2008)
In 2002, Quebec Swimming altered the competition structure to emphasize skills and
abilities based on the swimmer’s LTAD stage. For example, at the beginner level, instead of
timing a 100 m race, the competition was broken down into a series of important technical
skills. Thus, racers under the age of 12 race 50 m, focusing on speed and skill. To empha-
size aerobic development, there are swim distances of 200 m, 400 m, and 1,500 m. As the
swimmer matures, time standards are required to race. The time standards can only be done
in the individual medley, which requires the performance of four strokes and turns. This
change has forced swimmers to become well rounded before specializing in a specific stroke.
After implementing an LTAD approach to swimming and focusing on skills, Quebec has
seen a dramatic improvement in performance. In the 1990s, swimmers annually set 10 to
25 new provincial age-group records. The province’s best year was 2001, with 39 records
broken. Now records are being broken at an unprecedented rate: 65 provincial records
were set in 2005, 91 in 2006, 87 in 2007, and the first three months of 2008 saw 47 new
records. Further, there has been a 15% increase in Quebec swimmers making the national
team, and the membership of the Quebec Swimming Federation has been increasing
2% to 4% annually since the implementation of the new skills emphasis (Grove, 2008).
The appropriate type and level of competition is critical for a rower’s long-term prepa-
ration, including technical, physical, and psychological preparation. This means that the
race must be fun, it must be fair, and it must be meaningful. It is not fun for rowers to
enter a competition and be so far off the pace that they become discouraged. It is not
64 ◾ Trono
fun for rowers to enter a race and have difficulty backing into the starting gates because
they lack the technical skills to do so.
The term meaningful relates to the notion that the rower or the crew learns something from
the competition. In a race where crews are competing on their own and the spread between
the lead boat and other competitors is excessive, little is learned. Similar to the school test,
the race is an opportunity to identify strengths and weaknesses and to address the gaps in
upcoming training sessions. Therefore, in order to make the races meaningful, an effective
progression system must be used to ensure that crews of similar speeds are racing with each
other. This will also help make the competition fair so that each crew has a chance to win.
In all sports, much of what is done is based on tradition and not sport science. If we
closely review the current competition structure, some inconsistencies are evident.
Competition must be kept in perspective. If we are advocating for a holistic approach to
the development of athletes, perspective must be a priority for program leaders. Outside pres-
sures on training, performance, and enjoyment of the sport should not be underestimated
in any stage of the LTAD model. School, family, financial, and social pressures will affect
the athlete’s ability to train, perform, and recover effectively. Coaches must consider this
when creating their seasonal or yearly periodized plan, balancing program decisions with
life pressures. For example, exams may take priority over a training session or a regatta.
Planning for the Long Term ◾ 65
Adaptive Rowing
The inclusion of athletes with disabilities is relatively new for rowing and offers a wonder-
ful opportunity to include more people in the sport at all levels. Though rowing enthusiasts
are motivated to increase the access and visibility of adaptive rowing, developmentally
appropriate progressions must be at the forefront of all decisions as adaptive rowers com-
pete at various levels of the sport. For example, increasing the training volume before
the athlete is ready may cause overuse arm and shoulder injuries, which could affect that
athlete’s mobility in everyday life. The stage-by-stage approach provides a framework to
assist coaches and athletes in making decisions about necessary training, competition,
and recovery. The LTAD factors serve as a reminder and checklist to ensure that program
decisions are consistent with these parameters. Misalignment or inconsistencies may
undermine the overall objective of including athletes with disabilities in rowing.
Conclusion
We have identified a number of common practices in rowing that highlight gaps in the
system of athlete development. These may not be the only gaps to address, but certainly
they are noteworthy examples for the important task of studying programs where we
are falling short of intended goals.
66 ◾ Trono
National team coaches may identify that small-boat skills are weak in developing elite
athletes (Train to Compete stage). However, they do not control the type of rowing shells
that are available to rowers in the Train to Train stage. Who is encouraging dialogue
among the various parts of the athlete development system?
If clubs are trying to recruit and retain members, it is critical to take a targeted approach,
ensuring that the coaches, programs, and equipment are aligned with the objectives of
the participant. It is a common practice in rowing to assume that everyone who joins
a rowing club wants to be a competitive rower; however, many potential rowers are
interested in participation for fitness rather than racing. Do clubs have the resources
to meet those needs? Or do we continue to purchase the elite racing equipment that is
not suitable for the Rowing for Life rower who is interested in rowing for fitness, social,
and recreational pursuits?
The LTAD pathway provides concepts, philosophies, and standards that challenge
some of the common practices in rowing that have been in place for decades. Many sport
federations create strategic plans and identify clear, measurable objectives that are used
to judge the success or failure of the organization. The LTAD factors and stage-by-stage
approach should force an analysis of an organization’s entire system of development for
athletes. The identification of system gaps is critical to addressing shortcomings within
an organization.
However, often the analysis is done within departmental silos and fails to examine
elements of the system that may work in opposition to the intended goal. Therefore,
the system flaws are often missed and federations make changes in the wrong area.
The LTAD model should provoke discussion and thorough analysis, but this analysis
and discussion should not take place in departmental isolation. We have identified a
number of examples where common practices undermine the overall goal of a pro-
gram. There is a tendency to view athlete development programs as separate entities as
opposed to an interconnected system of athlete development. In school, what happens
in the primary years will have a direct impact on how a student progresses through
the school system. Likewise, in sport, what happens at the earliest stages will have a
direct impact on whether a rower stays with the sport and reaches the podium at an
international regatta.
Sport leaders have an obligation to analyze and evaluate programs at all levels and
stages, identifying connections and reviewing research that may provide insight into
appropriate adaptations to improve program results. Alignment and consistency are
also critical to create a seamless and coherent system of athlete development. The LTAD
model offers a lens for an overall system evaluation. It is up to leaders to look at the big
picture, examine best practices and other research, and challenge the status quo.
Part III
Rowing Science
Tim Foster
R owing is a simple sport with complicated aspects. Nobody can tackle us and take the
ball away. The opposition cannot surprise us with their team selection and formation,
therefore exposing our weaknesses. We know the race distance and can estimate the
time it will take to cover it. Others’ race tactics can only affect us if we let them, unless
it’s the Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race, of course! Rowing crews are not given style
points and don’t have to worry about referees’ decisions.
Rowing is a sport that is purely about getting a boat from start to finish as fast as
possible. The complication comes in that rowing includes elements of physiology, psych-
ology, biomechanics, boat setup, teamwork, and an x-factor that we cannot define. The
physiology of rowing alone is complicated in that it includes both aerobic and anaerobic
elements, endurance and power elements, which means the training needs to include the
right mixture of both long and intense training. The psychology of the sport includes race
mentality, team dynamics, and coping with the ups and downs of training, among other
things. The biomechanics of the body are difficult enough to determine, let alone their
effect when your propulsion is connected to a long oar that you have to pull through
the water in order to add any physical benefit to boat speed.
Unless you have designs on the single scull, you will have to combine technique, energy,
and mentality with the others in your boat. Despite all the advances in science, there is still
an x-factor in rowing. This certain something can make the difference between winning and
losing. Sometimes it just clicks unexpectedly, or, despite having the best of all elements, the
boat just doesn’t go how it should. There are many examples of boats that have gone unex-
pectedly fast and boats that seemed to have everything going for them but just didn’t move.
There are no shortcuts in rowing; the basic elements all have to be there. There has
to be a quality to the quantity and a quantity to the quality. This can be seen in the
programs of top rowing nations—there are no particular secrets; the good crews have
all the key elements and do all of them well! In these days I don’t think any one coun-
try has a secret that isn’t known by another. There are amazing similarities in the basic
programs around the world, and in the end the winners are the ones who can master a
slight advantage in training and then produce it on race day.
◾ 67
68 ◾ Foster
For me as a rower, rowing science was about whatever made the boat go faster. This
isn’t meant to oversimplify what is important, but it is about combining all the factors
that influence the boat and turning them in your direction. The key to the science is
to include all elements without neglecting any. While focusing on endurance training,
some dynamic movements will be lost; an emphasis on a particular technical point can
mean physical improvements are not met; the perfect training program on paper can be
impractical in the real world; what is biomechanically efficient for the body might not
be applicable to the water; the physical cost of that early effort might be offset by the
mentality of leading a race and seeing your opposition behind you. In the end, successful
science is what works for you. We can agree on some basic principles, but when it comes
to the margins, there is no one program that everybody agrees is perfect. This makes the
sport more fun than just plugging numbers into a formula and seeing if a crew will win.
Different situations, athletes, circumstances, and challenges call for different solutions.
Combining the elements of rowing science is one of the jobs of the coach. A physiolo-
gist knows her physiology, a psychologist knows his psychology, a biomechanist knows
her biomechanics, and so on. An athlete’s job is to know his boat, apply the science,
and concentrate on himself, but a coach has to be the master of the big picture. This is
one of the reasons few top athletes become top coaches—they have to be aware of the
whole story rather than just what worked for them.
When I retired as an athlete and became a coach, I naturally took a lot of knowledge
with me. I had rowed for 16 years. I’d had good success, and I’d made mistakes and
corrected them, so I thought I knew what it would take to be a good coach. In the end
it took me more than three years to realize that there was much more to rowing than
what worked for me, and I had based my entire coaching strategy on my experience
as an athlete. Unfortunately, there was one athlete in the world I was never going to
coach—me! I had to learn, adapt, and realize that there are far more elements to going
fast than just the ones I had used.
The physiological elements of a training program have to juggle the training with the
demands of the real world. The program also has to adapt to the physical differences of
each team member. A plan for an experienced, full-time rower with a strong training base
will be very different from a plan for one who is less experienced and has limited time.
Having said all this, when the athletes are in the same boat, they must train together,
and there are advantages to this. For me, there was no greater challenge than keeping up
with my teammates in training. They were bigger, stronger, and physiologically superior.
I had to rely on other factors to move my boat and win in training. I’m sure this training
competition pushed me to a higher level. When it came to racing other crews, it felt easy
in comparison to competing against the big boys, who were now thankfully on my side.
Writing the perfect program is all well and good, but any program can look good on
paper. In the end, training is intended to produce results. If they are not forthcoming,
then adjustments need to be made. The programs of Mike Spracklen and Jürgen Grobler
are at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to intensity, but results and many
gold medals show that both of these coaches produce exceptional performances. In the
end it is not the piece of paper or the plan that will be judged; it is the crew. Sometimes
it is about sticking to the plan and trusting the written judgment, and sometimes it is
about having the wherewithal to push or hold back and get more out of the boat than
what is written down.
My crewmates Steve and Matthew had the confidence to do just the program and do
no more than what was necessary. Experience had shown them that the program was
the way to success. James, on the other hand, was always keen to do more, trying to get
Rowing Science ◾ 69
that edge and to gain that slight advantage over all others so that there was no chance
he would lose. For me, it was about making sure that the training was done in the right
way. In the end, we were successful because we managed to marry these approaches and
get the best out of all of them. What was written on the paper was what we performed,
but we always looked to push the limit.
Boat setup and rowing technique are about efficiently transferring the physical effort
into boat speed, pure and simple. The boat needs to be set up in a way that is efficient
and suitable for the crew so that the athletes’ physical effort is transferred into moving
the boat forward. Comfy doesn’t necessarily equal fast—but it helps! The rower who
feels uncomfortable might not have the wrong setup. If someone in my crew had the
wrong pitch or height, I would feel it in the way the pressures were applied—I would
end up feeling more tension or fighting against one of my crewmates in or out of the
water. Any extra tension or effort not in the horizontal plane is wasted effort. Rowers
have to move with each other and the boat beneath them (or rather, the boat has to
move around the rowers because they are the dominant mass), all in perfect harmony.
The psychology and team dynamics have to bring out the best of all elements within
the crew. It is important that every member feels able to contribute not just physically
but also mentally. During training it is necessary to keep a positive mentality and be
able to see beyond the drudgery of repetitive training. On race day it is not an issue
of rising to the occasion but rather of reproducing what you’ve been practicing at the
highest intensity yet.
For the Sydney Olympics, I knew I’d be nervous. I’d planned my mental strategy
around making sure I concentrated on the mechanics of what I had to do. As long as we
did what we were capable of doing, we would win. The start, change to rhythm, push
on a minute, and 1,000 m move were all points where I focused beforehand on what
had to be done. When the day came, I almost overdid it—I fell asleep with barely more
than an hour to go before the race, which wasn’t in the plan. I had calmed myself too
much and had to quickly think about winning to make myself excited and alert.
70 ◾ Foster
In victory most things must be working for you. In defeat there is most likely some-
thing that you can do better. In analysis of defeat or victory, it is important to keep the
good elements while being critical enough to spot the weaknesses. The biggest opponent
of being good is often being OK—you are not good, but because you are not bad, there
is no catalyst for change. The application of rowing science has to have a positive effect,
and it has to be analyzed in that way. It is important to not just do things because that
is the way that you have always done it. A rower or coach not only needs to know what
but also needs to know why.
I’m sure a key element of winning the gold in the 2000 Sydney Olympics was that we
lost at Lucerne that year. As a team, we had not only never been beaten before, but we
had never been led at any point in any race over the previous four years. We had become
a bit complacent and started to expect victory. In our analysis of defeat, we were able
to criticize and change elements that improved us for the bigger challenge that was to
follow. We were able to change without throwing away elements that had served us well.
When putting together all the pieces of rowing science, it is important not to lose sight
of what you want to achieve. There should be goals, targets, analysis, and learning. Many
rowers and coaches lose their way when looking for the final 1 percent, and they end
up dropping the important 99 percent that precedes it. You have to be close enough to
the edge that you can make a calculated guess as to where the edge is and feel for it. In
order to win you need to find the edge without falling over it.
I look back on my rowing career and think, “If only I had known then what I know
now.” In that case I could have had much more success, more medals, more fun, fewer
injuries, an easier time, and so on. It is not possible to turn back the clock, and I also
think it is vital to go through the learning process.
In reality, I became the rower I was because I experienced the successes and failures
of formative years. I had to gain knowledge and experience so that the pieces of my
puzzle were in place. Now with 26 years of experience behind me, a master’s in sport
science, and years of formal coaching education, I am a coach who still has a lot to learn.
The more I know, the more I realize I still have to learn. I’m still trying to explain that
x-factor that makes a boat go fast. I’m still seeking knowledge because I must. This is
not just because rowing is getting faster and faster and the times of today will not win
tomorrow, but because if you stand still, you actually move backward. Looking around,
I see that the world’s top athletes and coaches are still learning too, making sure they
stay ahead of the field and challenge themselves to constantly improve.
Chapter 6
Rowing Physiology
Ed McNeely
S everal years ago I was sitting in a coach boat with a respected coach who was coach-
ing both a heavyweight men’s (HM) eight and lightweight women’s (LW) double.
They were doing the same workout, 4 × 1 km at race pace followed by 10 km of steady
state. After the workout, I was speaking with the LW, who were complaining that their
workouts were always 20 to 30 minutes longer than those of the HM. It struck me at
that point that rowing is not one sport but many. Boat class, competitive level, and age
all affect the duration of a race, which directly affects the physiological demands and
training requirements of rowing.
Race Physiology
There are three main categories of racing that we need to consider: 2 km (2,000 m), 1 km
(1,000 m), and head races. Two km races typically last 5:30 to 8:00 minutes, with stroke
rates in the range of 32 to 42 spm (strokes per minute). Power per stroke in an elite
men’s eight averages 450 to 550 W (watts) but can be as high as 1,200 W (Steinacker,
1993). One km races, formerly the distance rowed by women, are now used in masters
racing. Race times normally range from 3 to 5 minutes but can vary depending on the
boat class and age of the competitors. Stroke rates tend to be around 28 to 36 spm. To
date there has been no published research on the power levels achieved during a 1 km
race, but we can expect similar power output to races over 2 km. Of the three racing
categories, head races have the greatest variability in length. Head races are contested
over 3 to 5 mi (4.8-8.0 km) on rivers with varying degrees of current. In Europe, 10 km
head races are quite common. Many races are as short as 14 minutes but can be as long
as 50 minutes depending on boat class and weather conditions.
Energy for racing comes from both the aerobic and anaerobic energy systems. Again,
much of the research has been done on elite male rowers. It has been estimated that a
6:43-minute race has an 84% aerobic and 16% anaerobic energy profile. This is similar
to what Droghetti, Jensen, and Nilsen (1991) has seen in 6:00-minute ergometer tests,
finding 80% and 82% aerobic contributions, respectively. Interestingly, earlier studies
◾ 71
72 ◾ McNeely
showed a much lower reliance on aerobic metabolism during racing, placing the aerobic
demand at about 67% to 70% of total energy requirements (Hagerman, Connors, Gault, &
Polinski, 1978; Roth, Hasart, Wolf, & Pansold, 1983). The time spanned by these two sets
of studies, the 1970s to 1990s, corresponds to a time where V̇O2max in rowers increased
by 12% and the amount of training time dedicated to anaerobic exercise decreased from
23 to 7 hours per month (Fikerstrand & Seiler, 2004). This suggests that training and
fitness have an impact on the proportions of aerobic and anaerobic energy production
during a 2 km rowing race. A higher level of aerobic fitness and higher power outputs at
V̇O2max allow a rower to race without having to rely as much on the anaerobic system.
The anaerobic systems (the anaerobic alactic and anaerobic glycolytic systems) contrib-
ute primarily at the start and end of a race. When well developed, the anaerobic systems
can provide a major energy contribution for about 2 minutes. Since 1 km races last an
average of 4 minutes, it is not unreasonable to expect that the anaerobic contribution
to a 1 km race is 50% to 60% of total energy.
Because of their duration, head races are done at a lower intensity, increasing the
aerobic demands. Little research is available on the energy requirements of head racing.
Mickelson and Hagerman (1982) proposed that a 15- to 18-minute ergometer effort was
72% aerobic and 18% anaerobic. This seems low for the aerobic contribution given the
duration of the event, which would be expected to be closer to 85% aerobic effort. It is
possible that Mickelson and Hagerman’s results were influenced by the fitness profiles
of the athletes involved in the study.
Aerobic Fitness
As established previously, the aerobic system provides the majority of energy for race
performance. Three key indicators of aerobic fitness are significant to rowers: aerobic
threshold, anaerobic threshold, and V̇O2max. Figure 6.1 shows the relative positioning
of each point as determined from a lactate curve.
.
VO2max
10
Lactate (mmol/L)
4 Anaerobic threshold
2 Aerobic threshold
Intensity
Aerobic Threshold
The aerobic threshold has been defined as the point just below the level of energy
metabolism where blood lactate concentration increases distinctly from its resting level
(Aunola & Rusko, 1986). It is also the exercise level below which the great majority of
the muscle fibers are working aerobically (Antonutto & DiPrampero, 1995). This point
generally occurs around 2 mmol (millimoles) of lactate (Antonutto & DiPrampero, 1995;
Kindermann, Simon, & Keul, 1979; Skinner & McLellan, 1980).
The aerobic threshold is thought to occur because of a change in the type of muscle
fiber recruited during the activity. During lower-intensity exercise, the slow-twitch
muscle fibers are recruited (Burke, 1986; Henneman, 1957). As the intensity of exer-
cise increases, more muscle fibers are activated. When slow-twitch fibers can no longer
handle the required workload, fast-twitch fibers are activated. Skinner and McLellan
(1980) have proposed that the aerobic threshold is the point where type IIa fast-twitch
fibers are first recruited, resulting in an increase in blood lactate.
The aerobic threshold does not play a significant role in racing. However, it is an
important marker of training intensity—elite rowers spend up to 50 hours per month
(Fikerstrand & Seiler, 2004) at or below this intensity.
Anaerobic Threshold
Anaerobic threshold has been given many definitions. Heck et al. (1985) have defined
it as the exercise intensity where blood lactate values reach 4 mmol. Stegmann, Kinder-
mann, and Schnabel (1981) have developed a mathematical formula for determining
individual anaerobic thresholds. The first definition of anaerobic threshold identified it as
the level of work or O2 consumption just below which metabolic acidosis and the associ-
ated changes in gas exchange occur. Hughson, Weisiger, and Swanson (1987) suggest
that there is no breakaway or threshold point but that lactate increases in a curvilinear
function from the beginning of exercise and that there is an exponential increase in
energy production through the anaerobic pathways at a work level comparable to the
anaerobic threshold.
The anaerobic threshold represents race pace for head racing. It has also been sug-
gested that the middle 3 minutes of a 2 km race in small boats is done at a pace close
to anaerobic threshold. The power at 4 mmol of lactate has been correlated to 2 km
ergometer performance (Ingham et al., 2002; Womack et al., 1996).
Tables 6.1 and 6.2 show typical power-to-weight ratios for male and female rowers
at aerobic and anaerobic thresholds. These ratios have been developed from data I have
collected on North American competitive rowers over the past 15 years.
Table 6.1
Wattage at Aerobic (2 mmol) and Anaerobic Threshold (4 mmol)
for Boys and Men in Watts per Kilogram
High school/ High school/ College/
recreational masters masters National International
Aerobic threshold 0.5-1.9 0.8-2.6 1.7-3.1 2.8-3.7 3.6-4.1
Anaerobic threshold 0.8-2.8 1.4-3.0 2.8-3.6 3.8-4.6 4.3-5.1
74 ◾ McNeely
Table 6.2
Wattage at Aerobic (2 mmol) and Anaerobic Threshold (4 mmol)
for Girls and Women in Watts per Kilogram
High school/ High school/ College/
recreational masters masters National International
Aerobic threshold 0.75-2.3 0.9-2.4 1.6-2.9 2.7-3.3 3.3-3.6
Anaerobic threshold 0.9-2.1 1.3-3.6 2.2-3.9 3.0-4.1 3.5-4.4
Anaerobic Fitness
As discussed previously, the anaerobic contribution to energy production in rowing can
be as high as 50% in 1 km races and is typically 20% to 30% in 2,000 m racing. Anaero-
bic fitness is particularly important off the start and in the final 250 m of the race. Two
aspects of anaerobic fitness are of particular interest: peak power and average power.
In recent years peak power has started to emerge as a strong predictor of rowing
performance. An analysis of data collected from Canadian heavyweight male rowers
showed that even though power at V̇O2max was the best predictor of rowing ergometer
performance, peak power on a rowing ergometer was more highly correlated to on-
water rowing performance than V̇O2max or ventilatory threshold measured on a rowing
ergometer (r = .82, r = .72, and r = .70, respectively). Similar results have been seen in
college-aged female rowers where peak power had an r = .875 correlation with 2 km
ergometer time, and changes in peak power were significantly correlated to changes in
2 km ergometer performance.
Rowing Physiology ◾ 75
Average anaerobic power has also been found to be highly related to rowing per-
formance. Riechman et al. (2002) found that the average power from a 30-second
ergometer sprint explained 75.7% of the variation in 2 km performance while V̇O2max
only explained 12.1%. It may seem contradictory that anaerobic variables are better
predictors of rowing performance than aerobic fitness variables since rowing is pre-
dominately an aerobic sport. However, the fact that everyone recognizes the impor-
tance of aerobic fitness in rowing is the most likely explanation for the phenomena.
Since everyone knows that aerobic fitness is so important, there is a greater training
emphasis on development of the aerobic system, resulting in less variation in aerobic
fitness levels. The decrease in anaerobic training hours over the past 30 years, reported
by Fikerstrand and Seiler (2004), has probably resulted in lower and more variable
anaerobic fitness levels.
Anaerobic energy system fitness is most often measured using a modified Wingate test.
The Wingate test is a short sprint test designed for a cycling ergometer. It has been used
for a variety of sport and fitness groups. Since a cycling test is of little use to a rower, a
modified Wingate test for the Concept2 ergometer has been developed.
750
700
Average power
650
Watts
600
550
500
Anaerobic alactic Anaerobic lactic
450 critical duration critical duration
400
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Time
1. Peak power is the highest wattage obtained during the test. Typical values can
be seen in table 6.3. Masters rowers can subtract 3% for every 10 years over 30
years of age.
2. Average power for the whole 60-second test.
3. Anaerobic alactic critical duration is the amount of time it takes to drop off 10%
from peak power levels. This should be 20 seconds or more.
4. Anaerobic lactic critical duration is the amount of time it takes to reach a 35%
drop-off from peak power levels. This should be more than 45 seconds.
5. Drop-off is the percentage difference between the peak wattage and the lowest
wattage in the test. Ideally a drop-off is less than 35%.
6. The overall shape of the curve is another factor that needs to be considered.
Peak power should occur in the first 3 to 6 seconds. There should be a gradual
decrease in power throughout the test, with a plateau in the final few seconds.
As with any other test, anaerobic tests become more useful when you have several
tests to compare. This will help you determine if you are progressing in the right direction.
Rowing Physiology ◾ 77
Table 6.3
Typical Peak and Average Power Scores
for the 60-Second Modified Wingate
Category Peak power (W) Average power (W)
Heavyweight men 900-1,100 725-875
Lightweight men 650-800 510-720
Heavyweight women 550-700 380-475
Lightweight women 400-500 350-425
Muscle Mass
The goals of a strength training program for rowing are to improve performance and
prevent injury. Recent research on rowing is bringing to light another crucial role played
by strength training in a rowing program: increasing muscle mass. Yashiro et al. (2003)
found a correlation of r = .80 between the knee extensor cross-sectional area and 2 km
ergometer performance. This is as high a correlation as is typically seen between 2 km
performance and V̇O2max or anaerobic threshold, suggesting that cross-sectional area
of the thigh muscles is a good predictor of rowing performance.
In a study of international male heavyweight rowers, Mikulic (2009) found significant
correlations between arm girth, chest girth, and gluteal thigh girth and 6 km rowing per-
formance on the ergometer. All three girth measurements were more closely correlated
to 6 km performance than arm span or lung volume. In this study, lean body mass was
the most highly correlated variable to 6 km performance, more highly correlated than
power output at ventilatory threshold or power output at V̇O2max. Not only is muscle
mass related to overall rowing performance, but it is also correlated to power output at
various phases of the stroke. Using MRI technology to measure muscle mass, Tachinaba,
Yashiro, Miyazaki, Ikegami, and Higuchi (2007) found significant correlations between
muscle mass in the quadriceps and leg drive power and between muscle mass in the
hamstrings and lower-back and trunk swing power.
It may seem obvious that muscle mass and performance in heavyweight rowers go
hand in hand. What is less obvious and possibly of greater significance is that the same
relationship holds true in lightweight rowers. In a study of Australian lightweights com-
peting at the national championships, Slater et al. (2005) found that on-water times
in a single were 10.2 seconds faster per kilogram of muscle-mass difference between
competitors. This points to the importance of weight management and strength training
in lightweight training programs, and it has implications for the long-term development
and selection of lightweight athletes. Tall, lean athletes with smaller muscle mass who
need to cut weight to be lightweight rowers will have a more difficult time developing
over the long term because they cannot afford to gain muscle mass to improve power
and performance. Over the years I have seen many potential lightweights reach per-
formance plateaus because they continually have to shed muscle mass in order to meet
the limits of their weight category. Natural lightweights have an advantage in that they
can increase muscle mass throughout their careers, improving their power production.
78 ◾ McNeely
The ideal way to determine these points and relationships is with a fitness test that
includes both lactate and oxygen analysis. Since not everyone has access to these tests,
let’s try to translate these relationships into something more practical.
You can perform several simple tests on your own that will give you a decent estimate
of your proportional fitness. You will need to obtain your data using the wattage setting
on the ergometer monitor because it is much easier to do calculations with wattage than
it is with time.
Table 6.4
V̇O 2max can be estimated as
the average wattage from a 2 km Sample Data for a Rower’s Performance
test. Anaerobic threshold is close on Rowing Ergometer Tests
to the average watts used during a
6 km or 20-minute test, and aero- Fitness variables Test Wattage
bic threshold is approximately the V̇O2max 2 km 400
wattage that corresponds to a full-
out, steady-state row for 60 to 75 Anaerobic threshold 6 km or 20 min 295
minutes. Peak power is the maxi- Aerobic threshold 75 min row 180
mum wattage during a 10-second
Peak power 30 s sprint 750
sprint with the erg set on its highest
drag factor. Do each of these tests
on a separate day so that fatigue Table 6.5
from one test does not interfere Comparing the Sample With the Ideal
with the results of another test.
Let’s assume you do all the tests Actual Ideal
and come up with the following V̇O2max vs. peak power 53% 40%-45%
data in table 6.4.
From this data we then can cal- Anaerobic threshold vs. V̇O2max 74% 80%-85%
culate the percentages in table 6.5. Aerobic threshold vs. V̇O2max 45% 65%-70%
probably get better race results by focusing your training elsewhere. Table 6.5 shows the
results of our example and the ideal relationships between the physiological variables.
Looking at the results, we see that V̇O2max is a higher percentage of peak power than
it should be, 53% versus the 45% ideal. This person needs to improve peak power or it
will be difficult to improve times in a 1 km or 2 km race.
Anaerobic threshold, as measured by a 20-minute or 6 km test, is 74% of V̇O2max
as opposed to the 85% ideal. This means the person in our example also needs to raise
the anaerobic threshold.
Finally, we can also see that the aerobic threshold, as measured by the 75- to 90-minute
test, is 45% of V̇O2max instead of the 70% ideal. This indicates a need for more low-
intensity, long-duration work.
Training Volume
Training volume is the overall amount of work that is performed. Many coaches and
endurance athletes use the number of meters or kilometers covered as the measure of
training volume. Although this is an acceptable measure, it does not always give the full
picture of training. For example, if athlete A does a 20 km workout in 90 minutes and
athlete B covers the same 20 km in 60 minutes, they are not doing the same workout
and won’t get the same training effect even though the volume as measured by distance
is the same. Time is a better measure of training volume because it allows athletes of
varying levels to be compared on an equal level.
80 ◾ McNeely
Conclusion
Rowers rely heavily on their physiology. They spend countless hours training both on and
off the water to improve the various physiological variables that will allow them to achieve
a personal best performance. Understanding the physiology of rowing will help coaches
and athletes adjust their program to maximize their rate of improvement. Several years
ago I was working with a pair of athletes who had been competing at an international level
for several years, always struggling to be one of the final picks for an eight. After doing a
thorough physiological analysis, I recommended a few slight modifications to the program
that included more anaerobic and peak power work. They saw the biggest improvements
in their fitness test scores, and the following year they won the world championships.
Chapter 7
Monitoring
and Managing
Your Training
Wolfgang Fritsch
“C ould you draft a training plan for me, please? You’re a sport scientist; you’ve
studied this and you’ve always been successful with your planning and train-
ing control.” Over the years I have often been asked to put together training plans for
rowers and teams. Whenever possible I have satisfied these requests while asking for
a range of additional information (e.g., goals, time potentials, performance levels) and
for regular monitoring such as performance tests on the rowing ergometer or lactate
checks during training. With the aid of these parameters and information, many coaches
assume it is possible to control training optimally and thus prepare crews systematically
to achieve their goal. In my case, curiosity is the main reason I designed and supplied
training plans when requested—I wanted to know whether the suggested training was
able to enhance endurance or strength by a certain percentage and whether the team
was able to perform its best on the day of the championship.
◾ 81
82 ◾ Fritsch
In sport science, these issues are referred to as training planning and control. Hohmann,
Lames, and Letzelter (2003, p. 199) describe this as “weighted short-, medium- and long-
term regulation and execution of all planning, training, control and steering measures
of a training process in order to achieve training goals.”
In the field of sport science, a range of training planning and control models has been
developed as aids for the practice of competitive sport. The models may be applied indi-
vidually or in combination. Depending on the specific interests, financial capabilities,
and scientific know-how of associations and coaches, elaborate testing procedures can
yield helpful data and information for the planning, organization, and control of train-
ing. Success in competitive rowing clearly supports these models: Training planning and
control are necessary for performance improvements by athletes.
Designing a comprehensive training plan requires systematic analysis of all facets of
performance. It is the main instrument by which coaches and sport scientists can stra-
tegically direct performance development.
If one considers the necessity for controlling rowing training from this point of view,
training science presents a range of rules, principles, and guidance for decision making. One
is able to call on the insights of general and specific training science, paired with knowledge
gained from the experience of many coaches, as a basis for effective training planning.
Classic training planning and control insinuates that disruptions have a clear effect
on training and control operations (cf. Hohmann, 2005, p. 57). Planning for training,
competition, and relevant control measures is intended to guide the actions of rowers
and coaches. In this context, factors relating to organizational structure such as associa-
tion or club interests and staff policies (e.g., selection of athletes) usually only arise at
the time of training implementation. In other words, structure follows strategy.
Most training planning and control models are based on this forward-thinking system
and a smooth implementation into organized action. The training load is recorded in a train-
ing plan and is the decisive control factor for athletic success. It becomes the central variable
to analyses of the impact of training processes. However, human adaptation processes do
not always run smoothly in all performance programs, which is why many coaches base
their training plans on intuition or their experiences as performance athletes. But, the
desire for recipes, where coaches and rowers attempt to follow ready-made training plans
of successful high-performance rowers or well-known coaches, is also understandable.
Questions have been raised about the control of training and performance in regard
to processes other than biological adaption. There is a lack of decisive training and scien-
tifically based knowledge regarding both athlete-specific and team-specific performance
control (Schmidt, 2005). Criticism has been directed toward the lack of attention to
complex processes and the exclusive consideration of biological and psychological pro-
cesses of adaptation in training planning and control. From the point of view of training
science (and based on the background of long-term planning and control), hardly any
models of collective team-performance planning do justice to the complexity of high-
performance sport systems.
Rowing performance is a highly complex conglomerate of biological, psychological,
and social performance abilities of the athletes and coach, and a control model has to
consider all of these parameters. The complexity of control is further heightened by
the mutual dependency of biological adaptations, psychological conditions, and social
processes (see figure 7.1). The control of complex and mutually interdependent systems
presents the biggest challenge for a rowing coach.
Monitoring and Managing Your Training ◾ 83
Psychological systems
Recovery Time
Individual limits of training adaptations are closely related to individual adaptation reac-
tions. In competitive sport, training demands almost complete exhaustion of adaptation
reserves in order to achieve the desired mobilization of all performance reserves and to
achieve a personal best (table 7.1).
Table 7.1
Training Load and Recovery
Instant recovery Complete recovery
Load (few hours) (several days)
Aerobic endurance – 12 hr
Cat V* (extensive)
Aerobic endurance 1.5-2 hr 24-36 hr
Cat IV* (intensive)
Mixed aerobic–anaerobic 2-3 hr 24-36 hr
Cat III + II*
Anaerobic lactic 2-3 hr 48-72 hr
Maximum strength training or power training 2-3 hr 72-84 hr
Adapted, with permission, from W. Fritsch, 2005, Das große Buch vom Rennrudern (Aachen, Germany: Meyer & Meyer Sport), 328.
* Cat II to V are training intensity categories that describe the respective load more closely; for details, see Fritsch, 2005.
84 ◾ Fritsch
The danger of overtraining due to higher and higher dosages of training stimuli has
two consequences for control:
1. The need for rest and recovery increases proportionally to the heightened training
demands. Not every training session can be individualized due to the necessary crew
training in rowing. The individual need for recovery, however, differs among rowers,
not only in the organization of small training cycles but also over longer periods of time.
2. Due to numerous competition stresses in selection and qualification races, as well
as repeated elimination processes at regattas in the lead-up to the final, there is
an increased total training load that causes mental and social pressure in addition
to physiological pressure.
Optimal recovery in the latter case is not so much a problem of short-term recovery
measures (such as physiotherapy, nutrition, or relaxation techniques) but rather of
long-term strain. Training planning and control has to use the specific phases to improve
stress tolerances (both general and specific) most effectively. This is essential to long-term
training success. Moreover, this is the main task of developmental phases in training.
So far, individual sport science disciplines have not been able to develop a complete
method for stress monitoring—that is, adequately conclusive and suitable markers indicat-
ing both the state of fitness and overtraining. Neither medical (e.g., heart rate variability,
resting heart rate, urea and uric acid levels) nor psychological sport measurement tools
by themselves have led us to a secure diagnosis of the ability to cope with all training
stresses. Therefore, for the time being, Hohmann (2005) recommends a combined system
of various methods tailored to sport-specific stresses and requirements (figure 7.2).
The accumulation and, at the most, merged assembly (misleadingly referred to as
complex performance diagnostics) of existing diagnosis and control procedures barely force
coordination, even only on content basis. Further, the simple addition of procedures bears
the inherent threat of division among the disciplines (i.e., biomechanists in one corner,
Athlete
Instability
Coach Top form
Poor
fitness
Homeostasis
Training Training
schedule analysis
Training
Practical Training Training load
training control
Just above Optimally above Overload
threshold threshold
Athlete
sports physicians in the next corner, and psychologists in another corner). Cooperation
is essential, although it is rarely successful. Integrative approaches, characterized by self-
responsibility on the part of the training organization (possibly supported by a relevant
service provider), require generalists. Coaches who are able to interpret and control the
complex efforts of highly dynamic parameters will ultimately provide the best solution.
In this context, it is also necessary to point out the inappropriate application of control
measures or performance checks. Often, test procedures relying on maximum exhaustion
(e.g., 2,000 m ergometer tests) are repeatedly applied within short time intervals and
possibly at unfavorable times. They are intended to let the coach come to conclusions
about the performance development of an athlete. Both for physiological as well as for
psychological reasons, subsequent top performances of the rowers can hardly be expected.
Competition Control
Rowing competitions are the central focus for planning training and performance develop-
ment. Though essential dates (target competitions, qualification regattas, selection, and
performance tests) are already fixed in the yearly plan and therefore determine the
overall structure of the season, methodological planning mistakes often occur. These
mistakes can be attributed both to a lack of competence as well as a lack of awareness of
the problem both on the part of the coach and the athlete. Such mistakes cannot simply
be eliminated by making minor corrections in implementation and planning; rather,
they call for entering new territory in the training structure.
Unlike sport games and league systems, competitive rowing contests do not always
follow a chronological structure. Main competitions alternate with less important regat-
tas, and target competitions only occur once or twice a year, or hardly at all in the junior
area if no championship or qualification regattas are the goal of the program. However,
rowing races at regattas can convey complex feedback about the performance ability of
rowers and crews.
In the strategic design of a crew’s training plan, selection of regattas must be given a
central control function. One must differentiate between target (e.g., championships)
and main competitions (e.g., qualification regattas), milestones for detecting absolute
performance levels and comparisons with relevant opponents on the way to target
competitions, buildup regattas and performance tests (e.g., ergometer competitions,
long-distance races), and seasonal or event-specific competitions by invitation (e.g., duel
races, regattas at club anniversaries).
Depending on performance levels and specific goals, participation in planned regat-
tas may vary. Feedback from race results can occur in any case, be it comparison with
opponents, absolute times, tactical maneuvers, teamwork, or general behavior at the
regatta (e.g., direct and immediate competition preparation and follow-up).
Regatta appearances often are not used to their full potential as a control opportunity,
at least in the lower performance and junior categories. If anything, a short meeting
takes place for race preparation, which usually runs the same script: “Starting sprint over
so-and-so-many strokes, every 500m the commitment to 5 or 10 full pressure strokes,
and pay attention to the guys in lane 5, they are always really strong on the last few
meters.” In this way, young rowers are sent onto the water. After the race, they are
mainly given organizational advice (e.g., “Drink something,” “Quickly put something
on,” “Make sure that you load the boat straightaway”).
Neither in the lead-up to the regatta (that is, during the last training sessions) nor
during the entire regatta is there time for reflection and necessary conclusions regard-
ing training or the next races. Consideration of complex crew performance is left to the
rowers’ capacity for dealing with their experiences. However, control opportunities that
exist through reflection on competition experiences may not be given sufficient atten-
tion. Thus, the chance to improve performance through processes of self-organization
in the team is also missed.
The number of regattas with milestone status should be restricted. Two or three per
season should certainly be the limit, especially considering the special preparation that
is required (e.g., reduced training volume, increased training at race-specific intensities,
mental pressure). Buildup regattas can usually be done straight out of training. Also,
attention has to be paid to the fact that competition series—that is, races every week and
over several weekends—are possible but should remain rare. Training exclusively for
such a series may require training and control methods other than those outlined here,
a subject that may warrant further investigation as these events becomes more popular.
Monitoring and Managing Your Training ◾ 87
Competitive rowing presents the best possible performance feedback under the fol-
lowing conditions:
1. Evaluation of performance development and stated goals for the completed races
(depending on the level of competition) by the coach or the crew itself with regard
to tactics, technique, and race time, as well as analysis of opponents’ performances
2. Specific analysis of the race, including video analysis, picture series (figure 7.3, a-f),
split times, stroke rates, distance per stroke, tactical behavior, subjective impres-
sions of crew members and possibly the coxswain, comparison with external or
internal team standards, inclusion of environmental factors
a b
c d
Wolfgang Fritsch
e f
Figure 7.3 Sample stroke analysis with a picture series, which can be done with a digital camera.
88 ◾ Fritsch
3. Consequences for subsequent races with respect to strategy, equipment (e.g., rig-
ging), and forthcoming training sessions; comparison with aspired performance
level; and cross-comparison with other results (other opponents, boat types)
4. Documentation of the race results and experiences
This process makes an overly regulated training load appear unnecessary. Evaluation
and feedback occur from the athletes as well as from the coach, which ensures that
the training load triggers relevant processes of self-organization in the optimization of
training. This largely eliminates both excessive over- and underloading (Hohmann et
al., 2003).
The limited ability to plan for a high-performance sport strategy has rarely been the
focus of attention. It results from uncertainties and lack of predictability in the overall
development due to differences in the assessment of competing institutions and their
importance for athletes themselves (e.g., school, work), the performance level and develop-
ment of the competition, and the turbulences and discontinuities in personal, sporting,
and social environments.
Equally important as strategic planning competence, which usually involves sport
scientists, physiologists, or biomechanists, is the ability to transfer planning into practice.
The training control of high-performance rowers must occur under consideration of
Monitoring and Managing Your Training ◾ 89
potentially problematic situations and real, specific conditions, the description of which
could easily be the topic for an independent discussion and study. These situations and
conditions develop with a great dynamic and are often outside the influence of the coach
and the rower. They vary greatly among performance levels as well as among associa-
tions and clubs, and their influence on the development of performance in personally
important areas (e.g., school, social life, family) and specifically in rowing cannot always
be predetermined.
An integral instrument for controlling the performance of a rower as well as a rowing
team is the expertise of the high-performance athletes themselves. Further possibilities
that must be coordinated are identified by Kruse (2004).
Self-Organization
Spontaneous processes of reorganization will always occur within a training system
or team. These processes originate from internal group dynamics (without influenc-
ing factors from outside). Relevant environmental factors are not simply accepted as
irritations and disturbances but are viewed as a chance to develop new rules and solu-
tions. One does not adhere to formal structures but rather uses the self-organization
processes within the group. In high-performance sport, coordination toward a common
and realistic goal appears to be easy. Everybody wants to win and accepts the necessary
workload. Balancing cooperation and competition within a team is more problematic,
however. How can the existing potential for synergy, such as in the area of using exist-
ing resources, common learning, and goal-oriented preparation, be utilized in spite of
the mutual competition within a team?
Rowing teams are often characterized by the scarce resources of proficient team
members, particularly at the club level. On the one hand, because of the constant
competition with opponents of similar performance levels, they have to rely on the
high performers on the team; on the other hand, they have to keep weaker athletes
on board because of the limited number of team members. Teams require a type of
control that guarantees a balance between the protection of the few high perform-
ers and the protection of the team from the less-performing athletes (cf. Cachay &
Fritsch, 1983).
The technical abilities as well as physical performance factors that are to be acquired
in training must largely be left to the self-control of athletes in the short-term planning
of the training process and with regard to personal training loads (individual recupera-
tion times). This does not mean that rowers simply train however and whenever they
want. The configuration of stimuli has to cause a high individual instability (figure 7.2b
on page 84), meaning that the individual systems need to be strongly affected in order
to start the processes of self-organization on the biological level of adaptation, which are
necessary for developing top fitness (Hohmann, 2005). If the athlete wants to reach top
performance, training stimuli must generate a high enough instability—meaning the
training load must be high enough—so that self regulation is initiated. These improved
abilities are acquired via individual, unique, and independent biological and mental
processes of self-organization in the implementation of coaching feedback and train-
ing load. The sport-specific competence of coaches and rowers that is gained through
education is the preconditioning of these processes together with the crew members’
motivational, volitional, and emotional self-control and the ability to produce desired
performances under varying competition conditions (Hohmann, 2005).
90 ◾ Fritsch
Leadership
Leadership in the sense of visionary guidance can only succeed if it is embedded in the
development of a training system that does not leave leadership abilities up to the indi-
vidual coach. Successful leadership in high-performance sport in the sense of effective
performance control can be characterized as follows. The coach
◾◾ requires clear objectives;
◾◾ gives orientation to the rowers and teams;
◾◾ convinces the rowers and teams about the worthiness of the training program;
◾◾ presents conclusive season and project planning;
◾◾ is open to new ideas and allows experimentation;
◾◾ provokes rowers’ own responsibilities and thus achieves self-control, synergy effects,
and team spirit;
◾◾ promotes organizational knowledge and readiness to learn;
◾◾ creates a climate of trust, openness, and communication; and
◾◾ plans innovations at appropriate times.
The readiness of both the coach and the team to accept a mutual codetermination is
part of the coach’s leadership culture as an opportunity for control. This ability to have
a say relates to the constant reassurance of season goals and subordinated objectives.
Conclusion
The abilities and competences of coaches have to change. Aside from professional and
social competences, coaches also need to have the competences of managers and leaders
(cf. König, 2007, p. 4) and reflect on complex control processes if they want to achieve
good team results. The traditional coach education thus must go down new paths, and
coaches must be ready to live up to these new demands.
Chapter 8
O ne of the beautiful aspects of rowing is the quest for the perfect stroke. Due to the
many variables associated with the creation of boat speed—some easy to measure,
others not—science has been largely kept at arm’s length, ensuring that the search for
speed remains an art and a philosophy, not a formula. Rowing has not evolved into a
race between physiologies; instead, the art of coaching athlete posture and movement
remains the foundation of success in the sport.
In this chapter, we will discuss the loads on functioning anatomy of the rower when
producing and transmitting the loads during the stroke cycle. The athlete’s performance
within the rowing transmitting system offers great potential for improvement. It has
been calculated that 92.8% of the energy loss within the entire system of the rowing
boat is from the rower (Kleshnev, 2008a), suggesting that a detailed evaluation of the
human mechanism may offer opportunities for gains in boat speed.
◾ 91
92 ◾ Francis
The loads on the body of the rower are highest in the early part of the stroke, spe-
cifically between the catch and when maximum handle force is achieved. This critical
part of the drive phase is when the force production and force transmission are at their
highest, which leads to the peak loading of the musculoskeletal system of the rower.
The position, posture, and movement of an anatomical segment will determine its role
in force production, transmission, and how it is loaded.
Technique is the anatomical expression of the force production against load between
the stretcher and handle, with a fundamental legs-body-arms movement being common
across most if not all themes of rowing technique.
A good illustration of themes is in the single sculls final at the world championships.
We watch six rowers interpreting the basic principles to produce six unique styles, each
attempting to be in the best position to move the boat faster than anyone else. In other
words, technique interpretation of rowing principles customizes the fundamentals to
the individual rower based on body type, strengths, and weaknesses.
In anatomical terms, rowing technique largely varies around the mechanics of pelvic–
femoral motion. Principally, the leg drive is the thigh (femur) moving on the pelvis, termed
femoral-on-pelvic motion, and the body swing can be described as pelvic-on-femoral motion. The
timing and balance of this motion influences muscle recruitment, loading, and ultimately
force production. Although two rowers may produce 400 W of power per stroke at a given
rate, the summation of loading on the segmental body parts may vary. We interpret this
as the rower’s technique, which can be influenced by coaching, setup, rating, and fatigue.
The human system can be broken down to a simple legs-body-arms sequence during
the stroke cycle. The legs provide the majority of the human impulse on the boat,
which increases with stroke rate (Kleshnev, 2008a). Individual physical attributes, such
as segmental limb length, flexibility, muscle bulk, relative strength, foot size, and any
asymmetries the athlete may have, also greatly influence load management during the
stroke, placing them as important considerations for the mindful coach.
Was it weak in the first exercise, or was it just in a weak position? Taking this example
into the coaching boat allows us to perform anatomical problem solving. When the rower
is described as weak in a particular area of the stroke cycle or with a specific movement,
is it the load on the rower or the rower positioned against the load? An example is the
common problem of shooting the slide, where the rower’s seat slips and moves quicker
than the handle. Is the problem a weak back or shoulders, or is the rower positioned
incorrectly to address the loads of the catch? This is when factors such as inboard, out-
board, pitch, handle height, shaft stiffness, blade size, blade shape, foot setup, position
through the work, and rating all become tools rather than variables when troubleshoot-
ing technical difficulties.
The foot and ankle posture of the catch (for an example, refer to figure 8.4 on page 96)
creates a greater joint force around the knee (see chapter 13 in Neumann, 2002) because
it leaves the joint as the only mechanical option for leg extension. (The higher the heel
from the stretcher, the greater the torque around the knee.) Not until knee extension
occurs and we begin to have a more stable foot platform do we see the hip joint help
force production and decrease knee dependence.
As the rower moves toward the catch during the recovery phase, the hip is taken into
flexion with the flexing knee (figure 8.1, b-c) and eventually moves the ankle into dor-
siflexion, leading to the ankle joint locking Nm
up and the heel lifting from the stretcher. 100
The earlier the ankle locks (reaches end- F Lumbar
range dorsiflexion), the higher the heel will 0
lift and the greater the torque is within the
joint (figure 8.1d). This resistance from the –100
ankle can disrupt the athlete’s late recov-
ery and preparation for the catch, and in –200
some cases it causes further compensations
E
(figure 8.1). –300
0 50 100
Rowing cycle (%)
a
Nm E5068/Nolte/Rowing
Nm Faster, 2e/F08.01a/404008/TimB/R1
300 100
E Hip (flexion–extension) F Knee
200
100 0
F E
–100 –100
0 50 100 0 50 100
b Rowing cycle (%) Rowing cycle (%)
c
E5068/Nolte/Rowing Faster, 2e/F08.01c/404010/TimB/R1
E5068/Nolte/Rowing
Nm Faster, 2e/F08.01b/404009/TimB/R1 Nm
100 100
E Ankle F Shoulder
(flexion–extension)
0 0
F E
–100 –100
0 50 100 0 50 100
Rowing cycle (%) Rowing cycle (%)
d e
(continued)
E5068/Nolte/Rowing Faster, 2e/F08.01d/404012/TimB/R2-alw
E5068/Nolte/Rowing Faster, 2e/F08.01e/404013/TimB/R2-alw
Figure 8.1 Diagrams of joint torque.
Reprinted, by permission, from K. Hase, M. Kaya, N. Yamazaki, et al., 2002, “Biomechanics of rowing: I. A model analysis of musculo-skeletal
loads in rowing for fitness,” JSME International Journal, Series C 45(4): 1073-1081.
Loads on the Bodies of Rowers ◾ 95
E
Shoulder Elbow
Nm F
F
100
E Elbow
E
E F Knee
Lumbar
E
0 F
F
Hip
E F
F
–100
0 50 100 Ankle
Rowing cycle (%) g E
f
Figure 8.1 (continued)
E5068/Nolte/Rowing Faster, 2e/F08.01f/404015/TimB/R2-alw E5068/Nolte/Rowing Faster, 2e/F08.01g/404020/TimB/R1
As the drive phase progresses, the heel drops and the rower gradually has more sur-
face area to push against. The foot position is relatively unstable while forefoot loading
is occurring or until heel contact is made with the stretcher, when force can be applied
through the structure without deformation (namely the medial arch). Heel pressure
and loading in relation to timings of boat acceleration and force curves demonstrate
other benefits and considerations (Kleshnev, 2004); however, in this discussion we are
interested in the role that heel contact and loading play in foot stability for the benefit
of force transfer.
Figure 8.2 shows pressure–force profiles of a typical in-shoe measurement from an
in-boat stretcher at 42° while rating 28 strokes per minute. Once the heel is loaded,
the potential of the lower limb is reached in combined active hip and knee extension,
which may explain why the timing of the heel on the stretcher coincides with changes
in the acceleration rate of the boat (Kleshnev, 2008b). However, often by the time the
foot becomes stable, the body swing has begun and the potential of the legs is reduced
as the body accelerates at a greater rate.
120 kg/F
Total force
Left forefoot
Right forefoot
Left heel
Right heel 60 kg/F
0 kg/F
0.1 s 2s 4s
Paul Francis
mechanical advantage.
The angle of the femur
(thigh), which is created by
the height of the knee rela- Figure 8.3 Path of ankle, knee, and hip during drive phase.
tive to the hip (figure 8.4),
represents the extension potential ofE5068/Nolte/fig8.3b/405751/alw/r1
the hip, principally the hamstrings and
gluteal muscles, which are the strongest
of the hip extensors from a flexed hip
position. This potential is created by both
the athlete’s body segments and posture, 39.3°
along with the stretcher height, angle,
and splay.
The higher the knee is at the catch
Paul Francis
(and the more hip flexion there is), the
greater the potential output of the larger
muscle groups to drive the thigh move-
ment. Picture a rower’s side view at the Figure 8.4 Angle of femur and foot position at
catch: The greater the compression, the catch. E5068/Nolte/fig8.4b/405752/alw/r2
greater the inclination is of the femur
and the greater the range of motion of
hip extension is during the stroke. Hip
extension is the greatest force-producing
mechanical movement of the lower
limb, and the large muscle groups that
surround this joint can be the rower’s
best tools for creating force in the early,
25.8°
critical phase of the drive.
Observe that the opening of the knee
and hip angles occurs both actively and
Paul Francis
the drop in knee height and its relationship to heel fall). It is not until the heel con-
tacts the stretcher and stabilizes the foot that the hip extension becomes solely active.
This allows for greater force to be applied through the stable foot, with the load shared
between both knee and hip extension without an accessory loss. The thigh angles in
figures 8.4 and 8.5 show the numeric difference between hip extension potential at
catch and heel contact.
The mechanical advantage of the thigh during the drive phase in transferring the load
depends greatly on ankle flexibility, foot size, bone length in relation to the lower leg,
stretcher angle, splay, and seat height in relation to the feet. These factors determine how
effective the thigh can be as a lever and how well positioned (and therefore recruited
in the drive phase) the attaching muscles can be.
Lower Back
When discussing injuries in rowing, the lower back attracts the most attention. The
rowing stroke places the lower back (the area around the lumbar spine and the pelvis)
in a precarious position, open to both excess loading and microtrauma. This is because
the lower back is an important dynamic junction where the descending loads from the
handle meet the ascending loads from the footstretcher, and the rower requires posture,
strength, and timing to ensure a clear two-way transmission.
Between the ascending and descending loads, we also have the loads around the seat.
When seated, 11 times more weight is placed on the lumbar disks compared with stand-
ing. In addition, the weakest position for the lumbar spine is in a flexed, side-bent, and
end-range rotation (Bogduk, 2005)—sound like a sweep catch position?
Even within the seemingly symmetrical sculling motion, the lumbar spine can be in
a compromised position due to asymmetries in the lower body, such as a short leg or
ankle limitations. For example, if a rower has reduced ankle flexibility on the right foot,
this will cause the heel to lift up earlier during the recovery compared with the left. This
means the heel will lift farther from the stretcher, pushing the right knee higher than
the left by the catch. Such a position creates different mechanical advantages for each
leg and asymmetrical loading of the pelvis. This is easy to observe when the rower is in
the catch position. Other factors can provide similar manifestations, such as a long thigh,
knee or hip restriction, or overrotation on the seat.
Intervertebral
Vertebral foramen
canal
Apophyseal
joint
Intervertebral
Interspinous disc Interspinous
ligament ligament
Nucleus
pulposus
Spinal
nerve
a
a b
b
Figure 8.6 Example of segmental mechanics during (a) flexion and (b) extension of the lumbar spine.
E5086/Nolte/Rowing Faster, 2e/Fig 08.06b/404096/TB/R1
A straight, strong
E5086/Nolte/Rowing back is
Faster, 2e/Fig what many coaches already look for. Often a rower is coached
08.06a/404095/TB/R2-alw
into a straight-back posture, and although externally it looks to be placing the rower in
a strong position, it may not be. Yes, the upper-lumbar vertebrae are straight, but the
lower-lumbar vertebrae, often the last segment (the infamous L5-S1), remain in a flexed
posture, taking greater load. What we are aspiring to have is a spine and pelvis sharing
the demands of the required flexion.
Much of the required flexion for the rowing stroke should be created from the pelvis
rocking forward on the femurs (thigh bones) at the hip (pelvic-on-femoral motion).
The remaining flexion can then be shared through the lumbar spine, with no one seg-
ment of the lumbar spine requiring more flexion than another. Before a straight back
can be coached, it must be understood by both rower and coach, and more important,
it must be able to be realized by the flexibility of the rower on land and then within the
in-boat setup.
By coaching the posture of the back at the catch, we are coaching it to transmit force
from the leg drive to the handle. Therefore we have to coach the position and posture
of the back to allow recruitment of the muscles around it to brace against the leg drive.
(Remember the pedal analogy: We want the lower back to be the ankle).
Attempting excess rock-over also recruits the psoas muscle (hip flexor), which dis-
tracts it from the potentially more important role of lumbar support (remember that
muscle position determines function). This muscle is designed for standing posture, and
it becomes inefficient from an already flexed position (seated posture). If positioned for
postural function, it could play an important role in bracing the pelvis and lumbar spine
during the transfer of load from lower to upper body.
Anatomically speaking, the body opening should be timed with the accelerat-
ing handle, initiated after maximum handle force, or the mid to late stage of the
leg drive. This is the position of greatest coactivation of muscle activity both for the
lower limb and trunk (Hase et al., 2002), thus allowing load transfer via postural
muscle contraction from the soon-to-be-completed carry of the legs to the accelerat-
ing trunk and upper limb. This means potential loads later in the drive are reduced
by the acceleration generated through the leg drive. The acceleration provides the
trunk extensors with less load to contract against, which is ideal, but most important,
when the muscles of the lower back are positioned well, they support the lower back,
which is their natural role.
The large muscle bulk that covers the midback, the latissimus dorsi, inserts into
the same tension band (thoracolumbar fascia) that covers the lumbar spine and pelvis
(figure 8.7). The gluteal muscles also insert into this area, thus offering a muscle
chain for the suspension of lower limb to upper limb. This creates a continuous link
from hips to shoulder and an obvious anatomical mechanism for direct transfer.
Positioning and coaching on how best to engage this mechanism should be explored
if recruiting large muscle groups to suspend the athlete between the footstretcher
and handle is valued.
Latissimus dorsi
Thoracolumbar
fascia
Midback
Although not immediately obvious, the posture of the midback (thoracic spine) can
greatly influence the sweep rower’s ability to transfer load and work efficiently between
handle and stretcher. In normal posture, the thoracic spine can rotate up to 35°, and
any motion beyond this is compensated by other muscle groups and other areas of the
skeleton (see chapter 10 of Neumann, 2002). Because the lumbar spine has close to
no rotation, any overrotation of the thoracic spine will lock up the lumbar spine and
pelvis, leading to rotation of the rower on the seat and effectively shortening one leg.
For example, if a rower is on stroke side and overrotates, this will shorten the inside
leg (distract from stretcher) and create uneven pressure contact on the footstretcher
at the catch and early drive, which will significantly affect the ability to load through
both legs. This mechanism not only reduces performance but could also predispose the
rower to injury.
Rib Cage
The rib (or thoracic) cage is loaded during the stroke via the work of the muscles that
either cross it or attach to the cage itself. Carrying load can be problematic when the
rib cage is placed in vulnerable postures, resulting in discomfort, irritation, or at worst,
debilitating pain. The mechanics of the rib motion during the rowing stroke are complex
and therefore the mechanisms for injury
are many.
The ribs, sternum (chest bone), and
thoracic spine make up the rib cage
(figure 8.8). It is a fascinating structure
due to the complexity of the anatomy
and the many motions that it is carried
through (because it is attached to the
thoracic spine) while still performing
the motions of inspiration and expira-
tion, which are driven by the diaphragm
and the intrinsic muscles that connect
the ribs.
Ribs are mobile in expansion and
contraction between their connection
points and flexible form, allowing full
expansion and contraction of the chest
during respiration. They are classified
Figure 8.8 Skeletal anatomy of the rib cage.
by their motion and what they connect
to in the front of the chest, with the middle to lower ribs being more prone to injury in
rowers. Ribs connect to the spine between each ofE5086/Nolte/fig 8.8/404101/pulled/r1
the vertebrae, so they are vulnerable
to reduced motion when the spine is bending to the side or rotate. Because the cage is
carried by the dynamic function of the spine, the ribs are often placed in positions where
their motion is reduced.
Reduced motion and misaligned postures help our understanding of a common
mechanism for rib injury: microtrauma. Rib fractures are common in rowers, but major
trauma to the ribs is rare, leaving repeated irritation, strain, and microtrauma as the
obvious mechanisms for injury. Although the anatomy of this area is complex, we can
hypothesize some likely mechanisms for increased rib strain when placed under the
loading of the rowing stroke.
Loads on the Bodies of Rowers ◾ 101
Depending on the health of the rower, the potential for stress on the ribs could be
local within the spine and associated with a preexisting condition when seated. It also
could be a functional problem associated with the previously described dysfunctions in
the mechanics of the lower limb, pelvis, or lumbar spine.
Using the example of a short leg on the right, the pelvis will rotate on the seat to the left
because strapping the feet in will bring the right hip closer to the stretcher. As mentioned
previously, there is no rotation in the lumbar spine, so the first area for compensation is the
thoracic spine, which will rotate back to the right so that the rower is straight in the boat.
Because we have induced rotation in the spine, we have reduced motion in other planes
(Neumann, 2002), so when the rower flexes, the stresses increase and are exaggerated on
stroke side. The spine has to rotate further to the right, with various potential technical
manifestations, such as high inside shoulder or apparent “hunch back”. The internal thoracic
pressure of respiration and the muscle contraction and motions of forced respiration mean
that the areas under greatest stress are the rib angles, also common sites for rib stress fractures.
Such mechanisms may cause disconnections when loads are being transferred through
the body during the early phases of the stroke. This may lead to technical manifestations
such as high shoulders, changes in elbow flexion, or other slippage-related faults, which
may also act as early signs of rib stress mechanisms.
Shoulder
The broad shoulders that characterize rowers are not the force-producing monuments
that most people think. For the majority of the stroke, the shoulder requires a postural
contraction around it in order to transmit load from the handle (again, similar to the
ankle in the pedal analogy). Later in the stroke, the shoulder is retracted to make room
for the incoming elbow and wrist.
The early phase of the drive requires the handle and seat to move at the same speed
for the same distance. Just like the postural work around the pelvis, the shoulder needs
to be stable in order to transfer the load to the stretcher and to translate seat movement
to handle movement, allowing the legs to carry the early load of the stroke.
The posture of the shoulder during the drive phase determines which of the sur-
rounding muscles are recruited to stabilize the area. The latissimus dorsi is best placed
to stabilize the shoulder, acting as a brace for the trunk in transferring from lower limb
to upper limb along with assistance from the rotator cuff muscles and serratus anterior.
An easy technical diagnosis for a coach requires understanding that latissimus dorsi will
hold the shoulder down when recruited. High shoulders generally indicate that upper
and middle trapezius are being used to attempt to stabilize the area. Although this may
achieve some stability, it affects the ability of the shoulder to make room (in retraction)
for the incoming elbow and wrist later in the stroke.
The major determinant of loading through the shoulder during the drive phase is the posture
of the elbow. An internally rotated elbow (figure 8.9a on page 102) does not place the biceps
with a mechanical advantage for contraction in either phasic or postural function, thus allowing
load to be passed to the shoulder. However, when the elbow is externally rotated (figure 8.9b
on page 102), a mechanical advantage is gained by the biceps—depending on timing and
degree of elbow flexion, the biceps can assist in posturally supporting the shoulder or actively
contracting against the handle. This is another example of posture determining function.
If a rower drives during a stroke without the support of the surrounding shoulder muscu-
lature, these structures will stretch and the load will be passed further down the body (toward
the lower back), as seen in rowers who shoot the slide. With a drive phase lasting less than
a second, there is no time to take up the slack. The shoulder and pelvis need to be braced by
the surrounding muscles to decrease the load on the skeleton, especially the lumbar spine.
102 ◾ Francis
Paul Francis
a b
Figure 8.9 Elbow position (a) internally rotated and (b) externally rotated.
Paul Francis
a b
Figure 8.10 (a) Desired wrist and shoulder posture; (b) exaggerated forward shoulder posture with elbow
and wrist consequences.
Footstretcher Angle
Setting the angle of the stretcher is a balance mainly determined by ankle flexibility.
Imagine you are sitting with your foot flat on the board, leg straight. The steeper the
stretcher is, the more you passively close the ankle joint and the earlier the ankle
will lock during the recovery phase, bringing you onto your toes earlier. A flatter
angle will decrease the ankle joint forces but reduce the semivertical platform that
you can load against. Both considerations center on finding the steepest stretcher
angle that still allows ease of movement, a semivertical platform to push against, and
early heel contact.
Foot Height
Again, let’s discuss this with your leg out straight. Once the angle is set, if you increase
the foot height, you will open the ankle joint and flex the hip. If you decrease the height,
you close the ankle joint and extend the hip. All height changes need to be considered
with the relative angle change that rowers perhaps unknowingly create.
There are advantages to higher foot settings in a setup. A high foot position means a
high knee, which increases the output potential of the gluteal muscles and time under
load for the quadriceps. The major limiting factors are neural tension and hip flexibility.
As rowers take the hip further into flexion, they also induce backward rocking (posterior
rotation) of the pelvis, which creates passive lumbar flexion, meaning the disks take the
seated loads of the body.
Having the feet set as high as the hip flexion allows and before backward pelvic rocking
(rotation) occurs should be the focus. This increases length of leg drive, force production
potential, and sharing of loads into an ideal suspension mechanism.
104 ◾ Francis
Foot Splay
The splay of the feet on the footstretcher is not always a variable we can affect, but if
possible, it should be utilized. As discussed earlier, during the middle to late recovery,
the ankle locks up, and the heel begins to lift. What affects this lockup is largely the
ankle congruency. If the ankle joint is aligned, the lockup point will occur at the true
end of its range of motion. Lockup occurs earlier if the joint is even slightly misaligned.
As the heel lifts, the joint torque on the ankle increases (remember, the ankle is the
only joint that increases peak torque outside the drive) and provides the resistance into
the catch. It also gradually reduces how much surface area of the foot you will have
to push off at the catch and of course how long it will take you to get your heel down
during the drive.
Because of the semicircular shape of the ankle joint (the talocrural joint, figure 8.11,
a-b), finding the end range requires subtle outward splay of the foot, just as pointing the
toe to end range requires subtle inward splay of the foot. (You can see this for yourself
if you take your foot into the position passively.)
Setting the splay to allow natural position of the ankle alignment will benefit the
rower in both the recovery and drive phases. The easiest way to test this setup variable
is for the rower to get forward to the active rowing catch position without the handle
and momentum.
Achilles tendon
Peroneus
Tibia
longus Path of Talus
the tibia
Foot Width
Some boat builders make wider feet settings than others, which is not always thought of
as a variable. Due to the limitations of a boat cockpit, the widest possible settings should
be used to help pelvic femoral motion, or body rock.
The C2 Ergo provides a foot width greater than many boat settings. The ease of body
rock an athlete can achieve on an ergo, relative to the boat, provides an example of the
benefits of a wider setting. This helps promote lower back postures, especially in the latter
stages of racing when fatigue sets in. A narrow foot setting crowds the hip capsule and
Loads on the Bodies of Rowers ◾ 105
does not make hip flexion in the recovery phase as easy as it could be. This leaves the
pelvis posteriorly rotated, and it regresses further under fatigue.
The widest settings should be used with the limiting factor being the sides of the boat.
With just a few centimeters between the feet, the rower will be much more comfortable
and functional.
Handle Height
Handle height in both active rowing and stationary positioning is a minefield for anyone
claiming to be an expert. Here we will look at how handle height relates to the rower
anatomically. The path of the handle does not have a significant influence on the recruit-
ment of muscles, aside from optimizing the suspension through the latissimus–gluteal
connection discussed earlier. Just like lifting from the floor, having the feet and the hands
closer at the catch encourages suspension.
As discussed, the initial path and direction of the elbow influences recruitment. Plac-
ing the handle at a height that enables the rower to preserve sound limb mechanics
without shortening the potential path of the handle is the desired goal of this setup.
Positioning the handle to allow the easiest path of the elbow in the direction it needs
to travel is the key.
Some athletes find lat recruitment difficult in the sculling movement due to the dis-
tance between the hands at the catch. This results in early arm break, using the biceps,
trapezius, and deltoids to help stabilize the shoulder and transmit load. Handle height
and rower position can be changed to help the athlete more easily engage the correct
muscles. Once the technical ability has been obtained, it is useful in a preparation phase
before progression to the desired position and height in the boat.
Conclusion
The loading of the body is influenced by the position, posture, and movement of its seg-
ments in the force production and force transmission of the rowing stroke, or simply:
their technique.
Approaching the coaching of rowers with an understanding and appreciation of
anatomy, can help both the coach and athlete better understand technical difficulties
and perceived weaknesses during the phases of the stroke cycle.
Being able to differentiate why we coach technically from how we coach technically
creates opportunities to explore the idiosyncrasies of the athletes and how best to inter-
pret and ultimately influence their technique for improved rowing outcomes.
Chapter 9
Biomechanics
of Rowing
Valery Kleshnev
◾ 107
108 ◾ Kleshnev
Performance level
Result
Analysis level
Effectiveness Efficiency
Measurement
level
Horizontal oar Handle and Segments’ Boat velocity Vertical
angles gate force velocities and acceleration oar angle
to be measured and analyzed again after correction, which creates an endless loop of
technique improvement.
In this chapter, we will discuss components of rowing biomechanics according to the
direction of information flow: from measurement to analysis and then to performance.
Biomechanical Measurement
Any science starts with obtaining quantitative information and analyzing it. Rowing is a
productive sport in terms of biomechanical measurements. There are many points where
transducers can be mounted, including the oar, gate, pin, stretcher, and seat. Therefore,
biomechanical measurement in rowing can be a sophisticated process. Here we describe
only those variables that we measure in standard biomechanical testing and use for analysis
and technique improvement. Many other variables can be measured for research purposes.
Oar Gate
60
Horizontal angle (°) 40
20
0
–20 Catch Release
–40
–60
Recovery Drive Recovery
Angular velocity (rad/s)
3
Oar flexion
2
Oar
1 extension
0
Valery Kleshnev
–1
–2 Backlash of the
oar in the gate
a b
Figure 9.2 (a) Horizontal angle α measured at the oar and gate; (b) device for measurement of
horizontal and vertical oar angles.
E5068/Nolte/Rowing Faster, 2e/F09.02a/404120/TimB/R2-alw
2. Backlash of the oar sleeve in the gate. This is probably the main contributor to the
differences in angle readings. It depends on the geometry of the gate, sleeve, and button,
plus coordination of feathering along with horizontal and vertical movements of the oar.
It is difficult to predict the amount of backlash that varies with rowers’ release motions.
Catch angle αcatch is defined as the minimal negative oar angle and finish angle αfin
as the maximal positive oar angle. Total rowing angle αtot is calculated as the difference
between finish and catch angles:
αtot = αfin − αcatch.
Drive length Larc is defined as the displacement of the center of the handle from catch to
finish and can be calculated using actual inboard length Linb-a measured from the center of the
pin to the middle of the handle (6 cm from the handle top in sculling and 15 cm in rowing):
Larc = Linb-a × π × αtot / 180.
The drive length is a critical component for rowing effectiveness (Nolte, 1991). The
maximal length usually occurs at a stroke rate of around 24 spm. The length is 2 to 3
cm shorter at low rates and much shorter at high rates. Reduction of the stroke length is
more significant in bigger boats. Measurements show that in 4x and 8+ boats, it can be
up to 10 to 11 cm shorter at 40 spm relative to 24 spm, but in smaller boats it is only 6
to 7 cm shorter at the same rate. Shortening of the stroke length at higher rates occurs
at both ends of the stroke: catch and finish. At catch it is more significant in sweep boats
(6-10 cm between 24 and 40 spm) than in sculling (4-6 cm). At finish the shortening is
noticeable in sculling (4-6 cm) but very small in sweep boats. Therefore, decreased stroke
length at higher ratings occurs mainly at catch in sweep boats and at both ends in sculling.
Force Measurements
Force applied by the rower is the earliest measurement ever taken in rowing biome-
chanics—it was measured in 1896 by Atkinson (Dal Monte & Komor, 1989). Similar to
oar angle, the force can be measured at the oar handle or at the gate or pin (figure 9.3
on page 110).
110 ◾ Kleshnev
Lin-a Lout-a
Fhnd-ax Fbl-ax
Fgate Fg-p-res
Vboat
1. Handle force Fhnd can be measured perpendicular to the oar direction either with
strain gauges applied directly on the oar shaft or with detachable sensors. In fact, the
sensor measures the oar bend, which is proportional to the torque M or moment of
the force Fhnd and can be calibrated as a force applied at a known point on the handle.
The rower’s power production P can be derived as
P = M × ω = Fhnd × Lin-a × ω,
where Lin-a is the actual oar inboard lever and ω is oar angular velocity, which can be derived
from measurements of the horizontal oar angle. In this case the calculated power is not
affected by the point of the rower’s force application, which is unknown and may vary
significantly, especially in sweep rowing. With an estimated error of 1%, this is the most
accurate method for measurement of rower’s power. The practical problem of this method
is the necessity to calibrate every oar, which can be solved with modern technology.
The resultant force Fhnd-res, which the rower applies to the handle, is not always per-
pendicular to the oar axis. Therefore, it can be resolved into the perpendicular Fhnd and
axial Fhnd-ax components. The last is quite difficult to measure, but it does not produce
any mechanical power to the oar. It is statically transferred through the oar shaft and
creates axial force at the gate Fgate-ax, which is a sum of vectors Fhnd-ax and axial force at
the blade Fbl-ax. Then, the axial force Fgate-ax is transferred through the gate, pin, and rigger
and statically balanced with the stretcher force Fstr. Therefore, a rower should apply only
a small axial force to keep the button in contact with the gate and pull the handle as
close to perpendicular as possible.
The perpendicular component of the blade force Fbl can be measured using the same
method as was described previously for the handle force. This would produce the same
accuracy of the rower’s power calculation.
2. The gate rotates together with the oar, and the perpendicular Fgate and axial Fgate-ax
components of the gate force can be measured in the reference frame of the oar using
various instrumented gates. Rower’s power can be derived using the previous equation,
but Fhnd must be calculated as
Fhnd = Fgate × [Lout-a / (Lin-a + Lout-a)],
Biomechanics of Rowing ◾ 111
where Lout-a is actual outboard length from pin to the center of the blade force. We do
not know Lin-a and Lout-a exactly because actual points of force application during rowing
are uncertain. We can only guess that they are located at the center of the handle and
blade. The estimated error of rower’s power calculation using this method could be up
to 5%. The sum of the normal Fgate and axial Fgate-ax components is a resultant gate force
Fg-p-res, which is transferred to the pin.
3. The pin is fixed relative to the boat and the pin sensor measures force in the
reference frame of the boat (Haines, 2004). Usually it measures only parallel to the
boat axis component Fpin of the resultant gate-pin force Fg-p-res. A rower’s power can be
derived using the first and second equations on page 110; however, gate force Fgate must
be derived as
Fgate = Fpin × cos α.
Only part of the rower’s force production can be measured using this method (e.g., only
half at the catch oar angle, -60° as cos[60o] = 0.5). Also, the readings are affected by axial
gate force Fgate-ax, which, as we have shown, does not produce power. The estimated error
of the rower’s power calculation is 10% in sculling and up to 20% in rowing. Accuracy
of this method can be improved with two-dimensional sensors of pin force, which can
also measure perpendicular to the boat component FpinY. In this case, the accuracy would
match the gate force sensors. The magnitude of the resultant force Fg-p-res is determined as
Fg-p-res = (Fpin2 + FpinY2)0.5.
Its direction can be defined by the angle β:
β = accros(Fpin / Fg-p-res)
Then perpendicular component Fgate is derived using known gate angle α.
Fgate = Fg-p-res × cos(α − β).
The situation with accuracy is the opposite if the purpose is calculation of balance of
forces on the hull, which could be a target in some research studies. Usually, the stretcher
force Fstr is measured in these studies and propulsive force acting on the boat Fprop-boat can
be derived for each rower:
Fprop-boat = Fpin − Fstr.
If the force is measured at the handle, then Fgate must be derived from Fhnd using Lin-a and
Lout-a and then Fpin obtained using oar angle α. In this case, measurement of the pin force
Fpin is the most accurate method, but its calculation from the measurement of Fhnd can
give a significant error, especially in sweep rowing.
Segment Velocities
The position of the sliding seat can be measured using a spring-loaded transducer with
a string. Similarly, position of the top of the trunk can be measured with the same
transducer mounted on a mast at the level of the sternoclavicular joint (figure 9.4a on
page 112).
Strictly speaking, displacement of legs should be defined at the hip joint, the center
of which is located 8 to 10 cm above the seat. However, from a practical standpoint it is
much more convenient to measure seat displacement.
112 ◾ Kleshnev
Drive 2
Catch
1
Finish
–2
Recovery
Seat position sensor –3
a b
Figure 9.4 (a) Schematics of the measurement of the seat and trunk positions; (b) typical graph of the segment
and handle velocities. E5068/Nolte/Rowing Faster, 2e/F09.04b/404124/TimB/R1
E5086/Nolte/Rowing Faster, 2e/Fig 09.04a/404123/TB/R1
average speed) from 96.25% to 94.79%. This 1.46% difference in efficiency would make
the time of a 2,000 m race only 1.5 seconds slower, which is very small compared with
the difference in the overall speed: 4.31 mps at 20 spm and 5.29 mps at 40 spm equates
to a time difference of 86.1 seconds over 2,000 m.
The peak velocity of the system center of mass (CM) happens just before the end of
the drive (figure 9.5, a-d) when the propulsive force decreases below the level of the
drag force acting on the hull. At a higher rate, the rower’s CM velocity decreases much
faster during recovery, but boat speed keeps increasing during the recovery. This means
the transmission of kinetic energy from the rower’s mass is to the hull, which happens
by means of more active pull through the footstretcher.
The magnitude of the boat acceleration aboat is highly dependent on the stroke rate.
Typical patterns usually have one negative peak at the catch and two positive peaks
during the drive. The acceleration of the rowers’ CM arow has two positive peaks: one just
after the catch and one in the middle of the drive. The system acceleration asys reflects
the force application pattern and follows the shape of the force curve.
The negative peak of the boat acceleration aboat significantly increases in magnitude with
increasing stroke rate (correlation with stroke rate: r = −.85, p < .01). This is explained by
the substantial increase in inertial forces at higher stroke rates. The system acceleration
asys usually increases its positive peak at higher stroke rates and decreases its negative
values during recovery. This reflects the increase in drag resistance at higher boat speeds.
The double peak in the boat acceleration during the drive phase is explained by a
double switching of the emphasis from pushing the stretcher (more acceleration of rowers’
CM) to pulling the handle (more hull acceleration). Acceleration of the boat and of the
rowers’ CM, as well as the velocity of the oar handle, are used to define the temporal
structure of the stroke cycle (Kleshnev, 2010). Six microphases are defined during the
drive phase and three microphases are defined during the recovery phase. The presence
10 10
Acceleration (m/s2)
Acceleration (m/s2)
5 5
0 0
–5 –5
Boat Boat
–10 Rower –10 Rower
System System
–15 –15
a b
Relative velocity average (m/s)
Relative velocity average (m/s)
1 1
0 0
–1 –1
Catch Drive Finish Catch Drive Finish
–2 –2
c d
Figure 9.5 Relative
E5068/Nolte/Rowing velocities and accelerationsE5068/Nolte/Rowing
Faster, 2e/F09.05c/404127/TimB/R1 of the boat, rower’sFaster,
CM, and system CM of M1x at
2e/F09.05d/404128/TimB/R1
the stroke rate 20 spm (a, c) and 40 spm (b, d).
114 ◾ Kleshnev
Positive (+)
θ
OH β
Water level
Negative (–)
B Vertical
E5068/Nolte/Rowing Faster, angle (°)
2e/F09.06a/404129/TimB/R1
Recovery
A I
C
D Water level H
0
–50 –25 Horizontal angle
E
–3
F G
Drive
–6
Figure 9.6 (a) Reference system of the vertical oar angle and (b) criteria of the trajectory of the
center of the blade. E5068/Nolte/Rowing Faster, 2e/F09.06b/404130/TimB/R1
Biomechanics of Rowing ◾ 115
sculling and rowing. Then the blade rises to provide space for squaring. The θ reaches
a maximum at point B, achieving 4.9° ± 1.2° in sculling and 4.1° ± 1.2° in rowing. The
blade starts descending after this point, continues to move horizontally 2° to 4° toward
the bow, and then changes direction at point C. The horizontal oar angle at this point is
called the catch angle. The θ at point C is close to +3°, which means the bottom edge of
the blade is close to the water level. Catch slips can be defined in two ways:
◾◾ From catch point C to point D, where the center of the blade crosses water level.
This depth of the blade in the water is enough to provide propulsive force, which over-
comes the drag and starts moving the boat–rower system forward.
◾◾ From catch point C to point E, where the whole blade is covered below water level
and full propulsive force is provided. Angle θ at this point may vary depending on blade
width and outboard. For simplicity, we set the criterion at −3°, which guarantees blade
coverage with all oar dimensions.
At point F, the blade achieves its minimal θ (largest blade depth in the water), which is
–7.2° ± 1.3° in sculling and −5.7° ± 1.2° in rowing. Similarly to the catch slips, release slips
can be defined in two ways: from point G at −3° θ or from point H at 0° θ, both ending at
point I (the finish angle). Table 9.1 shows catch and release slips and corresponding effec-
tive angles, which are parts of total angle, where the blade moves below defined criteria.
We found that blade propulsive efficiency has moderate correlations with both effec-
tive angles (r = .45 for 0° θ criterion and r = .38 for −3° θ). Measurements of the vertical
oar angle can help improve the blade propulsive efficiency and increase boat speed.
Table 9.1
Criteria of the Vertical Oar Angle
Effective Effective
Catch slip Catch slip Release slip Release slip angle at angle at
to 0° θ (°) to –3° θ (°) to 0° θ (°) to –3° θ (°) 0° θ (%) –3° θ (%)
Sweep 4.8 13.1 3.4 14.3 90.1% 68.4%
±SD 2.9 5.1 3.2 7.2 4.6% 8.1%
Scull 4.1 10.0 6.5 18.5 89.7% 73.1%
±SD 2.0 3.1 3.9 6.5 3.8% 6.7%
Biomechanical Analysis
The measurements just presented provide the data to analyze rowing further. Most
interesting, of course, is the influence of rowing technique on the effective usage of all
forces applied by the rower for propulsion of the overall system.
We define effectiveness here as the capability of producing an effect. For example, a high
effectiveness is reached when the rower’s efforts produce the maximal average speed of
the boat–rower system. Efficiency and effectiveness are related to some extent, but they
are not the same. Efficiency could be high when energy consumption Pin is low, which
could happen if a rower uses mainly small muscle groups (arms) and underuses large
muscles (legs and trunk). However, the output power Pout will be low in this case and
hence effectiveness and performance of such technique will not be high.
Efficiency is relatively easy to measure; only input and output powers need to be
determined. However, effectiveness is difficult to quantify because it refers to some hypo-
thetical boat speed that could be achieved provided the crew fully utilizes its potential.
Also, the boat speed itself depends on many factors that could be beyond our control,
including weather conditions, rowers’ efforts, and rowers’ capabilities. Therefore, we use
the term effectiveness in a qualitative way and base its evaluation mainly on biomechani-
cal modeling, which we try to relate to empirical data.
Effectiveness could be defined as the product of the rower’s power production and
efficiency of power utilization. Various features of rowing technique could have an
opposite effect on these two components; for instance, a long finish of the drive using
the trunk could increase power production but decrease efficiency because it creates
excessive energy losses for overcoming inertia and gravity forces. Therefore, effective
rowing technique is an optimal balance of efficiency and effectiveness, which must be
related to the characteristics of a specific rower.
Pmin
77.2%
Ebl was determined to be equal to 78.5% ± 3.1% for a single (Affeld et al., 1993; Kleshnev,
1999; Nolte, 1984), which has a high SD owing to variation in weather conditions.
Boat efficiency Eboat can be defined as
Eboat = Pmin / Pprop,
where Pmin is the minimal power required for propelling the boat and rower with a con-
stant speed equal to the average boat velocity. Eboat was calculated using the variation of
the boat velocity and was found to be 93.8% ± 0.8% (Kleshnev, 1999).
Overall efficiency of the rower–oar–boat system is the product of the efficiencies of
its components:
Esys = Erow × Ebl × Eboat.
Using the average values just given, we can estimate overall efficiency of the system
as 16.8%; in other words, 83.2% of metabolic energy consumed by a rower is wasted.
From this amount, the majority of the energy losses, 77.2%, occur inside the rower’s
body (figure 9.7b). Blade slippage contrib-
utes merely 4.9% and boat speed variation Vbl.w
only 1.1% to the overall energy loss. These
ϕ
numbers suggest that the greatest scope for
FblR δ
performance gain is found inside the rower’s
body. To model a possible gain in boat speed, Pwaste
Flift
we increase efficiency of a component by its
SD. In this case we can gain 12.0 seconds
from Erow improvement by 2.2%, 4.9 seconds α Fdrag
from Ebl increase by 3.1%, and only 1.1 sec- Freact
onds from Eboat increase by 0.8%. Moreover, Pprop
Vsys
variation in Ebl and Eboat depends mainly on Fprop
wind resistance and stroke rate, and the
rower cannot improve them significantly.
Freact
Fside
Definition of Blade Propulsive
Efficiency
With some assumptions (Kleshnev, 1999),
we define blade propulsive efficiency Ebl
using measurements of the boat velocity
wer Vboat, oar angle α, and handle force Fh. The
force applied at the center of the blade Fbl is
calculated using measured Fh and actual oar
gearing. The velocity of the blade relative Blade velocity
water Vbl.w is determined using oar angular
velocity and Vboat (figure 9.8a). The waste
power Pw is calculated as a scalar product of Center of
pressure
the force Fb and velocity Vbl.w vectors,
Pw = FbVbl.w cos φ, a
where φ is the angle between these vectors.
The total power applied to the handle Ptot Figure 9.8 (a) Horizontal path of the blade
is calculated as a product of Fh and handle through the water
E5068/Nolte/Rowing and2e/F09.08a/404134/TimB/R2-alw
Faster, all forces on the blade.
(continued)
118 ◾ Kleshnev
E5068/Nolte/Rowing
Fblade total Faster, 2e/F09.08b/404135/TimB/R1
Force (N) E5068/Nolte/Rowing Faster, 2e/F09.08c/406368/TimB/R1
Flift Blade efficiency (%)
200
Fdrag
150 100
100 90
80
50 70
–75 –50 –25 0 25 50 –75 –50 –25 0 25 50
Oar angle (°) Oar angle (°)
d e
Figure 9.8 (continued) (b-e) Variables of the blade efficiency.
E5068/Nolte/Rowing Faster, 2e/F09.08e/406370/TimB/R1
E5068/Nolte/Rowing Faster, 2e/F09.08d/406369/TimB/R1
velocity. Propulsive power Pprop can be derived as a product of the propulsive force Fprop
and a velocity of the CM of the rower–boat system Vsys. It is quite difficult to calculate
Vsys, so we derive Pprop as the difference between Ptot and Pw. Blade efficiency Ebl is derived:
Ebl = Pprop / Ptot = (Ptot − Pw) / Ptot.
Through the horizontal movement of the blade in the water, the fluid flows at a certain
angle relative to the blade, which is the angle of attack δ. If δ is not 90o, lift forces Flift are
developed and the blade acts as a hydrofoil (figure 9.8c). Flift is directed perpendicularly to the
oncoming fluid Vbl.w and has 100% efficiency. This means that all energy losses are generated
by the drag forces Fdrag, which act opposite to the oncoming flow Vbl.w (figure 9.8 b-e). Flift
and Fdrag are components of a total blade reaction force FblR, which has the same magnitude
and opposite direction as Fbl. FblR is transferred through the oar shaft to the system and can
be divided at the pin into the aforementioned Fprop and Fside. This side force Fside does not
create any energy losses since there is no movement in its direction. Figure 9.8b shows
data of a single sculler rowing at a stroke rate of 36 spm plotted relative to the oar angle.
The lift and drag factors were taken from Caplan and Gardner (2007) for a flat plate,
so they can be used quite approximately here. In this example, Flift contributes to 56%
of the average blade force and Fdrag contributes to the remaining 44%. Total distance of
the slippage of the blade center was 1.7 m and minimal slippage velocity was 1.25 mps
at perpendicular position of the blade.
1. Traditional method. This method is based on the assumption that the rower applies
power to the handle only. In this model, the oar is assumed to be a first-class lever with a
pivot point (fulcrum) at the pin (figure 9.9a). In this case, power equates to a product of
the torque M and angular velocity ω or to a product of the force applied to the handle Fh
and the linear velocity of the handle vh (see the equation on page 110).
2. Propulsive–waste power. The pin moves with the boat with irregular acceleration;
therefore, the boat is not an inertial reference frame in Newton mechanics. If we set the
reference frame based on earth (or water), the oar fulcrum is located somewhere close to
the blade and the oar acts as the second-type lever (figure 9.9b). Two components of the
power could be defined: propulsive power Pprop on the inboard side from the fulcrum and
waste power Pwaste on the blade side. Propulsive power equates to the scalar product of the
force vector acting on the rower–boat system Fprop and velocity of the system CM vCM:
Pprop = Fprop × vCM.
Waste power was defined in the section on blade efficiency (on page 115).
This method is not very practical, because velocity of the system CM vCM cannot be deter-
mined accurately and easily. The position of the center of pressure on the blade is affected
by blade hydrodynamics, boat speed, and oar angle and also can’t be determined easily.
3. Rower’s power. The rower is the only source of mechanical energy in rowing.
The rower applies force (i.e., power) only at two points: the handle and the footstretcher
(figure 9.9c). The fulcrum here is the rower’s CM. The power can be calculated as a sum
of the handle and footstretcher powers, and each of them equates to a scalar product of
correspondent force and velocity vectors.
Rin
a b Pstretcher
Figure 9.9 Methods of rowing power calculation: (a) traditional, (b) propulsive–waste power, and (c)
E5068/Nolte/Rowing Faster, 2e/F09.09d/404139/TimB/R1
rower’s power. (d)Faster,
E5068/Nolte/Rowing Various2e/F09.09c/404138/TimB/R1
power measurements for an M1x boat at a stroke rate of 32 spm.
120 ◾ Kleshnev
powers were Ptraditional = 462.9 W, (Pprop and Pw) = 465.5 W, and Prower = 494.4 W. The reason for
the difference between the first two and the rower’s power is that the last includes the inertial
component, which is necessary to move the boat relative to the rower. In this case inertial
losses were 6.4% of the total rower’s power. The blade propulsive efficiency equates to a
ratio of the propulsive power to the total power, which was 80.4% in this case. The handle–
footstretcher power ratio was 60% to 40% in this case. This ratio depends on the shape of
the force curve: The footstretcher share is higher if the force curve has an emphasis at catch.
F1 P1
F2 P2
Power (W)
Force (N)
F3 P3
a b
Fmax. = 100%
E5068/Nolte/Rowing Faster, 2e/F09.10a/404140/TimB/R1
E5068/Nolte/Rowing Faster, 2e/F09.10c/405860/TimB/R1
70%
Faver
Force
30%
V1
Velocity (m/s)
V2
V3
Oar
A D30
30 angle
A70 D70
A100
c d
E5068/Nolte/Rowing Faster, 2e/F09.10d/404141/TimB/R1
Figure 9.10 (a–c) Schematic chain of efficiency of rower–oar–boat system and (d) energy losses in
E5068/Nolte/Rowing
the system. Faster, 2e/F09.10b/405859/TimB/R1
A70 and D70 correlate with maximal leg velocity (r = −.28 and r = −.38), which means
quicker legs produce steeper gradients of force.
Parameters of force gradients depend on the stroke rate: A30 and A70 are getting
shorter at high rates (r = −.30 and r = −.43), but D70 and D30 are getting slightly longer
(r = .21 and r = .18). This reflects changes in the force curve at higher rates. Table 9.2
shows average values of the criteria of the force curve at training rates below 30 spm
(T) and at racing rates above 30 spm (R).
Table 9.2
Oar Angle in Degrees to Reach Criteria of the Force Curve
at Training (T) and Racing (R) Rates
Degrees A30 A70 D70 D30
Rate T R T R T R T R
Rowing 6.7 5.2 16.7 13.6 30.3 34.0 11.5 12.8
±SD 1.9 1.6 3.8 3.1 7.6 7.3 3.1 3.5
Sculling 5.8 3.8 17.2 13.4 35.6 38.2 14.5 15.7
±SD 2.0 1.5 4.8 4.6 7.0 6.6 3.3 3.3
122 ◾ Kleshnev
forward lean of the trunk that begins the drive, followed by simultaneous activity of
the legs and trunk
◾◾ Simultaneous with legs emphasis SL (Adam style)—Comparatively long-leg drive and
limited amplitude of the trunk; simultaneous activity of legs and trunk during the stroke
◾◾ Consequential with trunk emphasis CT (Rosenberg style)—Large forward lean of the
trunk at the beginning of the stroke and then strong leg extension without significant
trunk activation; at the end of the cycle the trunk finishes with a large backward lean
◾◾ Consequential with legs emphasis CL (we called it Ivanov style after the three-time
Olympic champion)—Fast leg extension at the beginning of the drive without significant
trunk activation; small to moderate lean of the trunk at the beginning and end of the drive
These four rowing styles can be identified using measurements of the segments’
velocities. Then the power of each segment can be calculated as a product of force and
velocity. Simple modeling can be used to find the effect of rowing styles on force–power
curves (see figure 9.12, a-d).
Simultaneous activity of the legs and trunk produces a more rectangular shape of the
power curve, but the peak power is lower. More even pressure on the blade improves its
propulsive efficiency. However, slower and more static movement of the legs and trunk
does not allow delivery of the highest power.
Sequential work of the legs and trunk produces a triangular shape of the power curves
and higher peak power values. This leads to higher slippage of the blade through the
water that causes energy losses. However, lower blade propulsive efficiency can be more
than compensated by higher values of force and power produced per kilogram of body
Biomechanics of Rowing ◾ 123
weight. Active usage of the trunk produces even more power, so the Rosenberg style is
considered to be the most powerful rowing style.
Emphasis on the legs or trunk affects the position of the force and power peaks.
Styles with leg emphasis allow a quicker increase of the force and earlier peak of the
force curve. This improves the initial boat acceleration microphase and makes the drive
timing more effective.
Styles with trunk emphasis produce more power owing to better utilization of big
muscles (mainly the gluteus maximus). However, these muscles are slow since they
are intended to maintain body posture in humans, and this prevents a quick increase
of force and power when using trunk muscles. A shift of the peak of the power curve
closer to the middle of the drive makes the temporal structure of the drive less effective.
Conclusion
Other important components that were mentioned previously affect rowing performance
(see figure 9.1 on page 108). The most important is physiology, which can help to win or
lose tens of seconds in a race. However, the role of biomechanics and rowing technique
is to use the rower’s present physiology most effectively. The effect of technique can be
estimated quite clearly when results from both on-water and ergometer rowing are avail-
able. The ergo score explains only 40% to 84% of variation in on-water performance in
small boats and 10% to 50% in big boats (Mikulic, Smoljanovic, Bojanic, Hannafin, &
Pedisic, 2009); the rest is explained by other factors, including technique, crew synchroni-
zation, psychology, and so on. Rowers with equal ergo scores could perform with a 10- to
15-second difference on the water, and winners and losers of world regattas are often split
by a fraction of a second. All this means that technique can play a decisive role in rowing.
124 ◾ Kleshnev
Using Equipment
More Effectively
Volker Nolte
R owing is a sport that is closely related to equipment, and its equipment has contin-
ued to evolve for more than 200 years. This relationship inspires engineers, design-
ers, coaches, and rowers to manipulate, improve, and fit equipment to each athlete.
It is no wonder that rowing boats and oars have undergone considerable changes. It
becomes a special area of interest to know exactly what the best equipment is and
how to use it more effectively. Many coaches can feel overwhelmed by the number
of choices they have—think about all the boat types, blade sizes, and measurements
of riggers and oars you can order!
The first step is to decide what to purchase and how to set it so that the rowers
get the most from their equipment. Equipment is costly, and once it is chosen, you
are stuck with it for a long time unless you have unlimited funds. Even if the correct
equipment decisions are made, you still have to decide which of the many additional
options to choose.
For beginning rowers, proper equipment is more important than proper coaching,
and from a high-performance standpoint, rowing with proper rigging can make the
difference between winning and losing. Of course, equipment alone is not everything.
The proper boat alone will not cause the beginner to discover correct rowing technique
or make an Olympic champion.
On top of all this, a coach must choose the most effective measurements and then set
the equipment in a time-efficient manner. Is this a lofty goal or an insurmountable task?
This chapter is designed to help with this matter. First, we give an overview of
selection criteria for choosing equipment. Then we present procedures that can be
used to set the equipment. Finally, we give ideas for fine-tuning equipment for the
most effective use.
◾ 125
126 ◾ Nolte
Equipment Selection
Rowing equipment is used for many purposes, including learning, recreation, and racing,
and one expects certain qualities from the equipment depending on its usage. These
criteria need to be considered when purchasing rowing equipment:
◾◾ Safety. Equipment must be safe to use; it cannot fail during practice (e.g., the boat
must stay buoyant even in rough water, oarlocks must safely lock so that oars stay
in place, a footstretcher cannot slip, the pitch needs to be held, coxswains need to be
able to eject from the boat in case of capsizing) and it should not cause harm (e.g.,
no parts stick out that could cause scratches or sores, the boat allows power applica-
tion without causing irritations that could lead to injury, a rower can perform with
a minimum risk of injury).
◾◾ Balance stability. Depending on the environment (e.g., water temperature, waterway
traffic, current) and the users (e.g., beginner, recreational), certain requirements need to
be met. A 12-year-old beginner ideally could use a racing shell to learn, if the water is safe.
However, more stable boats are needed for older learners and unsafe water conditions.
◾◾ Comfort. How comfortable a crew feels in a boat depends on many factors (e.g.,
balance stability of the boat, well-placed footstretchers, properly formed seats,
appropriate rig).
◾◾ Durability. A boat should withstand normal use for many years without losing
stiffness or function; also, small accidents should not cause major breakage.
◾◾ Weight. A lighter boat is easier to carry, creates less drag, and feels livelier. However,
saving weight cannot come at the cost of durability or safety.
◾◾ Adjustability. The workplace of a rower needs to be adjustable to the individual
and her specific needs (e.g., recreation, racing in headwind, age, fitness).
◾◾ Speed. Depending on the hull shape, construction stiffness, and optimal function
(e.g., low weight, easy-to-move but sturdy parts like seats and oarlocks, easy-to-set
rig), the boat will transfer the rower’s power into speed. Also, a lighter, more effective
oar will increase the amount of propulsion that a rower can produce. However, some-
times these features come with an increased demand on balance or technical finesse.
◾◾ Cost. Equipment costs money; however, with proper comparison of choices and
identification of the actual need, one can put finances to the best use. Also, the
resale value of the boat or oars needs to be considered.
◾◾ Service. Even with the most appropriate usage, the service of a boatbuilder or oar
builder is sometimes needed to get a repair done or a spare part sent quickly.
Some of the qualities, such as safety and durability, are essential, and ideally a rowing
shell fairs well in all the mentioned categories. However, coaches and athletes need to
consider their priorities and then decide. It is important to make informed decisions
and not rely on hearsay. Programs that use a certain brand successfully and with great
satisfaction have more information than a single rower who got talked into purchas-
ing a certain boat but did not compare boats thoroughly. However, the best indicator is
always one’s own experience.
Depending on the users, the following are the most important criteria for boat selection:
Learning Recreation Racing
Safety Comfort Speed
Balance stability Durability Individual adjustability
Durability Prevention of injury
Using Equipment More Effectively ◾ 127
In the following sections, we will focus on setting and adjusting (i.e., rigging) the boat
for racing. All the other usages can be logically derived from the arguments that are
applied in this context. For example, one should adjust the rig for a recreational rower
to increase the comfort of rowing in the same way one would set the individual rig for
a competitive rower who may need a lighter load (e.g., shorten the oar or widen the
span). Rigging follows commonsense steps based on mechanical objectives.
Rowing
faster
Minimize Maximize
resistance propulsion
Figure 10.1 Overview of biomechanical principles (bottom row) based on the overriding principles
(middle row) with the main purpose of rowing Faster,
E5086/Nolte/Rowing faster. 2e/Fig 10.01/404149/TB/R3-alw
128 ◾ Nolte
Rigging Terminology
Let’s start with the identification of equipment and the definition of the main rigging
measurements.
The main parts that we need to check and possibly adjust in order to set up equipment
are presented in figures 10.2 through 10.11 (pages 128–131).
The span in a sculling boat is measured from midpin to midpin or from one side of
the pin on one board to the opposite side of the pin on the other board (figure 10.2, a-c).
Figure 10.3 shows how to determine the spread in a sweep boat. Figure 10.3a measures
the width of the boat, 10.3b positions half of the width on the outside of the gunwale (so
that the zero point of the tape measure is in exactly the middle of the boat), and 10.3c
measures to the middle of the pin.
Span
b
a c
In addition to the overall span in a sculling boat, one has to measure if the oarlocks are
symmetrically positioned at the middle of the boat. This is done by measuring the spread of
each sculling oarlock and comparing the measurements. Oarlock height is measured from the
lowest point on the seat to the corner face of the oarlock closest to the pin (figure 10.4, a-b).
The footstretcher angle is relative to the horizontal level of the boat. Identify the hori-
zontal level of the boat and measure the angle of the footstretcher relative to this level
(figure 10.5, a-b on page 130). Footstretcher height measures vertical distance from the
heel to the seat. Put a spirit level across the seat and measure down into the heel of the
shoe (figure 10.6 on page 130).
New rowing shells allow for positioning the slides in the longitudinal direction of the
boat and setting work-through, which is the horizontal distance from the stern end of
the slides to the face of the oarlock (figure 10.7 on page 130).
th
Boat width Half boat wid
a b
E5068/Nolte/fig10.3b2/412008/alw/r1
E5068/Nolte/fig10.3a2/405880/alw/r1
Measurement spread
c
Figure 10.3 The spread in a sweep boat.
E5068/Nolte/fig10.3c2/412009/alw/r1
Oarlock
height
a
Figure 10.4 Oarlock height.
◾ 129
E5068/Nolte/fig10.4c/405881/alw/r2
130 ◾ Nolte
Footstretcher
angle
Measure angle
Level boat or
zero angle
meter
a b
E5068/Nolte/fig10.3c2/412010/alw/r1 E5068/Nolte/fig10.5b2/412011/alw/r2
Figure 10.5 Footstretcher angle.
Work-through
Slides
Figure 10.6 Footstretcher height. Figure 10.7 Positioning of the slides in longitu-
E5068/Nolte/fig10.6b/404162/alw/r1
dinal position and work-through.
E5068/Nolte/fig10.9b/406100/alw/r2
The pin can have fore–aft (parallel to the longitudinal direction of the boat) and
lateral (perpendicular to the boat) pitch. Both affect the pitch on the blade and need
to be set (figure 10.8). Pitch on the blade is the angle of the blade face to the verti-
cal and is the sum of the pitch on the oarlock and the inbuilt pitch of the oar (figure
10.9). Measure pitch on pin, as shown in figure 10.10b. Figure 10.10a illustrates how
to zero a pitch meter on the horizontal part of the boat.
Using Equipment More Effectively ◾ 131
Aft
Fore
Lateral
Figure 10.8 Fore–aft and lateral pitch on the pin. Figure 10.9 Pitch on the blade.
E5068/Nolte/fig10.7b/406098/alw/r1 E5068/Nolte/fig10.8b/406099/alw/r1
4
0
4
4
0
4
a b
Figure 10.10 Measuring pitch on pin. E5068/Nolte/fig10.10b/404167/alw/r1
E5068/Nolte/fig10.10a/404166/alw/r1
tasks on their own. Beginners can set their footstretchers horizontally, while elite athletes
should be able to check their pitch on the pin and set their oars. It is up to the coach to
set the parameters for what the rowers are responsible and to teach the rowers how to
measure and adjust those rigging features. Experienced athletes could also be encouraged
to play with their rig by trying out various measurements. For example, knowledgeable
athletes could change their oar length or inboard during a training session on the water
and get instantaneous feedback.
Coaching must include teaching rowers to identify rigging problems. Beginners are
capable of realizing when the footstretcher is in the incorrect position by checking the
end of their oar handle relative to their body. However, it would be asking too much
for them to identify the load on the oar, such as if the rig is too heavy, which means
that the load is inappropriate for them. More experienced rowers, however, need to be
able to recognize when one of their blades does not have enough pitch, causing it to
travel deep through the water during the drive. Top athletes must be able to give the
coach feedback about the load on the blade and to realize that an awkward feeling at
the catch could be caused by an incorrect angle on the footstretcher. After checking with
the coach to see if their impression is correct, these rowers should be able to adjust the
equipment accordingly.
The rowing workplace should be set so that rowers can perform to the best of their
ability, move relaxedly and purposefully, and execute rowing technique properly. A
properly rigged boat supports correct rowing and gives the rower accurate feedback
through feel. For example, if the oarlock height and pitch are properly set but the rower
does not square the blade completely prior to entry, the rower will immediately realize
this error because the blade will cut deep into the water and balance will be affected.
Another example is if the rower pulls with the hands too far apart vertically during the
drive, balance will be affected, and the blade cannot be released cleanly. In a properly
rigged boat, if the rower keeps a relaxed grip and pulls horizontally, the hands will pull
at the correct height, and the blades will be at the optimal depth in the water.
An incorrectly set boat not only inhibits rowers from performing to their potential, it
also can lead to injuries. Rowers will always compensate for a misaligned boat, which
can lead to nasty injuries such as inflammation in the forearm or rib fractures. If a rower
has to keep the blade squared by holding it tight, the musculature in the forearm can
be affected to the point that tendons become inflamed. If an oar is too heavily rigged so
that the rower has to put a great deal of force on the handle for each stroke combined
with leaning away from the rigger as the boat loses balance, the body could become
overloaded, and a rib fracture could occur over time.
First, table 10.1 illustrates general measurements that are independent of rowing
type (scull or sweep). The presented variations give the range of flexibility of the
measurements and are designed to cover special cases. For example, some coaches
teach a technique where some lateral pitch could be helpful, or in some instances
of technical challenges (e.g., rower washes out at the release), additional positive
lateral pitch can ease the technical error. However, only positive lateral pitch of the
pin (leaning away from the middle of the boat to give more pitch at the catch and
less in the finish) by up to 1° is advisable. Negative lateral pitch (pin leans toward
the middle of the boat) would reduce the pitch of the blade at the catch and add
more pitch at the finish, which is a combination that is absolutely incorrect! A lateral
pitch larger than 1° creates too much change of pitch over the stroke, which leads
to technical errors.
The inbuilt pitch on the oarlock that can be set, for instance, through pitch bushings
varies depending on the blade (Fat Blades need less pitch than Big Blades; see table 10.3
on page 135) and the rowers’ skill (beginners generally use more pitch than elite rowers).
All recommendations here are based on the assumption that the inbuilt pitch on the oars
is 0° and therefore needs to be checked but should not be changed. Footstretcher angles
and heights need to be adjusted individually; variations are possible depending on the
size and flexibility of the rower. If rowers have a hard time reaching the catch position
in a relaxed manner, the footstretcher angle can be made smaller or the footstretcher
height increased. If rowers are very flexible or overreach (shins pass the vertical), the
opposite will help.
The measurements in table 10.2 on page 134 for span or spread, inboard, and height
of the oarlock apply to specific boat classes. Studies about commonly used span or spread
and inboard (Nolte, 2009) reveal that those numbers are agreed on and used all over
the world. They represent a combination that follows the general biomechanics of the
human body while supporting the currently used rowing technique, and therefore they
are excellent starting measures. The given oarlock height is a measure for commonly
used rowing shells, but it can vary more than identified for special types of rowing boats
or special designs (e.g., raised decks in boats) as well as for rowers using a boat that is
not built for their weight. The boatbuilder will be able to give more individual feedback
in such instances.
Table 10.1
General Measurements for Pitch on the Pin,
Oar, and Footstretcher Angle and Height
Measurement Variation
Fore–aft pitch on pin (°) 0 0
Lateral pitch on pin (°) 0 +1
Oarlock pitch (°) 4 +1 to –2
Inbuilt pitch on oar (°) 0 0
Footstretcher angle (°) 40 ±2
Footstretcher height (m) 0.18 ±0.02
134 ◾ Nolte
Table 10.2
General Boat Measurements for Sweep and Scull
Sweep 2− 4− 4+ 8+ Variation
Spread (m) 0.86 0.85 0.86 0.84 ±0.02
Inboard (m) 1.16 1.15 1.16 1.14 ±0.02
Oarlock height (m) 0.17 ±0.01
Scull 1× 2× 4× Variation
Spread (m) 1.60 1.59 1.58 ±0.03
Inboard (m) 0.88 0.88 0.87 ±0.02
Oarlock height (m) Starboard 0.18/port 0.175 ±0.02
The oarlock heights of the two sides in sculling boats should be different by 0.5 to
1.5 cm. Most scullers row with the left hand (starboard or bow side) higher than the
right hand (port or stroke side). Ideally, the difference is as small as possible, but it may
vary based on the skill of the rowers. Also, if the rower rolls the boat to the side with
the lower measure, the difference needs to be increased. Large differences mean the oar
forces are applied to the boat at different heights, which can cause balance problems.
If a rower uses a specific type of oar in different boat classes (e.g. a sculler rows in the
single, as well as in the quad), the overall length remains very much the same. Conversely,
the overall length of oars varies quite substantially when different blade types are used.
Table 10.3 gives an overview of the most commonly used blade types and the range of
overall length used for each type. However, although dimensions of other rowing equip-
ment (see table 10.2) are well established, newer research suggests that the overall oar
length needs to be tested in more detail (Nolte, 2009). The presented numbers are good
starting points, while the numbers in parenthesis are recommended for individual testing.
The presented measurements for overall oar length are substantiated by many years
of experience in rowing programs all over the world. However, coaches and athletes are
often conservative when it comes to trying out equipment or measurements that are a
bit out of the ordinary. In this context, research (Nolte, 2009) reveals that shortening
the oar to the numbers indicated in parenthesis in table 10.3 can have positive results as
long as rowers can master the rowing technique that is required to use the measurements
(e.g., larger catch angle, quicker entry). Therefore, coaches and rowers are encouraged
to try those measurements.
The presented blades vary in size and shape, which influence the efficiency of the
blades. Although a more efficient blade will transform a larger component of the
applied handle force into propulsion, it is also technically more demanding to row. It
is therefore only more effective (in Kleshnev’s sense, as defined in chapter 9 on page
108 and pages 115–116) if the rower is capable of using it proficiently. Nevertheless,
it is worth trying a more efficient blade, since one could then shorten the outboard
and produce greater propulsion. This stems from the biomechanical principle that a
rower can produce a larger force on the blade with shorter outboard and hence larger
propulsion. Figure 10.12 demonstrates this principle and shows that if a rower pulls
with the same force on the inboard, the blade force (and thus propulsion) increases
proportionally with shortening of the outboard.
Table 10.3
Common Rowing Blades With Measurements for Overall Lengths*
Blade type Blade area Overall oar length (m)
General shape (cm2) Scull Sweep
Big Blade Scull: 2.84-2.89 3.70-3.75
Hatchet 780
Cleaver Sweep: (2.75-2.80) (3.65-3.70)
Droop Snoot 1,196
Measurements for the overall length of these oars that warrant consideration are in the parentheses.
Large outboard
Increased
Blade blade force
Oarlock force
Same Short outboard
handle
force
Rower’s force
on handle
◾ 135
136 ◾ Nolte
◾ 137
138 ◾ Nolte
Lateral Pitch
When we only had fixed inbuilt pitch on the oarlock, before the time of pitch bushings
and pitch plates some 50 years ago, the only way to make adjustments to the pitch
was to alternate it on the pin. Historically the inbuilt pitch of the oarlock was 4°, but
the pin needed to be angled forward to increase the pitch. Of course, this adjustment
did not help at the catch or the finish, so the lateral pitch had to be adjusted, too. With
this adjustment, the pitch on the blade changed constantly during the drive. This was a
limitation of the old equipment.
Assuming that the desired pulling direction of the rower is horizontal and that any
control of the handle in vertical direction costs energy and time, a specific pitch of the
blade in the water is ideal and should be maintained at all times. The invention of pitch
plates and bushings allowed the pitch on the blade to be consistent over the whole
drive. This is why the pitch on the pin should be 0°, fore–aft and laterally. If you add
lateral pitch on the pin, the pitch on the blade will vary over the drive, which of course
should be avoided.
so that the weightlifter lifting the barbell looks like a rower pulling on an oar handle
in order to make their argument for a steep, high footstretcher.
Unfortunately, the weightlifter example is not well chosen. A rower set up as a
weightlifter would only be able to row half strokes since weightlifters reach to midshin
only, don’t have to move the bar across the feet, need to move the weight only one
time, and don’t need to worry about generating their load since gravity will take care
of it. Rowing is completely different: We need to produce a long stroke, repeat this
movement about 240 times during a 2,000 m race, and create speed on the handle to
get resistance from the water on the blade. Therefore, we need to set the footstretcher
so that it is out of the way and we can reach past our feet. Movement also needs to
be relaxed and quick. Therefore, the footstretcher needs to be on an angle and low
in the boat.
Soper (2004) identified a difference between ergometer and on-water rowing with
regard to consequences of footstretcher angles. While on the water, rowers produced
the most force at a 41° footstretcher angle (compared with 36° and 46°), but small
increases in power production were measured with steeper footstretchers on the
ergometer. This shows that there is a difference in resistance production (and thus
technique) from on-water and ergometer rowing. The discrepancy between on-water
rowing and weightlifting is even larger.
The 40° average footstretcher angle is a well-established measurement that is a com-
promise among high force production, speed, and reach. Variations in small degrees
are acceptable depending on the rower’s body dimensions, flexibility, and to a certain
extent rowing style.
Work-Through
Work-through is the horizontal distance from the face of the oarlock to the stern end
of the longitudinal slides in the boat (see figure 10.7 on page 130). It indicates how
far a rower can move the seat into the catch. Since the footstretcher needs to be set
according to the finish position, the work-through measurement itself has no real
significance. After rowers set the footstretcher to the finish position, they only need
to have sufficient space to move freely with the sliding seat to both end positions. If
they hit either end of the slides or are too far away from the front end at the catch, the
slides need to be adjusted.
Depending on the rower’s body dimensions, flexibility, and rowing style, the seat
moves a certain distance past the face of the oarlock toward the stern. The slides have
Pin
Finish angle Catch angle
Spread
Mark gunwale for finish here Mark gunwale for catch here
Bow Stern
Center line
Figure 10.13 Mark the desired oar angle with tape on the gunwale by measuring the given distance
(see table 10.6) from the pin to the center of Faster,
E5068/Nolte/Rowing the boat.
2e/F10.13/404189/TimB/R2-alw
Table 10.6
Distances From Pin to Center of Boat for Desired Oar Angles
at Finish and Catch for Common Spread Measurements
Highlighted are examples of how to find the proper measurement. For example, if the desired finish angle is 40°
and the spread is 80 cm (sculling), the measurement from the middle of the pin to the center of the boat would
then be 104.4 cm. The example for an eight would be desired catch angle 57.5°, spread 83 cm, and distance to
measure 154.5 cm (adapted from Richardson, 2005). (See also figure 10.13.)
140 ◾
Using Equipment More Effectively ◾ 141
to be set so that the rower does not hit the stern end of the slides. This way, the rower
can use the legs maximally without the slides being in the way when the legs are
extended. The actual measurement for such a work-through is about 15 cm but can
vary by up to 10 cm.
Trim
Boats float in the water depending on where the crew’s center of mass is positioned
longitudinally. Depending on the design of the boat, it will displace so much water at
certain parts of the hull that the buoyancy will keep the weight of the whole system
(rowers–boat–oars) afloat and balanced. Besides this so-called static buoyancy, each boat
generates some dynamic buoyancy based on the hull shape and the speed of the boat.
Both of these buoyancies are responsible for how the boat sits in the water, which is
called the trim of the boat.
When a boat moves through the water, drag forces act on the boat–water surface,
which costs energy that the rower has to produce. The magnitude of this resistance
changes with the trim of the boat, and boat hulls are designed to generate the lowest
resistance in the water at a specific trim. Therefore, the weight of the crew has to
be placed in a specific position to meet this optimal trim. If, for example, the crew’s
weight is too far into the bow, this part of the boat will be pushed deeper into the
water, creating more buoyancy to account for the weight, while the stern will rise
up and the boat trim will not be optimal. The weight of the crew can be moved by
simultaneously shifting the rigger, footstretcher, and slides the same distance to the
bow or the stern. Boatbuilders will provide information about the optimal trim of
their products.
Incorrect trim generates substantially more drag compared with the optimal position,
and this has a significant, negative impact on the speed of the boat. Therefore, attention
to this measure is highly recommended.
This means that we need more education on how to discover the most effective equip-
ment and measurements for individual crews. Obviously, this has to be done in a safe,
timely, and cost-efficient way.
The development of more effective hull designs and blades, as well as better-
functioning, lighter, and stiffer equipment, is as old as the sport. Over the history of
rowing, it seems that research of performance improvements is happening in waves.
Times of dynamic advancements are followed by eras of relative calm. At the moment,
it seems as if we are again in a time of higher research activity. The Olympic Games
appear to motivate countries—especially those who host the Games—to reach a presti-
gious position within the medal winners and therefore to invest more in sport research.
FISA has tried to control this research competition by initiating the rule that major
equipment changes have to be publicized and made available to everyone by January 1
of the year they are going to be used in international competition for the first time. FISA
also reserves the right to allow innovations to be used, since they need to be presented
to the FISA Technical Commission for approval.
In recent years, major research projects undertaken by boatbuilders (new hull shapes),
oar builders (new blade shapes and oar lengths), Australia (biomechanics at the Australian
Institute of Sport), Great Britain (specific equipment, such as riggers with extra-small
wind resistance, at the English Institute of Sport), and Germany (biomechanics and some
hull development at FES Institute) produced new equipment. Since some benefits of the
discoveries are not immediately quantified, coaches and athletes are left to determine
what is advantageous for their crews.
done during any kind of training intensity as long as conclusions are drawn carefully.
For example, if we are interested to see the influence of inboard changes, we can have
the crew row half of the training with one setting and the second half of the training
with the other. Speed needs to be measured and crew technique observed. If the speed
changes or technique is affected (e.g., stroke becomes too short with longer inboard),
we know in which direction our test results will go. Those preliminary tests should give
the coach hints about which changes might be successful and which can be eliminated.
The final decision must be based on tests at race pace, since we want to know which
measurements are the best to use in races. Here are some guidelines for tests:
1. Only compare one change at a time. Rowers must become accustomed to all
measurements, which means that the measurements must be used in previous
training sessions.
2. Use pieces that simulate race pace the closest. The actual race distance would be
the best test length, but it would limit the number of runs that can be done in
one session. Therefore, several test runs over shorter distances at race pace are
preferable.
3. Changes in settings must be done by changing measurements back and forth.
4. Pieces must be timed accurately and changes in conditions must be noted. Repeat-
ing the same test on a different day will provide more data for a final decision.
5. The sum or the average of the times for each setting should be compared.
6. Rowers and coaches must be open-minded about the possible outcome of the
test and bias must be avoided.
Here are two scenarios that have shown good success for testing protocols:
1. 10 × 500 m at race pace; 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, and 9th piece with one measurement
and the rest of the pieces with the other measurement
2. 4 × 1,000 m race pace; 1st and 4th piece with measurement 1; 2nd and 3rd piece
measurement 2
Although such tests seem to be a nuisance, they can be fantastic training. As long
as everyone is serious about the process and excited about the outcome, much can be
learned. No coach or athlete should be afraid to try new things, even if they are out of
the ordinary.
Conclusion
Equipment developments are exciting, and rowing has gained much from them. Boats
and oars have become more durable, easier to handle, and more fun to row. Addition-
ally, every day we are learning how to use equipment more effectively. It is expected
that development will continue, especially of boat hulls with less drag that are more
comfortable to row and of oars with more efficient blades. Since drastic speed gains
are less likely, we need to implement the new equipment methodically based on solid
experiences. The equipment has to be set properly, and measurement records together
with testing results need to be registered thoroughly. The more coaches and athletes
know about their equipment and the more they study its influence on their rowing, the
better they can set their boats, and the faster they will row.
Part IV
Training in Rowing
Katrin Rutschow
I was 15 years old and just taking off for my first row in the biomechanics measurement
boat that we regularly used in our center. A little bit of nervousness and uncertainty
accompanied me because I expected to see super curves and to get the feedback that
they were all beautiful. I was quickly awakened from my dreams when the opera-
tors presented the evaluation to me in the analysis meeting. My force curves were
definitely not consistent. Where they should have always been the same, they looked
like the most diverse mountain range in the world. I was given a little joy when the
Kilimanjaros or Mount McKinleys reappeared on the analysis sheet without those last
unknown hills. I was lectured about repetitive rowing strokes, too much pressure at
the catch, not keeping the pressure on the middle of the stroke, and more. The video
of the test run was played alongside the measurement curves, and I actually thought
it didn’t look too bad. So the regular rocking from one to the other side was probably
not so great. Well, the blade often popped up during the drive, but didn’t you see that
it also disappeared again?
I continued with my training and the force curves were forgotten for some time. Instead
I was motivated to execute the reps with more weight in strength training. In running,
I strove to beat my last time, and in rowing, I wanted to hear something positive from
the coach and be faster than the sculler I couldn’t beat the last time. All this came to my
mind at every training session and pushed me forward. Small success stories helped me
to forget immediate stagnations and failures.
My years as a junior rower showed big jumps in physical as well as technical devel-
opment. These developments were parallel and strongly interdependent. It was a great
time since there were small rewards in each training period through improvements in
strength training and time trials on the water. Of course, such improvements are more
easily attainable at the beginning of a high-performance career and always get tougher
with time.
◾ 145
146 ◾ Rutschow
After four years of rowing I was quite pleased with myself. I knew my strengths and
my weaknesses and had learned to deal with them.
One Saturday morning we rowed quadruple sculls at the club. We did this regularly
on weekends to maintain quickness by rowing in a faster boat, overcoming the slow
movements ingrained by the long training sessions in the single. A successful athlete
who had finished her career already was seated in bow. It was incredibly peaceful with
her in the boat. I have never felt so much time in the recovery to prepare for the next
stroke. Some strokes were particularly awesome, some even in succession, and I got a
first taste of what it might mean to row evenly and to let the boat run out.
The expectations of my rowing abilities rose enormously. I was annoyed when my
blades were dragging on the water but quickly forgot it when another boat showed up
that had to be challenged. I just wanted to be faster in such situations. It turned out that
everything felt right and correct when I was rowing fast because I was focusing better.
I quickly learned that you do not row fast for long on strength alone. If I neglected the
power of concentration, old mistakes surfaced. Nevertheless, I had the feeling that my
rowing had improved by miles—at least until the next biomechanics testing.
At first glance, the curves were not much better, and I was greatly disappointed. I
thought significant changes should have been visible, but somehow the pictures of the
mountains were too well known. On the bright side, however, there were only half of
the mountain shapes, and they also resembled each other a little more. Even so, my
personal style was still the same.
So I learned that instead of striving to match the ideal at once, it was better to expand
my good qualities and work step by step to get better. However, I could not imagine
how long this route would take. Improvements in technique are always associated with
physiological gains, and I could not escape this tough realization.
Nevertheless, I managed to get selected quite swiftly for the national team qua-
druple, but it was apparent that I still had a lot to learn. It felt as if I had been rowing
poorly for years. At the same time I was happy about the jump in improvements
that was about to come. The hardest things were maintaining concentration in long
training sessions and adapting to the faster speed of movement in the crew boat.
There again were those errors that I believed I had eliminated long ago, reappearing
through the much higher speed of the drive and the rapid turning points. Thankfully,
improvements were also fast, because the many previous training years provided me
with the base to perform the movements quite well—they just weren’t fast enough
yet. It was challenging to be on every stroke 100% of the time. It was as if I had
to relearn rowing, but this time I knew what the coaches were asking from me. In
addition, I was in top shape physically, and this allowed everything to come much
faster. With all of the accumulated experience, I found it much easier to get the hang
of high-level rowing.
During my time in the national team quadruple, many new training forms were
added. For the first time I did maximum strength training with heavy resistance. I
thought it was boring, and it seemed to be the total waste of time. But I also saw that
others could work with much more weight. I could not understand why I had to spend
so much time on so few repetitions, but apparently it had to be good for something.
New exercises were introduced during weight training. For example, I had previously
never done deep squats with a barbell. Additionally, I had to get used to longer training
durations: 20 km two times per day with specific strength training in between became
the new standard. In addition, there was always a nagging internal team struggle. Who
really wanted to be in bow?
Training in Rowing ◾ 147
At first I had trouble getting used to the traveling that the national team required.
I thought that we would be able to train at home in the same manner but with much
more leisure time. But I quickly learned that it takes a lot of special training to get a team
up to speed at the right time, and training camps and regattas were excellent resources
for this goal.
Even in the quadruple sculls there were biomechanical rowing tests, but now the
objective was to adapt to the crew, which did not always correspond with my ideal
image of myself as a rower. But it worked! Conversely, the training sessions in the single
became extremely difficult during that time. The single is not picked up so hard in the
first part of the drive, and I often found it difficult to get the right feeling for the boat.
Winning gold at the Olympic Games was a great reward for seven years of hard work.
Now I faced the question of what to strive for and how to go about my new goals.
After 3 years in the quadruple sculls, I was ready to try the single. I understood how
hard training had to be and learned to maintain high quality in long training sessions.
Now the question was how far I could push myself and make technical improvements.
How fast could I go in the single? I was motivated to the idea that others had done it
and therefore it should also be possible for me.
My physical education studies left limited time for training. Consequently, the quality of
my training sessions had to increase tremendously. That meant that my speed improved, and
I rowed technically cleaner and with more concentration. Of course, this did not happen
all by itself. I was constantly looking to hear better split times and aimed to reach faster
speeds with less effort. Tremendous value was placed on the efficiency of each stroke. In
addition, my coach and I changed the strength training. We worked with weights that I
had hesitated to attempt before. In the meantime I had learned how important maximum
strength training is for rowing, and it added a nice variety to the long-distance pieces.
We often increased intensity and also used the biomechanical analysis sessions
methodically. Training with the analysis monitor and the work on the force curve became
intense. Trying to work on weaknesses with every single stroke was draining. I always
needed a break after three sessions of focused technique work with the measurement
equipment; however, fewer sessions would not have sufficed. We chose the following
148 ◾ Rutschow
format: The first measurement session gave us a feel for the feedback, the next session
worked on the force curves, and the third session consolidated the newly learned tech-
nique. A high degree of physiological preparation was necessary to increase the quality
of the force curves and make sure that there was no shortcut at any point of the drive.
I never wanted to compromise, which meant that I had to become fitter.
To achieve this quality, you cannot simply tick off training sessions. Thus, 12 km
rowed properly are better than 18 km rowed poorly. I maintained rowing quality by
strategically taking rests during one session or purposefully integrating athletic training.
Daily double or triple training sessions were only possible when I gave myself appropri-
ate time for recovery.
I accepted the days where nothing seemed to work out. Those days were a good
reminder for me to rethink my goals and motivation. This approach helped me to turn
even those dark training sessions into a positive light. Positive thinking is always impor-
tant for getting over a negative situation faster. I would have only wasted my time if I
dwelled on the day’s poor results. Thinking of the super finish instead, I completed the
session with a good feeling. It is important not to think too long about things that didn’t
work out so that you are able to step into the boat the next day with the confidence that
everything is fine. I had now reached a level through all these years of training where
I was in the zone more frequently. I called it dreaming while rowing.
What did dreaming while rowing mean to me? It was always about moving a bit
forward, performing just a little better than the year before. I am proud to say that I
succeeded in this throughout most of my entire career. When I could dream during
rowing, I was rowing close to my perfect image. It meant rowing for 5 km and simply
zoning out from the outside world, not realizing the distance I was traveling, and enjoy-
ing complete relaxation during the work. I was one with the environment, the boat, the
water. No concentration was necessary for any of my movements. Everything was just
perfect! Something would interrupt my zone, maybe the coach or some other external
influence, and I always wondered how I had gotten where I was. It was a small wonder
that I never hit something while in my zone. It is clear that in those moments, all the
movements were just right.
I always trained for the ultimate goal of winning gold at the Olympic Games, but
throughout the year I always hoped for these dream units. They gave me the confidence
that I was on the right track.
What did I still need to improve? To tackle the big goal, I had to train more and make
more time for recuperation. The consequence of my education was that my time for
training was limited. The challenge was doing longer training sessions, taking more
time for recuperation, and focusing on specific training to initiate one push further in
my performance.
I committed to rowing for the last couple of years before the Olympics—there was
nothing but my sport. However, I had to learn to use my time wisely. Above all, the
long time I needed for recovery was a challenge; doing nothing was never my thing. On
the other hand, I was missing variety in my life and things that would take my mind
off the sport. To row well, I needed to relax and not take the whole thing so seriously.
At this point, the idea of how my boat had to run out was burned into my mind. As
a result, each stroke where the boat lost just a little too much momentum drove me
crazy. The challenge was to keep this intensive concentration in the second session in
the afternoon. I had only done these extra sessions in training camps, and now I had to
repeat them daily. I was rarely happy with these sessions since my concentration simply
wasn’t there at the beginning.
Training in Rowing ◾ 149
The second challenge concerned strength training. This training had indeed grown in
importance over the years, but I either did not have enough time to do it or I wanted to
go rowing instead. I knew that I had to be able to increase the power in the final meters
of a race when things got really hot, so although I never grew fond of strength training,
I worked harder in the weight room than ever before.
The sessions in training camp improved in quality due to the volume increase in my
daily training; the switch to full-time training in camp was not so hard any more. How-
ever, there was always planned time for recuperation, and time for rest was created if
my body needed it.
Sixteen years had passed since my first rowing strokes. The measurement curves were
now clearly mine. They were much smoother, and I had filled all the valleys and lifted
the peaks of my mountain. I was ready!
There were times when I thought I was standing still, but they were always short lived.
Thus, there were always things I could improve, and during the last two years I knew
that I could make up a lot with longer training sessions. It was only in my last year of
training that for the first time, I had the impression that more training was impossible.
The day simply did not have enough hours to make sure that I could recuperate. Cer-
tainly I would have been able to maintain the same level for some time, but that would
have been equal to a status quo. And I never wanted to stand still!
The most important thing to me was to always have fun at training. My philosophy
was to strengthen the basics first and then focus on the details. I made sure that there
was a lot of variety in the training sessions and that I had sufficient time on my own
when I could absorb what the coaches had me work on. It was important to develop a
feel for my body and not only to know exactly when I had to push and how much, but
also when my body needed to rest. I needed to identify when to do the right thing at
the right time, to be aware of my strengths and build on them, and to take care of the
deficiencies gradually. It may sound trivial, but it worked.
Chapter 11
H ave you ever woken up on a dark, cold, rainy morning and felt like staying in your
warm bed rather than going to training? Have you ever sat at the start line of a race
and wondered why you were there as you anticipated the pain and doubted whether
you could do it? Both cases highlight the impact of the mind during training and racing.
Developing the mental skills to turn situations like these into positive experiences is
what sport psychology is all about.
As the world of sport makes advances in communication and technology, equipment,
and knowledge about training, there are fewer means to distinguish one athlete from
another. Addressing state of mind, however, can play a major role in any athlete’s per-
formance. Considerable evidence gathered over several decades demonstrates that the
way one thinks and feels can affect sport performance. Sport psychology has developed
beyond identifying the problem to focusing on performance enhancement and looking
at the athlete as a whole person— taking lifestyle and sporting environment into account
along with specific issues particular to the athlete, such as anxiety in competition. Every
committed athlete will put in the physical miles, but what about the mental miles?
◾ 151
152 ◾ Barnes
The training environment is one that demands the ability to repeat the same action
over and over, where you have the opportunity to make mistakes and learn from them,
and where you push the limits beyond that of any race, test yourself, and ultimately
develop your self-awareness in a nonthreatening situation. The competitive environ-
ment, on the other hand, is one where you don’t get a second chance to get it right.
Thus, the ability to prepare effectively, deal with any situation, and cope with nerves in
the moment when it matters most is the key to success.
“What Is This Thing Called Mental Toughness” is an article written by colleagues in
the United Kingdom following research conducted by Jones, Hanton, and Connaughton
(2002), who explored the notion of mental toughness with world and Olympic champi-
ons through a mix of one-to-one and group interviews. We frequently hear the phrase
mental toughness tossed around in sport, but according to Jones et al., there is a lack of
consensus as to what it means. As a result of their conversations with the athletes, they
developed a definition and attributes that are key to the mental development and per-
formance of any rower or coach.
Everyone involved in the world of sport is required to deliver excellent results even
through times of personal and sport-related pressure. The ability to perform is as much
about a developed mental toughness as it is about skills, physical ability, knowledge, and
experience. Mental toughness is about maximizing your effectiveness and sustaining
your performance at all times.
As a result of the research done by Jones and colleagues (2002, p. 209) a defini-
tion for mental toughness emerged: “Having the natural or developed psychological
edge that enables you to generally cope better than your opponents with the many
demands (competition, training, and lifestyle) that sport places on a performer and
specifically being more consistent and better than your opponents in remaining deter-
mined, focused, confident and in control under pressure.” The key message of this
definition is the belief that we can all learn to become mentally tough—it’s not just
about whether we are born with it. Certainly the degree to which it can be developed
may vary from person to person, but the understanding is that with recognition and
knowledge of the key components, mental toughness can be developed and lead to
successful sport performances.
The research also revealed key components that the interviewed athletes believed
were crucial to sustaining high performance in sport. The four attributes are self-belief,
motivation, focus, and handling pressure (Jones et al., 2002, p. 215). These attributes
are what I would like to focus on in encouraging the development of mental perfor-
mance in rowing, providing further insight into each attribute and specific mental
skills that can be applied to develop the attributes within the training and competition
environments. This approach to mental toughness helps athletes develop their mental
performance and helps coaches create the conditions for athletes to demonstrate greater
mental toughness. These attributes are not new—they exist throughout the literature
and in far more detail than will be provided in this chapter—but hopefully identifying
them will provide a clear direction into initiating your mental development to enhance
your rowing experience.
Self-Belief
To be successful in rowing, you need self-belief. In addition, a collective belief is also vital
for success when crews are formed or when looking at the dynamics between rowers
The Mental Side of Rowing ◾ 153
and coaches as well as support staff. The positive relationship between belief and perfor-
mance is significant, and one only has to look at some of the great sporting achievements
to see this, such as Roger Bannister breaking the 4-minute mile when everyone said it
couldn’t be done or Dick Fosbury transforming the high jump with the flop when those
around him said it wouldn’t work. Self-belief is a key factor underpinning sustained
high performance in rowing and is an attribute that can be developed.
Components of Self-Belief
Self-belief can be divided into two parts (Jones et al., 2002):
1. Unshakable belief in your ability to achieve competition goals
2. Belief in your unique qualities and abilities that make you better than your
opponents.
Self-belief must be genuine and unshakable. Those who have real self-belief possess
an inner belief that doesn’t require regular external reinforcement or acknowledgment.
They don’t need to tell others of their achievements, they don’t take things personally,
and they welcome ongoing feedback to develop their abilities (Jones & Moorhouse,
2007). Unshakable self-belief slowly grows over time from every experience on the
water, in the gym, and in everyday life when we acknowledge our accomplishments
no matter how big or small.
We had won our heat. It was the more difficult of the two heats and now we had to
wait four days before our world championship final. After a morning paddle I was back
in my little European-style hotel room where you lie next to your crewmate separated
by only a small gap between the two twin beds. We lay there resting and talking a bit,
but I know I was in my quiet race mode and chose not to talk a lot . . . but the conver-
sation we were having was about our heat the day before and that moment when my
crewmate (our stroke) turned to me and looked me straight in the eyes and said we
could win this (the final)—that was the moment I really believed.
Sitting in the starting gates for the final, I simply believed we could win. The conditions
were pretty nice, but even if they had been dreadful it wouldn’t have mattered because
we had trained in every possible situation and condition and tested ourselves endlessly
so we would be ready for this day. (Memories of the author)
Training
Morning What is the session?
Table 11.2
Identify Your Achievements and Why You Were Successful
Achievement Evidence
Achieved personal best (PB’d) on 2 km erg test Focus through the third 500 m
154 ◾
The Mental Side of Rowing ◾ 155
Motivation
In rowing, considerably more time is spent training than racing. Thus, motivation is a
critical factor in mental toughness because it is challenged heavily throughout the year.
Components of Motivation
Motivation can be separated into two parts (Jones et al., 2002):
1. Insatiable desire and internalized motivation to succeed
2. Ability to bounce back from performance setbacks with an increased determina-
tion to succeed
Deci and Ryan’s (1985) self-determination theory illustrates a spectrum for motiva-
tion, recognizing that people can be motivated to do things purely because they have
no choice (external motivation) versus doing things for pure enjoyment, pride, and
satisfaction (internal motivation). Given the amount of time spent training, trying to
identify your internal motivation is vital to sustained high performance. This is not to
say that you won’t be motivated by external factors such as crewmates waiting at the
boathouse for you or a coach’s expectations, but considering the volume, frequency,
and intensity of rowing, finding motivation from within will get you out of bed in the
morning. Considering your internal motivation and what drives you can also help you
avoid going through the motions. The quality of your daily training is key to successful
performance, and we are all at risk of not getting everything out of each session, espe-
cially as we get tired. Years of sport psychology research has repeatedly demonstrated the
positive relationship between goal setting and motivation and achievement (Weinberg
& Gould, 1995).
It is late January and we have been back on the water for a month since Christmas
break. My alarm clock goes off at 6:30 a.m. I am wishing I actually slept in my rowing
kit because my room is so cold—this is not a warm-weather training camp but the
middle of winter. I know that seven other women and a coxswain will be at the boat-
house for this morning’s row in the 8+, so I dare not contemplate staying in bed, but is
it ever tempting. I have a paper due so I was up late working on it and midterm exams
are looming and I am tired from training . . . and to top it off I didn’t have a very good
ergometer test two days ago and I can’t stop thinking about how I am going to get
better on that thing. (Memories of the author)
of your goals should change through the year. Through the winter, goals may focus on
self-improvement, but as the season moves into selection and racing, it is important to
acknowledge your performance relative to others.
There are three types of goals: outcome, performance, and process.
1. Outcome goals. These goals typically focus on the result of a competitive event
such as winning a race. Achieving these goals depends not only on your ability and effort
in the moment but also that of your opponent. You may have rowed the race of your
life and come second or missed out on a medal because on that day someone else was
better than you. Despite the fact that these goals may not always be in your control,
they lie at the heart of why we enjoy the competitiveness of rowing and should also
exist in our long-term goals (e.g., winning a championship title, making the national
team, winning an Olympic gold medal).
2. Performance goals. These goals focus on achieving a standard or particular
objective that is specific to you and measured against your previous performances.
These goals tend to be more in your control because they are referenced to something
that you achieved on a previous occasion, such as improving an ergometer score by
2 seconds. Performance goals ask what you need to achieve in your performances to
improve so you are reaching a higher standard and getting closer to achieving your
outcome goals.
3. Process goals. These goals comprise of all the technical, tactical, physical, mental,
and lifestyle (food, sleep, rest, social, academics, work) components that make up a
rower’s daily existence in the quest for improvement. Therefore, process goals focus on
the specific aspects of what you are working on to improve, such as improving your hand
movement at the catch for a faster, more accurate catch; finishing every squat repeti-
tion with accurate technique; or getting the rest you need during the middle of the day.
Successful process goals answer the question how in reference to what the performance
goal is (e.g., if I want to improve my 2 km erg score, how am I going to do this?).
Aim to set one or two outcome goals, four or five performance goals, and several
process goals that will focus your effort on a day-to-day basis. Try to be specific and
realistic in the goals you set, identify key people who can help you, and create a time
frame for achieving the goals.
Focus
The ability to maintain focus during training and racing is important for continual
improvement and success. When you are focusing effectively, you are in a relaxed state
of alertness where your mind is able to focus on the relevant information that you may
need to make accurate decisions and respond effectively, stay in the moment, and do
what is in your control to achieve the results you want.
Components of Focus
Four parts make up focus (Jones et al., 2002):
1. Able to switch it on and off as required.
2. Not distracted by others’ performance or your own distractions.
3. Remain fully focused on the task in the face of competition-specific distraction.
4. Regain psychological control following unexpected events.
The Mental Side of Rowing ◾ 157
When we are fatigued (training) or under pressure and in pain (racing), that nega-
tive, self-doubting voice can creep in and redirect our focus: “My legs feel tired today,”
“Why can’t I get this right,” or “We’re down off the start, not again, we’ll never catch
them.” The minute these thoughts consume your mind, you focus on them rather than
on the things you can do to address the situation. Whether they are a voice inside our
head or external cues such as weather, noise, a delayed start, or bad steering, distrac-
tions are sources of losing focus. Both fatigue and nerves make us far more susceptible
to noticing irrelevant information.
Sitting in stroke seat, I was proudly disciplined about keeping my eyes in the boat . . .
but on this occasion in a raging headwind I could feel myself getting distracted, and as
we moved through the 1,000 m mark I glanced across to see where the other two boats
were next to us. One of them was a crew we had never come close to and suddenly
we were side by side. My lasting memory is me thinking, ‘Oh my god, we are level
with East Germany!’ As I lost my focus, they were gone within the next two strokes.
(Memories of the author)
Being able to switch off your focus is also worth mentioning. Often athletes feel that
to be totally committed and successful, they have to eat, sleep, and breathe rowing. This
is what you are doing most of the time, which is all the more reason to give your rowing
brain a rest by doing something else. There is no prescription for how often you should
do this, but take confidence in knowing that you need to mentally recover. Distractions
can be positive as well. Identifying things that you enjoy doing, perhaps away from
rowing, can create a positive focus and enhance your rowing performance.
Table 11.3
Identify Your Distractions
External distractions Internal distractions Positive distractions
From V. Nolte, 2011, Rowing faster, 2nd ed. (Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics).
2. Positive self-talk and refocusing strategies. These are good tools to have in
case your focus starts to shift away from what you are doing and you start telling yourself
you can’t do it or dwelling on the mistake you made 10 strokes ago. Strategic words,
phrases, or prompts that can be visual, verbal, or physical can help keep you focused on
the task at hand. In rowing, race plans do a brilliant job of creating that focus; therefore,
letting your race plan work for you and the crew can be key to great focusing. You may
also have additional words or phrases you say to yourself at times in training or racing to
help you push through a particular moment or recover from a mistake. Self-talk strate-
gies can act as a buffer to negative thoughts and keep you in the moment, focusing on
how you can succeed rather than the success itself.
158 ◾ Barnes
3. Race simulation. When possible, rehearsing race day can have huge benefits.
It’s hard to create that ultimate race-day feeling in training, but you can come close by
creating competition with other boats within the team. This gives you a chance to test
your focus by executing race strategies and your own techniques for maintaining focus
when it matters.
Handling Pressure
Handling pressure comes down to some simple concepts. Be honest with yourself
about what things put pressure on you and lead to you feeling stressed, what impact
this has on you, how you respond, and then how that response could be better (see
table 11.4).
Table 11.4
Identify Your Sources of Pressure, How They Affect You,
and Your Response
Source of pressure Impact on me How I typically respond How I should respond
Final trials I question whether I am Go very quiet and Keep communicating and
ready. change my warm-up. stick to what I know works.
From V. Nolte, 2011, Rowing faster, 2nd ed. (Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics).
When we feel under pressure, it usually means something is about to happen that
we care about (desire to race well and win), the demands of the situation outweigh
our perceived ability (rowing in incredibly windy conditions), or we don’t feel we have
resources available (equipment challenges). Stress is inevitable, but it can be a good
thing when it is perceived as positive and you are able to use it to your advantage and
be energized and excited by it.
I was as nervous for my Olympic final as I was for the high school championships, but
over the years I had learned how my body (jelly legs) and mind (self-doubt) responded
to pressure and my whole interpretation of those nerves went from being nervous and
scared to nervous and excited. (Memories of the author)
However, rowers frequently interpret pressure situations (ergometer tests, getting off
the start of a race) negatively. Our thoughts are consumed with doubt and our bodies
with muscle tension, and we act inconsistently, changing our preparation.
Going into the Olympics as world champions from the previous year to try to repeat
the performances we had experienced 12 months earlier brought a certain amount of
pressure; however, nothing would account for the ability of our crews to deal with an
injury situation none of us expected. Three weeks before the Games, we crossed the
The Mental Side of Rowing ◾ 159
finish line in what would be our last race in preparation for the Games, but little did
we know it would be our last race with our stroke. She had incurred an injury to her
lower back and as time grew closer to the start of the Olympic regatta, it was becom-
ing more and more apparent that she would not be able to race. The night before our
heat we replaced her with another team member with whom we had trained but
never raced and went out the next morning for our 9 a.m. heat with a new stroke.
(Memories of the author)
Table 11.5
Identify and Convert Irrational Thinking to Rational Thinking
Irrational thought Rational thinking and positive affirmations
I’ll never beat them. But I did come within a couple of seconds of them last time. I’ll try to close the
gap even more.
Our start is crap. Stay relaxed, focus on first five strokes—quick.
you like to do to prepare (see table 11.6) so you don’t have to rely on memory before
the next race. Remembering some of those details may make the difference in a race
outcome. As you gather this information, you can start to create a routine that you can
fine-tune to become the ultimate way in which you and your crew like to prepare.
Table 11.6
Sample Race Preparation Routine
What I like to do What I like to focus on/how I like to feel
1-3 days before (things you like to do on and off the water
in preparation for racing and any key lifestyle factors):
Night before:
Morning of:
2 hr before:
1 hr before:
On-water warm-up:
In the start:
Postrace:
From V. Nolte, 2011, Rowing faster, 2nd ed. (Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics).
Conclusion
High-performing athletes dream of winning, but there can only be one winner. Sport
psychology can help athletes at any level establish goals and focus to maximize effort
in the daily training routine, cope with injury and other setbacks, handle pressure situ-
ations, and ultimately prepare to perform to the best of their ability when it counts.
More often than not, athletes who have succeeded at the highest level refer to a mental
edge or toughness that gave them an advantage. As Sir Steven Redgrave (1992, p. 176)
points out, “There is a measurable difference in the psychological preparation and
The Mental Side of Rowing ◾ 161
S everal years ago a couple of rowers came to me after winning a world champion-
ship by 0.08 seconds and said, “We won but that was way too tense. We never want
a race to be that close again. We have to get off the start a lot faster.” After looking at
their performance and their physical needs as rowers, we agreed that they would have
to get a lot stronger if they wanted a better start. We set some goals, and they spent the
next eight months doing extra strength workouts and focusing on developing maximum
strength. When the Olympics rolled around the next year, they got the start they wanted
and won by a close but more comfortable margin of 1.51 seconds.
Over the past 40 years, strength training has become an increasingly important part of
a rower’s training program. Originally based on strength endurance circuits using home-
made equipment and body-weight exercises, strength training for rowing has evolved
into a science, incorporating training methods originally developed in weightlifting,
powerlifting, and track and field. Rowing presents unique challenges to anyone trying
to design a strength program: No other sport requires such high levels of both strength
and aerobic fitness for a championship performance. As boat speed increases and the
duration of a race decreases, generic strength training programs from the pages of your
favorite fitness magazine won’t be enough to take your performance to the next level.
A rowing-specific strength program is the only answer.
Race rowing consists of an all-out effort for 6 to 8 minutes. During this time the
aerobic, anaerobic alactic, and anaerobic lactic systems are maximally stressed. Mus-
cular strength also plays an important role in race performance. Although the benefits
of strength training for rowing have been questioned by some coaches, most rowers
participate in some form of strength and power training at least during the off-season.
Strength training for rowing has traditionally consisted of either resistance training or
circuit weight training. Many coaches and athletes are unsure about the most effective
and efficient way to design their strength programs. The purpose of this chapter is to
present the physiological basis of strength training for rowing and a model from which
strength training programs can be developed.
◾ 163
164 ◾ McNeely
1600 44
1400 42
Peak force Peak force Stroke rate
1200 range (mean) (mean) 40
800 36
600 34
400 32
200 30
0 28
Start spurt Start phase Race Final spurt
(0-10 s) (10-60 s) (1-5 min) (0-10 s)
Figure 12.1 Peak power and stroke rate demand during different parts of a 2,000m race.
Adapted from J.M. Steinacker, 1993, “Physiological aspects of training for rowing,” International Journal of Sports Medicine 14(suppl 1): S3-S10.
force. Using other nonspecific rowing tests—isometric arm pull, back extension, trunk
flexion, and leg extension—on the same groups of athletes, Secher (1975) found that the
higher the rower’s competition level, the greater the strength in all tests. The strength
levels of some international-caliber rowers are comparable to those of high-level pow-
erlifters or bodybuilders (Larsson & Forsberg, 1980). Strength levels of rowers are most
pronounced at low velocities (Hagerman & Staron, 1983; Larsson & Forsberg, 1980). This
may be due to the large percentage of slow-twitch fibers found in competitive rowers.
Tables 12.1 to 12.4 show goals for the ratio of 1RM (1-repetition maximum, the
maximum force a person can exert in a single repetition) to body weight. These tables
have been developed from data I collected from 1992 to 2004 during consultations with
Table 12.1
Strength-to-Weight Factors for Men
Exercise High school Under 23 Club National Olympic
Squat 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.9
Deadlift 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.9
Bench pull 0.7 0.9 1.05 1.2 1.3
Table 12.2
Strength-to-Weight Factors for Women
Exercise High school Under 23 Club National Olympic
Squat 0.8 1.0 1.25 1.4 1.6
Deadlift 0.8 1.0 1.25 1.4 1.6
Bench pull 0.6 0.8 0.95 1.1 1.2
Table 12.3
Strength-to-Weight Factors for Masters Men
Exercise 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70+
Squat 1.37 1.30 1.2 1.15 1.03 0.95 0.82 0.60
Deadlift 1.37 1.3 1.2 1.15 1.03 0.95 0.82 0.60
Bench pull 1.02 0.98 0.94 0.88 0.78 0.71 0.62 0.45
Table 12.4
Strength-to-Weight Factors for Masters Women
Exercise 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70+
Squat 1.22 1.16 1.08 1.00 0.91 0.80 0.72 0.50
Deadlift 1.22 1.16 1.08 1.00 0.91 0.80 0.72 0.50
Bench pull 0.93 0.88 0.82 0.76 0.69 0.60 0.55 0.38
166 ◾ McNeely
ST FOG FTc FT
Vastus lateralis
Deltoid
Only 4% to 9% of the fibers are of the FT type (Clarkson et al., 1984; Hagerman &
Staron, 1983; Larsson & Forsberg, 1980; Roth, Schwanitz, Pas, & Bauer, 1993; Stein-
acker, 1993) in both international- and national-level rowers. Essentially, the skeletal
muscle of rowers is composed largely of ST and FOG muscle. This fiber-type distribution
can have a profound influence on the development of training programs, particularly
strength training programs.
Intensity (%1RM)
Leger, and Morrow (1991) have found
Volume (reps)
Intensity (%1RM)
strength, features higher intensities, and is char-
Volume (reps)
30 90
acterized by periods of work that emphasize mus-
25 85
cular development, 70% to 80% 1RM, followed
20 80
by periods that emphasize neuromuscular adapta-
15 75 tions, 85% to 95% 1RM (Schmidtbleicher, 1985).
10 70 During this phase, there are two unloading weeks
in which both the volume and intensity decrease.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Training week Since there is an accumulation of fatigue from
Volume Intensity
week to week, this allows the athlete a longer rest
period in which recovery and adaptation can occur.
Figure 12.4 General preparatory phase load- The volume of work decreases as the intensity
E5068/Nolte/Rowing
ing pattern, cycleFaster,
II. 2e/F12.04/404213/TimB/R2-alw
increases. The athletes do not perform to muscular
failure, the point where they cannot lift the weight; rather, they perform to technical fail-
ure, where exercise technique starts to break down. This has been found to help control
lactic acid levels (Reed, Ablack, & McNeely, 1992) and improve total work volume per
training session by allowing more sets to be performed with a given resistance. Technical
failure has been defined as the point at which compensation movements occur or help is
needed to finish a repetition (Reed et al., 1992).
Speed of movement is one of the most important yet most neglected variables in design-
ing strength programs for rowing. To optimize improvements in power performance,
both the force and velocity components must be trained (Newton & Kraemer, 1994).
As mentioned, rowers develop most of their force and power at relatively low velocities
(Steinacker, 1993). It has been found that strength adaptations are specific to training
speed (Behm & Sale, 1993; Sale & MacDougall, 1981); in other words, training at high
velocity increases strength at high velocity and training at low velocity increases strength
at low velocity (Secher, 1993). This is due in part to neural adaptations (Knapik & Ramos,
1980), because high- and low-velocity movements require different neural recruitment
and coordination. Training at a lower velocity allows ST fibers to contribute to the work
(Faulkner, Claflin, & McCully, 1986). Since rowers possess such large percentages of ST
fibers, it is imperative that they are trained for maximal force production. For this reason,
training velocity during the general preparation phase is low.
Intensity (%1RM)
specific power (figure 12.5). Rowers experi-
Volume (reps)
150 70
ence a variety of power outputs throughout
a race (Steinacker, 1993). For this reason, 125 60
exercise intensity is periodized so that in 100 50
the early weeks of this phase the rower 75 40
becomes accustomed to developing power 50 30
at high loads, as would be experienced
during the start spurt. The final 4 weeks of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
the phase are designed for power endur- Training week
ance training. The intensities decrease to Volume Intensity
percentages of 1RM similar to those experi- Figure 12.5 Specific preparatory phase load-
enced during a race (Hartmann et al., 1993; E5068/Nolte/Rowing
ing cycle. Faster, 2e/F12.05/404214/TimB/R2-alw
Steinacker, 1993).
The number of repetitions will vary inversely with the intensity. In the final week of
the phase, the rower should be working with close to 100 repetitions per set. The rep-
etition range becomes very high at this point and carries into the precompetitive phase,
because strength and power endurance are best developed by combining the appropri-
ate relative portions of strength with the time demands of the sport (Schmidtbleicher,
1985; Verhoshansky, 1986).
During this phase the speed of movement approaches or slightly exceeds the stroke
rate seen during racing (Steinacker, 1993). Emphasis should be placed on creating explo-
siveness at the beginning of the range of motion. This may help in the development
of power early in the stroke cycle. Again, this is done to keep the strength and power
demands of training similar to those seen during racing.
For this phase of training, either traditional or circuit training can be used. If circuit
training is chosen, upper- and lower-body exercises should be alternated. This will help
decrease the negative impact of lactic acid accumulation (Reed et al., 1992).
170 ◾ McNeely
Precompetitive Phase
The precompetitive phase lasts 4 to 8 weeks and is designed to transfer the strength and
power developed during the other phases to on-water performance. This is accomplished
through on-water rowing with increased resistance (Schmidtbleicher, 1985). This added
resistance can take many forms, such as dragging something behind the shell or having
only two or four people row in an eight. Since this type of strength work has to be very
specific, technical performance should be watched closely.
On-water power training should begin after you’ve been back on the water for about
3 weeks. Start with one session per week and gradually increase to a maximum of three
sessions after 6 weeks. This is still a resistance training session, so it should be set up with
sets and reps. When the emphasis is the strength component of power development,
the sets should be short, 5 to 10 strokes at a low stroke rate of 8 to 12 per minute for a
maximum of 60 strokes. Even though the rate is low, rowers have to be dynamic during
the drive, trying to achieve drive speeds similar to rowing at a stroke rate of 30+. Be
careful about posture and body position when doing on-water power; this is as much
about the skill as it is pulling hard.
Dryland training has two purposes during this phase: improved power and strength
maintenance. Improved power will be accomplished with lighter weights, 40% to 50%
1RM lifted explosively. Plyometric exercises with a light medicine ball or body weight
can replace squats and deadlifts for power production. Strength maintenance needs to
be done once a week using an intensity of 80% 1RM.
Intensity during on-water power training is varied by increasing or decreasing the
amount of extra drag that is added to the boat. Rowers should be instructed to pull at full
power for every stroke during this phase. It is difficult to quantify intensity during this
phase; however, during training sessions boat speed can be used to determine decreases
in intensity (assuming water conditions do not change).
There is a wide range of volumes in this phase. Starts, finishes, and the rest of the
race all have their own strength, power, and volume demands, and the volume per
set should be appropriately matched to the phase of the race that is being trained.
Training for Strength ◾ 171
Training with high volumes can be metabolically taxing, so rests between sets should
be relatively long, 5 to 10 minutes, and should involve low-intensity rowing. This
should help remove lactic acid and speed recovery between sets (McGrail, Bonen, &
Belcastro, 1978).
Stroke rate should be close to race pace. However, it is probably unreasonable to
assume that the athletes will be able to maintain maximal stroke rates with resistance
added to the boat.
Competitive Phase
The competitive phase lasts for the entire competitive season. The goal of strength training
during this time is the maintenance of strength developed during the off-season phases.
This is extremely important for rowers since it has been found that rowers lose strength
during the competitive season (Larsson & Forsberg, 1980).
Strength maintenance can be accomplished through one or two dryland sessions per
week. Exercise intensity should stay between 70% and 80% of 1RM, and exercise speed
should be 25 to 30 repetitions per minute. One on-water strength session as outlined in
the precompetitive phase can be added if racing is not occurring every week. The on-
water session should only be done in weeks when there are no races.
Conclusion
Over the past 25 years, strength training has become an important part of athletes’
preparation, and in the future it may become even more important. We are entering
an exciting time for strength training in rowing; technologies are being developed that
will allow rowers to monitor their speed and acceleration during strength training and
match them to the requirements of the rowing stroke. This will allow programs to become
much more specific to each rower’s force and power profile, allowing better transfer of
strength training to on-water performance.
Chapter 13
Effortless Rowing
Chris O’Brien
◾ 173
174 ◾ O’Brien
the optimal result. It is also worth noting that many aspects of rowing are to some degree
dependent on each other in a system of interdependent variables. Thus, many important
parts of the stroke cannot be changed without affecting the whole: the rig, stroke rate,
conditioning program, technical movement, changing one rower in the crew, and so on.
A margin of less than 1 second covered three crews. With a result so close, there must
be similarities between how the crews achieved this result.
The rowing coach and crew must make decisions about the direction they are going
to take in their preparation. Every crew should not only be looking to move the boat
more quickly but also more efficiently. There is no doubt that if we can achieve a high
peak speed and then do so more efficiently, we will be able to achieve an even higher
peak speed. This can be realized by rowing more skillfully and in turn exuding the façade
of effortless rowing. After all, it is still about pure boat speed.
Movement
We predispose ourselves to effortlessness if we perform natural, well-sequenced, inten-
tional movements. Any crew needs to decide how it wants to row. These decisions
include many factors, including the crew’s physical strength, fitness, size, racing history,
injury history, and more.
Effortless Rowing ◾ 175
Movement Intention
The best crews have a strong awareness of how they wish to move, as evidenced by the
appearance of natural, unconscious rowing. This appearance does not happen by accident.
Every coach has encountered a novice on the first day confidently saying, “I’ll have a
go; it doesn’t look too hard.” Such novices have no awareness of how they will perform,
and they have no understanding of performance limitations until they actually try rowing.
They soon realize that rowing is not as easy as it first appears, leading to an evolving con-
sciousness of their inability to perform the movement. Over time, new rowers will start to
understand how to perform the movement better while still putting a lot of thought into
performing the movement. Given more time, they will become even more competent at
the movement while at the same time requiring progressively less thought. Often when
they reach this state, they seem to be performing effortless rowing. The Australian sculler-
turn-sweep oarsman, Duncan Free, traversed these stages as he made his progression from
sculling to sweep in much the same way as a beginner. We certainly aim to row in the same
manner. However, over time we realize that limitations of size, mobility, and power prevent
a particular athlete or crew from performing exactly the same movement as another crew.
There is no doubt that a certain number of repetitions need to be completed in order
to ensure movement proficiency and ultimately proficiency under pressure. This can
only be achieved by completing a certain number of kilometers. How many kilometers
are enough? As an athlete gets older, perhaps we can reduce the volume of specific
training yet at the same time hold a higher expectation of technical proficiency. How
much technical change can we expect? So much of it depends on the athlete’s intention.
Coaches need to assist athletes in forming an intention, and as a result of this they will
have a higher likelihood of performing the movement well.
If we do not form an intention, it is highly probable that the athlete will not change
and may even reinforce poor movement. A lot of effort goes into bringing about techni-
cal changes and subsequent mastery of basic skills. Effortless rowing is an illusion—it
is, in fact, effortful.
Effortless Response
The number one rule about the best crews in the world is that they have identified a key
list of movements that they wish to perform exceptionally well. These key movements will
vary from crew to crew, but they are the movements that the rowers have decided are going
to take them forward. These movements need to be drilled to a high level so as to ensure
continued performance even under extreme circumstances. What happens when rowers
do not perform a basic skill exceptionally well? They expose themselves to the possibility of
error. The error itself is not the problem, however; how they respond to the error is the issue.
The 2006 world championships saw several days of rolling tailwind conditions.
These rolling conditions could be placed in the category of extreme circumstances. The
Australian men’s pair had qualified comfortably in the heat for the semifinals and was
once again expected to comfortably qualify. Only 300 m from the finish line and enjoy-
ing a comfortable lead, three-time Olympic Gold medalist Drew Ginn managed to get
his oar handle stuck under his wing rigger as he came forward on the recovery. It was
fortunate that the communication in the boat was clear enough to ensure that Duncan
Free, in the stroke seat, was able to pause for a moment to allow Ginn to extract the
oar and continue on to win the race. Immediately before this incident, the Italian pair
in the same race clipped a significant amount of water, failed to respond appropriately,
and missed qualification. This example is not intended to reflect on the relative skills
of each athlete but rather to highlight how the response to a problem can be effortless.
176 ◾ O’Brien
Under pressure, we can make basic mistakes. Therefore, the better we can perform
the basics, the better the chance of technical excellence and seemingly effortless rowing.
How often do we see a person make a mistake when under pressure, such as catching a
crab at the world championships? Should this occur? Possibly not, but it has happened
and will happen again. Basic skill errors that are left unchecked are more than likely
the cause of such a problem—technical flaws are always present but only manifest
themselves to an extreme level when in extreme circumstances. We must continue to
aim to perform the basic movements perfectly to ensure that they are not our downfall
when under pressure.
So what are extreme circumstances? They could be events (e.g., regional champion-
ships, Olympic Games) or environmental conditions (e.g., strong tailwind, nasty
crosswind, extremely cold conditions). We must ensure that our underlying skills are
impenetrable and that they are able to be performed in any circumstance. There is no
point in trying to do something special technically if basic rowing skills are flawed.
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, how-
ever, 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
Effortless Rowing ◾ 177
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?
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
on page 178). 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 on page 178). 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.
178 ◾ O’Brien
b
Figure 13.1 Examples for blade positions at the entry: (a) proper blade position; (b) improper blade
position.
Power Strokes
In training, we often place a device around the boat that is intended to achieve one of
two outcomes:
The strokes performed under such load are power strokes. This may be seen as a form of
resistance training intended to strengthen muscles and other structures. This work will
target the neuromuscular system, so you can also use it to enhance technical proficiency.
A variety of measures are used to place load on the boat. The first of these may be
used without people realizing that they are doing power strokes—rowing part boat
at a time. In a quad this might be two people rowing and two people balancing the
boat. The two rowing are not only moving the boat but also the deadweight of the
two crew members who are not rowing. This results in a significantly enhanced feel
for the stroke.
If athletes are able to feel the loaded stroke, there is a better chance of them being
able to reproduce the movement in normal rowing. Kinesthetics is sometimes also
referred to as proprioception; however, there are some subtle differences. Kinesthetics
deals only with tension in the muscles, tendons, and ligaments. Proprioception, on the
other hand, is about how things feel. It is the combined feedback from the body that
tells us the tension in the muscles, joints, and tendons and from the inertial forces we
are experiencing (balance and momentum transfer in the case of rowing). Exploring
proprioception through power strokes helps athletes start to understand how they can
move more skillfully and in turn make their rowing look effortless.
Clearly it is difficult to row part crew in a single scull or a pair, and it would also be
useful to row full crew in a larger boat and still add load. To achieve this effect we can
tie something around the boat or drag something behind it, both of which result in
increased loading.
Different devices have different effects. A light cord tied around the middle of the
hull from rigger to rigger may result in the boat slowing through the front turn without
creating a huge amount of drag. This approach will result in the boat decelerating more
quickly on the recovery and perhaps creating a perception of more time through the
front turn for blade placement.
A device that has some give in the early part of the stroke may create more focus on
maintaining the loading through the back end of the stroke. The Rowfit torpedo is a
device that creates this effect (figure 13.2 on page 180). This device comes in a variety
of sizes for specific loads and boat sizes. It is an aluminum tube with a smaller opening
on the trailing edge that is dragged on a piece of light rope behind the boat. If you use
the correct tube for your boat class, it will reduce boat speed by approximately 10%.
Power strokes can be completed with a variety of rates, sets, and repetitions. The
effect after removing the load is significant, promoting a more dynamic movement as
well as improved proprioception.
Another take on this training method is that it is particularly useful in teaching the
rowing stroke. You can use extremes to help athletes understand underlying principles
within rowing. For example, if athletes have trouble understanding the effect of a rig
change, take it to an extreme by increasing the inboard to make the loading easier or
harder. Imagine rowing with 5 m of inboard—they soon realize that it will create a
lighter load.
180 ◾ O’Brien
Power strokes have a similar instructional effect. Imagine asking athletes to row with
absolutely no resistance—that is, rowing through the air. They try rowing perfectly in
time without load, but they lose proprioception and have no feel for what they are
doing. The muscles do not fire easily and in a coordinated manner. On the other hand,
if they put the blade in the water, it becomes a little easier to perform the movement.
With an increased load, it will become even easier to feel which muscles are being used
and how they are being used.
Imagine putting a beginner rower into a lightning-fast eight. Would the beginner cope
with the speed of movement? Of course she would struggle, but if the rowers were to
slow the movements, she would be more capable of performing them correctly.
Strength training depends not only on the quantity and quality of the involved muscles
but also on the ability of the nervous system to appropriately activate the muscles. If
strength training in general causes adaptive changes within the nervous system that
allow an athlete to more fully activate prime movers in specific movements, then it only
follows that a highly specific loaded movement will result in a heightened activation of
muscles when operating under normal load.
Mimicry
Mimicry is the act of copying or imitating something or someone. We can try to teach
people to perform a movement, or we can show them an example of a movement and
ask them to copy it. Crews can watch themselves rowing and try to imitate the good
rowing they have seen themselves perform on video.
Effortless Rowing ◾ 181
Another example at the top level is imitating other crews. By watching other crews,
you start to identify some of the particular skills that they are able to perform exception-
ally well. It is a lot easier to copy something than to start from scratch.
On the world stage, it is possible to identify the country of origin of some crews by
the technical idiosyncrasies they display. We can all identify local crews from a particular
club by the way they row. When we are able to identify crews in such a manner, it means
that we have a strong visual image of them. It should be a natural progression to then
be able to reproduce their movement as a result of this strong image. Even if we are not
able to reproduce their movement, the fact that we are attempting to copy it may bring
about a heightened awareness of a particular aspect of the stroke.
A classical example of mimicry on the world rowing stage was the copying of the
Canadian men’s eight from 2001 to 2004, when they overemphasized the second part of
the drive with an extreme lay-back. This technique style came from their excessive use
of low-stroke-rate pieces with stroke rates around 12 spm, especially on the ergometer.
Subsequently a number of crews took on the appearance of the Canadian style without
completely understanding the whole picture.
Many coaches copy style details from successful crews without attempting to reconcile
these details with their own methods. They take the relatively simple step of innovat-
ing and never begin the process of reconciling the new with the old. It is important
to understand what you are trying to achieve and the potential benefits of the copied
movement. Coaches must also understand that it is not wrong to copy or apply an idea
that they understand, but it is only the first step toward performance development.
Movement Quality
A lot of work can be done outside the boat to achieve efficient movement. I have used both
yoga and Pilates to improve functional movement. Both of these activities also enhance
proprioception or general awareness of body movement. This general improvement in
proprioception is transportable to the boat and can enhance performance.
Yoga entails physical postures, breathing techniques, relaxation, and meditation. In
practicing yoga, the rower’s priorities are on the side of body and movement awareness:
◾◾ Improve body flexibility and balance.
◾◾ Improve cardiorespiratory endurance.
◾◾ Enhance overall muscular strength.
◾◾ Relax muscular strains.
◾◾ Enhance proprioception.
I have found yoga to be quite beneficial at improving boat capabilities.
Pilates is a physical fitness regimen developed by Joseph Pilates. He called his method
Contrology because he believed it used the mind to control the muscles. The program
focuses on the core postural muscles that help keep the body balanced and provide sup-
port for the spine. In particular, Pilates exercises teach awareness of breath and alignment
of the spine and aim to strengthen the deep torso muscles.
The control of movement required in Pilates is readily transferrable to the boat and
highlights a close synergy with the notion of effortless rowing. Further, Pilates has been
useful in the prevention and rehabilitation of back injuries.
182 ◾ O’Brien
Conclusion
Effortless rowing is in reality quite effortful—looks can be deceiving. The best crews
are able to consider the factors that make up their ultimate performance and then go
through a process of synchronizing each factor. This synchronization is the process of
compromising in some areas in order to improve others. The challenge for the coach is
to correctly decide where to put the crew’s energies. The ability to make good decisions
is a skill that every coach should practice at every opportunity.
Chapter 14
Improving Performance
With Nutrition
Peter W.R. Lemon
N utrition and exercise performance have been topics of interest for coaches and ath-
letes for generations; however, until recently much of the discussion centered on
opinions with little scientific basis. Consequently, the strategies employed in the field
ranged all the way from appropriate to ridiculous. As a teenage athlete with a goal of
playing professional sport, I closely followed the advice of my coaches. For most aspects
of my sport (especially skill development, training, and game strategy), these coaches
were knowledgeable so their guidance was helpful.
However, the study of nutrition applied to exercise performance of any kind was in
its infancy and the impact of nutrition on elite athletic performance was not yet on my
coaches’ radar screen. For example, as with virtually all athletes of the time (1960s),
we were told that dietary protein was critical for performance, so steak was a mainstay
of our pregame meals. Further, we seldom even considered drinking during workouts
or games because our coaches challenged our self-worth vehemently whenever we
approached the water bucket (yes, it was actually a water bucket in those days). The
dangers of heat exhaustion and the importance of hydration in its prevention were not
yet common knowledge. Fortunately, living in a northern climate and participating in fall
and winter sports spared my teammates and me from the life-threatening consequences
of these inadequate hydration practices.
Over the intervening years much has been learned about sport nutrition as systematic
research by investigators trained in scientific methodology has replaced the trial-and-error
approach often used by coaches. Of course, the latter can produce successful results, but
it is inefficient, so one must be very experienced to discover the optimal approaches. In
contrast, researchers have generated substantial literature on the importance of nutrition
applied to sport, and it is now readily available to anyone with Internet access. Conse-
quently, it is possible for even beginning coaches to use this vast knowledge to enhance
their rowers’ performance, just as coaches have used exercise physiology research to
maximize performance-enhancing training adaptations.
◾ 183
184 ◾ Lemon
Energy (Calories)
Rowing is a high-expenditure activity (de Campos Mello, de Moraes Bertuzzi, Grangeiro,
& Franchini, 2009; Hagerman, 2000), so huge intakes of food (calories) are necessary
to prevent losses in both muscle and body mass that can lead to subpar performances.
Supplementing meal intakes with high-energy snacks is the best strategy to prevent these
adverse effects. Very simply, food is fuel, and much like an automobile, no matter how
good the body looks or how well it is tuned, it does not perform well without sufficient
and appropriate fuel. To consume sufficient energy, becoming a grazer (eating every 3
hours or so) is often necessary. As discussed later, carbohydrate (CHO), fat, and protein
are needed to optimally increase energy intake (Rodriguez, Di Marco, & Langley, 2009).
A universal recommendation for energy intake is not possible because necessary
intakes can vary widely depending on several factors, including one’s training expendi-
ture, body size, and gender. However, at least with adults, body mass is a good indicator
of the adequacy of food intake. So if one is losing mass, energy intake is insufficient, and
if one is gaining mass, intake is too high (unless a strength training program is ongoing).
For youth athletes, this still applies, but body mass is expected to increase due to the
ongoing growth process.
Gender Differences
Female athletes must pay extra attention to energy intake because many women lower
their metabolic rate and undereat in response to intense exercise training. It is surprising
how few calories many women can consume yet still support the training loads under-
taken (Loucks, 2007; Lun, Erdman, & Reimer, 2009; van Erp-Baart, Saris, Binkhorst,
Vos, & Elvers, 1989) (see figure 14.1). It is as if the female body perceives high-energy
expenditures as an imbalance in energy and therefore reacts by lowering its metabolic
rate and preserving energy stores (Shetty, 1990). This gender difference in metabolic rate
is also seen in starvation. Under those conditions it prolongs survival in women relative
to men, but with intense training it can result in nutrient deficiencies and early fatigue.
A few daily energy snacks will eliminate these concerns and enhance performance for
many female athletes. As energy intake matches energy expenditure more adequately,
metabolic rate will increase, which means body mass will not increase.
Improving Performance With Nutrition ◾ 185
160
Energy intake
140
120
100
80
60
SW XSK RN WL BB WR SW RN BB BKB GY BD
Activity
Figure 14.1 Typically, men and women adjust their energy intakes in opposite directions with vigorous
exercise training (SW = swimmers, XSK = cross-country
E5068/Nolte/Rowing skiers, RN = distance runners, WL = weightlifters,
Faster, 2e/F14.01/404218/TimB/R2-alw
BB = bodybuilders, WR = wrestlers, BKB = basketball players, GY = gymnasts, BD = ballet dancers).
Reprinted, by permission, from P.W.R. Lemon, 1998, “Effects of exercise on dietary protein requirements,” International Journal of Sport Nutrition
8: 426-427.
Making Weight
For many lightweight rowers, restricted food intake will be necessary from time to time.
This must be done with professional training and nutritional advice so that muscle
and bone mass can be maintained while excess body fat is lost. This is critical because
muscle- and bone-mass losses are difficult to recover, reduce performance substantially,
and could even increase chances of negative health consequences later in life, especially
for women (i.e., osteopenia and osteoporosis) (Moayyeri et al., 2009). Significant losses
in body mass need to take place over time (weeks and months, not days or hours)
because acute water losses can impair performance and also increase the possibility of
heat illness, a potentially life-threatening concern. Fortunately, dehydration-associated
deaths in sport have declined significantly with mass educational efforts (Armstrong et
al., 2007). However, they still occur at all sport levels, even in professional sport, which
is a tragedy because they are preventable. For rowers, races are short enough that heat
illness should not be a significant concern, except perhaps in training and only when
inadequate hydration occurs over days.
Although individual differences are common, dropping below a minimum body-fat
range (around 15% for women and 5% for men) is likely to be counterproductive for
the vast majority of athletes (Cobb et al., 2003). Body composition can be assessed in a
number of ways, some of which are more accurate and reproducible than others. Typi-
cally, measures of skinfold thickness or impedance to a minute electric current are used
because they are readily available and inexpensive, but they should be used with caution
because they can introduce significant error.
Densitometric measures (body mass divided by body volume, the latter measured by
air or water displacement) or dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry performed under the
guidance of trained professionals are recommended whenever body mass is to be altered
significantly. Specifically, an individualized minimum allowable competition body mass
should be determined before the season, allowing sufficient time (weeks or months) for
186 ◾ Lemon
rowers to work toward this goal (see the following list). Then, should rowers arrive at
any regatta under their individually and objectively determined body mass, they should
be prevented from competing by the coach. Of course, younger rowers should have an
allowance for growth over the season.
Short-term (acute) losses in body mass while maintaining a high level of exercise
complicate the issue. Acute loss of body mass is caused by reductions in body water due
to sweating. Sweat rates can be excessive (sometimes over 2 L per hour), which means
such acute losses with exercise can equal several kilograms and have nothing to do with
the adequacy of food intake. To prevent heat illness, such mass losses (2%-6%) need
to be corrected with fluid intake during and following training bouts. This situation can
be easily monitored because the density of sweat is essentially 1.0 (meaning that 1 L of
sweat weighs 1 kg). For a 70 kg rower, a 1.4 to 4.2 kg water-mass loss (whether induced
by exercise or via a combination of fluid restriction and exercise) could adversely affect
performance, such as a 22-second increase in the 2,000 m ergometer test (Burge, Carey,
& Payne, 1993).
These adverse performance effects can be minimized substantially with aggressive
nutritional strategies between weigh-in and competition if decreases in water losses
are kept relatively small. For example, when sufficient fluids (28-30 ml/kg [milliliters
per kilogram] body mass) containing sodium (33 mg/kg [milligrams per kilogram])
and perhaps CHO (2.3 g/kg [grams per kilogram]) are consumed during the 2 hours
following weigh-in by rowers who had dropped 4% to 5% body mass in the preced-
ing 24 hours (between 2 and 3.5 kg), decrements in performance were only 0.7% in
neutral environmental conditions (21.1 °C, 29% humidity) and 1.1% in hot environ-
mental conditions (32.4 °C, 60.4% humidity) (Slater et al. 2005; Slater, Rice, Sharpe,
Jenkins, & Hahn, 2007). Of course, even these small decrements could be enough to
decide competitions, further emphasizing the importance of keeping acute body-mass
losses to a minimum.
Improving Performance With Nutrition ◾ 187
Macronutrients
The main nutrients are CHO, fat, and protein. They are often called macronutrients because
they are the ones that we consume in the largest quantities and that provide us with energy.
Carbohydrate
It is well known that dietary CHO is critical for exercise performance because it is the
major muscle fuel for intense exercise, and for some types of exercise its stores in the
body (muscle and liver glycogen) can be limiting. Typically, prolonged continuous
exercise (>45 minutes) of moderate to high intensity or multiple repeats of intense
exercise with interspersed recovery bouts over a couple of hours (like the efforts
expended in many sporting activities) can reduce body glycogen stores to the point
where performance is affected adversely (Costill & Hargreaves, 1992). This means the
body glycogen stores of rowers are routinely and significantly reduced in training. High
dietary CHO (6-10 g/kg body mass daily) and reduced training volume for a few days
before the competition day (commonly referred to as CHO loading) can increase body
glycogen storage substantially (up to 200%). This means rowers must include a wide
range of CHO foods in their diet.
Some CHO foods enter the bloodstream following ingestion much more quickly than
others. These foods are classified as high-glycemic CHO. Those that are digested and
absorbed more slowly are classified as moderate- to low-glycemic CHO (Jenkins et al.,
1981). The determining factors for absorption rate are the type of CHO in the food, the
presence of other components in the food, the amount of CHO in a serving, and whether
other foods are consumed simultaneously.
If the food has a high fiber or water content (e.g., fruits, vegetables, whole-wheat
grains, beans, nuts), it will enter the bloodstream slowly over an extended time period.
In these filling foods, the amount of CHO in a serving is relatively low. This means
smaller amounts of CHO are delivered to the blood over an extended time period and
ultimately to the muscles and liver. In contrast, if the food does not have a high fiber or
water content (e.g., sugar, crackers, cookies, bread, rice, potatoes, juices, sport drinks,
many snack foods), it will enter the blood quickly. This rapid increase in blood CHO
stimulates a large release of the hormone insulin from the pancreas, which causes a
rapid and large uptake of glucose into muscle, where it can be used as exercise fuel
or, in recovery, stored for future use.
Finally, the presence of other foods ingested at the same time can slow the rate of
digestion and absorption; for instance, ingestion of some protein or fat will significantly
slow the absorption rate of any CHO consumed. During exercise, insulin release is
inhibited but muscle can still take up glucose rapidly from the blood because muscle
contraction has an insulinlike effect. Consequently, intake of high-glycemic CHO is
beneficial during and following exercise when rapid absorption is desirable (to replen-
ish stores), while moderate- to low-glycemic CHO is advantageous later in recovery
to help maintain CHO availability over time. For many athletes, including rowers in
training, a combination of both CHO types is required to consume the quantity of CHO
needed for optimal performance. Further, to attain CHO intakes toward the high end
188 ◾ Lemon
of the recommended range (10 g/kg body mass daily), some athletes need to ingest
supplemental CHO (bars or shakes) because these sources are less filling, resulting in
a greater overall CHO intake.
Fortunately, it is relatively easy to keep track of CHO intake by recording total grams
consumed and dividing by one’s body mass. Whenever getting enough CHO is a con-
cern, especially when it becomes difficult to complete training sessions, liquid CHO
supplements should be used. The resulting increased glycogen storage will enhance the
ability to perform high-intensity exercise longer and to exercise at a greater intensity
for a given duration.
This knowledge has made the process of CHO loading commonplace before most
athletic events. However, sometimes a little information can be problematic. Significant
gains in body mass occur with CHO loading because almost 3 g of water are stored for
every 1 g of CHO. Because CHO loading can increase glycogen storage in the body by
200 to 300 g (depending on body size), body mass gains of 0.8 to 1.2 kg are routine. If
exercise glycogen depletion is likely, the additional stored CHO is advantageous despite
this mass gain. However, many athletes load up with more glycogen than needed for
their event, and this can be counterproductive, especially in activities where transporting
a greater mass increases the energy expenditure significantly (running versus cycling, for
example). Rowing performance will likely also be affected negatively if more glycogen
than necessary is stored because the boat will be lower in the water.
More important, although glycogen is a major fuel for racing, there is no danger of
depleting glycogen in rowing competitions due to race durations (6-7 minutes), even
with several races in a day, unless rowers start with very little glycogen stored. Con-
sequently, matching the body’s glycogen stores to the performance need is critical for
regattas. In contrast, glycogen depletion could be a factor in the much longer training
sessions. This means CHO intake recommendations for rowers will differ substantially
during training versus the few days immediately before competition and on race day
when the goal shifts from maximizing glycogen stores to optimizing stores for the 6- to
7-minute effort. Incidentally, this will also result in an acute loss of body mass in the
days before the race, meaning the boat will be higher in the water and, importantly for
lightweight rowers, will also assist in making the body-mass cutoff.
It is not possible to give precise dietary CHO recommendations here because of vari-
able training practices during the days leading up to competition as well as differing
warm-up routines on race day, but CHO intake substantially below the loading-diet
intake (6-10 g/kg body mass daily) is likely best. Of course, insufficient CHO storage
could lead to suboptimal performance, so experimentation with differing quantities of
CHO in simulated races (perhaps as low 2-3 g/kg body mass) is essential to determine
optimal CHO intakes leading up to races.
Protein
Although once thought to be the macronutrient providing the majority of fuel for muscle
contraction, protein provides little energy for exercise (perhaps 5%) unless energy intake
is restricted severely (Lemon, 1998). Despite this fact, dietary protein (e.g., meat, fish,
dairy, beans) is critical for athletes because it provides the component parts (amino
acids) for synthesis of structural (muscle) and functional (enzymes, hormones) protein.
Moreover, some amino acids may be critical biochemical signalers of training adaptations
and energy regeneration during exercise. Consequently, insufficient protein intake can
Improving Performance With Nutrition ◾ 189
lead to reductions or suboptimal gains in muscle mass and impaired energy availability,
both of which will result in impaired rowing performance. Further, protein in combina-
tion with CHO consumed before, during, and immediately after intense workouts has
been shown to help restore muscle glycogen stores (some amino acids stimulate insulin
release) and perhaps even minimize muscle damage resulting from exercise (Kerksick et
al., 2008). These effects should also enhance performance (Berardi, Noreen, & Lemon,
2008). Interestingly, some types of protein are absorbed more rapidly during digestion
in a similar manner to CHO, so protein type also may be an important consideration.
For details, see Nutrient Timing (page 193).
Protein intake recommendations have been debated vigorously for generations; how-
ever, most athletes feel they do better with intakes greater than those recommended
for inactive people. Typically, a daily protein intake of 1.2 to 2 g/kg body mass is recom-
mended, which is 50% to 200% greater than current recommendations for nonathletes
(0.8 g/kg body mass) (Lemon, 1998; Rodriguez et al., 2009). Moreover, some athletes
consume even larger amounts of protein. Consuming protein at various times throughout
the day is best because recent information suggests that protein synthesis is maximized
at around 20 g of protein per intake (Symons, Sheffield-Moore, Wolfe, & Paddon-Jones,
2009; Tarnopolsky & Phillips, 2009). Any additional protein above 20 g per intake appears
to be mostly lost from the body via oxidation. For large athletes, many intakes per day
are required to get this amount of protein. For example, to consume 2 g/kg body mass,
a 100 kg rower would require 10 separate intakes each day!
Fat
Fat intake recommendations for the general population are about 1 g/kg body mass
each day. Greater intakes, especially of saturated or trans fat, contribute significantly
to a variety of health concerns, including metabolic syndrome, obesity, diabetes, and
heart disease (Everitt et al., 2006). However, this quantity of fat is insufficient for many
athletes. Fat is the most energy-dense macronutrient (9 kcal/g [calories per gram] versus
4 kcal/g for both CHO and protein), and, as mentioned, high-energy intakes can be
critical to counterbalance the high energy expenditures of athletes. If insufficient fat is
consumed, it is possible to lose body mass with training because one can become full
before adequate energy is consumed. Therefore, daily fat intakes of 1.5 kcal/kg body
mass or greater are reasonable for those involved in heavy training.
These intakes will not result in the adverse consequences of high-fat diets that occur
in people who are less physically active because fat is a significant muscle fuel during
training and competition. Consequently, this additional dietary fat does not accumulate
in the body’s adipose sites or in blood vessels, where it can cause the serious health
concerns previously mentioned. However, the type of fat consumed is as critical as the
amount. Rowers should limit saturated fat to no more than 10% of daily energy intake
and should limit trans fat as much as possible.
Unsaturated fat, especially omega-3 fat, is health promoting (Calder & Yaqoob, 2009).
Omega-3 fat is found primarily in deep-ocean fish (or fish oil), cooking oils (especially
canola oil), nuts, and some plant material such as flax. However, the flax seeds must
be ground up (a coffee grinder works well) because their outer membrane cannot be
digested. Omega-3 fat also can be found in a variety of fortified common foods (e.g.,
eggs, bread, yogurt, milk, margarine, some meats, pasta). However, many of these foods
are fortified with plant material or come from animals that were fed plant material and
190 ◾ Lemon
thus provide much less omega-3 fat (and in a less efficient form) than that found in fish,
so not all omega-3 fat sources are created equal. Fish, especially salmon, trout, herring,
and sardines (or fish oil, if heavy-metal contamination is a concern), is the best source
and should be part of a rower’s diet at least a couple of times a week.
Omega-6 fat (found in vegetable oil, especially corn oil or the meat of animals raised
on corn-based feed) is required in a healthy diet, but typically it is consumed in huge
amounts. This excessive consumption appears to be implicated in a wide variety of health
problems, including obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, age-associated
dementia, and arthritis (Simopoulos, 2009). Estimates suggest that our ancestors con-
sumed an omega-6:omega-3 fat ratio of approximately 2:1. In contrast, many people
today consume a ratio of 15:1 or greater. Apparently this high omega-6:omega-3 ratio
may be more critical than omega-6 intake per se. Therefore, whether an athlete or
not, one’s focus should be more on the type of fat consumed than on the amount. Fat
type and content of foods is now easy to determine because this information is readily
available on product labels; however, because serving sizes are not well standardized in
many countries, caution is necessary to avoid consuming more than expected. This is
especially true with many snack foods, where the serving size is often small and serv-
ings per package high.
Women are especially at risk for micronutrient deficiency, because, as discussed, they
often slow their metabolism with intense training and undereat routinely. Fortunately,
the adequacy of nutrient intakes (both micro- and macronutrients) can easily be assessed
by analyzing food records using a database of food composition, assuming the procedures
in the Estimation of Nutrient Intake list are followed.
Fluids
Fluid intake is also a critical dietary consideration for athletes because, as mentioned, large
fluid losses via sweating (2 L per hour) can occur with training (Maughan & Shirreffs,
2008). Moreover, insufficient fluid replacement is common, and even small decreases
in body water (1%-2%) impair exercise performance (Sawka et al., 2007). For a 100 kg
athlete, this would be a loss of only 1 to 2 kg, and for a 58 kg athlete, only 0.6 to 1.2 kg.
The best way to monitor fluid losses is to record acute changes in body mass before
and after workouts because almost the entire (~95%) change is caused by sweating. The
density of sweat is essentially 1.0, so a 1 kg mass loss means 1 L of sweat was secreted.
Therefore, acute body-mass losses with exercise can be used to determine how much
fluid intake is necessary to avoid dehydration.
For example, a 70 kg athletes rows for 80 minutes on the ergometer, drinks 0.5 L of
fluid, and weighs 67 kg after the training. With the type of training performed
in that environment, the athlete loses 1.9 L sweat per hour:
kg
[70(kg ) − {67(kg ) + 0.5( L ) × 1 }]
L L min L L
Sweat Rate = × 60 × 1 = 1.9
hr 80 ( min ) hr kg hr
Any fluid deficit should be made up before the next training session or else progres-
sive life-threatening dehydration can result. Also, because some of the fluid intake
will be urinated away, especially when the exercise session is over, the fluid intake
necessary to replace sweat losses is closer to 150% of the body-mass loss. Fluid intake
should be individualized based on changes in body mass, not on thirst (because one’s
thirst is often quenched before fluid needs are attained) or worst yet on some arbitrary
standard.
192 ◾ Lemon
Sport drinks are a better fluid replacement than water because the flavoring tends to
increase the quantity of fluid consumed. Further, more of the sport drink is retained in
the body because of the electrolyte content. Sport drinks also provide CHO (typically
about 6%, or 60g/L) that can be used as a supplementary exercise fuel. This is analogous
to filling the gas tank while driving, enabling both the car and the athlete to go farther
and faster before running out of fuel.
Research indicates that during prolonged exercise, athletes can use 0.5 to 1 g/min
(gram per minute) of CHO for fuel and perhaps slightly more when they consume CHO
combinations that use differing transporters for absorption, such as glucose and fructose
(Jeukendrup, 2004). Consequently, it is possible to deliver the optimal quantity of CHO
as well as sufficient fluid to minimize dehydration by consuming about 220 to 250 ml
of a 6% CHO sport drink every 10 to 15 minutes of training. Greater concentrations of
simple CHO in drinks are not recommended because they slow movement through the
stomach, and unless glucose polymers (maltodextrin) are used, they cause fluid move-
ment from the blood into the gastrointestinal tract due to their osmotic effects, result-
ing in dehydration and diarrhea. CHO concentrations below 6% are less than optimal
because the associated fluid volumes become excessive (i.e., to deliver 60 grams of CHO
per hour with a 4 or 2 percent solution, one would have to drink 1.5 or 3 liters per hour
respectively, which is not practical) (Coyle & Montain, 1992).
It is possible to increase tolerance for large fluid intakes over time, but intakes over
1,250 ml per hour are difficult to consume, and intakes less than 625 ml per hour are
insufficient to prevent significant dehydration. Finally, sweat rates increase with train-
ing, so fluid needs will increase and must be monitored individually.
Water Intoxication
Toxic effects are possible for many nutrients if intake is excessive, so the common belief that
if a little is good, more is better only applies up to a point. Benefits plateau (ceiling effect) or
an inverted u response occurs (benefits eventually diminish and negative effects result). Water
intoxication (overhydration) is even possible and can be life threatening (Rosner, 2008). It is
more likely to occur in people who are less fit and have more modest sweat rates, and it typi-
cally requires prolonged overconsumption of fluids due to concerns about dehydration. Further,
it is more of a risk when consuming plain water versus sport drinks.
Often overhydration results from a rapid rate of fluid intake rather than simply from a large
fluid intake. The blood becomes diluted (called hyponatremia due to the decrease in sodium
concentration, an important electrolyte in the blood) as a result of the excess intake of fluid
that contains fewer electrolytes than found in blood. This causes increased fluid intake into
body cells (via osmosis) to minimize the decreased blood sodium concentration. The result
is considerable cell swelling, which results in headaches, cell rupture, coma, and eventually
death. This extreme response is far less likely with sport drinks due to their electrolyte content
and highlights the importance of matching fluid intake to need.
Nutrient Timing
A number of recent studies have observed ergogenic (work-enhancing) effects when
nutrients are consumed at specific times relative to training sessions (Kerksick et al.,
2008; Ziegenfuss et al., 2002). Consequently, the timing of nutrient intake rather than
Improving Performance With Nutrition ◾ 193
sufficient total intake appears to be a more important concern for most athletes. For
example, consuming CHO immediately after exercise stimulates muscle glycogen resyn-
thesis relative to the identical quantity of CHO consumed 2 or more hours postexercise
(Ivy, 1998). This enhances subsequent rowing training because performance in prolonged,
intense, continuous exercise or intense, repeated, intermittent exercise is closely associ-
ated with glycogen availability. Therefore, CHO intake of 1 to 1.5 g/kg body mass as soon
as possible and hourly for several hours is recommended to maximize muscle glycogen
replacement following rowing training. For a 60 kg rower, this would be 60 to 90 g of
CHO every couple of hours (1-1.5 × 60 = 60-90).
Further, the addition of a small amount of protein (0.3-0.5 g/kg body mass) may
enhance recovery even more by improving protein balance (increasing protein synthesis
and reducing protein breakdown in muscle) and enhancing muscle glycogen resynthesis.
For a 60 kg person, this would be about 18 to 30 g of protein every couple of hours.
Dairy protein is a good choice (Shirreffs, Watson, & Maughan, 2007), perhaps because
of the presence of particular amino acids (especially leucine) that appear to stimulate
muscle protein synthesis and reduce protein breakdown. Additionally, the major pro-
teins in milk (casein and whey) are absorbed into the blood at different rates in a simi-
lar way to the various CHO types. Whey, like high-glycemic CHO, is absorbed quickly
whereas casein is much slower (Dangin, Boirie, Guillet, & Beaufrère, 2002). Moreover,
both have different effects on muscle protein synthesis and breakdown. Whey protein
results in a large, rapid increase in muscle protein synthesis but for a short duration,
whereas casein protein causes a more moderate increase with a much longer duration.
Additionally, casein protein appears to have greater effects on chronic protein deposi-
tion, perhaps because it inhibits muscle protein degradation more than whey does.
Consequently, ingestion of milk or milk proteins in the immediate posttraining period
should be advantageous for rowers.
Of course, both muscle glycogen and protein synthesis would be increased in recovery
from exercise in the presence of insulin, which stimulates both CHO and amino acid
uptake by muscle. Further, CHO is a powerful stimulant of insulin release, as are the
branched-chain amino acids that are abundant in milk. But the beneficial effects of milk
may be far more reaching (perhaps also involving changes in insulin sensitivity) because
some types of protein, such as those found in deep-ocean fish, promote insulin sensitiv-
ity. Their high omega-3 content may play a role in this response, but other mechanisms
must also be important because ingestion of codfish, which has low omega-3 content,
also increases insulin sensitivity (Lavigne, Tremblay, Asselin, Jacques, & Marette, 2001).
Chocolate milk is likely an even better postexercise option than regular milk because
its CHO and protein ratio is more appropriate to obtain these positive responses in both
muscle protein and CHO synthesis.
In addition to postexercise supplementation, eating small quantities of CHO and
protein (100 kcal total, 75 kcal CHO and 25 kcal protein) shortly before and during
training is worthwhile because it improves muscle protein balance, leading over time to
muscle-mass gains (or the prevention of losses) that will enhance performance (Hazell
& Lemon, 2009). Although nutrient supplementation before and during training would
provide some additional energy, the beneficial response may be the result of changes in
cellular signaling rather than a simple provision of energy, because the latter is insig-
nificant relative to the large expenditure of a training bout. More study in this area
is needed before definitive recommendations are possible, but clearly nutrient intake
before, during, and following exercise bouts as well as over the rest of the day plays a
huge role in athletic performance.
194 ◾ Lemon
19.0
60 s recovery
18.5
Peak power (watts/kg FFM)
18.0
17.5
17.0
Placebo
16.5 Creatine
16.0 P < 0.05 TSE
15.5 n = 10/group
15.0
10 s sprints
14.5
1 2 3 4 5 6
Sprint number
Figure 14.2 Following creatine supplementation (3 days of 350 mg/kg fat-free mass each day), cycling
E5068/Nolte/Rowing Faster, 2e/F14.02/404220/TimB/R2-alw
peak power was increased (P < 0.05) versus a placebo during six repeated maximal efforts separated by
1-minute recovery bouts. Both male (n =10) and female (n = 10) NCAA Division I athletes were studied. Data
are means ± SE (standard error).
Adapted from Nutrition, 18(5), T.N. Ziegenfuss, M. Rogers, L. Lowery, N. Mullins, R. Mendel, J. Antonio, and P. Lemon, “Effect of creatine loading
on anaerobic performance and skeletal muscle volume in NCAA Division I athletes,” 397-402, Copyright 2002, with permission from Elsevier.
Improving Performance With Nutrition ◾ 195
people experience unpleasant sensations (flushing and prickly skin) with doses as low as
10 mg/kg body mass, so spreading the dose over four to six intakes per day appears best
(Sale, Saunders, & Harris, 2010). Typically, performance continues to improve with up
to 6 weeks of supplementation at these doses, and the effects continue for several weeks
after supplementation stops. Some foods (fruit, vegetables, and perhaps even plant-based
supplements) also have an alkalinizing effect, so large intakes of these foods might also
improve performance in activities where anaerobic metabolism plays a significant role,
such as rowing.
Conclusion
Nutrition is a critical determinant of rowing performance, and its advantages go
unrealized by many. The greatest impact is on the ability to train, because the high
energy expenditures must be replenished daily or else subsequent training sessions will
be suboptimal, leading to reduced adaptations and thus impaired performance. Energy,
macronutrient (CHO, fat, and protein), and fluid intakes are most important. Multiple
intakes (meals and snacks) per day are necessary, especially for female athletes, who
frequently consume inadequate energy. Nutrition before, during, and after training
appears to be critical to fine-tune both race recovery and training adaptations. Female
rowers during off-season training can improve their 2,000 m erg performance (2%-3%)
with just a few weeks of small daily energy supplementation (224 kcal), presumably
by correcting an energy imbalance. For a race day (and for the preceding day or two),
nutrient considerations for rowers should change substantially. This is because the goal
switches from a loading diet (energy, CHO, and fluid) to one designed to match intake to
race fuel and fluid needs as well as to minimize body mass for race success. In addition,
immediate postrace ingestion of CHO (or CHO plus protein) can enhance subsequent
same-day regatta performance by several percentage points, especially when CHO stores
are matched to race needs.
Keeping in mind adverse health symptoms, body-fat decreases of 5% to 10% while
maintaining lean mass are reasonable if they occur over weeks and months. Some food
supplements (CHO, protein, fat, sport drinks, creatine, caffeine, and several alkalinizing
substances) can enhance rowing performance. Importantly, all dietary manipulations
should be tried in training or practice races because individual responses will differ.
Finally, commercially available supplements sometimes contain contaminants that can
result in positive doping tests or even adverse health effects, so purchasing from reputable
companies or having an independent analysis done is recommended.
Chapter 15
Special Considerations
for Adaptive Rowing
Karen M. Lewis
A thletic competition is segmented to provide a level playing field from the moment
one enters the playground as a young person to the highest level of sport, the Olym-
pic Games. Parity provides greater opportunity for athletes to achieve the peak level of
human performance. Most sports have gender divisions, skill levels, age grouping, and so
on. In rowing, there are gender-separated races, lightweight divisions, and masters events,
and now there is also an adaptive category for rowers with physical disabilities. Adaptive
rowing refers to both the equipment adaptations for rowers with disabilities and the sport
as a whole. Let us first look at the history of adaptive rowing.
◾ 197
198 ◾ Lewis
In 2002, the FISA world championships began to include adaptive rowing in the regu-
lar program. The sport gained momentum in 2005, when the International Paralympic
Committee (IPC) voted to include adaptive rowing in the 2008 Beijing Paralympic Games.
Achieving this major milestone spurred the growth of adaptive rowing worldwide.
There are now 26 countries competing at the international level, which is an impressive
increase from 2002 when only seven countries participated. As the number of programs
worldwide increased, so did the level of competition. As shown in figures 15.1 through
15.4, the winning times from world championships have improved rapidly. The times
are more drastically improved in the fixed-seat boats in some part due to improvements
in equipment and rigging. The LTAMix4+ did not need any specialized equipment and
standards for rigging were already in place, so its time change was not as large.
6:20.0 6:40.0
6:10.0 6:20.0
6:00.0 6:00.0
5:50.0 5:40.0
5:40.0 5:20.0
5:30.0 5:00.0
5:20.0 4:40.0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
ASW1X 6:14.9 5:57.6 6:12.9 5:25.2 ASM1X 6:28.8 5:28.9 5:13.1 5:22.1 4:51.5
Figure 15.1 Development of winning times Figure 15.2 Development of winning times
E5068/Nolte/Rowing Faster, 2e/F15.01/404222/TimB/R1
at the FISA world championship regattas in the at the FISA world championship regattas in the
E5068/Nolte/Rowing Faster, 2e/F15.02/404223/TimB/R1
arms and shoulders women’s single (ASW1x). arms and shoulders men’s single (ASM1x).
3:45.0
5:10.0
5:00.0 3:40.0
4:50.0
3:35.0
4:40.0
4:30.0 3:30.0
4:20.0
3:25.0
4:10.0
4:00.0 3:20.0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
TA Mix2X 4:21.7 4:33.9 5:03.3 4:20.5 4:10.7 4:20.7 4:04.0 TA Mix4+ 3:42.8 3:36.8 3:39.2 3:28.2 3:35.0 3:31.13:25.3
Figure 15.3 Development of winning times Figure 15.4 Development of winning times
at the FISA world championship regattas in the at the FISA world championship regattas in
E5068/Nolte/Rowing Faster, 2e/F15.04/404225/TimB/R2-alw
E5068/Nolte/Rowing Faster, 2e/F15.03/404224/TimB/R1
trunk and arms mixed (women and men) double the legs, trunks, and arms mixed coxed four
(TAMix2x). (LTAMix4+).
Challenges
My role within adaptive rowing began as a volunteer at PRPD. With many rowers in
wheelchairs, volunteers carried boats and oars and lifted rowers who needed assistance
into their boats. Rowers with visual impairments needed to be guided down the dock,
and individual rowers were coached from the bow of a double. Giving service to the
Special Considerations for Adaptive Rowing ◾ 199
rowing community can be personally fulfilling. After a few years of working with the
athletes at PRPD, in 2005 I was hired as the US Adaptive Rowing national team coach.
When one is new to the world of disabled sport, terminology is one of the first hurdles.
It can feel awkward to say “Drive with your legs!” when someone only has one leg.
Rowers who are visually impaired will not benefit from the same demonstrative gestur-
ing many coaches use, and a coach needs to develop new ways to verbally illustrate the
stroke. When working with athletes with disabilities, everyone becomes more aware of
the abilities that we take for granted and the challenges that these rowers deal with on a
daily basis. But, people are people and adaptive rowers are quick to show that disability
or not, we all share a common love for the sport. After that realization, it is easier to
focus on bladework and rowing technique and not on a person’s disability.
Another challenge for me in 2005 was equipment. The recreational boats we rowed
at PRPD were finless Alden Ocean doubles fitted with an Oarmaster (a standalone seat,
footstretcher, and rigger combo), which was attached to the bottom of the boat with
two small clamps. The boats did what they were intended to do—they allowed for a safe
and stable rowing experience. But they certainly were not built for speed and were not
generally rigged to fit individual rowers.
The available racing equipment also provided many challenges. Single scullers used
pontoons that were mounted to the bracket with a pivot and that would tip up or down
depending on the water conditions, significantly slowing the boat. Modifications, which
included a rigid attachment and a raised tip, eventually made the pontoons safer and
allowed them to cut through the water more efficiently. Initially, the fixed seats were
attached to standard boat tracks, but the attachments were not always reliable under
the great strain of racing. So, even with major diligence, the seat could loosen or come
off the tracks during a race, which caused rowers to slow down to avoid serious safety
problems. When the new adaptive fixed-seat tracks were developed, the seat attached
to the boat safely and effectively, but the force on the seat attachment ripped up the
decking. Reinforcing the deck and attaching the tracks using large washers to improve
the load distribution corrected this problem. By the time the Paralympics were held
in 2008, the technology was safe, reliable, and customizable to allow rowers to attain
maximal speed (figures 15.5 and 15.6 on page 200).
Courtesy of Wintech Racing
a b
Figure 15.5 (a) Standard fixed seat attached to the tracks for a boat. (b) Clamps attach this seat to a
Concept2 ergometer.
200 ◾ Lewis
Classifications
Within adaptive rowing, there are subdivisions called classifications. Currently, there
are four categories for adaptive rowers based on a functional classification system:
arms and shoulders (AS), trunk and arms (TA), legs, trunk, and arms (LTA), and since
the World Championships 2010 the legs, trunk and arms mixed coxed four for intel-
lectually disabled (LTAIDMix4+). Qualified officials assess athletes both medically and
functionally. Once classified, an athlete can race in his boat class and also may compete
in higher categories than the one in which he is classified (e.g., a TA rower can row in
the LTAMix4+, as a woman from Ireland did in the 2009 world championships), but
not the other way around. Although many boat classes may be available in local races,
Special Considerations for Adaptive Rowing ◾ 201
a limited number of international events are offered. To compete in the FISA World
Rowing Championships or the Paralympics, a rower must be in one of the five specific
boat classes: ASW1x (women), ASM1x (men), TAMix2x (one male and one female),
LTAMix4+, and LTAIDMix4+ (two male and two female rowers and a coxswain of either
gender in both fours). Men and women compete in the same boat due to the concern
that separate women’s events might lack participants (because some countries might
not include women as readily as men in their rowing programs).
The FISA classification guidelines are still being refined, so changes are likely after the
2012 Paralympics. All five categories will race in the 2012 Paralympics. You can find the
latest classification information on the FISA website (www.worldrowing.com). Rowers
who can use a sliding seat, such as someone with a visual impairment or with single-leg
or single-arm involvement, are in the LTA class. If a rower cannot use the sliding seat to
propel the boat and requires a fixed seat, she would likely be in either the TA or AS class.
An athlete who uses a fixed seat on the ergometer and who is completely comfortable
without any chest strapping may be a TA rower. Rowers in the TA class would include
someone with a double-leg amputation, cerebral palsy (CP) class 5, or a low spinal cord
injury (L3-L1). An athlete who needs a chest strap for stability because he has minimal
or no trunk function is probably in the AS class, which can include rowers with CP
class 4 and with higher-level spinal cord injuries (T12 and up).
Adaptive rowers need to be classified if they are going to compete in officially sanc-
tioned adaptive rowing events. It is important for rowers to strive to use all of their
abilities when learning the sport and to worry about classifications later. In general, if a
rower can use a sliding seat even a little, she should; likewise, fixed-seat athletes should
use all of their reach and stabilization abilities.
Safety
In a standard shell, there are safety issues because an athlete’s feet are secured to the
boat and therefore heel ties are required to ensure that the rower can get out of the
shoes should the boat flip. For fixed-seat rowers, escaping from a flipped shell is a
much more daunting task since they may be held securely in the boat with up to three
straps. For that reason, every effort has been made to ensure that fixed-seat boats are
extremely difficult to capsize. Both the standard single and double are recreational
hulls and thus are wider and more stable. In addition, pontoons attached to each pin
of the rigger are required in the single. Pontoons may also be affixed to the double
to aid novice rowers. As with any novice rower, a safety launch should accompany
them at all times.
Be sure to do a safety check before a rower shoves off the dock. Make certain that
the pontoons and all seat connections are securely attached to the boat. Also, check that
the feet can release easily from the shoes or clogs. If there are any straps or aids bind-
ing the rower’s hands to the oars, be sure that the rower can release the bindings with
her mouth. Have the rower practice quick release of any strapping around the legs and
chest as part of each lesson. Because AS rowers put great strain on the strap around the
sternum, most of them prefer a wide strap that distributes the pressure better. Some have
chosen weightlifting-style belts because they are strong and sufficiently stiff. Whatever
straps a rower chooses, it is crucial that they all release in the same direction and that
the pull tab is easily found.
202 ◾ Lewis
Another element of adaptive rowing safety is skin protection and the prevention of
pressure sores and chaffing. Even a simple cut or scratch on a lower leg can take a long
time to heal for a rower with a spinal cord injury. After an initial row, the rower must
do a self-check for any red pressure areas or chaffing spots so that proper adjustments
can be made before participation in longer training sessions. Fixed-seat athletes should
row with a cushion of their choice to alleviate this issue.
Safety should be the primary focus when setting up an athlete in a boat for the first
time, but it is also important to make sure the rower is comfortable with the boat and oars.
Once the rower has learned the fundamental parts of rowing and is ready to progress,
he will want to get faster, and you can then make adjustments accordingly. A properly
rigged boat will make it easier for an athlete to learn the correct rowing stroke. However,
proper rigging in adaptive rowing will be unique to each athlete.
Rigging
With the advent of fixed-seat rowing, it was immediately clear that because of the shorter
stroke, there was no need for overlap of the handles. The first thing that was changed
was to increase the spread on a standard rigger as much as possible and move the collar
on the oar to get the shortest inboard allowing for noncrossing sculls. Depending on
the equipment, this could mean a spread of 163 cm, inboard of 78 cm, and overall oar
length of 285 cm. Though it makes for an extremely heavy load, rowers are able to have
longer strokes instead of a quick drop in the water.
For AS rowers, the goal is to increase the arc that the oar follows through the water.
AS rowers have a short stroke, so a short inboard is needed. They also require a smaller
spread, so custom riggers can be made with spreads as low as 125 cm. The angle of the
rigger out to the pin is smaller, allowing the rower to reach further through the pin and
achieve a larger catch angle. Without crossover, no differential is needed, so the oarlock
heights can be the same. With standard oars, this type of rigging is generally not pos-
sible without moving the sleeve, and because of the length of the oar, it is too heavy
for racing. We opted to purchase shorter oars with larger blades to create a lighter load
and thus achieve higher stroke rates to race the 1,000 m (see figure 15.7). An AS or
TA rower using a noncrossing oar would want at least 8 cm space between the ends of
the handles. For example, 140 cm spread would require a maximum of 66 cm inboard
(see figure 15.8).
Courtesy of hope wilkinson
The shorter oars are very light. Adding a bit of weight to the blade end of the shaft
can assist with the feel of the recovery and the drop-in at the catch. To further increase
the catch angle, we removed the footstretchers, allowing some rowers to sit further into
the stern of the boat and row further through the pin.
The TA rower will also use noncrossing oars for an increased stroke length. TA rowers
generally have a longer reach, so the spread can be greater and the oars can be a bit
longer than for AS rowers, but the concepts are basically the same.
TA rowers must be strapped at the knees in accordance with current FISA rules, and
some use an optional strap around the hips if they do not have a good connection to
the footstretcher (e.g., double amputee). If a rower does not need the back of the fixed
seat (see figure 15.5 on page 199),
it can be removed to reduce wind
resistance and weight. TA athletes
can experience strain on the ham-
strings and lower back while reach-
ing for the long catch, and tilting up
the seat bottom that is closer to the
bow or moving the footstretcher
The rigging guidelines presented in table 15.1 are based on top athletes who have been
racing at the world championships or Paralympics for the last 1 to 3 years and are by no
means absolute numbers. Take into consideration that these rigging measurements are
based on the equipment that is regulated at this point, and they are used by the stronger
athletes in the sport. Some of the loads may be too heavy for a novice rower, so you should
listen to the feedback from your athlete and use consistent monitoring to determine how
the rigging will change as the athlete becomes a stronger rower. If you are not using Win-
tech recreational hulls, you may find other rigging works better for your club equipment.
Table 15.1
Examples of Rigging Ranges Used by 2008 Paralympians
Spread/span Overall
Boat class (country) Blade type (cm) Inboard (cm) length (cm)
ASM1x (USA) Concept2 Fat Blade 141 66 248
ASM1x (Canada) Croker 134 61 264
ASW1x (USA) Concept2 Fat Blade 143 69 248
TAMix2x (USA) Concept2 Fat Blade 147 70 265
LTAMix4+ (USA)* Concept2 Fat Blade 84 114 367
Middle-range club rigging 4+ Coach chooses blade type 86 116 372
* In the USA LTA4+, the heights were set higher for the men and lower for the women to accommodate the varying rowers, and one of the
athletes was rigged with a longer outboard.
Additional Equipment
A fixed seat can be custom made and it will comply with the rules of racing as long as it
is attached to the boat using the regulation tracks and fittings. Some rowers have made
seats that are vacuum molded for maximum stability of the hips and that reduce the
possibility of developing pressure sores.
Rowers who use a wheelchair can sometimes transfer from their wheelchair right
to the dock. Others prefer to use a transfer bench, which allows for a step down to the
dock, or have come up with systems that work for them, such as a gardening pad on
the dock. There is also a mechanical lift that can be installed on the dock, which will
hoist a rower right from his wheelchair and place him in the boat.
For stability in the boat, rowers may be more comfortable with an additional shoulder
harness or grips to assist in holding the oars or other equipment that is not required by
the official adaptive rowing regulations. Rowers will know when they need additional
support or strapping, but they may not know how best to accomplish it in a rowing
boat. Always start by making the athlete safe and secure in the boat before worrying
about racing regulations.
Technique
At first examination of the AS shortened stroke, it was considered to be a waste of
energy to feather the blade and then go right back to the square. However, it has been
shown that the wind resistance on the blade is significant and feathering the blade on
Special Considerations for Adaptive Rowing ◾ 205
the recovery will make the boat faster regardless of the stroke length. Unless rowers
have some impairment preventing them from feathering, even AS rowers with a high
stroke rate should feather the blade on the recovery (Nolte, 2009).
For fixed-seat rowing, there is a different feel for the ratio on the drive phase versus
recovery phase because there is minimal possibility for check in the boat. Efficient entry
and exit from the water will be key to garnering some recovery. Although missing
water at the catch and washing out at the release are detrimental to any rower, these
are even more critical concerns for fixed-seat rowers due to the shortened stroke. A
small distance lost on either end of the stroke can add up to a significant percentage
of the total length through the water. Proper bladework and maximized stroke length
are critical.
The bladework for sliding-seat adaptive rowers will be the same as for rowers
without disabilities. Style changes may take place in order to achieve this bladework.
For example, someone with an affected hand or arm may not feather in the standard
way, and a person with a leg amputation might use more upper-body strength at
varying times in the stroke. As for rowers without disabilities, limb length, strength
imbalance, and flexibility all play a part in how rowers with disabilities put the pres-
sure on the blade.
Training Issues
What should adaptive rowers be doing differently from rowers without disabilities for
training, lifting, and flexibility programs? Aside from closer monitoring to help prevent
injuries, the concepts and proven methods of training the human body are the same.
What must be adapted are not the training methods but the exercise equipment or
training modalities. For example, you may have to change a weightlifting machine to
make it wheelchair accessible or employ other strength training techniques such as using
exercise bands or hands-on resistance work.
When making ergometer training plans, generally TA athletes perform ratings three
beats higher than sliding-seat rowers, and AS rowers would be six beats higher. The drag
factor will differ from rower to rower, but a good starting point is 105 to 120 for LTA rowers,
125 to 140 for TA rowers, and 150 to 175 for AS rowers. You can read a full discussion
on drag factor at www.concept2.com.
A beginning adaptive rower’s training is more dependent on his general fitness level
than on his disability. If an athlete has a good level of fitness, strength, and flexibility,
he should be able to begin a rowing program similar to that for a novice rower without
disabilities. If he has trained as an elite athlete, the strength and base conditioning are
already present, and workout volume can increase more quickly.
Laura Schwanger, the 2008 Paralympic bronze medalist in the AS single, did her
initial training on an ergometer over the 2006-07 winter season. She rowed in a boat
for the first time in the spring of 2007 and competed in the world championship regatta
only 4 months later. She was able to train at the level required to achieve her success
because of her years as an elite track and field athlete, during which she won 11 medals
at the Paralympics. Schwanger already had a high level of strength and flexibility and
a terrific aerobic base; she simply needed to learn the rowing technique. If someone
comes to rowing who has never done anything athletic, she should proceed slowly to
gain the strength and endurance necessary to perform the skills of rowing; rushing into
an intense training program too quickly can lead to injuries.
206 ◾ Lewis
There are certainly elements of disabilities that can make it challenging for an athlete
to train. Some disabilities make it more difficult to train in the heat or can make an
athlete fatigue more rapidly. For example, a rower with a spinal cord injury may have
smaller active muscle mass, less blood volume, and thus a lower V̇O2max. Some effects
of spinal cord injury include greater muscle fatigue, less endurance, greater susceptibility
to fractures and overuse injuries, and the potential for hyperthermia since generally the
body does not sweat below the area of injury (Cooper et al., 2006). It is crucial to pay
close attention to how a rower is reacting to his training. Be careful not to overtrain or
rig too heavy, which can cause overuse injuries and rib stress fractures.
Racing
The number of recreational adaptive rowing programs is growing. However, it takes
a lot of work to provide athletes with disabilities access to safe and affordable rowing.
Despite the growing number of adaptive rowers, there is still a shortage of adaptive
racing opportunities.
With the current number of adaptive rowers, it is difficult to have a regatta solely
for adaptive athletes. For example, in the United States there is currently only one, the
Bayada Regatta in Philadelphia. Most other adaptive events are incorporated into exist-
ing regattas. Competing in a local regatta can help avoid the expense of traveling and
will help raise awareness of adaptive rowing. However, often this means athletes in the
same club end up racing each other. Using a handicapping system similar to the masters
age handicap, adaptive events can include all classifications and genders. For instance,
giving an AS woman in a single a bit of a head start can allow her to compete against a
TA male rower or any other category or boat class. This may bridge the gap for a while.
If a regatta cannot add races to the schedule, rowers may enter the masters events
closest to their speed. There are successful examples of an LTAMix4+ racing in a masters
men’s E4+ event (minimum age 55 years) in order to have a competitive race, and ASM1x
Ron Harvey has raced in the recreational or novice 1x division in various regattas and
regularly competes in indoor events against veteran men since their times are compe-
titive. Until there are more adaptive rowers, athletes should find racing opportunities
where they can. If you do have the opportunity to travel, contact local clubs about loaner
adaptive equipment for the adaptive races.
Starting a Program
What does it take to start an adaptive rowing program? In the beginning, it just takes
two people: an athlete and an advocate. Open your doors and see who comes in. PRPD
in Philadelphia began its first year with only one boat, one rower, and two volunteers.
Today, it has over 60 participants per week and teaches rowing to athletes both with
and without disabilities. Many adaptive rowers do not need fixed seats, so you may be
able to include rowers without added expense.
When starting an adaptive rowing program, many clubs alter the equipment that is
already available because this is the quickest and least costly approach. Some adaptive
programs consist mainly of sliding-seat athletes and so they have not needed to change
much in the way of equipment. For new fixed-seat rowers, it is relatively easy to adapt
the Concept2 ergometer with a fixed seat and to start athletes on the indoor training
Special Considerations for Adaptive Rowing ◾ 207
machine. Once they develop the strength and endurance needed to propel a boat and
are ready to get on the water, you can decide whether to adapt the equipment at your
club or to purchase new adaptive boats. If you have limited funding, start by adding
pontoons to a recreational shell before purchasing a new boat. As explained before,
though, customized equipment and proper rigging will best allow rowers to improve
their technique and will result in greater boat speed.
Conclusion
The rules of adaptive rowing may shift over the next few Paralympic cycles, but the
basics will remain the same. The overall reason for sport is to improve health and fitness
and to have the opportunity to compete and pursue excellence. Rowing is a lifetime
sport that can be done alone or with a team and can provide the exercise one needs to
create a higher quality of life. Sharing the gift of rowing with those who need support
or equipment adaptations should be part of every boat club.
Hopefully someday there will be complete integration in rowing clubs, with non-
adaptive athletes rowing with adaptive rowers in standard shells with creative rigging.
Laura Schwanger, an AS rower, has been breaking boundaries recently. She took the
initiative to have her seat adapted to the slimmer width of the racing shell. She raced
in the USRowing Masters National Championship in a standard quad (sitting in 2 seat)
and in a masters event at the Head of the Charles Regatta in a double (rowing in bow
seat) with an able bodied teammate. Functional electrical stimulation (FES) rowing has
enabled athletes with lower-limb paralysis to use the ergometer and row with a sliding
seat, and it has been shown to increase strength and endurance as well as other general
health factors (Hettinga et al., 2004). Continuation of these efforts will make it possible
for rowing to become completely integrated.
Chapter 16
Women in Rowing
Amanda Schweinbenz
◾ 209
210 ◾ Schweinbenz
Some would argue that the disproportionate number of male coaches has a far greater
impact on the sport than simply at the coaching level. Female sport enthusiasts in the
early 20th century fought to provide girls and women with the opportunity to participate
in sport and physical activity. They were adamant that women’s sport should be run
by women because only women could understand the female nature and the sporting
needs and desires of women. The implication is that female athletes require leadership
and guidance that differs from their male counterparts, and many would argue that this
holds true today.
Beset by the male dominance of decision-making positions in competitive rowing,
these women sought to give a voice back to the female rowing community. Female
administrators and coaches were necessary to assist women in gaining equity in a com-
petitive international rowing. Yet, the decision to become a competitive rowing coach or
administrator was not easy for many women. Significant barriers that existed between
1954 and 2003 prevented women from gaining and maintaining positions of authority
in international sport.
Despite the relatively short history of women’s participation in competitive rowing,
oarswomen have made significant strides in the sport. However, even though more
women than ever are participating in rowing, we have yet to see a proportional increase
in the number of professional female coaches.
run by women (Palchikoff, 1978). The oarswomen were not widely accepted along
the banks of the Schuylkill, and Bayer later commented to the Syracuse Herald American
that when the club was first introduced, the majority of the male rowers along the
Schuylkill refused to speak to her husband because he supported women’s rowing.
She added that when male rowers did speak with her husband, “they’d tell him girls
had no right to be out on the river rowing” (Goldstein, 2006). Women were expected
to convey certain femininities, and racing along the river did not adhere to notions of
appropriate sport participation.
One popular form of rowing that was considered acceptable for middle- and upper-class
women was style rowing. Style rowing was designed before the turn of the 20th century
to promote outdoor physical activity for women without disrupting femininity—early
participants wore corsets, long white dresses, and white cotton gloves. As time progressed
and the sliding seat was introduced, long dresses were replaced by tying skirts (skirts that
could be tied around the legs, resembling bloomers) and long stockings. It was believed
that decent women must wear stockings while rowing: “with the unstockinged leg we
no longer see the line but only the leg, the leg in all its naked fleshliness” (Dodd, 1991,
p. 337). Respectable middle- and upper-class young women did not show their naked
flesh for the fear that it could inflame men, who were considered unable to control
themselves or their sexual instincts. Women’s perceived innate moral superiority gave
them the discipline, skill, and ultimately the obligation to prevent men from succumb-
ing to inappropriate sexual desires. One way to prevent immorality was to remove all
sexual stimuli. Thus, middle- and upper-class women were required to cover their entire
bodies, leaving only the skin on their faces visible.
In addition to style rowing, oarswomen also participated in the traditional form of
rowing that their fathers and brothers enjoyed. However, their opportunities were lim-
ited before the 1950s. Internationally, only a small number of European federations,
including Russia, France, and the Netherlands, were progressive in their attitudes toward
women’s competitive rowing and accepted women’s racing, albeit on a limited basis and
not necessarily because they believed in equality of the sexes. By 1960, women’s national
rowing championships were raced in Denmark, Germany, France, Greece, Netherlands,
Norway, Poland, and Czechoslovakia (Women’s Rowing Commission, 1970).
At the same time as women negotiated for admittance into national championships,
they also sought international racing opportunities through their negotiations with
FISA delegates. Throughout the first half of the 20th century, FISA delegates had little
interest in the introduction of women’s events to the international racing program. FISA
was originally established as an international sport governing body that governed and
celebrated men’s elite rowing, and few delegates considered women capable of participat-
ing at the international level. However, some members saw that women’s competitive
rowing at the local and national levels was growing and that FISA had the opportunity
to gain authority over women’s international rowing if they brought women’s races
under their mandate.
In 1950, FISA’s all-male delegation agreed that rowing could be both a masculine
and feminine sporting activity, with certain events more suitable for female participants.
They established international regulations for women’s competitive rowing that took into
account both physiological and cultural considerations (FISA, 1950). They also limited
the number and types of events available to women and limited the racing distance to
1,000 m, half the distance of the men’s.
212 ◾ Schweinbenz
Between 1954 and 1973, the number of countries competing at the women’s Euro-
pean championships rose from 14 to 19, and the number of entries increased from 34 to
53 (Meuret, 1992). This increased interest in women’s international rowing supported
FISA’s proposal to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) that women’s rowing
should be introduced to the Olympic Games, and in 1976, the first women’s Olympic
rowing races were held in Montreal.
FISA delegates originally limited the women’s racing distance to 1,000 m because it
was believed that women were unable to endure the full racing distance of 2,000 m. In
1985, it was decided that a major change was needed in women’s rowing. It was agreed
that women’s rowing required endurance and technique, not simply brute force, and
therefore women’s competitive racing distance was increased to 2,000 m (Meuret, 1992).
At the same time, FISA delegates became interested in expanding the sport throughout
the world by attracting competitive rowers from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. It was
suggested that the introduction of lightweight women’s rowing would make the sport
more attractive to a wider audience of female oarswomen, because events designed for
women who weighed less than 60 kg would open the sport to Asia, where many women
fit in this category. Eager to see the sport expand throughout this part of the world, FISA
agreed to introduce women’s lightweight events at the 1985 world championships and
finally the Olympic Games in 1996.
and were appalled by the attitudes they witnessed in men’s intercollegiate athletics.
Thus, they rejected the win-at-all-costs mentality. As a result, women’s intercollegiate
competition was banned in favor of play days, noncompetitive activities that promoted
socialization among college women. All interested players could attend, with no special
awards given for athletic skill or achievement (Cahn, 1994). Oarswomen, for example,
often won awards for their singing talent and their aesthetic form in the rowing shell
(Palchikoff, 1978).
These female sport administrators wanted women to participate in appropriate
sports, and the only way to ensure that was for the control of women’s sport to be in
the hands of female physical educators and sport administrators. One specific concern
regarding the temptation of competitive sport was the inevitable loss of control to men’s
sport organizations if they took control over women’s participation, rendering female
administrators powerless.
Liberal sport feminists, however, actively supported women’s participation in competi-
tive sport. They argued that equality was only achieved if women and men participated
in the same sports at the same competitive levels. This was perhaps an accepted approach
for both women and men because rather than challenge male sports, it endorsed them.
In the end, competitive sport for girls and women reigned, and female athletes eagerly
adopted the sports and practices of their male counterparts throughout the latter half
of the 20th century.
With increased access came increased pressure to perform. Just as in men’s sport, it
became important for female athletes to win. This professionalization of attitudes toward
play has had a significant impact on women’s sport. For example, before the 1972
introduction of Title IX in the United States—the legislation mandating that publicly
funded academic institutions provide equal funding for both men and women—female
athletes devoted more time to academics and were more likely to report that sport was
fun. However, after the passage of Title IX, female athletes’ attitudes have become more
professionalized; they are more likely to select a school for athletic reasons, more likely
to feel relieved when their athletic career is over, and less likely to compete without a
scholarship. This suggests that female athletes, like male athletes, are increasingly moti-
vated by athletic excellence rather than academic viability.
Studies on the academic performance of student-athletes indicate that female athletes
outperform male athletes academically; male athletes are less prepared academically for
postsecondary education than female athletes, and female athletes have higher graduation
rates. Additionally, studies indicate that female athletes tend to adjust to retirement from
athletics more easily than their male counterparts. Due to the limited viable opportuni-
ties for women in professional sport, most women’s athletic careers end at graduation.
Although female athletes have been shown to differ from their male counterparts
academically, there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that their athletic demands differ.
So why is there a perception that you need to coach women differently than men? For
the answer to this question, we must look at the gendered nature of sport.
Historically, sport has been a venue through which boys develop into men. Male
athletes are encouraged to learn how to be aggressive, strong, competitive, dominant,
assertive, and fearless through their involvement in sport. At a young age, boys learn
that the ability to take a hit or play when they are hurt is an important aspect of sport
and their own physical and moral development. Showing vulnerability and weak-
ness, especially through crying, is unacceptable. Male athletes are expected to display
214 ◾ Schweinbenz
masculinity, and when they do not, they are ridiculed by peers and even coaches. Male
athletes have grown up believing that verbal abuse during practice and competition is
acceptable. Coaches, teammates, and opponents can often be heard trash-talking, belit-
tling, swearing, and berating those around them. This is justified by parents, coaches,
administrators, and spectators as a part of sport and a way to get the most out of ath-
letes. Yet, a male or female coach swearing at or berating a female athlete is considered
deplorable. At what point did the emotional well-being of a female athlete become more
important than a male’s?
Female athletes, on the other hand, learn to negotiate their position in sport differ-
ently than male athletes. Athleticism and femininity can be seen as contradictory, and
many female athletes feel the need to go out of their way to show that they can be
both athletic and socially accepted as females. Many sportswomen emphasize feminine
characteristics because women who appear heterosexually feminine are privileged
over women who are perceived as masculine (Krane, 2001). We need only to look at
women’s professional golf and tennis for examples of female athletes who have excelled
with the media not because of their athletic success but because of their physical beauty.
For instance, Anna Kournikova has never been ranked in the top five worldwide for
women’s professional tennis, yet she has been the most successful female tennis player
with regard to endorsements and sponsorships.
Female athletes often play to the desired norm of femininity by wearing makeup,
spending extra time fixing their hair, and selecting clothing that emphasizes their feminine
attributes. They may pretend to be weaker, less skilled, and less intelligent than their
male counterparts in order to be accepted by the opposite sex. They often struggle with
the desire to be strong and toned in order to excel in their sport and with their fear of
developing oversized musculature and being seen as manly (Kolnes, 1995). However,
female athletes who overemphasize their feminine characteristics run the risk of being
sexualized and trivialized.
Though sport is inherently gendered, there is no significant evidence that coaching
styles are gender specific. Not all athletes respond to the same coaching style, and not
all coaches lead with the same coaching style. Some female athletes respond best to an
authoritative coaching style, while some male athletes prefer a cooperative coaching
style. We all have our strengths and weaknesses, and we respond to situations in dif-
ferent ways. Whatever the coaching style and whoever the athlete, everyone deserves
to be treated with respect and dignity. Studies have shown that within rowing, the
most successful coaches of both male and female athletes create a positive training
environment, facilitate goal setting, build athletes’ confidence, teach skills effectively,
recognize individual differences, and establish a positive rapport with each athlete (Côté
& Sedgwick, 2003).
Communication is an important part of creating this positive training environment
and developing a cohesive team. It is even more important for female athletes, espe-
cially with regard to performance goals. Preliminary research has shown that female
athletes often feel as though they and their teammates do not agree on performance
goals (Dubuc, 2010). Thus, coaches of female teams must ensure that there is clear
communication among the entire team about the expected goals, including racing,
training, and technique. Furthermore, this communication cannot solely be given from
the coach but must also come from the athletes themselves, who need to feel involved
in the decision-making process.
Women in Rowing ◾ 215
Additionally, coaches must acknowledge that their relationships with athletes have an
inherent power imbalance. Coaches set and control practices, have expert knowledge,
influence weight control and diet, and decide who is racing in which seats. All this can
have a dramatic effect on athletes’ experiences. Athletes will often act in ways that they
believe will garner acceptance, recognition, and approval from their coach, which can
have a negative impact on their daily practices. For example, the way in which a coach
approaches weight loss for lightweight rowing can result in disordered eating for both
female and male athletes.
This power imbalance can be compounded when the coach–athlete relationship is
between a male coach and a female athlete. This power dynamic is an ideal climate for athlete
exploitation. Female athletes can feel uncomfortable having a male coach manipulate their
body to show appropriate technique or having a private meeting with a male coach behind
closed doors. Some young women have experienced abusive relationships outside of sport
and may be fearful that their male coach will continue this pattern. Further, female athletes
in this relationship are vulnerable to a variety of sexist practices and sexual harassment.
As a way of addressing these concerns, numerous teams and programs have instituted
policies stipulating that at least one member of the coaching staff of a women’s team
must be female. In addition to helping female athletes feel at ease with the coaching
staff, this rule provides young women with female role models, which is an important
step in bringing more women into the profession of coaching.
Female Coaches
As in other sports, those who become rowing coaches have typically been rowers them-
selves. Legendary coach Thor Nilsen once stated, “Coaching always came from within
rowing, [and it] was based on personal experience and coxing” (Dodd, 1991, p.126).
Because of this, rowing coaches have historically been men since they were originally
permitted access to the waterways and racing. It appeared natural for adult men to serve
in positions of knowledge and authority and to lead crews in their quest for success.
A 1956 letter from a British female rower that was published in the ARA bulletin The
Oarswoman concurred with this argument, saying, “Women coaches seem to have very
haphazard ideas of training a crew, and little knowledge of any training programmes”
(Body, 1956, p. 18). The argument was that to succeed, a crew required the help of a
good coach, and because a good coach was interpreted as a male coach, women found
themselves underrepresented in the international coaching arena.
Statistics from the NCAA indicate that in 2008, 42.8% of coaches working with
women’s teams were women, and overall, only 20.6% of all head coaches were women
(Carpenter & Acosta, 2008). This is a dramatic difference from the 1972 statistics that
indicate that over 90% of all women’s teams in 1972, the year that Title IX was enacted,
were coached by women (see figure 16.1 on page 216). Even though the number of
women’s teams in the NCAA is currently at its highest, the representation of females
among the coaching ranks of women’s intercollegiate athletics is near its lowest. Interest-
ingly, the number of female coaches working with women’s rowing teams in the NCAA
has increased from 11.9% in 1977 to 42.3% in 2008 (Carpenter & Acosta, 2008). Yet while
this number has risen, female coaches remain underrepresented (see figure 16.2 on page
216). In Canada, currently only five (22%) university head rowing coaches are women.
Female rowing coaches of NCAA women’s crews 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
1972
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
1976
1974
Years
Figure 16.1 Percentage of women coaching women’s rowing teams in the NCAA (all divisions).
Data from L.J. Carpenter and R.V. Acosta, 2008, Women in intercollegiate sport: A longitudinal, national study thirty one year update: 1977-2008
E5068/Nolte/Rowing Faster, 2e/F16.01/404233/TimB/R1
[Online]. Available at http://webpages.charter.net/womeninsport/2008%20Summary%20Final.pdf [February 21, 2011].
2008 1997
100%
Women coaches in NCAA
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Archery
Badminton
Basketball
Bowling
Crew and rowing
Cross country
Fencing
Field hockey
Golf
Gymnastics
Ice hockey
Lacrosse
Riding
Riflery
Sailing
Skiing
Soccer
Softball
Squash
Swimming and diving
Synchronized swimming
Tennis
Track and field
Volleyball
Water polo
Figure 16.2 Percentage of female coaches in the NCAA per sport (all divisions).
Data from L.J. Carpenter and R.V. Acosta, 2008, Women in intercollegiate sport: A longitudinal, national study thirty one year update: 1977-2008
E5068/Nolte/Rowing Faster, 2e/F16.02/404234/TimB/R3-alw
[Online]. Available at http://webpages.charter.net/womeninsport/2008%20Summary%20Final.pdf [February 21, 2011].
216 ◾
Women in Rowing ◾ 217
Over the years, academics have formulated several explanations as to why women
continue to have difficulty gaining access to coaching positions despite the increase in
sporting opportunities for female athletes. These include social, economic, legal, insti-
tutional, and organizational barriers (West & Brackenridge, 1990). Sport management
scholars have also suggested obstacles including perceptions of the success of the old
boy network and a lack of support systems for women (Acosta & Carpenter, 1988);
administrators’ perceptions of the lack of qualified female coaches (Acosta & Carpenter,
1988); burnout (Caccese & Mayerberg, 1984); preferences of male and female athletes
for male coaches (Parkhouse & Williams, 1986); and male coaches becoming increasingly
interested in coaching women’s teams (Acosta & Carpenter, 1988). Arguably all of these
reasons have resulted in women avoiding careers in coaching.
The overwhelming dominance of men in decision-making positions within sport
organizations has arguably resulted in fewer women being hired for head coaching roles
(Lovett & Lowry, 1994). Some academics have argued that sport organizations are an
optimal place for homologous reproduction (Kanter, 1977; Stangl & Kane, 1991). For
example, if male rowing administrators are hiring a new coach, they are more likely to
hire a man who reflects their own image, thus sustaining an old boy network (Lovett
& Lowry, 1994). Whether or not this network actually exists, many women perceive
that it is ever present and believe that they will not be able to gain a position in such
an environment.
One result of homologous reproduction in sport organizations is the lack of same-
gender role models and mentors for future female coaches, which is a major concern
for sport organizations. Role models can act as mentors to less experienced coaches,
providing guidance and support. Mentoring is a key element in upward mobility within
sport organizations and also has the benefit of increasing the protégé’s job satisfaction
(Weaver & Chelladurai, 2002).
Even though women face numerous hurdles to gain access to professional coaching
positions, some do obtain these coveted positions. Because of the limited number of
women who hold positions as professional coaches, those who do become coaches are
keenly aware of their isolated status (Theberge, 1993).
Although relatively few women are working as professional rowing coaches, many
in the international rowing community are unaffected by the reality that there are
significantly fewer women coaching than men. Regardless the gender of the crew, the
belief is common that it does not matter whether a coach is a man or a woman as long
as that person can motivate the crew to achieve success on the water. Men have shown
that they can be effective, competent, and even inspiring coaches for female athletes,
yet this has pushed women out of leadership positions.
Over the years, some rowing organizations have recognized the need to hire more
women to fill their coaching rosters, and some have even implemented gender-equity
initiatives. Although these initiatives have helped women gain access to coaching posi-
tions, there is often the perception that, when a national rowing federation hires a
woman as part of the coaching staff, it is doing so to fill a quota, not because the woman
is qualified for the position.
Additionally, many female coaches feel as though they need to be one of the boys in
order to be accepted by their peers and the athletes they work with. Patriarchal sport
organizations, which associate coaching competency with masculine discourse, may be
hesitant to hire a woman who exhibits traditional femininities. As such, some female
coaches may feel pressure to adopt masculine coaching styles. For example, some coaches
will adopt a confrontational style or use intimidation or humiliation to control athletes.
218 ◾ Schweinbenz
Although peers and superiors can accept these displays of masculinity by female coaches,
women take the risk of being accused of acting like men and may not be taken seriously
(Martin, 1990).
Of all the barriers that women face in gaining and maintaining competitive inter-
national coaching positions, family responsibilities has been highlighted as the great-
est inhibitor (Schweinbenz, 2007). In a patriarchal society, women are expected to
be the primary caregivers, having commitments that include child care and domestic
responsibilities (Shaw & Hoeber, 2003). The long hours and intense workload associ-
ated with team leading puts increased pressure on both female and male coaches, but
generally men are better able than women to avoid the consequent familial stresses
(Acker, 1998).
Coaching is an arena that reinforces “the historically constituted division of labor
and power in sport” (Messner, 2002, p. 11). Men are expected to leave the home and
work, while women are expected to stay at home and raise the family; thus, women’s
lives are institutionally defined by their role within the home (Hartsock, 1987). Women
are the only child bearers and have been socialized to believe that they are naturally
programmed for child rearing; as a result, the domestic labor in the home becomes their
responsibility. Their role in the home is understood historically within the relationship
among gender, femininity, reproductive functions, and domesticity (Barrett, 1980).
Women are assumed to be more suitable for child rearing, a socially constructed ideol-
ogy that has been in existence for a long time.
Many women who have careers outside the home have assumed the responsibility
of the double day, working outside the home and then returning home to assume the
role of the domestic servant. Even more insulting, throughout most of the industrial-
ized world, paid work outside the home is often considered real work, while unpaid
family work in the home is considered nonwork (Acker, 1998). Women often feel
pressure to stay at home and raise their families. Further, men have been considered
more appropriate for coaching because their responsibilities in the home are less taxing
than women’s. Women face the challenge of trying to balance the responsibilities of
a career with the responsibilities of being a wife and mother. Even if a woman does
have a career, social discourse still dictates that her primary responsibility is that of
wife and mother.
Conclusion
The introduction of women’s competitive international rowing has helped to develop
women’s participation in the sport. More women are racing than ever before and in
more countries throughout the world. Women’s rowing success has become a priority
throughout all levels of sport, and as such, more people are looking for ways to optimize
oarswomen’s performance. Yet despite the increased importance and greater acceptance
of women’s rowing, the sport continues to be gendered. As coaches, we must acknowl-
edge that this gendering of sport can have a significant impact on athletes, both male
and female. Male athletes may feel the desire to embody masculinity, and female athletes
may want to depict accepted femininity. Rowing is a sport that requires great strength
and endurance, and female athletes may choose to balance these masculine character-
istics with other feminine traits. Coaches should not insult or disrespect female athletes
for their desire to appear and act feminine but should help to create an environment
where the athletic female is not a contradiction.
Women in Rowing ◾ 219
Managing a Team
Yasmin Farooq
W hen I first got to Stanford in 2006, I was challenged with building the rowing
program into a perennial contender for Pac-10 and NCAA titles. I knew it would
be a tall order, but I also knew that Stanford had a strong history of supporting athlet-
ics. Plus, when I interviewed for the job I saw a number of promising athletes in the
team media guide. Unfortunately, when I arrived I learned that several rowers had
no intention of returning. After meeting with those who did want to stay on, I real-
ized that with fewer than 23 people, we didn’t have enough physical bodies to field
an NCAA squad.
Meanwhile, the university had 12 consecutive Directors’ Cup trophies—awarded
to the most successful Division I program in all of collegiate athletics—plus a slew of
hall-of-fame coaches. The most notable of these was Stanford coaching mentor and San
Francisco 49ers football legend Bill Walsh. I was coming out of the private sector, and
entering the Division I NCAA world of rowing was a formidable challenge—even more
so once I realized I didn’t have enough people to compete. I fervently made the rounds
of the athletic department, looking for advice from my award-winning peers. Everyone
said, “Talk to Bill. Yaz, seriously, you need to talk to Bill.” When he graciously welcomed
me to come by one day, I presented my dilemma, and in an instant it became clear why
everyone steered me in his direction. Here’s what he said:
There are three keys to successfully building a program, and it doesn’t matter if it’s
football or rowing:
1. Create an environment where everyone is invested and supports your core
philosophies.
2. No matter what is going on outside of your team, make sure that internally,
your athletes can track their progress. They need to see where and how they are
improving.
3. Know who your true leaders are.
Bill Walsh was known as The Genius for his innovative and businesslike approach to
the game. Football fans know that Walsh took the 49ers from last in the league (2–14)
◾ 221
222 ◾ Farooq
to Super Bowl champions in 3 years. What I learned from Bill is that the foundation
for their championship season was laid in the two losing seasons. During that intro-
ductory time, he told me the media were merciless, and the outward perception of
the team was that they had no chance. The pressures on a team playing in one of the
nation’s largest TV markets in the number one sport in the United States must have
been enormous, especially in that first year. Despite the distractions, there was a lot of
teaching going on. In retrospect it was the creation and debut of Walsh’s now-famous
West Coast Offense that ultimately transformed the sport. But as they were learning
and developing, the 49ers were getting beat up every week, with every brutal news
headline dashing fans’ hopes.
Inside the locker room, Bill kept everyone grounded and focused. He educated the
players about the philosophy and steps that were going to make them competitive in
the long run. The short-term steps were clear: Each person’s job was broken down into
a series of skills that he needed to master in order to excel at his position. Bill and his
coaching staff evaluated the players by charting and gauging their progress as they prac-
ticed, executed, and improved. He recruited talent based on potential, not numbers, and
on how those personalities would work in the culture he was creating. And he knew
each and every one of those players inside and out.
As a mentor to coaches and business leaders for two decades, he wrote, “There is no
guarantee, no ultimate formula for success. However, a resolute and resourceful leader
understands that there are a multitude of means to increase the probability of success.
And that’s what it all comes down to, namely, intelligently and relentlessly seeking
solutions that will increase your chance of prevailing in a competitive environment.
When you do that, the score will take care of itself” (Walsh, Jamison, & Walsh, 2009,
Prologue: To Succeed You Must Fail).
Getting to know Bill was a lesson in itself: to use the valuable resources that are
immediately available to you, including the intangible ones. My first resource was the
wealth of knowledge that surrounded me at Stanford in other sports. It was a reminder
to listen to the experiences of others who had succeeded in similar circumstances. Learn-
ing from those who have overcome the obstacles you are currently facing can help you
avoid pitfalls that you might not see.
I’ve since learned that in the U.S. sport system, there are a lot of similarities between
NCAA women’s rowing and football. First, very specific rules and a common organiza-
tion govern both sports, and recruiting and scholarships play a significant role. Women’s
rowing evolved specifically because of the need to offset football scholarships with scholar-
ships in women’s sports. As universities determined that rowing could help them comply
with the gender-equity mandates of Title IX, the number of NCAA collegiate women’s
rowing programs exploded to over 135 in less than 10 years. Further, the introduction
of scholarships (as many as 20 are currently allowed per Division I college program)
encouraged high school athletes to embrace the sport.
As a result, NCAA women’s rowing has attracted better athletes and has become
increasingly competitive. Photo finishes are typical at every stage of the Division I cham-
pionship, and because of this razor-thin parity, predicting who will be in the grand finale
from one year to the next—or even from one day to the next—is hard to do. Coaching
and strategy have evolved dramatically as a result. The heightened competition has made
the details of managing a team that much more important.
How does this affect you? It’s an evolutionary story illustrating that when the com-
petition ratchets up, you are required to take a closer look at what’s around you and
what you can change to raise your team’s performance. Why wait?
Managing a Team ◾ 223
Table 17.1
Necessities to Be Evaluated for a Rowing Program
Evaluate your world
Resources Staff Specific team needs
• Available equipment • Strengths • Fitness
• Facilities • Responsibilities • Technique and skill development
• Venue • Ownership in the process • Mental
• Access
head coaches work together to create a schedule for sharing these resources while also
looking ahead to the needs for next year. (I also have 3-year and 5-year plans that
include longer-term goals.) As our teams have grown, we have made adjustments to
our budgets and schedules to ensure that we can get everyone on the ergometers and
to the boathouse. We also work together to schedule practices, scrimmages, and events
at our racing venue, Redwood Shores.
and selection in addition to senior team selection. U.S. women’s sculling crews are
consistently performing at the senior level now as well. It’s noteworthy in this era of
heavy recruiting of junior rowers for college that approximately half of the U.S. senior
women’s team learned to row at the university level.
Fitness
Fitness will always be the foundation of speed. The ergometer is still the best measure of
rowing-specific fitness, and it is the most accurate means of comparing your team with
other competitive teams. Be knowledgeable about the fitness levels of the top teams in
your sphere of competition. One of my favorite quotes from my days on the national
team is from the always-outspoken Michael O’Gorman, who was the lightweight men’s
eight coxswain at the time. O’Gorman had come through the club system in Philadel-
phia and had seen a lot of novel approaches for making the team. One day between
practices, O’Gorman mused, “I love all the delusional people who take all the shortcuts,
and then say, ‘I may not put in as much time as those guys, but the strokes I’m taking
are quality strokes.’”
Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that you can win consistently with pretty rowing
alone. You’ve got to build the engines to back it up. Educate your athletes so that they
understand the performance level of the teams that are at the top. When one person on
your squad gets it, another will follow.
Technique
As far as technique goes, there are many ways to go fast, and you’ve probably already
found lots of guidance in other chapters of this book. From a management aspect, here
is what’s most important:
Mental Management
For teams to be able to compete year in and year out at the collegiate and international
levels, they must achieve predetermined levels in preparation, learn and evolve through-
out the season, and be able to make adjustments on a daily basis once they get to the
championships in order to make the final and contend for a medal.
This brings me back to Bill Walsh’s second point: No matter what is going on outside
your team, make sure that your athletes can track their progress. Make sure they can
see where and how they are improving.
Mental management is all about instilling confidence. Successful coaches always seem
to find a theme that their athletes can mentally embrace and use as a pillar of training.
When you make that theme measureable, its value increases substantially.
At the 2009 Joy of Sculling conference, Mike Spracklen recounted his gold-medal
crew’s preparation for the 2008 Olympics. After asking the audience, “Medals are awarded
in the summer but they are won in the winter, aren’t they?”, Spracklen went on to
explain the systematic way in which he built his team’s confidence in its execution of
longer workouts in small boats. At the beginning of winter, Mike sent his guys out for a
Managing a Team ◾ 227
15 km workout, and then he explained that when everyone in the group could execute
the workout correctly and at the right intensity, he would deem them ready to tack on
another kilometer for the next outing. The key was that the load did not increase until
everyone in the group could do it correctly. As the rowers became fitter and stronger,
Mike added 1 km at a time, sticking to the plan. The team’s confidence, in addition to
its fitness, grew with every kilometer.
Al Morrow, who has coached multiple Canadian crews to Olympic medals, would
call that a good illustration of buy-in—a term he frequently uses and a staple in the
Morrow methodology for getting teams to perform. Morrow’s tactics involve giving
his crews a certain amount of control over the race plan. His athletes later chuckle
fondly about that, because they recount that many of their attacks were based on
confidence that they derived from language and themes that their coach repeatedly
planted in the training.
The point is that Morrow involved them in the process, and as a result, they were
deeply invested. One year, I recall that every time Morrow’s boats started up from a dead
stop, he had them execute the first five strokes or so of the start, no matter the workout.
He wanted those first starting strokes to be so engrained in the rowers that they were
second nature. His rowers had great confidence in their start, and my recollection is that
the Canadian women were very quick off the line that year.
Other specific measures for the prerace phase could include a standard ergometer
workout where rowers can chart their improvement weekly or biweekly. Similar
progress-tracking workouts might include a weight routine with increasing weights, run-
ning workouts, and small-boat matrices. Tests in these same exercises can be scheduled
cyclically. Whatever workouts or tests you select, make sure that the athletes understand
the value of each part in your overall plan.
Another key factor in mental management is helping athletes handle pressure. When
Tom Terhaar was an assistant for the U.S. women’s team, he witnessed firsthand how
Olympic pressures could take a toll on athletes’ performance. Later, as head coach, his
management of the media (i.e., no access to athletes except for the immediate postrace
period) was a shock to national broadcasters and journalists who were used to getting
interviews whenever they wanted them. Terhaar also limited access by parents to a
specific window after the Olympic heat. By eliminating distractions, he kept his athletes
focused on the task at hand.
Terhaar’s teams also practice visualization as part of their race preparation. In Athens
in 2004, his team was fully prepared for a photo finish in the now infamous Meltemia
tailwind conditions, where they edged Romania and set a world’s best time in the heat.
At the 2008 Beijing Games, he handled the media the same—they had grown accus-
tomed to their lack of access by now—and the wire-to-wire victory over the three-time
defending Olympic champions from Romania is now history.
would listen, and you’d see them generally nodding their heads—but then when Keena
Turner spoke, you saw everyone perk up and pay attention. He was the guy who really
got everyone dialed in. He was the true leader.”
A true leader is also someone who instills camaraderie, so it’s extra important that this
person understands what’s going on. That is not to say that you want to regularly take
this person aside and give her special treatment, but it does mean that if it ever seems
like she doesn’t comprehend your direction, then no one else will, either. Use your true
leaders as a barometer. If they get the plan, they will help inspire their teammates to
higher achievement within your guidelines.
Conclusion
It was at Bill Walsh’s memorial service, 9 months after I first met him, that I learned
firsthand how well he knew his athletes. Hall-of-fame quarterback Steve Young talked
about the choice to stay in San Francisco and back up Joe Montana instead of taking
one of the many opportunities to go somewhere else and be a starter. He said, “I knew
that if I stayed, I was going to find out how good I was. I knew Bill could show me how
good I could be. I didn’t know if it was going to be heaven or hell, but I knew that I was
going to find out how good I was if I stayed.”
Young’s comments drive home this point: In the end, managing a successful team is
about managing athletes and their expectations. Resources and competitors will evolve,
and program administrators will come and go. Your ability to handle those ever-changing
elements and redefine your approach to the human beings who are on your team is
the key to long-term success. Walsh’s great strengths were innovation and a love for
teaching. But his ultimate success was imparting this knowledge in a practical way that
allowed every member of the San Francisco 49ers organization to comprehend the
dream and contribute—just one more reason why he will be remembered as one of the
greatest coaches of our time.
Part V
Racing
Derek Porter
I have always had a love–hate relationship with racing. I loved it because I spent so
much time training and preparing for it—it is in essence what we train for, our raison
d’être, if you will. But at the same time, it is such a small part of rowing, especially at
the elite level. For the majority of my 12 years on the Canadian national team, we raced
an average of three or four regattas a year, but it was those few races that motivated me
through all of the tough winter training sessions in the sleet and snow when I really
wished I had pursued basketball or volleyball or anything indoors. Of course, all those
thoughts changed in the summer months when it was such a joy to be a rower.
In the sport of rowing, you have to enjoy the training and try to maximize the transfer
of skills to the racing environment. I was fortunate to have done most of my training in
Victoria, British Columbia, under Mike Spracklen. I say fortunate, because he prepared
us for racing by racing every day on the water. My early national team experiences were
in the 8+, but we spent the vast majority of our time in pairs, hammering each other in
low-rate, high-power pieces over and over.
It was in this competitive environment that I really learned how to race. Perhaps I
didn’t learn all of the psychological elements required to race successfully, but I definitely
learned most of the physical ones. Racing to your potential requires the ability to know
exactly how hard to go at every point in the race. If you go out of the gates like a rabbit,
how long should you sustain that pace? If you go out slower, how far can you afford
to let the competition get ahead of you before you reel them in? How much of a push
can you do through the middle of the race and still have enough to get to the finish?
Are you comfortable racing from behind? Do you prefer to get out in front and try to
stay there? All of these plans have their pros and cons. The bottom line is you have to
know yourself and your abilities intimately to be able to execute the plan that is right
for you and your crewmates.
I always approached training like a race with myself. It’s also nice to beat your crew-
mates in small boats, and we were always encouraged to do so, knowing that Mike
Spracklen’s eyes didn’t miss a thing. Did you win the piece? Did you win the first one
and then fall back on the next one? Did you wait until the last piece to show your speed?
◾ 229
230 ◾ Porter
All these situations are integral to your development as a rower and how you look to
your coach. How you train shapes the way you race.
I know this part of the book is about racing, but training is integral to racing suc-
cessfully. If I am doing 4 × 2,000 m at increasing rates from 20 to 26 spm, I want to get
the most out of myself over the course of the workout. Just like in racing, I want to be
physically spent by the end of the fourth piece, not one stroke earlier or later. If the rest
between 2,000 m pieces is 4 minutes, how hard can I go in the piece knowing I have
this rest time?
The more you train (perfectly), the better you will get at gauging exactly what your
reserves are at any given time in the piece, in the whole workout, and in the day of
workouts. I have seen many athletes hammer the first piece and beat everyone, come
dead last in the next two pieces, and maybe muster up enough energy to finish midpack
in the last piece. If these athletes train this way all the time, how are they training their
neurology? They are consistently ingraining a pattern that gets reproduced in the race
environment, because there is no consistency of effort throughout their training. You
have to teach your body exactly how to be spent at the finish line after the last stroke
of the race, ideally just as your bow crosses the finish line. Now, hopefully you are so
dominant that you can control the race from start to finish and never have to dig deep
for that extra gear. But somewhere along the rising course of an athlete’s career, those
races will become few and far between.
In my years of racing, one of the things I have learned is that the mind–body (there
is no distinction) is capable of doing things you might think are impossible. You think
you are tired? You think you are pulling as hard as you can? You think you can’t pull
another stroke? You think you can’t rate any higher than 35 spm?
I am always amazed how after a long winter and spring of low-rate power rowing
I cannot for the life of me row higher than 28 spm without reverting to novice-level
technique. After a couple of days of pushing the rates, 35 spm feels comfortable and
50 spm is attainable, thanks to the wonders of neurological programming—the body gets
good at doing what it does most. This is precisely why ingrained technical faults are so
hard to correct—you have to reinforce the new pattern enough to replace the old one
(perfect practice makes perfect).
Now that we understand how important training is to racing, we still have to deal with
race day. You have trained well physically and technically; in fact, no one has trained
harder than you. You are full of confidence that at least nobody has rowed as many
kilometers as you—surely that is enough. Unfortunately, you still have to taper properly,
eat well, sleep well before the race, get to the racecourse on time, mentally prepare for
the upcoming race, get the boat rigged to perfection, do a great prerace warm-up, and
get yourself into the gates on time. Now you have a chance to win.
I have always found racing to be stressful. Let me rephrase that—I have always found
the 3 hours before the race to be stressful. I had to keep telling myself, “This is what I
have been training so hard and long for” and “This is the fun pay-off.” These thoughts
were followed by, “Why do I put myself through this stress? No one is making me do
this.” As the stakes increased from local races to national races all the way up to the
Olympic Games, these thoughts became even more prevalent: “If I screw this up, I may
never be prepared this well, and even if I am, I will have to wait 4 more years to get a
shot at it again.”
As if by magic, as soon as I picked up the boat to get on the water, all the tension dis-
appeared, and as I started my prerace warm-up, all was well in the world again. I was in
my happy place. This came with lots of practice, of course. I remember when I was still
Racing ◾ 231
A few races come to mind where I was pretty close to leaving everything on the course.
One in particular was the Olympic Games in Barcelona 1992. We had battled the German
crew for 3 years and had managed only one victory out of many meetings. We were the
established underdogs. Every meeting except that one would go something like this:
We both hammered off the line and our crew would get a nose out through the 500 m
before building up to a length lead by about 900 m. The Germans would then do a big
push (probably 20 strokes) through the 1,000 m whereby they would pull even and then
slowly gain seats over the next 400 m, hanging on to win despite our desperate efforts
to close the gap over the last finishing sprint—another silver medal for the Canadians.
For the 1992 Olympic race, we had to do something differently. We had worked way
too hard to repeat history. I’m not sure how much we discussed the plan, but the way I
remember it, we were going to treat it like a 1,000 m all-out race and hang on until the
finish line. Ouch! To make a long story short (which isn’t too difficult seeing as I don’t
remember much after the 1,000 m point), we built up a good lead through the 1,000 m,
the German crew didn’t row through us, and we held on for the victory, with Romania
finishing second and the Germans third.
We treated that race as if we had nothing to lose and we fully committed to every call.
A silver medal would have been a failure for us, so if we put it all out there and died
trying, at least we would have tried our best. And sometimes, just sometimes, a crazy
race plan like that just might work. This is not an approach I would recommend most
of the time, but it does make me look back and realize how much the body is capable
of when the stakes are high enough.
The best way to deal mentally with the pain of rowing is to realize that those around
you are probably feeling just as bad as you, although when I raced Rob Waddell, the
dominant Kiwi single sculler in my later years, I sometimes had my doubts. Beyond
this affirmation, your only other way to deal with 5 1/2 to 8 minutes of discomfort is to
break up the race into manageable pieces. Sometimes in the early season I would race
the single without a definite race plan, which was never a good idea. I figured I would
just wing it and see how the race unfolded. Inevitably, the race would unfold very slowly,
as in, “Is this race ever going to end?”
Not only does a definite race plan make the race go by faster, but it also gives it
structure. This is arguably more important in a crew boat than in a single scull because
it brings the team together into a synchronized unit. There is nothing better than the
coxswain or bow rower making a call for a technical emphasis or a power 10 and feeling
the boat rise out of the water and surge with newfound speed.
One point that all coaches and coxswains should emphasize to their crews is the
importance of committing 100% to these calls. It takes just one person out of eight not
giving 100% to dampen the effectiveness of a call. If the boat gets bogged down in the
middle of a power 10 or a call for fast catches, it is very energy costly. But just a little
extra pull-up at the finish or a little faster legs or a little quicker catches from each crew
member and the additive effect is awesome. If done properly, it won’t even feel like you
expended extra energy.
Racing provides the opportunity to string together 225 strokes, give or take, as best
as you possibly can. Maximizing your ability to do so requires rowing a lot of great
strokes in a variety of conditions. It is the rowers who are able to do this the best who
will become the victors. This takes an unwavering commitment to learning how best
to execute the race plan physically, mentally, technically, and strategically. Become a
student of all these aspects of rowing, and fulfillment and success will be yours.
Chapter 18
Selecting Athletes
and Crews
Al Morrow
I n most settings, selection of rowers for teams and entries for regattas is conducted by
the coach. Seamless and transparent selection models often lead to success on a variety
of levels. This is primarily because it is important to select the best and most deserving
rowers not only to be fair but also to choose the most competitive teams for regattas.
Selection Methods
When I rowed from 1965 to 1976, we used many methods of testing, including weight-
lifting 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 Certifica-
tion 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
◾ 233
234 ◾ Morrow
was set up so that each rower raced in every possible boat and with every possible com-
bination. 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 neces-
sary test procedure as often as possible.
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.
Selecting Athletes and Crews ◾ 235
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 assess-
ment. 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 condi-
tions, 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.
Why Test?
Testing is the basis for all selection. When selecting crews, one also evaluates a rower’s
abilities. There are four main justifications for testing.
Areas to Evaluate
It cannot be said enough that the most important area to evaluate when selecting rowers
is the ability to move a boat over a specific distance. The most straightforward method
for the single scull event is using the single in a race-off. Such a test clearly shows which
athlete can move the single best.
For any crew boat, it is preferable to use the boat type that you are selecting for.
Therefore, if you are attempting to identify the fastest pair, select using set pair partner-
ships or a seat-race grid in pairs. This method can apply even to the bigger boats if you
have enough athletes, shells, and time. This would objectively analyze who is the fastest
in the given boat, and thus the most deserving rower would be selected.
Unfortunately, most of the time the number of athletes varies and the available time
is limited, so compromises have to be made. Either you perform the selection in smaller
boats or confine rowers to certain seats in the boat to limit the variables. These test pro-
cedures are objective because they give each rower the same possible chances, but they
also jeopardize validity because they assume that the transfer of abilities from a smaller
boat to the bigger boat is exact. It may also ruin reliability because a crew may not be
able to repeat a successful performance due to various technical challenges.
Many other variables can be evaluated to allow for a more comprehensive look at a
rower. These include physiological tests such as V̇O2 max and lactate tests, ergometer tests
over a variety of distances, coordination tests, and weightlifting tests. These ultimately
give more complete insight into a rower’s abilities, but none is superior to boat-moving
tests in the targeted boat class.
Seat-Racing Models
Seat racing is probably the most common selection method in rowing. If a selector takes
time to prepare for it, this method can combine all of the key guidelines required for
analysis. There are drawbacks to seat racing, but the advantages of the method gener-
ally outweigh them.
Selecting Athletes and Crews ◾ 237
The easiest way to explain seat racing is to use an analogy. If coaches were choosing
the top starters for a basketball team, they could have each player take part in a two-on-
two round-robin tournament where everyone plays with each other at some point. The
results of this tournament would identify the top player as the one who wins the most
games. However, this example also highlights the problem with any seat-racing model:
It is not entirely valid because it does not measure five-on-five play.
To make seat racing the best test method possible, follow these guidelines:
◾◾ Weigh validity (feedback in the boat class that the rowers are supposed to race later
on) against all the other criteria. Seat races can be done in any size of boat; however,
the smaller the boat, the better. This is because each rower’s individual abilities become
more important (reliability) and the process becomes more economical. Of course, a
coach needs to realize that the choice of boat size will depend on the skill level of the
rowers being examined.
◾◾ Seat racing is best done over distances of 750 m to 2,000 m. If there is sufficient time,
2,000 m contests are best since this is exactly the length of rowing races. Unfortunately,
not many can be done in one day, so one would have to spread racing out over several
days. In some seat-race systems, the coach does not set a distance but races boats until
they have a certain lead. Although this method makes rowers more accountable for
every stroke since they do not know which one is the last, both objectivity and validity
are jeopardized. This is because the call for the end of the race lies with the coach and
the process does not mirror the race situation, where everyone knows where the race
starts and finishes.
◾◾ Consider performing running starts for seat racing. This means that crews accelerate
before the start line, pass through the start at race pace, and have their time taken the
moment they cross the start line. This tests the boat-moving ability of the crew (valid-
ity), eliminates the challenge of high stroke rates during the start faced by a crew that
has not rowed together for a long time (reliability), and avoids the problem of lining up
crews exactly at the start line (objectivity).
◾◾ It is best if the process takes under 2 1/2 hours per day. Therefore, 6 × 1,500 m or
style is preferable. No boat can judge its position, and a 100% effort will be put forward
at all times since each race will have an impact on each rower’s final result. Side-by-side
racing, on the other hand, could lead to tactical racing. Crews may relax if they have a
lead or conversely they may give up if they are behind. Therefore, the results of such
races are less reliable.
◾◾ Results of seat races should not be made public until the end of the process so that
rowers put their full effort into every single race and are not influenced by any results.
◾◾ In a head style matrix, the switches of the rowers are known in advance and there-
fore it is important to make every race count. This means that the outcome of each race
has an impact on each rower so that no one can relax or try to race strategically.
◾◾ If seat races in fours or eights are planned where one or two rowers switch boats
after each race, the rowers who are going to be switched should not be announced in
advance. This means rowers can’t pace themselves since they never know how they are
placing or if they are racing next.
◾◾ It is best to have a fixed course, preferably with at least one line of buoys or with
a complete Albano system. This allows steering to be more consistent. Also, races
238 ◾ Morrow
are possible, but of course it does not mimic racing very well and therefore reduces valid-
ity. For that reason, it is preferable to keep the stroke rate open, which reduces what
a crew has to control during the competition, resembles racing more closely, and gives
rowers more chances to demonstrate their boat-moving ability. If all rowers are equally
prepared for the seat races, each crew will naturally row at an appropriate stroke rate
for the given distance.
◾◾ In coxed boats, coxswains can be instructed to be quiet. However, ideally the cox-
swain should call her own best race. This also helps evaluate the coxswain’s strengths
and weaknesses.
Table 18.1
Seat-Race Matrix for Pairs
For six athletes: Athletes on port side are 1, 2, and 3; athletes on starboard are A, B, and C. The times of
all races are totaled for each rower to determine the overall ranking.
Table 18.2
Seat-Race Matrix for Doubles
Four athletes are numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4. The athletes can determine the stroke rower before each race.
In the example given, 1 and 2 are the strokes chosen by the whole group. If you want to race with every
stroke seat combination for each person, then it would take 12 races.
Table 18.3
Seat-Race Matrix for Fours
This is one method of racing in the 4– or 4+; there can also be a model whereby the rowers are paired
together and four rowers switch from race to race. In the most common model for eight athletes, the port
rowers are 1, 2, 3, and 4 and the starboards are A, B, C, and D. In the first race, 1 and 3 are the stroke
rowers, A and C row in the 3 seat, and so on.
After four races, the stroke-seat rowers can be compared from race 1 to race 4; the 2-seat rowers 2
and 4 have been compared in races 1 and 2; the bow-seat rowers have been compared in races 2 and 3;
and the 3-seat rowers have been compared to each other in races 3 and 4.
Common Questions
In my role as a coaching instructor in the Canadian NCCP coaching education system,
I have mentored numerous level 3 coaches of university, provincial, and senior club
teams. As part of this process, we use a question-and-answer session, and five of the
most common questions follow.
In head-style seat racing, there should be two start timers and spotters at the start
and finish. Times are usually rounded off to 1/10th of a second because this is usually
the highest accuracy that can be achieved. The starter records a time, and this time sub-
tracted from the finish time is the overall time for each boat. It is wise to block the view
on the racecourse and only watch the finish line (e.g., with a notepad), pressing the
time just when the bow appears on the line so as not to anticipate pressing the watch
at the start or finish time.
I often use distances of 1,500 m in selection. This challenges the rowers over a long
enough distance that can be raced several times per day while still being a valid measure.
I have conducted four to six races in a day; however, this is the upper level of what a
high-performance rower can handle.
There are exceptions to all guidelines as long as they are carefully chosen. One example
can be found in the selection method used by the coach of Canada’s gold-medal men’s
eight at the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics. This coach wanted to reward rowers who could
move big boats fast, particularly off the start. Seat racing therefore took place in coxed
fours over a distance of 750 m. He also wanted to challenge the question-mark seats
and arranged to have most of the races occur between the 7th- to 10th-ranked men in
the selection camp. All of these races were done with standing starts.
Ergometer Goals
Table 18.4 includes standards that can be used as goals for entry decisions for the national team
for various divisions in rowing over 2,000 m. They are based on many years of observation.
Table 18.4
Ergometer Standards for 2,000 m Taken Into Consideration
for the National Team
Junior (min) U23 (min) Senior A Drag factor
Lightweight Women – 7:20 7:05 Under 110
Lightweight Men – 6:20 6:05 Under 110
Heavyweight Women 7:20 7:04 6:50 Under 120
Heavyweight Men 6:20 6:04 5:50 Under 120
At the London Training Center in 2005, several intervals over 400 m early in the
morning with no wind helped to determine which inboard–outboard ratio suited a group
of national team candidates in the single. The load on the rig was randomly changed
for eight time trials and the results of the test were used to help with individual rigging.
In 2000, the boat for Canada’s lightweight women’s double was selected based on a
series of seat races in two boat designs. Each of the four women rowed 12 races evenly
in both boats. One brand of boat won by an average of 2 seconds over 1,500 m. Needless
to say, this was the boat design they chose for the Olympics!
Seat Selection
Much has been written on how to find the best seat for each rower in a crew. First and
foremost, the stroke rower must be consistent, must be in control of the crew, and must
have the correct rhythm at the release. I have often viewed the ability to control the
stroke rate and the crew at the release as the most important characteristic of a stroke.
This is largely because it is the stroke’s seat job to set the rhythm.
The rower directly behind the stroke has to be the ultimate follower and act as the
second stroke seat. The ultimate follower is one who anticipates a stroke rower’s every
move and rows in perfect unison with her. This person is able to pass the stroke rower’s
rhythm to the rest of the crew.
The 6 and 5 seats in an eight and the 2 seat in a 4–, 4+, or 4x have to be the most
complete rowers since they have to also pass the rhythm through the rest of the boat.
The 4 and 3 seats in an eight have to be great followers and often can be both the stron-
gest and roughest rowers. Finally, the bow and 2 seats in an eight are usually the best
technicians. The bow in a pair, 4–, and 4x must be a great follower but also must be
good at voice projection in order to oversee workouts and race strategy. Usually a coach
develops a good intuition for seat selection based on observation. Sometimes I ask crews
for their input because they often feel the best rhythm with a certain combination. Other
times rowers will have a good reason for their seat preference.
Coxswain Selection
Coxswains are an integral part of the team, bridging the gap between a crew and a coach.
The best method of selecting a coxswain is to ask the crew members to confidentially
submit the name of the person they feel will do the best job for them on race day. The
crew has to be cautioned to consider all of the skills needed by a coxswain and not make
biased decisions based on friendship. Other methods of feedback can include evaluating
a coxswain’s steering ability, motivation, strategy, and technique.
Best Model
There are many ways to select a team. One example is to use the coach as a consul-
tant and let a selection committee make all selection decisions. This can be a good
system since often the pressure of selection can interfere with athlete–coach rela-
tionships. In this model, three veteran but noninvolved advisers review the coaches’
recommendation, consider all factors, and make the final decision. A similar model
is a panel that completely organizes the selection of the team and then appoints the
coach after selection has been completed. In this model the coach is not involved
in the challenging process of deciding between one rower and another. Many other
models, such as open trials, final selection based on a result at a competitive regatta,
244 ◾ Morrow
and a long-term series of race-offs over many months, have all been used to deter-
mine crews for competitions.
The following model is my preferred way to select a team or crew:
1. The athlete submits a letter of intent agreeing to the guidelines at the start of the
season.
2. Various tests prerank the athlete. The tests chosen depend on the importance of
the selection and the methods available. The best test is the 2,000 m ergometer
test, but other tests could be included, such as year-round water tests, ergometer
tests longer or shorter than 2,000 m, physiological tests such as V̇O2max or lactate
profiles, force curves, and technique skills.
3. The rowers confidentially rank everyone but themselves and give this list to the
coach. This happens just before the final seat-race grid is set.
4. Preliminary ranking is done through small-boat trials in the single for scullers and
in pairs for sweep rowers. The distances can vary but ideally would be 2,000 m
side-by-side races.
5. Small-boat seat races in pairs and doubles are then used to rank the rowers in a
seat-race matrix over 1,500 to 2,000 m.
6. Individual meetings are held to review the results and the status of each rower.
Conclusion
There are many methods to consider when selecting rowers for a crew. It is important to
be transparent and to communicate the plan early in the season. It is also important to
explain that there will always be unexpected results and circumstances that may require
reviewing the results and may cause delays. Some possible examples include weather,
injury, and equipment problems.
It is critical to give everyone a chance, to treat everyone fairly, and to be open-minded
regarding results. When selection is conducted correctly, it can lead to great race results,
and whether they make the team or not, the athletes will be satisfied that they have
been treated fairly.
Chapter 19
A rower I have coached for many years recently told me a story about an exchange he
had with a fellow competitor. Rower 1: “Wow, you really had a great race today—
you had open water on me at the end. What did you do? Two weeks ago I had open
water on you.” Rower 2: “I had a great taper for this race, my speed in all my training
sessions was up by about 10%, and I feel energized and fully recovered.” Rower 1: “I
tapered, too—I took the last 3 days off.” Rower 2: “A taper is a lot more than a couple
of days off. My coach had the whole last 3 weeks planned out so that I would be at
my best today.”
For many athletes, a year of training comes down to one major race when strength,
skill, speed, endurance, and tactics all need to come together at the right time. The
final preparation for competition is both an art and a science, requiring an under-
standing of the physiological changes that are occurring and the skills to manage the
athletes’ psychological and emotional states as they near the culmination of a hard
year of training.
Training Process
The objective of training is to induce physiological, psychological, technical, and mechani-
cal changes in an athlete so that performance improves. Training is often thought to
follow a simple process based on Selye’s general adaptation syndrome (Selye, 1956),
where a training session creates a stress that results in fatigue and a subsequent decrease
in performance. If sufficient time is allowed, the stressed system recovers and an adapta-
tion occurs that puts the system in a position to perform on a higher level. Performance
improvements occur incrementally as this cycle is repeated session by session. Although
this is an attractive model, it does not account for the varying rates of recovery and
adaptation experienced by the body systems and tissues.
◾ 245
246 ◾ McNeely
The fitness fatigue model of training response suggests that there are both fitness and
fatigue aftereffects for each training session (Bannister, 1991; Chiu & Barnes, 2003).
During stressful periods of training with inadequate recovery, fatigue accumulates over
time, masking the full extent of the underlying physiological and performance adapta-
tions. When the training stress is removed or decreased, there is a delayed training effect
where the body continues to adapt as fatigue dissipates, allowing the full fitness effect
of the training period to be realized (Zatsiorsky, 1995). This phase of training is called
a taper and has been defined as a period of progressively reduced training volume that
lasts from 7 to 21 days prior to the year’s major competition (Costill, King, Thomas, &
Hargreaves, 1985; Houmard & Johns, 1994).
Adaptations to a Taper
Physiological adaptations that are allowed to fully express themselves once the fatigue
from constant training is removed are responsible for the 3% to 11% improvement in
performance reported during a taper (Houmard, 1991; Johns, Houmard, & Kobe, 1992;
Mujika, Padilla, & Busso, 2004; Neary, Martin, Reid, Burnham, & Quinney, 1992). These
adaptations occur across the nervous, muscular, and hormonal systems and express
themselves as rapid improvements in strength, power, and aerobic performances.
Designing a Taper
Not every athlete will benefit from a taper. Novices in technical endurance sports like
kayaking, canoeing, rowing, and swimming who have limited training experience will
not see much improvement from a taper. Novice athletes will probably benefit more
from a continued higher volume of training leading into a race followed by 1 to 2 days
off just before the race. This is because many novices have not mastered the technical
skills of the sport to the point that they are going to be limited by their fitness. A higher
volume of skill and tactical work leading into a race will probably pay bigger performance
dividends than a taper.
Endurance athletes who are training less than 4 hours per week will not benefit much
from a true taper. These athletes can take a day or two off immediately before a race and
be sufficiently recovered to race at their best.
Choosing races for the year is one of the first steps in designing a training program.
Tapers can be used before most competitions or important tests that are part of team
selection. Make judicious use of tapers, using one major taper, two or three moderate
tapers, and no more than three or four minor tapers per year. Tapering more frequently
than this will decrease yearly training volume to the point that performance may be
negatively affected.
If there are more than eight races per year, treat the extra races as hard training ses-
sions. Focus on specific technical or tactical aspects of the race rather than just the wins
and losses. For instance, you may want to work on your start or your ability to make
a move in the final 500 m. Learning about your ability in various parts of the race will
help you refine your training program and let you create a better race plan for your
major competition.
248 ◾ McNeely
Minor Taper
The minor taper is used before tests and less important races such as club events that
aren’t used as qualifiers. The design of the minor taper depends on normal training
volume. Athletes who are training 6 to 10 hours per week will take 1 day completely
off before the test or race, those training 10 to 15 hours per week will use a 3-day taper,
and those training more than 15 hours per week will use a 5-day taper. A typical minor
taper is shown in table 19.1.
Table 19.1
Sample Minor Taper for a 2,000 m Test
Taper Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6
1 day Off Race
3 day Off 5 × 2 min at 3 × 1 min at Race
2% faster than 3% faster than
race pace, race pace,
20 min easy 20 min easy
steady state steady state
5 day 3 × 10 min 45 min steady 7 × 3 min at 5 × 2 min at 3 × 1 min at Race
at race state 1.5% faster 2% faster than 3.5% faster
pace than race pace, race pace, than race pace,
20 min easy 20 min easy 20 min easy
steady state steady state steady state
Moderate Taper
The moderate taper is used for secondary races, those races where a good performance is
needed in order to qualify for an upcoming event. Athletes should be confident of their
ability to perform well in secondary races even if they are not fully rested. Moderate tapers
should be spread throughout the year with the final one coming 4 to 6 weeks before the
start of the major taper. This final moderate taper is not only preparation for a race, but
it is a learning experience that will improve the major taper, providing information on
how the athlete responds to a decreased training volume and increased intensity. Ath-
letes who are training 6 to 10 hours per week will use 3 to 5 days for a moderate taper,
those training 10 to 15 hours per week will use a 7- to 10-day taper, and those training
more than 15 hours per week will use a 10- to 14-day taper. The design of the moderate
taper will follow the recommendations for the major taper. Keep detailed records of the
training sessions, feelings of recovery, muscle soreness, and athlete confidence so that
the information can be used in designing the major taper.
Major Taper
The major taper is used before the year’s major competition. Because of its duration, the
major taper can only be used once a year.
Tapering for Races ◾ 249
Duration
Since the training stimulus is greatly reduced during a taper, the duration of the
taper can affect the magnitude of performance improvements. Within 1 to 4 weeks
of stopping training, highly trained athletes start to show decreases in some aspects
of performance (Costill et al., 1985), possibly due to a loss of feel for the fine techni-
cal nuances essential for high levels of performance during training and competition
(Mujika et al., 2002).
Mujika and colleagues (1996) studied the effects of 21-, 28- and 42-day tapers on
performance in highly trained swimmers. They found significant improvements in
the 21- and 28-day groups but not the 42-day group. Others who have measured
performance and taper duration have found performance improvements following
tapers of 7 to 21 days (Costill et al., 1985; Houmard, Scott, Justice, & Chenier, 1994;
Shepley et al., 1992). The number of days needed to taper may be affected by the ath-
lete’s fitness level, training volume, and intensity going into the taper. Mathematical
models have been developed to try to predict the optimal number of days needed to
taper (Fitz-Clarke, Morton, & Banister,
1991; Morton, Fitz-Clarke, & Banister, Table 19.2
1990; Mujika et al., 1996). These models
have met with mixed results, causing
Major Taper Duration
many coaches to continue to rely on trial Based on Training Volume
and error.
Training volume (hr/wk) Major taper
For those who are training more than
4 hours per week, the major taper needs 6-10 7 days
to be planned according to work volume. 10-15 14 days
Table 19.2 has been developed to provide
guidelines for the duration of a taper 15+ 21-30 days
based on the hours per week of training.
Volume
A substantial decrease in training volume is one of the characteristics of a taper. In
studies of distance runners, Houmard (1991) and colleagues (1990) found that 800 m
and 1,600 m running times improved following a decrease in training volume of 70%
over a 3-week period. Houmard et al. (1994) found an increase in running economy
and a 3% improvement in 5K run times following a 7-day 85% decrease in training
volume. There is a relationship between the decrease in volume and performance
improvements during a taper (Mujika et al., 1995). If training volume is not sufficiently
reduced, there appears to be no improvement in performance. Shepley et al. (1992)
looked at the effects of a 7-day 62% reduction in volume and compared it with a
7-day 90% reduction in volume. They found that the 62% scenario did not increase
the time to exhaustion, whereas the 90% reduction resulted in a 22% increase in
time to exhaustion.
From this we can conclude that training volume will decrease by 70% to 90% during
a taper. In other words, if athletes normally train 10 hours per week and will be doing
a 7-day taper, they will only train 3 hours that week. Keep in mind that the decrease in
volume should not be accomplished in one step; rather, volume is decreased progressively
250 ◾ McNeely
throughout the taper. Martin, Scifres, Zimmerman, and Wilkinson (1994) found that
performance improvements in cyclists peaked during the first week of a 2-week step
taper. Zarkadas et al. (1994) found an 11.8% improvement in 5K run times following
a 10-day progressive taper but only a 3% improvement in performance using a one-
step taper. Houmard et al. (1990) found no improvement in performance following a
3-week, one-step taper.
Progressive tapers seem to have a greater impact on performance than one-step tapers
(Mujika et al., 1998). This is probably due to detraining effects that occur when the rapid
volume decrease used in one-step tapering is maintained for an extended length of time.
Though a progressive taper is the obvious choice for the major competition of the year,
a one-step taper may be better for minor and moderate tapers where the duration is less
than 10 days. If you are doing a longer taper, you may want to consider the following
progression (table 19.3).
Table 19.3
Progressive Taper Changes in Volume
Training volume (hr/wk) Taper week 1 Taper week 2 Taper week 3
6-10 Decrease by 70% — —
10-15 Decrease by 45% Decrease by 70% —
15+ Decrease by 30% Decrease by 50 % Decrease by 70%
Frequency
The reduction of training volume in a taper should not occur as the result of drastic
changes in training frequency (Houmard & Johns, 1994). The cutback in volume is accom-
plished by decreasing the duration of each workout. Neufer, Costill, Fielding, Flynn, and
Kirwan (1987) found that reducing training volume (80%-90%) by cutting frequency
by 50% to 85% resulted in decreased swim power after only 7 days of tapering. Stud-
ies in which tapering has resulted in improved performance have typically decreased
frequency by 20% to 50% (Houmard, Kirwan, Flynn, & Mitchell, 1989). The reasons
why a reduction in frequency causes a decrease in performance are unclear but may be
Intensity
Intensity increases throughout the taper as training volume decreases. In a study that
compared high-intensity and low-intensity tapers, Shepley and colleagues (1992)
found that the physiological responses to the two tapers were similar, but only the
high-intensity taper group showed an increase in performance. Houmard and Johns
(1994) suggested that training schedules that use intensities of less than 70% V̇O2max
maintain or decrease performance during a taper, while tapers that use intensities of
greater than 90% V̇O2max improve performance. Steady-state pieces are gradually
replaced with higher-intensity intervals and short sprints. By the final week, almost
all the training is done at or above anaerobic threshold. The final week of a taper may
look something like table 19.4.
Table 19.4
Final Major Taper Week for a 2,000 m Race
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
40 min easy 4 × 5 min 5 × 2 min at Off 4-6 × 250 m 4 × 1 min at Race
steady state above race pace, sprints, 10 race pace, 5
anaerobic 30 min easy min easy in min easy in
threshold, 10 steady state between between
min rest in
between
The sprint work in the last couple of days is as much a psychological factor as it is a
physiological factor. Sprints will give athletes feelings of speed, power, and confidence
that they can take with them into race day. This means it is important to have a good
final training session that leaves the athletes energized, not fatigued. Ideally these final
training days are done on the racecourse so that the athletes have time to familiarize
themselves with the course.
If racing is done over more than 2 days, it will be necessary to do training sessions
between races in order to hold the peak, unless the athlete is racing in more than one
boat. The structure of these sessions will depend somewhat on the results of the race. If
the start was weak, four or five starts each day will help; otherwise, the days between
races should be treated as the final day or two of the taper outlined previously, with
the addition of 15 to 20 minutes of easy steady-state work as a cool-down at the end
of the session.
Conclusion
A taper should be practiced at least once before the major competition of the year. It is
not necessary to practice a full 21-day taper, but the final week must be tried at least
once during a less important competition. This will provide the opportunity to adjust
the taper to individual needs and experiment with combinations of intervals and sprints
during the final week.
252 ◾ McNeely
The taper can be a time of high psychological stress for both the coach and athlete.
Coaches tend to worry about the training that was done during the season, the dura-
tion of the taper, and many other factors that arise before a major competition. It is
important that the coach projects confidence both in what has been done during the
season and in the taper. If the coach is openly worried about the athletes’ preparation
or starts making changes to a planned taper, the athletes may begin to question their
preparedness and ability to win.
Athletes handle the decreased training volume differently. Many athletes enjoy the
feelings of speed, power, and renewed energy. Others have a tough time dealing with
the decrease in volume. They worry about detraining and don’t know how to cope with
the extra time as a result of the decreased volume. A coach needs to be aware of each
athlete’s responses and be prepared to deal with the worriers.
Chapter 20
F or an athlete to reach a top level, such as setting a new world record, many factors
have to come together: extensive training for many years, excellent coaching, the
best equipment, prior experiences in high-profile competitions, choosing the best tactics
to cover the race distance in the shortest time, favorable weather conditions, and so
on. It is then a philosophical question as to whether the athlete could have done even
better. Would it have been possible to start the final sprint 10 strokes earlier or to try a
little harder? Would a change in the rigging have made another small difference? Could
the peaking before the race have been better? Would the athlete have been even more
motivated to pull more if he had known that the world record could be achieved?
Whenever athletes arrive at a certain level, theoretically they can do better the next
time. They only need to train a little harder, a little smarter, and with a little more moti-
vation with a little better equipment. One needs to accomplish a particular performance
and to train on a certain level to be able to get to the next level. An athlete needs to
experience the feeling of a specific rig, stroke rate, stroke length, and boat speed to
be able to confidently use it in an important competition. Rowers have to train their
muscles to be able to reach and maintain a certain power. If they trained at a maximum
of 20 spm with a maximum power output of 200 W, they would never be able to row
a world-best time.
All these are the reasons why world-best times are usually set only by world-class
crews and improvements happen by small margins. Striving to improve performance
is integral to high-performance sport, and all people involved in it put forth their best
effort to be successful. Athletes dedicate a lot of time and effort to perfect their abilities.
Coaches put training programs together that are better than the ones before and work
hard to teach their athletes better technique with better methods. Support staff and
researchers try to find ways to get the most out of the power that each athlete produces.
In the best-case scenario, everyone works well together as a team and improvements
are accomplished. Many rowing associations have organizations in place with the goal
to work together to improve the sport outcome. The necessary qualifications of athletes,
coaches, and support staff are recognized, and therefore national team programs are not
run out of clubs but out of national training centers.
◾ 253
254 ◾ Kleshnev and Nolte
The same thoughts apply to any level of sport performance. The long-term preparation
of athletes, the qualification of coaches, and the knowledge of experts are recognized
in learn-to-row, high school, club, university, and regional programs. We are educated
to understand that we cannot start over from scratch when we want to be successful.
It is therefore critical that we look back and see what has been done by successful
programs. We need to identify the parameters of the highest performing programs, learn
from their successes, and understand the mistakes that they made so that we will not
repeat them. Also, the historical perspective provides the benchmarks that need to be
met. Of course, we can learn the most from the top performers in rowing. Since they
have already reached the highest levels, we can make use of their extensive experience.
Thus, the study of races at the highest level will bear the most insight.
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
100
100 Men 1500 m Men 400 m
95 Women 1500 m 90 Women 400 m
90 80
85 70
80 60
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
Year Year
a b
E5068/Nolte/Rowing
E5068/Nolte/Rowing Faster, 2e/F20.01a/404245/TimB/R2-alw Faster, 2e/F20.01b/404246/TimB/R2-alw
Rowing speed/max (%)
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
100
Men 8+
95 Men 1×
90
85
80
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
Year
c
Figure 20.1 E5068/Nolte/Rowing
Long-term Faster, 2e/F20.01c/404247/TimB/R1
trends of performance in (a) running, (b) swimming, and (c) rowing.
Learning From Racing ◾ 255
3. T3 (1950 to 1980). Very fast increase of performance (1%-2% per year) occurred
when Eastern Bloc countries joined Olympic sport in 1952. Sport became a political
factor and a professional activity, which led to a boom in the development of training
volume, methods, and doping. This performance growth was even faster among women
because it coincided with initial development in some women’s events.
4. T4 (1980 to 1996). Slower performance growth (0.5%-0.8% per year) occurred because
training volume approached its biological limit, effective training methods became widely
known, and improvements were made in doping control. Rowing performance contin-
ued to grow relatively faster (1.5% per year) than in running and swimming. We can
speculate that the reasons for this include equipment development (e.g., plastic boats
and oars replaced wooden ones, inventions of new blades) and FISA actively promoting
rowing and popularization of modern training technologies.
5. T5 (1996 to Present Day). Stability of and even decreases in performance have
occurred in this period, which can be seen in the latest trends of the yearly world-best
times in athletics (www.gbrathletics.com). We can speculate that the reasons for this could
be further development of doping control (such as blood doping tests) and sociological
factors. Nevill and Whyte (2005) note that “many of the established . . . endurance run-
ning world records are nearing their limits . . . the athletic and scientific community may
continue to explore greater performance gains through use of pharmacology and the
evolving science of gene doping.” The authors state that in a sport like running, where
technique and training seem to be developed to their maximum, further improvements
of world-best times is limited to currently prohibited methods. On the contrary, in a
highly technical sport like rowing there are still considerable advancements to make,
most significantly in the area of biomechanics.
Points
Points
60 30
40 20
20 10
0 0
1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008
a Year b Year
Points
30
30
20
20
10 10
0 0
1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008
c Year d Year
30
Points
30
20 20
10 10
0 0
1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008
e Year f Year
Figure 20.2 Development of the points reached by 6 of the top 10 rowing nations at world regattas in
E5068/Nolte/Rowing Faster, 2e/F20.02e/404252/TimB/R1 E5068/Nolte/Rowing Faster, 2e/F20.02f/404253/TimB/R1
the open (adult) and junior categories.
competition in which points are shared between more competitors. New Zealand is in
ninth place but has displayed a real improvement in performance since 2003, reflected
by a 10% growth in the trend. The next two countries (Denmark and Netherlands) have
displayed negative trends.
Behind these traditional rowing nations, there are four rising powers that all displayed
positive trends (place according to points at world regattas and change in points over
the 17-year period): Poland (12th place, 6%), Belarus (13th place, 4.2%), China (14th
place, 5.5%), and Czech Republic (15th place, 10%). However, the highest growth (24%
per year) was by Greece (27th place), with a rapidly improved performance since the
Athens Olympics. Quite positive trends were displayed by Estonia (26th place, 12.7%),
Finland (34th place, 18.5%), and Cuba (36th place, 10.4%).
It is hypothesized that the continuation of a country’s success lies in its development
system, so it is interesting to see which country has the most successful junior program.
Figure 20.2, a through f, also displays the points reached by the top six rowing nations at
the junior world championships over the last 17 years, calculated using the same method as
before. The superpower here is the same: Germany, which gained nearly 2.5 times as many
points as the second (Italy) and third (Romania) countries. The changes in performance are
small, which is evidence for a stable junior rowing system in these three countries. The next
country in the ranking (Australia) displayed a moderate negative trend (−4.5%), followed
by Great Britain, which displaced a constant trend (−0.2%), and France (6th place, −3.3%).
Learning From Racing ◾ 257
Russia is still in seventh place, but it has displayed a strong negative trend (−7.4%) caused
by a sharp fall in performance over the last 5 years. Russia could be overtaken soon by the
United States (8th place, +3%), Poland (9th place, −0.2%), Belarus (10th place, 1.1%),
and Czech Republic (11th place, 1.1%). The highest growth in the performance of juniors
can be found in China (14th place, +14%), New Zealand (15th place, 11.4%), Greece (21st
place, 9%), Bulgaria (22nd place, 12%), and Lithuania (27th place, 13.2%).
How do performances by juniors and adults correlate with each other? We found a
high positive correlation (0.85) between points scored in the open and junior categories
in the 36 best countries. This is a trivial observation, because the countries with better
development of rowing would probably perform better in both categories. The correla-
tion between percentages of growth was smaller (.36) but also positive and statistically
significant (p < .05). This means that the changes in performance in junior and adult
categories are related. We have not analyzed the U23 category here because its world
championship was established only in 2001, so a statistical analysis would be limited.
What factors affect performance in the open and junior categories? Can we see an
influence of one on the other? It is difficult to answer these questions statistically. Figure
20.2 shows comparisons of performance in both categories by various countries. In some
countries (e.g., Germany), we can see that changes in the performance of juniors happened
3 to 4 years before they occurred in the open category, which could be related to the pro-
gression of a generation of athletes from juniors to adults. For other countries (e.g., New
Zealand), peaks and troughs in performance occurred simultaneously in both categories.
This could be explained by overall trends in rowing development in those countries, such
as funding level, leadership system, training methodology, and coach education. A third
group of countries (Great Britain, United States, and Canada) displayed independent trends
of performance by juniors and adults. This probably reflects the separation in organiza-
tional structure for junior and elite rowing. Their elite rowing has been organized mainly
on a professional basis, whereas the junior structure is based on clubs and school rowing.
In conclusion, there is a relationship between performances in the junior and adult
categories, but its nature varies significantly from country to country. The information
provided here could be useful for further studies of organizational and sociological fac-
tors in rowing development.
speed owing to weather conditions), but it also could be a real increase in performance
related to tougher competition in this relatively new event. If we relate the data to the
0.082% yearly improvement by the winners in the open category (Kleshnev, 2003), we
can conclude that in juniors, the performance improved more than twice as fast as in
adults. The speed of silver and bronze medalists also grew faster than that of the winners
(by 1.11% and 1.15% in U23 and by 0.205% and 0.207% in juniors), which means the
competition became tougher everywhere.
How can we derive prognostic times? This question is not simple to answer. There
are a number of possible approaches:
Use world-best times. However, in this case the standards can be affected by some
◾◾
Olympic Games) over the years and its trends (Kleshnev 2005). However, in this case the
prognostic speed will not be high because
5.4 Winners it will be related to average weather con-
Boat speed (m/s)
5.3 Finalists
ditions. Various methods of filtering are
5.2 ambiguous and not statistically significant.
5.1 ◾◾ We can try to solve the problem by using
5.0 a combination of both methods. The average
4.9 boat speed for all boat types was taken from
1992 1996 2000 2004 2008
Year the world-best times. Then, it was multiplied
by the ratio of speeds in various boat types
Figure 20.4 Average boat speed for all 14
E5068/Nolte/Rowing Faster, 2e/F20.04/404255/TimB/R1 taken from the average of the winners at
Olympic boat classes and its trends over the last
17 years. world regattas from 1993 to 2008 (see
figure 20.4). Finally, trends were applied to
the average of each category. How-
Table 20.1 ever, the U23 trend was taken as an
Prognostic Times for Winners at World average of the trend of the open and
junior categories, because the lack
Regattas in 2012 of data points in the U23 category
Boat type Open U23 Juniors would have made it an unreliable
value that would have produced a
W1x 7:11.5 7:25.7 7:32.0
high prognostic standard.
M1x 6:32.5 6:45.5 6:51.4
W2− 6:52.9 7:06.7 7:12.6
With this method, we obtained
the following prognostic times in
M2− 6:16.5 6:29.0 6:34.6
table 20.1 for the winners in 2012.
W2x 6:39.5 6:52.7 6:58.7 At the 2009 world champion-
M2x 6:02.1 6:14.1 6:19.6 ships, the average speed of the win-
M4− 5:41.0 5:52.4 5:57.6 ners was 5.33 m/s (see figure 20.4),
LW2x 6:47.0 7:00.4 —
which is the third-fastest average
after the 2002 world championships
LM2x 6:07.2 6:19.4 —
in Seville and 2006 championships
LM4− 5:46.2 5:57.7 — in Eton (both 5.36 m/s). The trend
W4x 6:08.5 6:20.7 6:26.3 in speed has grown by 0.12% per
M4x 5:33.2 5:44.3 5:49.4 year. However, human factors
cause only 8.5% of variation in
W8+ 5:53.1 6:04.9 6:10.2
boat speed; the remaining 91.5%
M8+ 5:18.6 5:29.2 5:34.1 is caused by the weather.
Learning From Racing ◾ 259
It is interesting to compare the results of the winners of the 2009 world championships
in Poznan with our prognostic times (see table 20.2; Kleshnev, 2009).
Small boats were the fastest according to the percentage values, which were affected
by the weather conditions. The boats racing on the second day of finals showed similar
speeds at the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing; curiously, the U.S. crew (winners in W8+
at both world regattas) clocked the exact same time—6:05.34!
The winner’s speed shows a growth of 0.121% per year, but for silver and bronze
medalists, the slope of the speed trend line was even higher: 0.127% for both. This means
the margins between the medalists are getting closer from year to year. We found that
margins didn’t change much over the years, but now a trend toward smaller margins
has appeared. Table 20.3 on page 260 shows the average margins (in seconds) from the
winners in the 14 Olympic events and slopes of the trends.
The negative slope of the margins presented in table 20.3 on page 260 tells us that the
silver medalists reduced their margin to the winner by 0.03 second every year, so they
would catch up within 40 years, and bronze would do the same by 2062. Obviously, this
won’t happen, and the current tendency should change in magnitude and possibly direc-
tion. However, these facts confirm that the competition is getting tougher and tougher.
Recently, we saw the Olympic final in the W2x, where only 0.01 second separated gold
from silver and 0.23 second separated silver from bronze. In contrast, sixth place in the
finals has been falling away from the winners over the last years.
Table 20.2
Comparison of 2009 World Championship Results
With Prognostic Times for 2012*
2012 prognostic Time winner % of prognostic Growth
Boat time at worlds 2009 speed % per year
M2− 6:16.5 6:15.93 100.15% −0.02%
W1x 7:11.5 7:11.78 99.94% 0.10%
M1x 6:32.5 6:33.35 99.78% 0.03%
LM2x 6:07.2 6:10.62 99.08% 0.28%
LW2x 6:47.0 6:51.46 98.92% 0.26%
LM4− 5:46.2 5:50.77 98.70% 0.24%
M2x 6:02.1 6:07.02 98.66% −0.06%
M4x 5:33.2 5:38.33 98.48% 0.19%
M8+ 5:18.6 5:24.13 98.29% 0.25%
M4− 5:41.0 5:47.28 98.19% 0.02%
W2x 6:39.5 6:47.18 98.11% −0.04%
W4x 6:08.5 6:18.41 97.38% 0.11%
W2− 6:52.9 7:06.28 96.86% −0.02%
W8+ 5:53.1 6:05.34 96.65% 0.30%
Average 98.51% 0.12%
The growth of the boat speed is based on data from 17 years compared with the results at the 2009 world championships.
260 ◾ Kleshnev and Nolte
Table 20.3
Time Differences Between Crews Placing in the Finals of the
International Championship Races and the Winner of These Races:
Average of the 14 Olympic Boat Classes
Place 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
Margin
Margin (s) at the 2008 Olympics 1.34 2.34 4.58 7.84 12.17
Margin (s) average 1993-2008 1.78 3.24 5.40 8.26 11.62
Slope (s/yr) −0.03 −0.04 −0.05 −0.01 0.02
5
4 Gold 4th place Race Strategy
3 Silver 5th place
2 Race strategy is the total distribution of the crews
Bronze 6th place
1 effort during a race. It can be expressed as a
0 sequence of four numbers representing the ratio
–1
(%) of the crew’s boat speed during each 500 m sec-
–2
–3 tion to the crew’s average boat speed over 2,000 m.
1st 500 2nd 500 3rd 500 4th 500 The most typical race strategy of the winners
Section of the race in world regattas regarding their speed during
Figure 20.5 Average race strategy in the the four 500 m sections of the race as measured
finals of world championships
E5068/Nolte/Rowing and Olympic
Faster, 2e/F20.05/404259/TimB/R1 relative to the average speed of their whole race
Games from 1993 to 2009. is as follows: The first 500 m are rowed about
3.1% faster, the second and third 500 m are
1st 500 2nd 500
5 rowed −1.0% and −1.8% slower, and the last 500
Boat speed/average (%)
As always, silver and bronze medalists were relatively faster over the last 500 m, but
they lost to the winners mainly during the second 500 m, which was an unusual feature
of the Beijing Olympics. National federations showed distinctive race strategies in the
finals of the Beijing Olympic Games (table 20.4).
The Czechs and Germans were fastest at the start and therefore had the highest
variation of boat speed over their races. Dutch and French rowers had the fastest finish,
and New Zealand and Poland had the most even distribution of boat speed. British
rowers had the most balanced race strategy, which reflected their leading performance
in Beijing.
Table 20.4
Race Strategies of National Federations
at the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games
Country >n* 0-500m 500-1000m 1000-1500m 1500-2000m Variance
AUSTRALIA 7 3.5% −1.3% −1.8% −0.2% 2.5%
CANANDA 5 3.4% −1.4% −2.1% 0.3% 2.8%
CHINA 6 2.5% −1.6% −2.0% 1.3% 2.7%
CZECH REPUBLIC 4 5.3% −1.1% −1.5% −2.2% 4.1%
FRANCE 4 3.2% −2.1% −2.6% 1.7% 2.9%
GREAT BRITAIN 10 3.1% −1.7% −1.8% 0.6% 2.5%
GERMANY 7 4.0% −1.8% −2.4% 0.4% 3.1%
NETHERLANDS 4 1.8% −1.5% −2.0% 1.9% 2.2%
NEW ZEALAND 5 2.0% −1.7% −0.9% 0.8% 2.1%
POLAND 4 2.1% −0.5% −1.5% 0.0% 2.1%
USA 7 2.6% −1.4% −1.0% 0.0% 2.2%
n = number of crews in the finals.
Race Tactics
Race tactics are the distribution of crew efforts relative to other competitors in the race.
They can be determined
1. relative to the average speed of all competitors in the race, where ratios of indi-
vidual boat speed to the average of the race are produced for each section, or
2. relative to the closest competitor. Five pairs of place-takers were defined (1st–2nd,
2nd–3rd, 3rd–4th, 4th–5th, 5th–6th) and ratios of their boat speed were produced
for each section of the race.
In both methods, sequential numbers of the fastest and slowest sections relative to
other competitors were defined. Twelve possible combinations were composed in a
matrix of race tactics (see table 20.5 on page 262). For example, tactic 1-4 means the
first 500 m section of the race was the fastest and the last section was the slowest rela-
tive to other competitors.
262 ◾ Kleshnev and Nolte
Table 20.5
Number of Crews Using Specific Race Tactics
in the Finals of the World Regattas Based on Their Placing
Place
Total Number
Tactics 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th of crews
1-2 4 6 10 17 8 4 49
1-3 8 9 12 12 14 7 62
1-4 24 8 7 9 27 47 122
2-1 4 9 14 5 11 9 52
2-3 4 6 4 4 3 9 30
2-4 14 8 6 10 20 28 86
3-1 11 16 10 13 12 7 69
3-2 11 3 5 4 8 2 33
3-4 19 9 6 7 9 3 53
4-1 20 38 33 26 13 5 135
4-2 15 21 17 20 8 10 91
4-3 6 7 16 13 7 6 55
We analyzed race tactics of 14 Olympic boat types during the last 10 years. Some
results are shown in table 20.5.
◾◾ The most popular race tactics were the 4-1 (135 of 837 cases, or 16.1%) and 1-4
(14.6%) patterns.
◾◾ Tactic 1-4 was the most popular for the winner (24 of 140 cases, or 17.1%) as well
as for the fifth-place (19.3%) and sixth-place (34.3%) crews. In contrast, the 4-1
tactic was the most popular among the silver-medal (27.1%) and bronze-medal
(23.6%) crews. In other words, if a crew put all efforts in the first 500 m of the
race, then the tactic would be one of winning at all costs. If a crew saved energy
for the last 500 m, then it had more chances to win a medal but fewer chances to
win a gold medal.
This finding was confirmed by analysis of the pairs of competitors. In 61 cases (43.6%),
the winners took the maximal advantage over the silver medalists during the first 500 m
section of the race (see figure 20.7, a-c).
In contrast, nearly one-third of silver and bronze medalists have beaten their com-
petitors in the final 500 m of the race.
Learning From Racing ◾ 263
32.9%
18.5% 43.6% 25.0%
22.1%
22.9% 15.0% 20.0%
a b
31.4%
25.7%
22.9%
20.0%
c
Figure 20.7 Medalist placing at the first 500 m of all races of the 14 Olympic boat classes in the
finals of the world races over the last 10 years.
E5086/Nolte/Rowing Faster, 2e/Fig 20.07c/404264/TB/R1
Stroke Rate
Analysis of stroke rate during the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens was conducted similarly
to the analysis of stroke rate for the 2000 Olympic Games and the 2002 world champion-
ships (Kleshnev, 2001). The measurements were done for medal winners using official
video footage and measured around 70% of the total number of strokes. The data were
filtered and compared with official split and final times.
The average stroke rate of the medal winners in the 2004 Olympic Games was
37.86 spm. In the 2000 Olympics it was 38.07 spm, and in the 2002 world champion-
ships it was 38.19 spm. Thus, we can see a small decrease in the average stroke rate.
From 2000 to 2002, the average stroke rate increased in small boats (singles, doubles,
and pairs, except in the LW2x). Medal winners in big boats (quads, fours, and eights)
lowered their stroke rates in the last years (table 20.6 on page 264).
264 ◾ Kleshnev and Nolte
Table 20.6
Average Stroke Rate (spm) Over 2,000 m by Medalists of the 2000
Olympic Games, 2002 World Championships, and 2004 Olympic Games
Stroke Rate (spm)
Year W1x M1x W2− M2− W2x M2x M4−
2000 33.5 35.9 38.4 38.8 35.8 38.0 40.1
2002 33.9 36.4 36.2 38.6 35.7 38.3 41.7
2004 35.0 36.7 37.6 39.1 36.3 38.3 39.8
Year LW2x LM2x LM4− W4x M4x W8+ M8+
2000 36.8 38.9 40.5 36.2 40.2 39.3 40.7
2002 35.7 38.6 40.8 38.4 40.3 39.7 40.4
2004 35.9 38.9 40.4 37.5 37.4 38.2 38.8
The winners had a higher variation (ratio of the standard deviation to the average over
four sections of the race) in stroke rate (5.1%) compared with silver (4.7%) and bronze
medalists (4.0%). This tells us that the winners are capable of sprinting at a higher rate
at the start and finish of the race but they use lower rates at cruising speed.
On average, the winners had about 1 spm lower (37.3 spm) than silver (38.3 spm)
and bronze medalists (38.2 spm). This difference was the most significant in winners in
LM2x (3.8 spm lower than second place and 2.6 spm lower than third place), W2− (2.5
and 1.4), and W2x (1.7 and 4.4).
WPSe can be expressed in terms of power (P), stroke cycle time (T), speed (V), and
stroke rate (R):
WPSe = P × T = P × (60 / R) = 60 × k × (V3/ R).
If the values of WPSe and k are equal for the two sections of the race with different
stroke rates (R0 and R1), then using the previous equation we can derive the ratio of the
boat speeds (V0 and V1) for these sections as follows:
V1 / V0 = (R1 / R0)1/3.
Correspondingly, the ratio of DPS values is
DPS1 / DPS0 = (R0 / R1)2/3.
This means that with an increase of the stroke rate, the boat speed increases as the cube
root of the rate, and DPS decreases as the cube root of the square of the rate.
To use these last two equations, we don’t need to know factor k, because we assume
that it is the same for the two sections. However, this is applicable only for the same boat,
rowers, and weather conditions, which is a limitation of the method. On ergometers, k
is constant and the method can be used without limitations.
Figure 20.8 illustrates these two equations and represents dependencies of the boat
speed and DPS on the stroke rate at constant, effective work per stroke.
15 6.5
14 6.0
13 5.5
4.5
10
4.0
9
3.5
8
7 3.0
6 2.5
5 2.0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Stroke rate (str/min)
Figure 20.8 Dependence of boat speed and DPS on the stroke rate. Solid lines = model values at the
constant WPSe for all stroke rates. Points = measured
E5068/Nolte/Rowing values. Position of a point below the model line =
Faster, 2e/F20.08/404267/TimB/R1
lower WPSe, above the model line = higher WPSe.
The most practical implication of the method is the definition of prognostic or model
values of speed Vm and distance per stroke DPSm at a given stroke rate R1 , which can be
achieved at the constant, effective work per stroke WPSe:
Vm = V0 (R1 / R0)1/3,
DPSm = DPS0 (R0 / R1)2/3.
An important question is what values we use for the base values of V0 and DPS0. The
possible solutions are
1. the average of all samples taken for the analysis at various stroke rates,
2. minimal or maximal values of the stroke rate, and
3. target racing speed and stroke rate.
266 ◾ Kleshnev and Nolte
The first option should be used for race analysis because it represents the average speed
and rate over the whole race. We can use option 1 in a step test as well, but option 3
also makes sense.
Finally, ratios of the real values Vi and DPSi for each race section to the model values
were used to evaluate the effective work per stroke at each of the sections. This allows
a comparison of how technique efficiency changed for each race section:
eVi (%) = Vi / Vm,
eDPSi (%) = DPSi / DPSm.
Tables of normative splits at various training rates can be derived using spreadsheet
software. They can be used to target specific boat or ergometer speeds at various racing
rates (table 20.7).
Table 20.7
Sample Table of Normative Values
Stroke rate Split time (min) % to target Strokes
(1/spm) for 500 m Speed (m/s) race speed DPS (m) per 500 m
16 2:11.04 3.82 76.3% 14.31 35
20 2:01.64 4.11 82.2% 12.33 41
24 1:54.47 4.37 87.4% 10.92 46
28 1:48.74 4.60 92.0% 9.85 51
32 1:44.00 4.81 96.1% 9.01 55
36 1:40.00 5.00 100.0% 8.33 60
40 1:36.55 5.18 103.6% 7.77 64
44 1:33.53 5.35 106.9% 7.29 69
These sorts of tables can be used in a number of ways; following are two examples.
1. Your target for a 2 km ergo race is 6:00 minutes or an average of 1:30 minutes
for 500 m at stroke rate 36 spm. If you can train at the rate of 18 spm at a split
of 1:53 minutes per 500 m, your muscles are ready to produce the same amount
of work per stroke as required for your target result and rate.
2. You can train at a split of 1:48 minutes per 500 m at stroke rate of 20 spm. This
means your muscles are ready to produce a 2 km race time of 5:44 minutes at
the rate of 40 spm. If you can’t produce this result, you lack endurance.
This method
◾◾ can be used for race analysis in cyclic water sports, such as rowing (Kleshnev, 2006),
swimming (Garland, Hibbs, & Kleshnev, 2009), and canoeing;
◾◾ can be employed to evaluate strength and speed endurance using a step test in
cyclic water sports; and
◾◾ does not require sophisticated equipment (only a stopwatch or stroke-rate meter)
and can be used in everyday training.
Learning From Racing ◾ 267
Conclusion
Race experiences are powerful. Real-world performances tell us what can be done and
how it has been done. We know which equipment was used and which rig was chosen.
We can measure the stroke rates and chart the strategy. We also can study the crew’s
preparation and the training methods that were employed. We can examine how the
crew was selected and the path that the rowers took to reach the point where they
were selected.
We can compare all of this information with our own program and identify differ-
ences. Though human performance is more complex than looking at a linear series of
actions that could be repeated, we will be able to identify areas that are vital for a cer-
tain performance. For example, training five times a week for half a year will not make
you competitive on the world level, and rowing at stroke rate of 30 spm will not win
international races.
The more we analyze the performance of crews, the more information is collected that
could potentially lead to confusion. Therefore, coaches must bring all the aspects together
and translate them into a language that their athletes understand, get excited about, and
use for their benefit. Simply copying a successful program is seldom victorious. Finding
the right pieces in all of the information that races present us and integrating them in a
smart way into one’s own program are what takes performance to new heights.
With the data presented, we can identify which parameters have to be met in order
to produce a certain performance. Training performances are a clear indicator of race
performances!
To beat a certain opponent, a crew has to do a little more, be a little better, and be a
little bit smarter. This does not seem to be impossible, and thus we will continue to see
performances improve. It is not hard to see why we have this excitement of continuous
improvement and top class racing in our sport.
Part VI
The Future of Rowing
Tricia Smith with Brad Alan Lewis
A s we pushed off from the dock and rowed to the starting line, we focused our ener-
gies and thoughts, preparing for the race body and soul. After a few minutes of easy
strokes we began our ritual exercises—quick catches, quarter slide, half slide. At this
stage the drills were more a calming strategy than anything else. All the while, focus,
focus, focus.
Suddenly an unknown voice from the shore cut across the still waters: “Go Canada!”
I turned my head slightly and did the equivalent of exchanging glances, as best one
can in the stroke seat of a straight pair, with my partner Betts Craig.
In the changing room we talked about the race—what had gone well, what hadn’t,
and even who called out “Go Canada!” on our way out to the start. Later still, I pondered
the smallness of the sport—it is a rare and noteworthy event to be cheered on from the
shore by anyone other than your coach or perhaps some teammates who didn’t make
the finals. Even today, a great proportion of the fans in the stands are enthusiastic and
long-suffering loved ones of the rowers. Say what you want about rowing, it is an inti-
mate sport.
Some aspects of rowing have changed since 1981. For one, the distance has changed.
At my first three Olympics, women raced 1,000 m. I loved that distance. It was a 3.5-
minute sprint, give or take 30 seconds depending on the boat and conditions. It was
incredibly painful, a masochist’s dream, but it was exciting. The bigger rowers could be
counted on to blast off the start, flaunting their leg-press and bench-row prowess. But
with patience and technique, we often caught them in the second half. It was satisfying
to the extreme to hear them gasping for air when we passed them. Betts would call out
“We got ’em!” as we raised the rate yet again in the sprint to the finish.
I recall a woman from FISA talking to me about the distance changes. I think it may
have been Ingrid Dieterle in 1984 at Lucerne. (Being an athlete at the time, I didn’t know
who Ingrid was; after all, there’s no time for names when you’re training.) After that,
whenever we met, Ingrid and I always smiled and exchanged greetings. Ingrid came
up to Betts and me after our race and asked us, very casually, what we thought about
racing 2,000 m instead of 1,000. I think I shrugged and said, “It might be interesting.”
◾ 269
270 ◾ Smith with Lewis
I didn’t give it any more thought until after the Olympics in Los Angeles, when FISA
announced that, effective immediately, women would race 2,000 m. This was how
athlete consultation worked in the ’80s.
I felt as though I had been told that I would no longer be a 100 m track sprinter, which
I loved, but a 1,500 m middle-distance specialist. Ouch. That long bit in the middle—what
do you do with that? Needless to say, it took some getting used to. Eventually I came
to see the beauty of the 2,000 m race and how it can unfold, dare I say, more elegantly
than the 1,000. The argument, in those days of less-effective doping testing, was that
steroids were less helpful in the 2,000 m race. Let’s hope that’s the case. But still I cannot
say unequivocally that 2,000 m has to be the distance. The 1,000 has a lot going for it.
Another major change after the end of my career was lightweights in the Olympics and
certain events being relegated to the world championships only. As expected, Olympic
events have strengthened while non-Olympic events have suffered.
Finally, the introduction and development of Paralympic rowing has broadened our
sport for the better.
One thing that doesn’t seem to have changed much is the smallness of the sport, which
I well recognized when competing in the 1970s and 1980s. Since becoming involved
with FISA after retiring from competition, I have attended many meetings where we
have discussed what we must do to earn marketing interest, to better support athletes
and events, and to ensure a successful place for rowing in the world of Olympic sport.
Before we jump to any conclusions and make any changes, we might want to look at
how well we are presenting our sport today. Let’s accept for the moment that 2,000 m
is the best distance for Olympic racing. Six lanes is the right number. Our equipment
guidelines are appropriate.
Rowing has managed to maintain an amateur culture into the 21st century. I hope
that continues for eternity. It could be argued that our amateur ethos has been sustained
in large part because aggregate prize money is essentially zero. Yes, a few athletes earn
decent money, but they are a distinct and blessed minority. Rowers stay around because
they like it. I have found the same to be true for those former rowers who volunteer to
work for FISA. In some ways, the culture of our sport is stronger for it. Make no mistake;
we at FISA are not turning money down. Rather, we are enjoying an imposed purity.
I sometimes wonder if rowing culture would be as strong if decent money were to
suddenly fall from the sky. I think it would. The nature of the sport, the toughness, and
the teamwork make it so. Rowers row for a lot of reasons, and money, snappy uniforms,
upgrades to first class, full-body massage, and discounts on general admission tickets to
Disneyland aren’t among them. I would argue that many of the best rowers don’t spend
too much time analyzing why they row. They simply love it. They do it to the best of
their ability. Then they head home for a well-earned Sierra Nevada Pale Ale and 5,500
additional calories of anything and everything.
The reality for most participants is, at best, survival support. If it’s money you’re after,
get a tennis racket and start whacking balls against the garage door.
But we have to face reality. Bills must be paid by athletes, national federations, and
FISA. We have to compete in the marketplace. An off-the-water change that might occur
is the way in which rowing’s governing body, FISA, markets the sport.
Marketing comes from “to market”—to draw money into the sport. This money is
used to run regattas, employ staff, fund development programs, pay travel and prize
money, maintain the website, and develop new media. Money comes from sponsors
and television rights.
The Future of Rowing ◾ 271
Marketing people always tell us that to get sponsors, you need to personalize the
sport. They tell us we must develop a cult of personality.
The patron goddess of these cliché-loving marketers is Anna Kournikova, the Rus-
sian tennis pro who managed to reach a Grand Slam semifinal only once. The blond
Russian had the look, however, and the sponsors tripped over themselves to give
her money. But did she ever take an oar into her hands, put her back into it, feel the
torque, and pry the boat through the water with every ounce of strength while being
pursued by five teams of ravenous, seriously angry lightweights? No? Pity. The Anna
Kournikova approach would not make much of a splash in our sport, except perhaps
at the after-regatta party.
Do we have to go for the lowest common denominator? Is that the only way to
market rowing?
Before considering follicle pigmentation, I want proof of toughness. I want proof of
speed off the starting line. I want proof of an ability to make a move at 500 m to go and
make it stick. I want blades-off-the-water balance in a raging crosswind, tight precision,
perfect timing, perfect steering, and awesome strength. Then we can applaud the athlete
regardless of hair color. Let the achievements of the athletes stand first and foremost.
Marketers be damned, our rowing culture does not embrace vanity, superficiality,
trash-talking, or oversized egos. We do not need to pander to this lowest common
denominator. Rowing is better. Rowing stands on its own.
272 ◾ Smith with Lewis
Joking aside, there is nothing wrong with marketing our athletes, but the key is balance. It
is the sport skill of our athletes that we have to explain better. We are letting our top athletes
down by not showing what it is they can do—the magic of the sport. Watch any year-end
highlights reel in any sport and you’ll see an unbelievable touchdown, a goal that was tipped
in by the head of the diving forward, a race that was won by a hair, the grace and power of
a slalom skier, and on and on. It is the magic of the performance that makes the highlights
show, not the story of an attractive athlete who never made it past the quarterfinals.
In the United States, Olympic coverage of every sport has been debased to such a degree
that if an athlete does not have a blood relative who is suffering from a life-threatening
illness, then he might as well not exist. All told, some networks have dramatized the
Olympics to the point where they are wholly unwatchable.
Rowing should not go down this road. We don’t need a cult of personality. If there is
a story behind the athlete, let’s begin with what the athlete has achieved in her rowing
career. Then we can examine the poignant tale.
We are also told rowing is confusing. I don’t buy that. All Canadians know the rules
of ice hockey. Which country in the Commonwealth doesn’t understand cricket? The
nuances of soccer are understood the world over.
Perhaps we don’t explain our sport well. Perhaps we don’t communicate to our
potential audience. In its current presentation, the full 2,000 m race is rarely seen or
heard by those we are trying to excite—the fans in the grandstand. Even television
coverage is hit and miss, taken from odd angles, showing an out-of-context face shot
while missing where the race is taking place. If you can’t see the race or even hear it, it
might seem confusing, even though it is just a matter of boats racing each other to see
who can cross the finish line first.
We have to address that issue, ensuring that fans can see the entire race or at least
hear all of it. I can remember listening to the finals of the women’s Olympic gold-medal
ice hockey match from Salt Lake City. I had to go to a meeting and wasn’t able to watch
it on TV, but I heard it on the radio in my car, and it was just as exciting. I felt as though
I were there. The announcers knew the sport, knew the teams, and knew what infor-
mation was important to convey.
We have some fantastic race commentators. They somehow manage to convey the
magic of the sport, the skill, the determination, the strength, and the battle as it unfolds.
But they have to be able to call the full race in each language, not pass the microphone
back and forth for short intervals. The momentum and the excitement get lost.
Improvements in the next few years can be made in providing real-time information
to spectators who are attending major regattas. Here are some suggestions.
First, we can start by ensuring that everyone hears every race from start to finish; for
instance, we had race announcement headsets in Eton in 2007 with channels in a variety
of languages. We need a dedicated radio frequency that can broadcast race commentary
as the race unfolds. It has already been done. Why don’t we have it at every regatta,
especially in this era of the iPod? With a channel for each language, every announcer can
call the full race rather than switch between languages. This will allow each announcer
to thoroughly comment on the skills being demonstrated, provide data on the history of
the crews, and of course call the result. Viewers should come away knowing the stories
of excellence that abound in the world of rowing.
Every racecourse should have cameras on cables that can follow the race at the right
angle all the way down the course. This is an expensive proposition, and we may have
to start with just the final 250 m, but it should be a goal for the full 2,000 m as technol-
ogy develops and becomes less cost prohibitive.
The Future of Rowing ◾ 273
In the meantime, we should have a graphic angle line on the television screen that
always shows the positions of the boats relative to one another and the finish line. We
should consider changing buoy-line colors every 250 m so that it is easier to see the
relative positions of the crews.
Other graphics on the television screen that can be seen by viewers and used by com-
mentators are needed. Most of these can be provided now with the use of GPS on the
boats. These data include the following:
Time or speed to 100 m
Time or speed to the 250 m
Changes in boat speed (who is putting in a sprint, who is moving, who responds)
Stroke rate
Power on the blade (compare one crew to another and note when this changes)
We also need press information and spectator guides—not just heat sheets but infor-
mation on the crews.
Announcers calling the entire race will have time to focus on the magic of a particular
race. What makes it interesting or extraordinary? What makes one boat go faster than
another? What is one boat doing to move up on another? Why did a crew do something?
How is one crew different from another? Does the athlete in one boat have a unique
race history that can make a difference?
Within this context, we can also explain the history of the athletes. Who in the boat is
known for a fast start, who is known for a fast finish, who is known for high rates, and
who is known for low rates (like the battle of styles of Armstrong and Ulrich in the Tour
de France)? What is it that makes these athletes better than anyone else in their country?
In the world? A well-schooled commentator must be able to convey all this information.
But the main point is that the focus should be on the magic of the sport first and then
on the outstanding personalities who achieve this magic. It is a question of priority.
In the less-than-satisfactory current presentation of our sport, we do focus on the
performance versus the personality. It happens naturally now because we are fortunate
to be less influenced by marketing and monetary pressures, and thus we can choose
what is right for our sport. The focus should continue to be on the essence of the sport,
but we have to do it better. We can’t just provide snippets of a race and then the last 20
strokes and expect spectators to recommend the experience to their friends. We have
to at least ensure that the spectators experience the full race!
FISA has talked about introducing open-water races. One of the key components to
starting such an event is that the spectators will be able to see it. We don’t do that now
with our 2,000 m event. We have to correct that before entertaining any changes in
how we present our sport.
Nothing is more exciting than being in the boat in a close race, putting it all into the
water, defining your existence in a span of the 220 strokes, feeling another crew make
its move, and then what happens when you respond. I am anxiously looking forward
to the day when we can convey that excitement to the spectator. Be careful what you
wish for, though—those finals tickets might be even more difficult to obtain!
Chapter 21
Predicting Rowing’s
Future
Wolfgang Fritsch and Volker Nolte
Q uestions of future developments and the desire to consciously shape them have
always motivated humankind. In rowing, too, the questions of “What if?” or “What
should it be like?” are always discussed. Of course, accurate predictions of the future
are nearly impossible to make, and there have been many times when the predictions
of future developments have been incorrect.
Nevertheless, strategic knowledge about the future is needed for operational planning,
and not just in the economic, social, or military sectors. In modern sport, we have to
attend to viable, desirable, and probable future developments and their preconditions.
Modern research assumes that the future cannot be entirely determined and that a
number of developments (futures) are possible and can be designed. This is particularly
true for rowing. Futures do not develop along scientific disciplines (e.g., biomechanics,
physiology, sociology), and therefore they cannot be understood in their complexity by
a single scientific discipline (cf. Kreibich, 2008, p. 10).
Questions about the future of sport cannot be limited to one type of sport, either. They
are always linked to the social, economic, ecological, cultural, and political environment.
Rowing is thus dependent on several highly different environments, all of which require
observation of their development by national and international rowing associations.
In our reflections on selected areas of rowing as a sport, we refer to a midterm time
span of 5 to 20 years and assume that international as well as national rowing will be
shaped to a significant degree by the following future developments:
1. Scientific and technological innovations
2. Strains on the environment and natural resources
3. Population growth and demographic change
◾ 275
276 ◾ Fritsch and Nolte
not have to explain rowing to the experts—they already know everything. If we want
to win over interested spectators, their knowledge of the sport must be improved.
Further, the races must become more authentic for every regatta visitor. Specta-
tors must be able to follow the races closely from start to finish. Maybe the regatta
train as a moving grandstand will experience a rebirth and take over from the sterile
regatta arenas in which only a few coaches on bicycles on the one side and the FISA
president with the television broadcasting van on the other side are allowed to drive
along the races. The competition over the 2,000 m course often can only be observed
when it is already over—during the last few hundred meters. Rowing takes place
over 2,000 m! Shortening the distance is not a solution, either, unless athletes row
over only 250 m.
The distance of 2,000 m does not have to be maintained for all boat classes. However,
as it is, it requires optimal capabilities in the physiological and coordinative areas, which
ultimately shapes the image of an ideal rower in the public eye: Strength, endurance,
and rowing technique are optimally distributed in this combination. A possible move to
longer distances would lead to a shift toward endurance, and it would also lead to the
exclusion of many renowned regatta courses. Shortening the course to 1,000 m, which
is often discussed, would develop a completely different type of athlete. Just remember
the 1984 women’s races where athletes of thicker, more muscular, and even more mas-
culine stature were dominating!
International regattas could become a playground of opportunities for increased com-
mercialization, presenting a chance for rowers to compete for prize money. Close ties
with the national team would have to be loosened in order to make international crews
conceivable. In several training camps, many national teams already train together. It
would be a spectacular event for both the media and spectators if, for example, Mahé
Drysdale (New Zealand) raced with Marcel Hacker (Germany) in the double scull
against Olaf Tufte (Norway) and Ondrej Synek (Czech Republic), the best double sculls
of the season competed against each other in the quadruple scull, and all eight rowed
together in the eight over 500 m against the German eight and the combination of the
two straight fours from Great Britain and Italy. The media and the audience would be
grateful for such events, which would contribute to the popularity of individual rowers
without provoking a star cult. Certain changes in the dramatization of rowing races
would be necessary, but they could very well be advantageous for rowing as a sport and
contribute to its popularity.
These forms of regattas and competitions would allow a comparison of teams with
changing international personnel, which could be seated, drawn, or freely selected, as
well as course lengths varying from 500 to 2,000 m. For example, smaller boats could
row the shorter distances and larger boats the longer distances.
These events would not directly serve the rowing associations as a direct preparation
for the world championship or Olympic Games. The performance of individual crews
and rowers would be somewhat disguised in the lead-up to those championships and
rowing would remain more exciting.
Individual rowers from smaller nations could thus be integrated into the eight, for
instance, and therefore race for prize money, which would only be offered for these
international mixed races.
Such events could lead to both a reduction and a broadening of the traditional boat
classes. There are no limits to the imagination. The program could be supplemented by
triple or quintuplet scull races, and even the rowing types could be mixed (for instance,
Predicting Rowing’s Future ◾ 279
in a six-rower crew with four sweep rowers and two scullers). The specific boats would
be offered by the organizer or the boatbuilding companies.
Rowing would become more international not only because rowers from different
associations would row in one boat but also because an exchange of training methods
would occur. This would also lead to an improvement of the performance level in numer-
ous smaller associations. Finally, new insights into rowing technique and its development
could be gained in this experimental field.
Numerous opportunities for competition and modifications in the regatta program
are conceivable. Such competitions could be conducted year-round on several conti-
nents, providing welcome breaks in the training routine and increasing excitement.
Tedious heats and intermediates would be eliminated or make room for new forms
of preliminaries. For instance, time trials or preliminaries over shorter distances are
conceivable. Due to the larger number of lanes in international regattas, rowers would
face each other over the normal 2,000 m only in the semifinals at the earliest, even
at Olympic Games and world championships. With this format, the likelihood that
the fastest rowers and crew will reach the finals is still high because there are at least
8 to 10 (or more) finalists, but the excitement and uncertainty would be maintained
for a longer time.
Internationalization and the scientific dealings with rowing as a sport are mutually
fruitful. As joint knowledge produces more equal opportunities, the pressure to spend
a lot of money on research is lessened.
Whether quantum leaps in improvements of race times (for example, a 3- to 5-second
drop in the world-best times) can be expected will depend on whether new and better
(longer? narrower?) boats are designed and whether the blade shapes and oar levers are
adapted. International crews would test the equipment in specific races while the old
rules would stay in place for the national teams at world championships and Olympic
Games, where the equipment must be commercially available by the first of January the
year of the championships. Overall, we need development in teams, courses, spectator
attractions and materials, excitement, and authenticity.
Although junior world championships would not be abandoned, their impor-
tance would be put into perspective. National teams would continue to compete
in them, just like in the other FISA championships (U23, continental champion-
ships, world championships, Olympic Games). However, merging the junior and
U23 world championships, for example, should be considered. The number of boat
classes would increase from the juniors to the elite level, from approximately 10
to a maximum of 12 boat classes for juniors, over 14 classes for the U23, and up to
20 classes for the senior world championships and the continental championships.
This would heighten the motivation of many rowers to devote their time to specific
training beyond the junior years. The boat classes could vary annually. One does
not need to adhere to a strict program; perhaps one could agree to a set number of
boat seats for juniors, and regatta organizers could set the boat classes that would
accumulate to the number of seats. Boat categories could also be introduced for an
average crew weight (e.g., 75 kg for men and 60 kg for women) or as a combination
class (two rowers, two scullers).
All this requires professional management by FISA, particularly in the areas of public
relations, event organization, and marketing, together with a distinct detachment from
individual national interests and influences through the elected council and commis-
sion members. International competitions at traditional regatta locations must become
exciting events and could be marketed independently from FISA. This would involve
280 ◾ Fritsch and Nolte
sport via the single scull; however, the team experience must remain central for the
long-term survival of rowing. Of course, rowing a skiff presents a special attraction, but
as a boat class it, too, must be integrated into the team concept.
In our vision, the proposed competitions on national and regional levels take these
considerations into account in multiple ways. Of course, the characteristics of coaction
(rowing in a boat team) as well as the team performance of a club are given priority.
This not only relates to the point distribution in form of summing up and weighing
placements in all of the races but also the combination of events, such as relays with
specified boat classes and types. This way, more rowers from one club can be integrated
into the regattas.
2. Competition forms could vary from regatta to regatta in order to adapt
courses and race lengths to the local conditions. For example, at one regatta, each
club would need to enter a mixed four, a skiff, a women’s double scull, and an eight
that would race the same or varying distances (e.g., two boats over 500 m, two over
1,000 m) one after the other while the regatta organizer would be free to choose the
order of the boat classes .
Aside from tactical considerations (boat seating, order of boats to race), each club can
decide how many rowers to use. Back-and-forth relays of a maximum of 500 m could
also be an option because they would have a special attraction for spectators and club
supporters. Even competitions that combine different sports (e.g., cycling, running),
whether as an individual or team competition (every team and every rower competes
in a different sport), may increase the number of club members who participate in
organized club training.
3. The selection of crews and the races in general are not only subject to
the strict competition rules of the association but are also the responsibility of
the organizers, who are best able to recognize the ideas that work well with the
atmosphere of the regatta location. Within a certain framework that pays adequate
attention to the health and safety of the participants, typical competition rules should
be developed by the organizers. Whether this means an increased merging of age groups
or the types of competition mentioned previously would be up to the organizers. The
demands for training in the club could thus remain more diverse and more general and
therefore would be more attractive to a larger group of participants. This means that
regatta A will have different races than regatta B.
4. The special character of a regatta comes from how the event is run, how
the races are designed, and how many rowers can participate. Large series of
single races of various age and performance categories are boring to watch. We have to
create action and excitement, for example by organizing derby races, equalizing the com-
petition, or including tactical decisions. Those races would gain their attraction through
large numbers of participants, the reduced training that would be necessary to compete,
and identification with the club or the region. This identification would be highlighted
by club colors and uniforms that everyone would wear. These uniforms would present
not only the identity but also the design of a brand specific to the club.
rowing club has to be aware of the responsibilities that exist in this context and must
develop an appropriate culture. This culture relates to the way club members interact
with each other and the way the sport is practiced by both competitive and recreational
club members. In the future, the club will remain not only a place where rowing is done
but also a place of education.
The particularities of rowing as a sport must be built upon. Almost all rowing clubs
have boat houses and inviting sport grounds close to the water. Identification with
the club is mainly determined by its quality and social life. Rowers have to feel at ease
in the clubhouse; it has to be a home to all ages, a place people like to go, and where
they can practice their sport at any time. Within certain limits, clubs have to offer more
than rowing, both in terms of facilities and staff. Club communities would be wise to
invest in well-equipped gyms, well-educated trainers, and facilities that offer food and
drinks in order to satisfy the increasing need for highly qualified sport programs that
go beyond rowing.
Social life plays an important role here. Facility design should support social activi-
ties for all ages and group sizes. Clubs also need to manage diverse offerings, such as
pedagogical-based youth education that is not merely focused on performance, instruction
of older people, competitive training of masters, rowing touring, recreational rowing,
additional sport offerings based on fitness and health aspects, and high-performance
rowing. Managing these diverse interests will become the central challenge for the club,
which also has to master organizational tasks (e.g., administration, finances, member-
ship, and events).
Aside from the social life of clubs, there is a special focus on the quality of the
equipment—the boats and oars. In competitive rowing, the boats will become more
robust and more diverse in their applications. Wider boats for beginners and pleasure
rowing will become lighter and more user friendly. Why wouldn’t the average club
rower be able to benefit from technological developments in high-performance boat
constructions?
To support all of these features, the rowing club of the future will need well-educated
coaches and sport instructors, inexpensive practice boats for the general rowing activi-
ties, and individual training and sport management for all rowers.
Universities
Schools
both specific know-how as well as
support staff. Mixed crews
Mixed teams
Rowing needs to reach out to
society at least to promote the sport. Social life
National teams
It offers the perfect combination of Equipment
Talented?
Well-educated
athlete, nature, and technique. We coaches and
have excellent chances to introduce sport instructors
this sport to the broader public with
the help of the media—and not only
the high-performance aspects of Regattas for everyone:
special places, different rules, derbies,
the sport. It is up to clubs and asso- league-type races, team performance,
ciations to make the probable future relays, and regional championships
into a desirable present for rowing
(figure 21.2). Figure 21.2 Model for future rowing on the national
and club level.
E5086/Nolte/Rowing Faster, 2e/Fig 21.02/404286/TB/R3-alw
Conclusion
Where are we in rowing? If we take Canada as a typical example of a developed country
with a rowing history, we find about 10,000 rowers organized in clubs. This is about
0.25% of all people who join a club. In comparison, in London, Ontario, a middle-
sized city of 350,000 citizens, 25,000 children play organized soccer every summer.
So, what is the goal in rowing? We certainly would like to grow our base, but how
are we going to do that? Many initiatives have already been tried, some with great
success, but most achievements were limited. Some would argue that rowing is not
interesting enough, yet each year 250,000 spectators on the banks of the Thames and
several million people in front of their television sets are fascinated by the Oxford and
Cambridge Boat Race—two student eights racing each other over a little more than
4 mi (6.5 km) on a windy river. In a matter of seconds, the competing boats pass the
crowd, but people do not mind the hours they have to spend for this short spectacle.
Though the Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race is a one-off and people enjoy the whole
atmosphere of the race, for two days in the fall similar numbers of spectators follow one
race after the other on the banks of the Charles River in Boston. In this case, boat after
boat passes by in the Head of the Charles, and one cannot even see who is winning or
losing. A different kind of crowd-pleasing regatta is the newly created Ruder Bundesliga
(a series of races organized similar to league games in ball sports) race for club eights
over 350 m in Germany. Races on six weekends over the season, done in head-style as
well as side-by-side races, identify the point winner at the end. Indeed, there are many
examples of rowing regattas that are big attractions.
On the other hand, many world cup regattas struggle to get a few hundred spectators
interested in seeing the best crews in the world, although in some countries television
coverage is well received by the audience. These experiences are not new. In the past,
some rowing races captivated the masses while others passed by almost unnoticed.
It is hard to determine what will guarantee the interest of spectators. Sometimes it is
the desire to see the best of the best, as in the North American race of Ned Hanlan and
284 ◾ Fritsch and Nolte
Charles Courtney; sometimes it is the excitement of race after race in short succession,
as in the Bundes-League regattas; sometimes it is the air of tradition, as in the Oxford
and Cambridge Boat Race. Some would argue that it is too complicated to get many
people out on the water in the relatively sophisticated equipment of rowing. However,
community boat clubs like those in Boston or Oklahoma show quite well how hundreds
of people get in contact with the sport.
Others may suggest that the younger generation cannot be attracted to a sport
where the same movement is repeated over and over. However, the Canadian and
New Zealand secondary school rowing championships, better known as the Cana-
dian Schoolboy Regatta and the Maadi Cup, bring thousands of high school rowers
together every year.
Another argument is that rowing is too expensive. Tell this to parents of hockey
players, swimmers, golfers, skiers, and so on who really have to dole out the cash for
their children. All of those sports have far more participants than rowing does even
though they are far more expensive. Besides, even supposedly inexpensive sports
need to be funded. For example, if you add the costs that accumulate for a young
soccer player in a normal competitive summer season of a few months (e.g., tryout
fee, membership, soccer cleats, uniform, travel to tournaments), club fees in rowing
look reasonable.
Why are a few rowing organizations so successful? If we knew the answer to this, the
problem would be solved. Examples of answers are given in the successful models pre-
sented earlier, all of which are driven by people who make them happen, who thought
about the challenges and came up with ideas to overcome them. First and foremost,
however, they believe that it is possible to run and promote rowing. They have a posi-
tive attitude about the sport and look beyond the barriers.
It is time for a marketing campaign for our sport. Let’s present rowing as exciting,
inclusive, and fun. Let’s increase the opportunities for rowing on all levels, from inter-
national rowing to community rowing for all.
Chapter 22
T his chapter is an opportunity to review the factors that created rowing as we know
it today and to look toward the shape the sport could take in the future. As with all
human endeavors, many outside influences have affected the sport of rowing. Any sport
is shaped by a number of factors, including economic, social, and political factors as well
as the people participating in the sport and those who are governing it via leadership
positions. As the custodian of rowing at the global level, FISA has been fortunate to have
a dedicated group of leaders who have given careful thought to what the sport should
be and how to prepare us for the changes to come.
Many reading this book will not remember the tremendous influence that Thomas
Keller, the former FISA president, had on the sport for over 30 years. In 1958, he
became president of FISA at age 34, still in his competitive years. As an athlete,
he was denied his chance to compete at the 1956 Olympic Games when the Swiss
team was forced to boycott in protest against the Soviet Union invasion of Hungary.
Consequently, working to minimize the influence of politics on sport was a major
goal of his during the Cold War era. It was under Keller’s leadership that national
flags were no longer allowed to be raised at FISA championships in an attempt to
minimize political influence and government controversies. National flags were only
reintroduced at FISA events in 1997.
During the early years of his presidency, Keller transformed the European champion-
ships into the world championships and raised the level of the event tremendously.
His first Olympic Games as FISA president saw the Albano buoy system used for the
first time at the 1960 Olympic regatta on Lake Albano near Rome. This buoy system is
still in use today. Finally, Keller succeeded in getting women’s rowing events into the
Olympic Games in 1976. Keller played a significant role in shaping the sport of rowing
and keeping the athlete experience at the forefront. Placing the athlete first has become
an integral part of FISA’s DNA.
◾ 285
286 ◾ Smith
Denis Oswald was elected in 1989 and continues as the current FISA president. A
three-time Olympian in rowing, Oswald has maintained this athlete-centered philosophy
while keeping a careful watch on how rowing is dealt with by the IOC and its position in
the Olympic Games. He understands the importance of a solid presence in the Olympics
and the significance of universality. Thus far Oswald’s greatest legacy is the tremendous
global expansion of rowing through the FISA Development Programme and his care-
ful guardianship of the position of rowing in the Olympics. These achievements have
enabled us to maintain rowing as a major sport that is televised globally.
Former IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch also had a tremendous impact on
rowing and world sport in general. It was during his reign as IOC president that the
value of Olympic television rights grew so remarkably. FISA and all other international
federations of Olympic sports have benefited from the increased financial contributions
arising from the sale of those rights. Additionally, Samaranch’s Olympic Solidarity pro-
gram has provided substantial funding for the work that has been performed by the FISA
Development Programme since 1985. Samaranch always carefully considered the needs
of rowing and did everything in his power to protect and develop the sport.
There have been many other important shapers of rowing, including Thor Nilsen, who
has had an undeniable impact on the development of the sport, education of coaches, and
promotion of efficient rowing technique. Mike Sweeney, former head of the FISA Events
Commission and current chairman of the Henley Royal Regatta, has helped improve the
organization and fairness for rowers at FISA-sanctioned international regattas and world
championship regattas. Svetla Otzetova, FISA events director and the design consultant
of every major regatta course built in the past 15 years, has steered the architecture of
rowing facilities to provide the best for rowers and maintain a high standard for quality.
These are just a few of the many important leaders in rowing.
Looking Back
Before we look to the future of rowing, let’s look back at the forces that shaped it in
the 20th century. Until the 1960s, rowing was a European sport with just a smattering
of English-speaking, non-European countries. It probably deserved its reputation as a
closed club due to its delicate, expensive equipment that is difficult to transport. In the
first half of the 20th century, all European-based sports suffered when the continent was
engulfed in the devastating first and second World Wars. However, the 1950s allowed
Europe and rowing to rebuild.
The end of the 1950s also saw the reentry of the Soviet Union into world sport,
including rowing. The other Eastern Bloc countries joined the Soviet Union, and the
1960s and 1970s witnessed an extraordinary improvement in results for these teams.
The governments of the Eastern Bloc countries emphasized elite performance, and
they invested heavily in sport, coaching, and conditions for athletes. Their professional
approach to training and competition had a huge impact on all sport. From 1966, when
East Germany started to compete as a separate entity, through the 1970s, the face of
rowing changed. The East Germans recruited some of the best minds from science and
medicine and adopted a radically new approach to preparing for competition. The era
of the friendly, gentlemanly sport culture was over, and Western countries could no
longer expect to dominate. Significant changes had to take place in the West in order to
compete with the East. No one can dispute that the Cold War had a significant influence
on the shaping of our sport.
Shaping the Sport of Rowing ◾ 287
At the 1964 Olympic Games, the Soviet Union was the only Eastern Bloc country
to win medals in rowing, winning 2 of a total of 7 (only men competed until 1976). In
1968, the Soviet Union picked up 1 gold medal while East Germany won 2 (the first
time that Germany competed as two separate nations). In 1972, East Germany won
3 medals while the Soviet Union won 2. That is 5 out of the 7 medals possible. At the
Montreal Olympics in 1976, the first time women’s rowing events were staged at the
Olympic Games, East Germany won 9 out of the 14 gold medals, Bulgaria won 2, and
the Soviet Union won 1. Only 2 of the 14 gold medals went to Western countries. Then
came the 1980 boycotted Olympic Games in Moscow, where East Germany won 11
of the 14 gold medals, followed by Romania with 1 and the Soviet Union with 1. Fin-
land’s exceptional sculler Pertti Karpinnen took home the only Western gold medal at
these Games. The Montreal Games were the last time that East faced West in Olympic
rowing until the 1988 Seoul Olympic Games.
More changes in the world of sport were taking place around the time of the 1984
Olympic Games in Los Angeles. Science progressed in the detection of performance-
enhancing substances, so antidoping testing was becoming more prevalent. FISA was the
first international sport federation to introduce out-of-competition antidoping testing in
1983, when the national federations were asked to voluntarily submit to testing. At the
1982 FISA Congress, 25 of the regularly competing national federations agreed, but one
important nation set terms and conditions on its participation. The East German Rowing
Federation expressed their reluctance, stating that although they would participate in these
controls, they were only agreeing to anti-doping testing during the training period. They
also stipulated that the testing be “carried out by a group which takes into account the very
different social systems of the member countries” and that the analysis be done in a certified
laboratory supervised by an international controlling body. Finally, they suggested that “the
testing of all elite rowers from the leading rowing nations are tested at the same time.”*
As time went on, there was more and more international pressure to participate
in out-of-competition testing. At the same time, Western countries started to develop
more competitive, year-round training programs in order to improve their results. For
example, in October 1983, for the first time the United States hired a full-time national
rowing coach to direct a year-round training program leading up to the 1984 Olympic
Games. The previous national coaches were fully employed university rowing coaches
who coached the national team merely as a summer hobby. The results in rowing at
the 1988 Olympic Games were much more balanced between East and West, and after
the Berlin Wall fell in November 1989 and the Soviet Union ceased to exist in August
1991, results became more balanced among many nations.
* Based on an unpublished letter from the General Secretary of the East German Rowing Federation to the
International Rowing Federation Associations (FISA), November 15, 1983.
288 ◾ Smith
Series of Regattas
In 1995, FISA decided to launch a series of international regattas that would offer a
standard structure to the teams. This eventually became the Rowing World Cup series,
which was organized with partner regatta organizers.
The lack of success of the World Rowing Championships in the mid-1990s caused us
to reflect on the standards for the organization of the most important FISA event. This
resulted in a new bid process, more detailed evaluation of the candidates, and much
higher standards of event organization. The updated system was launched in 1996.
First, FISA looked to the competition facilities to deliver top racing conditions, and
promotional areas also needed to be improved. New standards for media servicing, spec-
tator servicing, and sponsorship servicing led to advances in these areas.
Second, FISA’s advertising rules were completely overhauled from 1996 to 1997
in order to bring commercial and sponsorship offerings closer to those of comparable
televised outdoor endurance sports. In 1996, after a broad consultation with the top
sport marketing agencies in Europe, FISA engaged International Management Group
(IMG), the world leader in the field of sport marketing, to represent FISA’s commercial
rights in order to find sponsors and generate greater television exposure for the world
championships and the Rowing World Cup.
The third step was a successful negotiation with the European Broadcasting Union to
provide guaranteed host television broadcasts at the World Rowing Championships and
Shaping the Sport of Rowing ◾ 289
the three Rowing World Cup regattas. This meant that the four top annual international
rowing events (when the championships were staged in Europe) would be televised at
a consistently high standard and distributed throughout the world. In addition, a major
commitment was obtained from Eurosport, the pan-European sports channel covering
more than 50 countries. It provided the necessary foundation for launching a global
sponsorship campaign.
To bring rowing closer to international sport sponsoring norms, sponsor identification
on the water was significantly increased with the now famous Toblerones, the 2 × 8 m
floating sponsor banner supports found at all televised FISA regattas. Sponsor stickers
on the boats offered the main FISA sponsor a presence similar to what they could get at
most other sporting events. And, after extensive experimenting, rowers’ T-shirts with
fixed positions on the sleeves for a FISA sponsor’s commercial logo were introduced.
These T-shirts were the closest rowing could get to the start number in skiing or track
and field. It allowed the main sponsor to have a presence with each competing athlete,
which was a critical commercial component.
The rowers’ T-shirts were the decisive factor in signing the first major FISA sponsor,
Zurich Financial Services, in 1999. After initially deciding against the sponsorship, they
recognized that rowing could help their global marketing campaign when the company’s
senior marketing executives saw the rowers’ T-shirts on video from the 1999 Rowing
World Cup regatta. This first major sponsorship provided FISA with greatly needed
funding for its development program. The world cup regattas offered three television
opportunities for sponsors of national federations to also show their engagement with
the teams, which was a boost for their own sponsorship activities.
It quickly became clear that the next series of steps would require more money. With
the television contracts and the Zurich (later replaced by BearingPoint) sponsorship, a
dynamic new era in development began in the early 2000s.
Development Program
The development program made impressive steps forward in the 1990s with a limited
budget. Under Thor Nilsen’s leadership, significant progress had been made by activating
key people in key countries to start or energize rowing. But money was needed to help
certain countries obtain the equipment needed to start the sport, and the new sponsor-
ships and television contracts of the early 2000s greatly helped.
FISA is particularly proud of the evolution of several national federations attempting
to qualify for the Olympic Games. The benchmark for this statistic is the 1992 Olympic
Games, at which there was no qualification system and 44 national federations partici-
pated. Then in 1993, the Olympic qualification system was introduced in preparation
for the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games. Within this system, boats needed to obtain certain
results at the world championships the year before the Games. In addition, there were
continental qualification regattas in Africa, Asia, and Latin America in selected boat
classes, leading to the final Olympic qualification regatta in the spring of the Olympic
year. In total, 65 national federations participated in the qualification process for the
1996 Games. For the 2000 Sydney Games, 73 federations participated in one or more
of the qualification events, and for the 2004 Athens Games, 85 national federations
attempted to qualify. Leading up to the 2008 Beijing Games, FISA made great advances
with the support of Olympic Solidarity and the IOC. In all, 101 national rowing federa-
tions entered crews in the qualification process for the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games.
This was an immense achievement for the sport.
290 ◾ Smith
Paralympic Games
The 1995 World Rowing Championships identified the need to make a number of positive
changes for rowers with disabilities. This discipline of rowing was eventually given the
name adaptive rowing. There was no standard for equipment or for types of disabilities in
the races and no money in the national federations to support rowers with disabilities,
so FISA set its sights on getting rowing in the Paralympic Games.
Extensive consultations with the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) began,
and a new approach to the discipline was launched. This led to the inclusion of adap-
tive rowing in the Rowing for All Commission, which later led to the creation of the
Adaptive Rowing Commission. After checking with the IPC, a strategy was created that
included equal participation by men and women, opportunities for all disabilities, stan-
dardized boats, and adapted equipment. This led to the first world championship events
for adaptive rowers in 2002 and then to the IPC’s 2005 announcement that rowing
would be on the program of the 2008 Beijing Paralympic Games. This was a sizeable
accomplishment because it was conceived and achieved in a short amount of time, and
the rowing regatta at the Beijing Paralympic Games was a great success.
Future of Rowing
Although the situation in 2011 is healthy, the future holds many uncertainties. We
are fortunate that the World Rowing Championships have been successful: Gifu 2005,
Eton 2006, and Munich 2007 set new records in spectator numbers, television reach,
and participation levels. The Rowing World Cup series is still in good shape as far as
competition goes, but it has not been consistent enough to attract a major sponsor. It
has attempted to present the best rowers of the world to the general public and media at
least three times during the season. Previously, the world’s best rowers were only seen
once per year at the World Rowing Championships, which made promotion of the sport
virtually impossible. Unfortunately, few non-European federations consistently send
292 ◾ Smith
crews to the world cup regattas, and many European federations do not participate in
all three, even though the events are held in Europe. In essence, the world cup has no
real meaning for the sport and is now in a vulnerable position. It requires a complete
revamping to help it regain its rightful place as an important, well-attended, and tele-
vised international sport series.
We also must not ignore the fact that rowing, with all its boat classes, has difficulty
producing a globally recognized name that could compete with the likes of Michael
Schumacher, Lance Armstrong, or Michael Phelps. The closest rowing has come to a
global star is Steve Redgrave, whose strength, dedication, and determination led him to
win five Olympic gold medals over five Olympic Games, an amazing achievement in a
highly competitive environment. The large number of boat classes and confusing team
and individual status makes it difficult to deliver a clear superstar to the media. We have
created a top 10 list to help promote the best rowers, but the nature of rowing prevents one
person from dominating. This is a fantastic strength of the sport but also an Achilles heel.
FISA must take into account the fast-changing global media environment. The digital
revolution is affecting all aspects of media-driven organizations. The financial models
for television rights and sport sponsorship of the 1990s are no longer valid. As young
people (and increasingly older generations) turn to their computers and other types of
digital devices for their entertainment, the sport of rowing must adapt. The average age
of television viewers is increasing, which means we are losing the important younger
audiences, and models of television rights based on general interest and public network
channels showing live sport are changing. Sport is being driven to the smaller digital
theme channels that attract much smaller audiences. The smaller the audiences watch-
ing, the lower the television rights fees that can be obtained. The majority of people now
watch far less TV, preferring to watch the content of their choice whenever they want
on their computers or digital devices.
and they are the most prestigious and best marketable races in rowing. The objective
is to feature the men’s and women’s eights with special introductions and background
information on rivalries. The single scullers are presented with interviews of the leading
athletes so that the general public can follow them through the season and develop an
individual connection to them during the events leading up to the world championships
and Olympic Games. It is hoped that these steps will build interest from new viewers, thus
helping the TV channels themselves and improving the significance of televised rowing.
The strategic reassessment review also concluded that FISA needs to become more
attractive to a wider range of sponsors. Financial institutions and insurance companies
were the most supportive sponsors during the good times, but the economic crisis of
2009 has changed that. After a careful analysis of the market situation, FISA is going to
take greater advantage of its environmentally friendly clean-water values and image,
and it will solidify its position in the ever-growing green movement. FISA’s reach in the
academic and business communities is a valuable asset to the clean-water debate. This
socially responsible marketing initiative will provide a topical niche for rowing sponsors
to highlight their products and technologies.
Looking ahead, FISA is carefully evaluating what can be improved in the existing
events and is considering alternative events such as coastal rowing and sprint rowing.
The global financial situation has had its effect on FISA finances and thus funding for
the development program.
2. Expanding the position of rowing in new media. As stated, young people
now spend most of their media time in front of portable digital devices rather than tele-
visions. All sport organizations are now tailoring their content to the new purveyors of
media, such as YouTube. The experts are telling us that we need to be more interactive
and entertaining for young people, and so racing content needs to be tailored to meet the
shorter attention span of the YouTube generation. This content does not replace the more
traditional race coverage but complements it. It is clear that if we do not take these steps,
then the sport will miss one or even two generations. The IOC, for example, is making a
big effort to connect with young people through the new Youth Olympic Games as well
as their new interactive website.
3. Revamping old events or creating new ones to increase exposure and
promotion. FISA recognizes the importance of keeping the core values of rowing intact.
One of these core values is the endurance effort of the 2,000 m distance; another is the
excitement and tension of seeing the world’s best rowers competing side by side against
their opponents as they race to the finish line. With the new Swiss Timing graphics and
GPS tracking generated from the GPS bow numbers, television commentators are now
even better equipped to provide well-informed race stories. Even so, there are many other
ways to increase the promotion of rowing in all its forms, such as the indoor rowing events
being held all over the world at which the best rowers can usually be found. Another is
internationally contested short-course sprint racing, which FISA intends to stage in the
center of major cities in a manner similar to that of the pilot London sprints in 2002. A
third is coastal rowing, which could be brought to major tourist destinations on beach
settings. Many well-known beach-based locations are searching for events to bring life
and entertainment to their tourists and residents. FISA intends to use all these forms of
rowing to bring the sport to the people and achieve better promotion and exposure.
4. Expanding the number of revenue opportunities to fund the develop-
ment program. Several methods are being explored to solidify and expand sources of
revenue for the international federation. FISA is, in effect, a commercial entity because
there is no government funding or sport ministry for its activities. The statutes state
294 ◾ Smith
clearly that FISA must promote and develop rowing as well as stage the main competi-
tions and regulate the rules of the sport. To achieve these goals, we have to find ways
to raise money on a sustainable basis.
At the root of all the money-raising activities is the need for FISA to keep rowing
popular as a participation sport, maintain it constantly in the eye of international media,
and keep its presence strong in the Olympic Games. Only by achieving these fundamental
objectives can FISA keep the development program going strong. If any of these areas
is neglected, then FISA risks a backward slide and will not be developing the sport as
coaches, rowers, and officials would like it to be.
Olympic Phenomenon
After the success of the 2008 Olympic Games, the high-performance bar has been raised,
particularly by China. More and more governments are funding high-performance
commando-style units across all sports in an effort to improve their position on the
Olympic medal table and ultimately reflect well on the politicians in power. It is a sign
of the times that government funding of many national federations is being reduced
or withdrawn altogether while sport ministries directly target funding toward Olympic
athletes with medal-winning potential. Governments are even hiring and firing coaches
without consulting the elected leaders of the national federations! Enormous amounts of
money are being spent on scientific and medical support for these Olympic teams, and
success is mainly assessed by quadrennial Olympic performances instead of annual results.
This poses a threat to the world cups, the world championships, and consequently the
depth and breadth of the sport. Many coaches choose their regattas with the ultimate
performance at the world championships or Olympic Games as their sole criterion. The
upside to this funding trend is that never before have we seen the amounts of money
being spent on high-performance rowing programs and coaches.
It is evident that this trend will continue because the Olympic Games continue to be
a unique phenomenon that touches the entire planet every 4 years. The downside to
dependence on Olympic performances is that the commitment of athletes to high per-
formance will completely take over their lives for 8 to 12 years. When they are finished,
there is no professional league awaiting them and not enough top-level international
regattas for them to contest. Unless we can rebuild the status and significance of the
world cup regattas, these rowers had better have their education finished and some
part-time experience in their field of choice.
Overcoming Obesity
Another interesting development is the use of the rowing ergometer in the fight against
obesity. More and more research is calling for regular aerobic activity in schools from
an early age (Strong et al, 2005). This goes beyond generic physical education, sug-
gesting physical and aerobic training each day for at least 20 to 30 minutes. Beyond
fighting youth obesity, new research has also proven that aerobic training can improve
academic performance (Taras, 2005). And, although not all schools have suitable
Shaping the Sport of Rowing ◾ 295
running tracks or swimming pools, many do have the space and funds to buy rowing
ergometers. Ergometers are proving to be effective devices for getting kids their needed
aerobic training. FISA, national federations, and clubs need to be wise and support
this development with their governments. It is necessary to take full advantage of the
ergometer solution in fighting the obesity problem. We have to tap into the opportu-
nities offered by this solution—the more kids we can get rowing on ergometers, the
more will end up in rowing boats.
Popularity
The biggest question now is how the sport can reach the public’s radar screen multiple
times per year. Unless we can achieve more top-level competitive exposure, rowing will
forever be an insider’s sport because the public will neither know nor appreciate the
world’s top rowers. We need more creativity and flexibility if we are to be successful in
presenting rowing to the world. For example, perhaps there could be two or three sea-
sons per year—the spring devoted to sprint racing, the summer to 2,000 m racing, and
the fall to long-distance racing. Each season could culminate in a world championship
event that would draw the world’s attention. If there were real interest and commitment
from national teams and coaches, this three-season concept could be sold to sponsors
and television. The winter season is still a difficult nut to crack because creating indoor
rowing events that are telegenic is a challenge. Many ideas have been explored, but this
challenge still has not been solved.
296 ◾ Smith
Conclusion
We are fortunate that rowing is an excellent sport in the true sense of sport, and it is in
a strong position since we have preserved its core values. We have good people, topical
commercial messages, and better placement than many other sports in terms of strengths,
reputation, and values. But we must be prepared for a future that will bring many chal-
lenges. Some of these challenges and their solutions have been explained here, but we all
have a part to play. All of us need to think outside our immediate areas of responsibility
and look to how we can build upon our strengths, reduce our weaknesses, and protect
our legacy for future generations of rowers.
References
Chapter 1
Burke, E. (Ed.). (1790). The annual register, or a view of the history, politics, and literature, for the year
1788. London: J. Dodsley.
Morgan, J.E. (1873). University oars: A critical enquiry into the after health of the men who rowed in the
Oxford and Cambridge boat-race, from the year 1829 to 1869, based on the personal experience of the
rowers themselves. London: Macmillan.
Chapter 2
Barker, C. (2003). Personality theory in coaching: positive reinforcement. In Coach and Athletic
Director (Sept.). http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FIH/is_2_73/ai_n18616319/.
Deci, E.L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R.M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining
the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627-668.
Simkin, J. (2009). Zola’s management style: the importance of positive reinforcement. West Ham
United Hammers News. http://hammersnews.blogspot.com/2009/02/zolas-management-style-
importance-of.html.
Chapter 3
Ahmetov, I.I., Popov, D.V., Astratenkova, I.V., Druzhevskaya, A.M., Missina, S.S., Vinogradova,
O.L., & Rogozkin, V.A. (2008). The use of molecular genetic methods for prognosis of aerobic
and anaerobic performance in athletes. Human Physiology, 34, 338-342.
Allard, F., Graham, S., & Paarsalu, M.L. (1980). Perception in sport: basketball. Journal of Sport
Psychology, 2, 14-21.
Allard, F., & Starkes, J. (1980). Perception in sport: volleyball. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 22-23.
Baker, J., & Horton, S. (2004). A review of primary and secondary influences on sport expertise.
High Ability Studies, 15, 211-228.
Baker, J., Schorer, J., Cobley, S., Schimmer, G., & Wattie, N. (2009). Circumstantial develop-
ment and athletic excellence: The role of birth date and birth place. European Journal of Sports
Sciences, 9, 329-339.
Bray, M.S., Hagberg, J.M., Perusse, L., Rankinen, T., Roth, S.M., Wolfarth, B., & Bouchard, C.
(2009). The human gene map for performance and health-related fitness phenotypes: the
2006-2007 update. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 41, 34-72.
Charness, N., Krampe, R., & Mayr, U. (1996). The role of practice and coaching in entrepreneur-
ial skill domains: an international comparison of life-span chess skill acquisition. In K.A. Erics-
son (Ed.), The road to excellence: the acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports
and games (pp. 51-80). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cobley, S., Wattie, N., Baker, J., & McKenna, J. (2009). A meta-analytical review of relative age
effects in sport: the emerging picture. Sports Medicine, 39, 235-256.
Connolly, C.T., & Janelle, C.M. (2003). Attentional strategies in rowing: performance, perceived
exertion, and gender considerations. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 195-212.
de Groot, A.D. (1965). Thought and choice in chess. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers-
maatschappij.
Desgorces, F.D., Chennaoui, M., & Guezennec, C.Y. (2004). Influence of anthropometric para-
meters on rowing performance at national level. Science and Sports, 19, 327-329.
◾ 297
298 ◾ References
Duffy, L.J., Baluch, B., & Ericsson, K.A. (2004). Dart performance as a function of facets of prac-
tice amongst professional and amateur men and women players. International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 35, 232-245.
Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the
acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363-406.
Ericsson, K.A., Nandagopal, K., & Roring, R.W. (2009). Toward a science of exceptional achieve-
ment. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1172, 199-217.
Ericsson, K.A., & Smith, J. (1991). Prospects and limits of the empirical study of expertise: an introduc-
tion. Cambridge, MA: University of Cambridge Press.
Gayagay, G., Yu, B., Hambly, B., et al. (1998). Elite endurance athletes and the ACE I allele—the
role of genes in athletic performance. Human Genetics, 103, 48-50.
Helsen, W.F., & Pauwels, J.M. (1993). The relationship between expertise and visual information
processing in sport. In J. Starkes & F. Allard (Eds.), Cognitive issues in motor expertise (pp. 109-
134). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Helsen, W.F., Starkes, J.L., & Hodges, N.J. (1998) Team sports and the theory of deliberate prac-
tice. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 20, 12-34.
Hodges, N.J., & Starkes, J.L. (1996). Wrestling with the nature of expertise: a sport-specific test
of Ericsson, Krampe and Tesch-Römer’s (1993) theory of ‘deliberate practice.’ International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 27, 400-424.
Huang, C.J., Nesser, T.W., & Edwards, J.E. (2007). Strength and power determinants of rowing
performance. Journal of Exercise Physiology Online, 10, 43-50.
Ingham, S.S., Carter, H., Whyte, G.P., & Doust, J.H. (2007). Comparison of the oxygen uptake
kinetics of club and olympic champion rowers. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 39,
865-871.
Kerr, D.A., Ross, W.D., Norton, K., Hume, P., Kagawa, M., & Ackland, T.R. (2007). Olympic light-
weight and open-class rowers possess distinctive physical and proportionality characteristics.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 25, 43-53.
Mäestu, J., Jürimäe, J., & Jürimäe, T. (2005). Monitoring of performance and training in rowing.
Sports Medicine, 35, 597-617.
Mikulic, P., Ruzic, L., & Oreb, G. (2007). What distinguishes the Olympic-level heavyweight row-
ers from the other internationally successful rowers? Collegium Antropologicum, 31, 811-816.
Moulaert, V. ,Verwijnen, M.G., Rikers, R., & Scherpbier, A.J. (2004). The effects of deliberate
practice in undergraduate medical education. Medical Education, 10, 1044-1052.
Purge, P., Jürimäe, J., & Jürimäe, T. (2004). Body compensation, physical performance and psycho-
logical factors contributing to 2,000 m sculling in elite rowers. Journal of Human Movement Stud-
ies, 47, 367-378.
Raglin, J.S., Morgan, W.R., & Luchsinger, A.E. (1990). Mood and self-motivation in successful
and unsuccessful female rowers. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 22, 849-853.
Simon, H.A., & Chase, W.H. (1973). Skill in chess. American Scientist, 61, 394-403.
Smith, R.M., & Spinks, W.L. (1995). Discriminant analysis of biomechanical differences between
novice, good and elite rowers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 13, 377-385.
Starkes, J.L. (1987). Skill in field hockey: The nature of the cognitive advantage. Journal of Sport
Psychology, 9, 146-160.
Steinacker, J.M. (1993). Physiological aspects of training in rowing. International Journal of Sports
Medicine, 14, S3-S10.
Woods, D.R., Humphries, S.E., & Montgomery, H.E. (2000). The ACE I/D polymorphism and hu-
man physical performance. Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism, 11, 416-420.
Chapter 4
Balyi, I., Cardinal, C., Higgs, C., Norris, S., & Way, R. (2005). Long-term athlete development: Cana-
dian Sport for Life. Vancouver, BC: Canadian Sport Centres.
Balyi, I., & Hamilton, A. (2001). Long-term athlete development: the FUNdamental stage, part
one. Sport Coach, 23(3), 10-13.
References ◾ 299
Gibbons, T. (Ed.). (2002). The path to excellence. A comprehensive review of development of U.S. Olympi-
ans who competed from 1984 to 1998. Colorado Springs: USOC.
Higgs, C., Balyi, I., Bluechard, M., Cardinal, C., Norris, S., and Way, R. (2007). Developing physical
literacy. Vancouver, BC: Canadian Sport Centres.
Taylor, B., Balyi, I., Moss, I., Nolte, V., Orr, R., Paul, T., Roaf, A., & Trono, C. (2005). Long-term
athlete development plan for rowing: an overview. Victoria, BC: Rowing Canada.
Viru, A. (1995). Adaptation in sports training. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Whitehead, M. (2001). The concept of physical literacy. European Journal of Physical Education, 6,
12-13.
Chapter 5
Baker, J., Horton, S., Robertson-Wilson, J., & Wall, M. (2003). Nurturing sport expertise: factors
influencing the development of the elite athlete. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 2, 1-9.
Balyi, I. (2006). Long-term athlete development program in Canadian rowing. Presented at the
Annual Rowing Canada Coaches Conference, Calgary, Alberta.
Blischke, K., & Erlacher, D. (2007). How sleep enhances motor learning—a review. Journal of
Human Kinetics, 17, 3-14.
Côté, J., & Hay, J. (2002). Children’s involvement in sport: A developmental perspective. In J.M.
Silva & D.E. Stevens (Eds.), Psychological foundations of sport (pp. 484-502). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the
acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 336-406.
Grove, J. (2008). No longer swimming in circles. Canadian Sport for Life. www.canadiansportforlife.
ca/upload/docs/2008%20E-News%20Eng/No%20Longer%20Swimming%20in%20Circles.pdf.
Rowing Canada Aviron. (2007). LTAD competition review. (Unpublished internal document).
Samuels, C. (2008) Sleep, recovery, and performance: the frontier in high-performance athletics.
Neurological Clinics, 26(1), 169, 180.
Schmidt, C., Collette, F., Cajochen, C., & Peigneux, P. (2007) A time to think: circadian rhythms
in human cognition. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 24(7), 755-789.
Van Cauter, E., Holmbäck, U., Knutson, K., Leproult, R., Miller, A., Nedeltcheva, A., Pannain, S.,
Penev, P., Tasali, E., & Spiegel, K. (2007). Impact of sleep loss on neuroendocrine and meta-
bolic function. Hormone Research in Pediatrics, 67(1), 2-9.
Chapter 6
Antonutto, G., & DiPrampero, P. (1995). The concept of lactate threshold. Journal of Sports Medi-
cine and Physical Fitness, 35, 6-12.
Aunola, S., & Rusko, H. (1986). Aerobic and anaerobic thresholds determined from venous lac-
tate or from ventilation and gas exchange in relation to muscle fiber composition. International
Journal of Sports Medicine, 7, 161-166.
Burke, R. (1986). The control of muscle force: motor unit recruitment and firing patterns. In Hu-
man muscle power. Edited by N.L. Jones, N. McCartney, & A.J. McComas, 97-106. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
Droghetti, P., Jensen, K., & Nilsen, T.S. (1991). The total estimated metabolic cost of rowing. FISA
Coach, 2, 1-4.
Fikerstrand, A., & Seiler, K. (2004). Training and performance characteristics among Norwegian
international rowers from 1970-2001. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 14,
303-310.
Hagerman, F.C., Connors, M.C., Gault, G.R., & Polinski, W.J. (1978). Energy expenditure during
simulated rowing. Journal of Applied Physiology, 45, 87-93.
Heck, H., Mader, A., Hess, G., Mucke, S., Muller, R., & Hollmann, W. (1985). Justification of the
4 mmol/L lactate threshold. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 6, 117-130.
Henneman, E. (1957). Relation between size of neurons and their susceptibility to discharge.
Science, 126, 1345-1347.
300 ◾ References
Hughson, R., Weisiger, K., & Swanson, G. (1987). Blood lactate concentration increases as a con-
tinuous function in progressive exercise. Journal of Applied Physiology, 62, 1975-1981.
Ingham, S.A., Whyte, G.P., Jones, K., et al. (2002). Determinants of 2,000 m rowing ergometer
performance in elite rowers. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 88, 243-246
Kindermann, W., Simon, G., & Keul, J. (1979). The significance of the aerobic-anaerobic transi-
tion for determination of workload intensities during endurance training. European Journal of
Applied Physiology, 42, 25-34.
Mickelson, T.C., & Hagerman, F.C. (1982). Anaerobic threshold measurements of elite oarsmen.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 14, 440-444.
Mikulic, P. (2009). Anthropometric and metabolic determinants of 6,000 m rowing ergometer
performance in internationally competitive rowers. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,
23(6), 1851-1857.
Petibois,C., Cazorla, G., & Déléris, G. (2003). The biological and metabolic adaptations to 12 months’
training in elite rowers. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 24, 36-42.
Riechman, S., Zoeller, R., Balasekaran, G., Goss, F., & Robertson, R. (2002). Prediction of 2,000 m
indoor rowing performance using a 30 s sprint and maximal oxygen uptake. Journal of Sport
Science, 20, 681-687.
Roth, W., Hasart, E., Wolf, W., & Pansold, B. (1983). Untersuchungen zur Dynamik der Energie-
bereitstellung während maximaler Mittelzeitausdauerbelastung. Medicine in Sport, 23, 107-114.
Skinner, J., & McLellan, T. (1980). The transition from aerobic to anaerobic metabolism. Research
Quarterly, 51(1), 234-248.
Slater, G.J., Rice, A.J., Mujika, I., Hahn, A.G., Sharpe, K., & Jenkins, D.G. (2005). Physique traits
of lightweight rowers and their relationship to competitive success. British Journal of Sports
Medicine, 39, 736-741.
Stegmann, H., Kindermann., & Schnabel, A. (1981). Lactate kinetics and individual anaerobic
threshold. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 2, 160-165.
Steinacker, J.M. (1993). Physiological aspects of training in rowing. International Journal of Sports
Medicine, 14, S1, S3-S10.
Tachinaba, K., Yashiro, K., Miyazaki, J., Ikegami, Y., & Higuchi, M. (2007). Muscle cross-sectional
area and performance power of limbs and trunk in the rowing motion. Sports Biomechanics,
6(1), 44-58.
Womack, C.J., Davis, S.E., Wood, C.M., et al. (1996). Effects of training on physiological corre-
lates of rowing ergometry performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 10, 234-
238.
Yashiro, K., Tachibana, K., Usui, C., Miyazaki, J., Tani, T., & Higuchi, M. (2003). 2,000-meter
rowing power and muscle cross-sectional areas. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 35(5,
Supp. 1.), S389.
Chapter 7
Cachay, K., & Fritsch, W. (1983). Überlebensprobleme von Gruppen im Hochleistungssport. In
F. Neidhardt (Ed.), Gruppensoziologie. Sonderheft der Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozial-
psychologie (pp. 510-531). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Fritsch, W. (2006). Das große Buch vom Rennrudern. Aachen: Meyer & Meyer Sport.
Hohmann, A. (2005). Steuerung sportlicher Spitzenleistungen aus trainingswissenschaftlicher
Perspektive. Leistungssport, 35, 56-62.
Hohmann, A., Lames, M., & Letzelter, M. (2003). Einführung in die Trainingswissenschaft. Wiebel-
sheim: Limpert.
König, S. (2007). Strategische Planungsprozesse von Sportspieltrainerinnen und trainern. Spe-
ktrum, 19, 22-44.
Kruse, P. (2004). Next practice—Erfolgreiches Management von Stabilität. Offenbach: Gabal Verlag.
Schmidt, H. (2005). Modelle, komplexe Systeme und Möglichkeiten von Zeitreihenanalysen zur sportlichen
Leistungsoptimierung—theoretische und empirische Untersuchungen. (Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation). Universität Dortmund, Dortmund.
References ◾ 301
Chapter 8
Baudouin, A., & Hawkins, D. (2004). Investigation of biomechanical factors affecting rowing
performance. Journal of Biomechanics, 37(7), 969-976.
Baudouin, A., & Hawkins, D. (2002). A biomechanical review of factors affecting rowing perfor-
mance. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 36(6), 396-402.
Bogduk, N. (2005). Clinical anatomy of the lumbar spine and sacrum (4th ed.). London: Elsevier.
Hase, K., Kaya, M., Yamazaki, N., Andrews, B., Zavatsky, A., & Halliday, S. (2002). Biomechanics
of rowing: Model analysis of musculo-skeletal loads in rowing for fitness. JSME International
Journal, 45(4), 1073-1081.
Kleshnev, V. (2010). Boat acceleration, temporal structure of the stroke cycle, and effectiveness
in rowing. Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology, 233, 63-73.
Kleshnev, V. (2008a). Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter, 8(88). www.biorow.com/RBN_en_2008_files/
2008RowBiomNews07.pdf.
Kleshnev, V. (2008b). Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter, 8(89). www.biorow.com/RBN_en_2008_files/
2008RowBiomNews08.pdf.
Kleshnev, V. (2004). Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter, 1(4). www.biorow.com/RBN_en_2004_files/
2004RowBiomNews01.pdf.
McGregor, A.H., Patankar, Z.S., & Bull, A.M. (2005). Spinal kinematics in elite oarswomen during
a routine physiological step test. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 37(6), 1014-1020.
Neumann, D. (2002). Kinesiology of the musculoskeletal system: foundations for physical rehabilitation.
St. Louis: Mosby.
Chapter 9
Affeld, K., Schichl, K., & Ziemann, A. (1993). Assessment of rowing efficiency. International Jour-
nal of Sports Medicine, 14, S39-S41.
Caplan, N., & Gardner, T. (2007). A fluid dynamic investigation of the Big Blade and Macon oar
blade designs in rowing propulsion. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(6), 643-650.
Dal Monte, A., & Komor, A. (1989). Rowing and sculling mechanics. In C.L. Vaughan (Ed.), Bio-
mechanics of sport (pp. 53-119). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Fukunaga, T., Matsuo, A., Yamamoto, K., & Asami, T. (1986). Mechanical efficiency in rowing.
European Journal of Applied Physiology, 55(5), 471-475.
Haines, P. (2004). Force-sensing system. US Patent 7114398.
Hill, H., & Fahrig, S. (2009). The impact of fluctuations in boat velocity during the rowing cycle
on race time. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 19(4), 585-594.
Klavora, P. (1977). Three predominant styles: the Adam style; the DDR style; the Rosenberg style.
Catch, 9, 13.
Kleshnev, V. (2010). Boat acceleration, temporal structure of the stroke cycle, and effectiveness
in rowing. Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology, 224(1), 63-74.
Kleshnev, V. (2000). Power in rowing. In Y. Hong (Ed.), Proceedings of XVIII International Sympo-
sium on Biomechanics in Sport, Hong Kong, (pp. 662-666). Hong Kong, China: University of Hong
Kong.
Kleshnev, V. (1999). Propulsive efficiency of rowing. In Proceedings of XVII International Symposium
on Biomechanics in Sports, Perth, 224-228.
McBride, M. (2005). Rowing biomechanics. In V. Nolte (Ed.), Rowing faster (pp. 111-123). Cham-
paign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Mikulic, P., Smoljanovic, T., Bojanic, I., Hannafin, J., & Pedisic, Z. (2009). Does 2,000 m rowing
ergometer performance time correlate with final rankings at the World Junior Rowing Cham-
pionship? A case study of 398 elite junior rowers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(4), 361-366.
Nolte, V. (1991). Introduction to the biomechanics of rowing. FISA Coach, 2(1), l-5.
Nolte, V. (1984). Die Effektivität des Ruderschlages. [The efficiency of the rowing stroke.] Berlin:
Bartels & Wernitz.
Redgrave, S. (2004). A golden age. London: BBC Books.
302 ◾ References
Sanderson, B., & Martindale, W. (1986). Towards optimizing rowing technique. Medicine and Sci-
ence in Sports and Exercise, 18, 454-468.
Zatsiorsky, V.M., & Yakunin, N. (1991). Mechanics and biomechanics of rowing: a review. Inter-
national Journal of Sport Biomechanics, 7(3), 229-281.
Chapter 10
Davenport, M. (2002). Nuts and bolts guide to rigging. Church Hill, MD: Mouse House Books.
Nolte, V. (2009). Shorter oars are more effective. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 25, 1-8.
Nolte, V. (2005). Rigging. In V. Nolte (Ed.), Rowing faster (pp. 125-140). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Nolte, V., & McLaughlin, S. (2005). The balance of crew rowing boats. Malaysian Journal of Sport
Science and Recreation, 1(1), 51-64.
Piesik, S. (2000). Individual rigging and adjustment of rowing boats. Eberbach, Germany: Empacher
KG.
Purcer, M. (2009). Notes on rowing—rigging. St. Catherines, Ontario: Burtnik Printing.
Richardson, B. (2005). The catch. In V. Nolte (Ed.), Rowing faster (pp. 155-164). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Soper, C. (2004). Foot-stretcher angle and rowing performance. (Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion). Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Chapter 11
Bull, S., Albinson, J., & Shambrook, C. (1996). The mental game plan: Getting psyched for sport. East-
bourne: Sports Dynamics.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New
York: Plenum Press.
Jones, G., Hanton, S., & Connaughton, D. (2002). What is this thing called ‘mental toughness’?
An investigation of elite sport performers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 205-218.
Jones, G., & Moorhouse, A. (2007). Developing mental toughness: gold medal strategies for transforming
your business performance. OxfRedgrave, S. (1992). Complete book of rowing. London: Partridge
Press.
Redgrave, S. (1992). Complete book of rowing. London: Partridge Press.
Weinberg, R., & Gould, D. (1995). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Chapter 12
Behm, D.G., & Sale, D.G. (1993). Velocity specificity of resistance training. Sports Medicine, 15(6),
374-388.
Bompa, T. (1983). Theory and methodology of training: the key to athletic performance. Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt.
Clarkson, P.M., Graves, J., & Melchionda, A.M. (1984). Isokinetic strength and endurance and
muscle fibre type of elite oarswomen. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 9(3), 127-132.
Faulkner, J.A., Claflin, D.R., & McCully, K.K. (1986). Power output of fast and slow fibers from
human skeletal muscles. In N.L. Jones, N. McCartney, & A.J. McComas (Eds.), Human Muscle
Power, 81-94. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Hagerman, F.C., & Staron, R.S. (1983). Seasonal variations among physiological variables in elite
oarsmen. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 8(3), 143-148.
Hartman, U., Mader, A., Wasser, K., & Klauer, I. (1993). Peak force, velocity, and power during
five and ten maximal rowing ergometer strokes by world class female and male rowers. Inter-
national Journal of Sports Medicine, 14(Suppl. 1), S42-S45.
Ishiko, T. (1967). Application of telemetry to sport activities. Biomechanics, 1, 138-146.
Knapik, J., & Ramos, M. (1980). Isometric and isokinetic torque relationships in the human
body. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 61, 64-67.
Kramer, J.F., Leger, A., & Morrow, A. (1991). Oarside and nonoarside knee extensor strength
measures and their relationship to rowing ergometer performance. Journal of Orthopaedic and
Sports Physical Therapy, 14(5), 213-219.
References ◾ 303
Larsson, L., & Forsberg, A. (1980). Morphological muscle characteristics in rowers. Canadian Jour-
nal of Applied Sport Sciences, 5(4), 239-244.
Larsson, L, Grimby, G., & Karlsson, J. (1979). Muscle strength and speed of movement in relation
to age and muscle morphology. Journal of Applied Physiology, 46(3), 451-456.
McGrail, J.C., Bonen, A., & Belcastro, A.N. (1978). Dependence of lactate removal on muscle
metabolism in man. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 39, 89-97.
Newton, R.U., & Kraemer, W.J. (1994). Developing explosive muscular power: implications for a
mixed methods training strategy. Strength and Conditioning, 16(5), 20-31.
Reed, A., Ablack, D., & McNeely, E. (1992) Alactic strength training. Science Periodical on Research
& Technology in Sport, 12(7), np.
Roth, W., Schwanitz, P., Pas, P., & Bauer, P. (1993). Force-time characteristics of the rowing stroke
and corresponding physiological muscle adaptations. International Journal of Sports Medicine,
14(Suppl. 1), S32-S34.
Sale, D., & MacDougall, D. (1981). Specificity in strength training: a review for the coach and
athlete. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 6, 87-92.
Salmons, S. (1994). Exercise, stimulation and type transformation of skeletal muscle. International
Journal of Sports Medicine, 15(3), 136-141.
Schmidt, R. (1991). Motor learning and performance: from principles to practice. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Schmidtbleicher, D. (1985). Strength training, part 1: classification of methods. Science Periodical
on Research & Technology in Sport (Physical Training/Strength), W-4, 1-12.
Secher, N. (1993). Physiological and biomechanical aspects of rowing: implications for training.
Sports Medicine, 15(1), 24-42.
Secher, N. (1975). Isometric rowing strength of experienced and inexperienced oarsmen. Medi-
cine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 7(4), 280-283.
Slater, G., Rice, A., Mujika, I., Hahn, A., Sharpe, K., & Jenkins, D. (2003). Physique traits of light-
weight rowers and their relationship to competitive success. British Journal of Sports Medicine,
39, 736-741.
Steinacker, J.M. (1993). Physiological aspects of training for rowing. International Journal of Sports
Medicine, 14(Suppl. 1), S3-S10.
Stone, M., & O’Bryant, H. (1987) Weight training: a scientific approach. Minneapolis: Bellwether Press.
Verhoshansky, V.Y. (1986). Fundamentals of special strength training in sport. Livonia, MI: Sport-
ivny Press.
Chapter 14
Armstrong, L.E., Casa, D.J., Millard-Stafford, M., Moran, D.S., Pyne, S.W., & Roberts, W.O.
(2007). American College of Sports Medicine position stand: exertional heat illness during
training and competition. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 39, 556-572.
Berardi, J.M., Noreen, E.E., & Lemon, P.W. (2008). Recovery from a cycling time trial is enhanced
with carbohydrate-protein supplementation vs. isoenergetic carbohydrate supplementation.
Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 5, 24. www.jissn.com/content/5/1/24.
Burge, C.M., Carey, M.F., & Payne, W.R. (1993). Rowing performance, fluid balance, and meta-
bolic function following dehydration and rehydration. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exer-
cise, 25, 1358-1364.
Burke, L.M. (2008). Caffeine and sports performance. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism,
33, 1319-1334.
Calder, P.C., & Yaqoob, P. (2009). Understanding omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. Postgradu-
ate Medicine, 121, 148-157.
Cobb, K.L., Bachrach, L.K., Greendale, G., Marcus, R., Neer, R.M., Nieves, J., Sowers, M.F.,
Brown, B.W., Gopalakrishnan, G., Luetters, C., Tanner, H.K., Ward, B., & Kelsey, J.L. (2003).
Disordered eating, menstrual irregularity, and bone mineral density in female runners. Medi-
cine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 35, 711-719.
Costill, D.L., & Hargreaves, M. (1992). Carbohydrate nutrition and fatigue. Sports Medicine, 13, 86-92.
Coyle, E.F., & Montain, S.J. (1992). Benefits of fluid replacement with carbohydrate during ex-
ercise. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 24(9, Suppl.), S324-S330.
304 ◾ References
Dangin, M., Boirie, Y., Guillet, C., & Beaufrère, B. (2002). Influence of the protein digestion rate
on protein turnover in young and elderly subjects. Journal of Nutrition, 132, 3228S-3233S.
de Campos Mello, F., de Moraes Bertuzzi, F.C., Grangeiro, P.M., & Franchini, E. (2009). Energy
systems contributions in 2,000 m race simulation: a comparison among rowing ergometers
and water. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 107, 615-619.
Everitt, A.V., Hilmer, S.N., Brand-Miller, J.C., Jamieson, H.A., Truswell, A.S., Sharma, A.P., Mason,
R.S., Morris, B.J., & Le Couteur, D.G. (2006). Dietary approaches that delay age-related dis-
eases. Journal of Clinical Interventions in Aging, 1, 11-31.
Hagerman, F.C. (2000). Physiology of competitive rowing. In W.E. Garrett & D.T. Kirkendall
(Eds.), Exercise and sport science (pp. 843-873). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Hazell, T.J., & Lemon, P.W.R. (2009). Proteins. In J.A. Driskell & I. Wolinsky (Eds.), Nutrition con-
cerns in recreation, exercise, and sport (pp. 75-90). Cleveland: CRC Press.
Ivy, J.L. (1998). Glycogen resynthesis after exercise: effect of carbohydrate intake. International
Journal of Sports Medicine, 19(Suppl. 2), S142-S145.
Jenkins, D.J., Wolever, T.M., Taylor, R.H., Barker, H., Fielden, H., Baldwin, J.M., Bowling, A.C.,
Newman, H.C., Jenkins, A.L., & Goff, D.V. (1981). Glycemic index of foods: a physiological
basis for carbohydrate exchange. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 34, 362-366.
Jeukendrup, A.E. (2004). Carbohydrate intake during exercise and performance. Nutrition, 20,
669-677.
Kerksick, C., Harvey, T., Stout, J., Campbell, B., Wilborn, C., Kreider, R., Kalman, D., Ziegenfuss,
T., Lopez, H., Landeis, J., Ivy, J.L., & Antonio, J. (2008). International Society of Sports Nutri-
tion position stand: nutrient timing. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 5, 17.
www.jissn.com/content/5/1/17.
Lavigne, C., Tremblay, F., Asselin, G., Jacques, H., & Marette, A. (2001). Prevention of skeletal
muscle insulin resistance by dietary cod protein in high fat fed rats. American Journal of Physiol-
ogy: Endocrinology and Metabolism, 281, E62-E71.
Lemon, P.W.R. (2002). Dietary creatine supplementation and exercise performance: Why incon-
sistent results? Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 27, 663-681.
Lemon, P.W.R. (1998). Effects of exercise on dietary protein requirements. International Journal
of Sport Nutrition, 8, 426-447.
Loucks, A.B. (2007). Low energy availability in the marathon and other endurance sports. Sports
Medicine, 37, 348-352.
Lun, V., Erdman, K.A., & Reimer, R.A. (2009). Evaluation of nutritional intake in Canadian high-
performance athletes. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, 19, 405-411.
Maughan, R.J., Depiesse, F., & Geyer, H. (2007). The use of dietary supplements by athletes.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(Suppl. 1), S103-S113.
Maughan, R.J., & Shirreffs, S.M. (2008). Development of individual hydration strategies for ath-
letes. International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 18, 457-472.
Moayyeri, A., Kaptoge, S., Luben, R.N., Wareham, N.J., Bingham, S., Reeve, J., & Khaw,
K.T. (2009). Estimation of absolute fracture risk among middle-aged and older men and
women: the EPIC-Norfolk population cohort study. European Journal of Epidemiology, 24,
259-266.
Molinero, O., & Márquez, S. (2009). Use of nutritional supplements in sport: risks, knowledge,
and behavioural-related factors. Nutrición Hospitalaria, 24, 128-134.
Rodriguez, N.R., Di Marco, N.M., & Langley, S. (2009). Joint position statement of the American
Dietetic Association, Dietitians of Canada, and the American College of Sports Medicine: nu-
trition and athletic performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 41, 709-731.
Rosner, M.H. (2008). Exercise-associated hyponatremia. Physician and Sportsmedicine, 36, 55-61.
Sale, C., Saunders, B., & Harris, R.C. (2010). Effect of beta-alanine supplementation on muscle
concentrations and exercise performance. Journal of Amino Acids, 39, 321-333.
Sawka, M.N., Burke, L.M., Eichner, E.R., Maughan, R.J., Montain, S.J., & Stachenfeld, N.S.
(2007). American College of Sports Medicine position stand: exercise and fluid replacement.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 39, 377-390.
Shetty, P.S. (1990). Physiological mechanisms in the adaptive response of metabolic rates to en-
ergy restriction. Nutrition Research Reviews, 3, 49-74.
References ◾ 305
Shirreffs, S.M., Watson, P., & Maughan, R.J. (2007). Milk as an effective post-exercise rehydra-
tion drink. British Journal of Nutrition, 98, 173-180.
Simopoulos, A.P. (2009). Evolutionary aspects of the dietary omega-6:omega-3 fatty acid ratio:
medical implications. World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics, 100, 1-21.
Slater, G.J., Rice, A.J., Sharpe, K., Jenkins, D., & Hahn, A.G. (2007). Influence of nutrient intake
after weigh-in on lightweight rowing performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,
39, 184-191.
Slater, G.J., Rice, A.J., Sharpe, K., Tanner, R., Jenkins, D., Gore, C.J., & Hahn, A.G. (2005). Im-
pact of acute weight loss and/or thermal stress on rowing ergometer performance. Medicine
and Science in Sports and Exercise, 37, 1387-1394.
Symons, T.B., Sheffield-Moore, M., Wolfe, R.R., & Paddon-Jones, D. (2009). A moderate serving
of high-quality protein maximally stimulates skeletal muscle protein synthesis in young and
elderly subjects. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 109, 1582-1586.
Tarnopolsky, M.A., & Phillips, S.M. (2009). Ingested protein dose response of muscle and albu-
min protein synthesis after resistance exercise in young men. American Journal of Clinical Nutri-
tion, 89, 161-168.
Van Erp-Baart, A.M., Saris, W.H.M., Binkhorst, R.A., Vos, J.A., & Elvers, J.W.H. (1989). Nation-
wide survey on the nutritional habits of elite athletes, part 1: energy, carbohydrate, protein,
and fat intake. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 10, S3-S10.
Ziegenfuss, T., Rogers, M., Lowery, L., Mullins, N., Mendel, R., Antonio, J., & Lemon, P. (2002).
The effect of creatine loading on anaerobic performance and skeletal muscle volume in NCAA
Division I athletes. Nutrition, 18, 397-402.
Chapter 15
Cooper, R.A., et al. (2006). Elite athletes with impairments. In W.R. Frontera (Ed.), Exercise in
rehabilitative medicine (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Ericsson, K.A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performance: An introduction to some of the is-
sues. In K.A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts
and sciences, sports, and games (pp. 1-50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hettinga, D.M., et al. (2004). FES-rowing for persons with spinal cord injury. Presented at 9th
Annual Conference of the International FES Society, September 2004, Bournemouth, UK.
Nolte, V. (2009). The art of squaring. Rowing News, 16(9), n.p.
Chapter 16
Acker, J. (1998). The future of ‘gender and organizations’: connections and boundaries. Gender,
Work and Organization, 5(4), 196-197.
Acosta, V., & Carpenter, L.J. (1988). Status of women in athletics—changes and causes. Journal of
Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 56(6), 35-37.
Barrett, M. (1980). Women’s oppression today. London: NLB.
Body, P.M. (1956). Improve the standards of women’s rowing. Oarswoman, 15, 18.
Caccese, T.W., & Mayerberg, C.K. (1984). Gender differences in perceived burnout of college
coaches. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 279-288.
Cahn, S. (1994). Coming on strong: gender and sexuality in twentieth-century women’s sport. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Carpenter, L.J., & Acosta, R.V. (2008). Women in intercollegiate sport: a longitudinal, national
study thirty one year update 1977-2008. www.acostacarpenter.org.
Côté, J., & Sedgwick, W.A. (2003). Effective behaviors of expert rowing coaches: a qualitative
investigation of Canadian athletes and coaches. International Sports Journal, (Winter), 67.
Dodd, C. (1991). The story of world rowing. London: Stanley Paul.
Dubuc, M. (2010). Questionnaire sur l’ambiance sportive de jeunes: The development of an
instrument to assess cohesion among francophone youth. (Unpublished MHK thesis). Lau-
rentian University, Sudbury, Ontario.
FISA. (1950). Procès-verbal du Congrès annuel à l’occasion des Championnats d’Europe de Milan
Mercredi 30 août 1950 au Palazzo Vercesi, 22-23. Lausanne, Switzerland: FISA Historical Archives.
Goldstein, R. (2006, September 29). Ernestine Bayer, 97, pioneer in rowing, dies. New York Times.
www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/sports/othersports/29bayer.html?ref=othersports.
306 ◾ References
Guttmann, A. (1991). Women’s sports: a history. New York: Columbia University Press.
Hartsock, N.C.M. (1987). The feminist standpoint: developing the ground for a specifically femi-
nist historical materialism. In S. Harding (Ed.), Feminism and methodology (p. 164). Blooming-
ton, IN: Indiana University Press.
Huntington, A.S. (1998). Women on the water. In L. Smith (Ed.), Nike is a goddess: the history of
women in sports (pp. 111-112). New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.
Kanter, R.M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kolnes, L.J. (1995). Heterosexuality as an organizing principle in women’s sport. International
Review of the Sociology of Sport, 30(1), 61-77.
Körbs, W. (1988). Vom Sinn der Leibesübungen zur Zeit der Italienischen Renaissance. Hildesheim:
Weidmann.
Krane, V. (2001). We can be athletic and feminine, but do we want to? Challenging hegemonic
femininity in women’s sport. Quest, 53, 115-133.
Lovett, D.J., & Lowry, C.D. (1994). “Good old boys” and “good old girls” clubs: myth or reality?
Journal of Sport Management, 8(1), 27-28.
Martin, J. (1990). The organization of exclusion: institutionalization of sex inequality, gendered
faculty jobs and gendered knowledge in organizational theory and research. Organization,
1(2), 401-431.
Messner, M. (2002). Taking the field: women, men, and sports. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Meuret, J.-L. (1992). FISA, 1892-1992: the FISA centenary book. Lausanne, Switzerland: FISA.
Palchikoff, J. (1978). The development of women’s rowing in the United States. (Unpublished
paper).
Parker, C. (1993). The social history of English women’s rowing 1920-1963: a case study of Wey-
bridge Ladies Amateur Rowing Club. (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Warwick,
Coventry, England.
Parkhouse, B.L., & Williams, J.M. (1986). Differential effects of sex and status on evaluation of
coaching ability. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 57, 1.
Schweinbenz, A.N. (2007). Paddling against the current: A history of women’s competitive rowing
between 1954 and 2003. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of British Columbia.
Shaw, S., & Hoeber, L. (2003). “A strong man is direct and a direct woman is a bitch”: gendered
discourses and their influence on employment roles in sport organizations. Journal of Sport
Management, 17, 384.
Stangl, J.M., & Kane, M.J. (1991). Structural variables that offer explanatory power for the under-
representation of women coaches since Title IX: the case of homologous reproduction. Sociology
of Sport Journal, 8, 47-60.
Theberge, N. (1993). The construction of gender in sport: women, coaching, and the naturaliza-
tion of difference. Social Problems, 40(Aug.), 301-313.
Weaver, M.A., & Chelladurai, P. (2002). Mentoring in intercollegiate athletic administration.
Journal of Sport Management, 16, 96-116.
West, A., & Brackenridge, C. (1990). A report on the issues relating to women’s lives as spots coaches in
the United Kingdom, 1989/90. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield City Polytechnic and PAVIC Publications.
Women’s Rowing Commission. (1970). Inquiry for women’s rowing carried out in 1970 by the
national federations. Lausanne, Switzerland: FISA Historical Archives.
Chapter 17
Walsh, B., Jamison, S., & Walsh, C. (2009). The score will take care of itself. New York: Penguin.
Chapter 19
Armstrong, R.B. (1990). Initial events in exercise-induced muscular injury. Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise, 22, 429-435.
Bannister, E.W. (1991). Modeling elite athletic performance. In J.D. MacDougal, H.A. Wenger, &
H.J. Green (Eds.), Physiological testing of the high performance athlete (pp. 403-424). Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
References ◾ 307
Bonifazi, M.F., Sardella, F., & Luppo, C. (2000). Preparatory versus main competitions: differ-
ences in performances, lactate responses and pre-competition plasma cortisol concentrations
in elite male swimmers. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 82, 368-373.
Chiu, L.Z.F., & J.L. Barnes. (2003). The fitness-fatigue model revisited: implications for planning
short and long-term training. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 25, 42-52.
Costill, D.L., King, D.S., Thomas, R., & Hargreaves, M. (1985). Effects of reduced training on
muscular power in swimmers. Physician and Sports Medicine, 30, 94-101.
Fitz-Clarke, J., Morton, R.H., & Banister, E.W. (1991). Optimizing athletic performance by influ-
ence curves. Journal of Applied Physiology, 71, 1151-1158.
Hickson, R. (1980). Interference of strength development by simultaneously training for strength
and endurance. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 45, 255-263.
Houmard, J. (1991). Impact of reduced training on performance in endurance athletes. Sports
Medicine, 12, 380-393.
Houmard, J., Costill, D., Mitchell, J.B., Park, S.H., Hickner, R.C., & Roemmich, J.N. (1990). Re-
duced training maintains performance in distance runners. International Journal of Sports Medi-
cine, 11, 46-52.
Houmard, J., Kirwan, J.P., Flynn, M.G., & Mitchell, J.B. (1989). Effects of reduced training on
submaximal and maximal running responses. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 10, 30-33.
Houmard, J., & Johns, R. (1994). Effects of taper on swim performance: Practical implications.
Sports Medicine, 17, 224-232.
Houmard, J., Scott, B.K., Justice, C.L., & Chenier, T. (1994). The effects of taper on performance
in distance runners. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 26, 624-631.
Jeukendrup, A.E., Hesselink, M.K., Snyder, A.C., Kuipers, H., & Keizer, H.A. (1992). Physiologi-
cal changes in male competitive cyclists after two weeks of intensified training. International
Journal of Sports Medicine, 13, 534-541.
Johns, R., Houmard, J., Kobe, R.W., et al. (1992). Effects of taper on swim power, stroke distance
and performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 24, 1141-1146.
Martin, D., Scifres, J.C., Zimmerman, S.D., & Wilkinson, J.G. (1994). Effects of interval training
and taper on cycling performance and isokinetic leg strength. International Journal of Sports
Medicine, 15, 485-491.
Morton, R., Fitz-Clarke, J., & Banister, E. (1990). Modeling human performance in running.
Journal of Applied Physiology, 69, 1171-1177.
Mujika, I., Busso, T., Geyssant, A., Barale, F., Lacoste, L., & Chartrand, J.C. (1996). Modeled
response to training and taper in competitive swimmers. Medicine and Science in Sports and Ex-
ercise, 28, 251-258.
Mujika, I., Chartrand, J.C., Busso, T., Geyssant, A., Barale, F., & Lacoste, L. (1995). Effects of train-
ing on performance in competitive swimmers. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology, 20, 395-406.
Mujika, I., Goya, A., Padilla, S., Grijalba, A., Gorostiaga, E., & Ibanez, J. (2000). Physiological re-
sponses to a 6-d taper in middle-distance runners: influence of training volume and intensity.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 32, 511-517.
Mujika, I., Goya, A., Ruiz, E., Grijalba, A., Santisteban, J., & Padilla, S. (2002). Physiological and
performance responses to a 6-d taper in middle distance runners: influence of training fre-
quency. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 23, 367-373.
Mujika, I., Padilla, S., & Busso, T. (2004). Physiological changes associated with pre-event taper
in athletes. Sports Medicine, 34, 891-927.
Mujika, I., Padilla, S., Geyssant, A., & Chartrand, J.C. (1998). Hematological responses to training
in competitive swimmers: relationships with performance. Archives of Physiology and Biochem-
istry, 105, 379-385.
Neary, J.P., Bhambhani, Y.N., & McKenzie, D.C. (2003). Effects of different stepwise reduction
taper protocols on cycling performance. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology, 28, 576-587.
Neary, J.P., Martin, T.P., Reid, D.C., Burnham, R., & Quinney, H.A. (1992). The effects of a re-
duced exercise duration taper programme on performance and muscle enzymes of endurance
cyclists. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 65, 30-36.
Neary, J.P., McKenzie, D.C., & Y.N. Bhambhani. (2005). Muscle oxygenation trends after tapering
in trained cyclists. Dynamic Medicine, 4(4), 1-9.
308 ◾ References
Neufer, P.D., Costill, D., Fielding, R.A., Flynn, M.G., & Kirwan, J.P. (1987). Effect of reduced
training on muscular strength and endurance in competitive swimmers. Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise, 19, 486-490.
Romano-Ely, B.C., Todd, M.K., Saunders, M.J., & St. Laurent, T. (2006). Effect of an isocaloric
carbohydrate protein antioxidant drink on cycling performance. Medicine and Science in Sports
and Exercise, 38, 1608-1616.
Selye, H. (1956). The stress of life. New York: McGraw-Hill
Shepley, B., MacDougall, J.D., Cipriano, N., Sutton, J.R., Tarnopolsky, M.A., & Coates, G. (1992).
Physiological effects of tapering in highly trained athletes. Journal of Applied Physiology, 72,
706-711.
Trappe, S., Costill, D., & Thomas, R. (2000). Effect of swim taper on whole muscle and single fiber
contractile properties. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 32, 48-56.
Trinity, J.D., Pahnke, M.D., Reese, E.C., & Coyle, E. (2006). Maximal mechanical power during a
taper in elite swimmers. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 38, 1643-1649.
Yamamoto, Y., & Mutoh, Y. (1988). Hematological and biochemical indices during the taper pe-
riod of competitive swimmers. In B. Ungerects et al. (Eds.), Swimming science V, international
series on sports sciences (pp. 243-249). Champaign IL: Human Kinetics.
Zarkadas, P., Carter, J., & Banister, E. (1994). Taper increases performance and aerobic power in
triathletes. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 26, 34.
Zatsiorsky, V. Science and practice of strength training. (1995). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Chapter 20
Garland, S.F., Hibbs, A., & Kleshnev, V. (2009). Analysis of speed, stroke rate, and stroke distance
for world-class breaststroke swimming. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(4), 373-378.
Kleshnev, V. (2009). Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter, 9(101). www.biorow.com/RBN_en_2009_files/
2009RowBiomNews08.pdf.
Kleshnev, V. (2006). Method of analysis of speed, stroke rate and stroke distance in aquatic
locomotions. In Scientific proceedings of XXII International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sports,
Salzburg (pp. 104-107).
Kleshnev, V. (2005). Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter, 5(2). www.biorow.com/RBN_en_2005_files/
2005RowBiomNews02.pdf.
Kleshnev, V. (2003). Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter, 3(2). www.biorow.com/RBN_en_2003_files/
2003RowBiomNews02.pdf.
Kleshnev, V. (2001). Stroke rate vs. distance in rowing during the Sydney Olympics. Australian
rowing, 24(2), 18-22.
Nevill, A.M., & Whyte, G.P. (2005). Are there limits to running world records? Medicine & Science
in Sports & Exercise, 37, 1785-1788.
Chapter 21
Kreibich, R. (2008). Zukunftsforschung für die gesellschaftliche Praxis. [Future-research for social prac-
tice]. Arbeitsbericht Nr. 29. Berlin: Institut für Zukunftsstudien und Technologiebewertung.
Chapter 22
Strong,W., Malina, R., Blimkie, C., Daniels, S.,Dishman, R., Gutin, B., Hergenroeder, A., Must,
A., Nixon, P., Pivarnik, J., Rowland, T., Trost, S., & Trudeau, F. (2005). Evidence based physical
activity for school-age youth. The Journal of Pediatrics, 146(6), 732-737.
Taras, H. (2005). Physical activity and student performance at school. Journal of School Health,
75(6), 214-218.
Index
Note: The italicized f and t following page numbers refer to figures and tables, respectively.
A B
acceleration 113-114, 113f Bayer, Ernestine 210-211
Active for Life stage 42, 43f, 53-54 Beresford, Jack 11
Active Start stage 42, 43f, 50 biomechanics
Adam, Karl 17 analysis of 115-123, 116f-119f, 121f-
adaptive rowing 123f, 121t
challenges 198-200, 199f-200f coaches and 124
classifications 200-201 measurement of 108-115, 109f-110f,
defined 197 112f-114f, 115t
equipment 199, 199f-200f, 202-204, 206 performance in relation to 107, 108f
history 197-198, 198f rigging based on 127-128, 127f
integration 207 birth date effects 37f-38f, 38-39
LTAD and 65 birthplace effects 38-39
Paralympics and 198, 200-201, 204-205, Blackwall, Chris 197
204t, 291 blade
racing 206 lengths 134, 135t, 135f
rigging 202-204, 202f-203f, 204t pitch on 130-133, 131f, 136, 138
safety 201-202 propulsive efficiency 117-118, 117f
starting programs of 206-207 skills 177, 178f
technique 204-205 boat. See also rigging
training issues 205-206 allowed to work 177
adjustments, equipment 132-138, 133t- sculling 128, 128f, 134t
134t, 135f, 137t-138t sweep 128, 129f, 134t, 140t
aerobic fitness 72-74, 72f, 73t-74t, 246 velocities 112-114, 113f
aerobic threshold 72-74, 72f, 73t-74t, 78-79, 78t boathouses, spirit of 2
age body. See also loads, on body; segmental
chronological v. developmental 44, 44f mechanics
effects 37f-38f, 38-39 minimum allowable competition mass 186
alkalinizing substances 194-195 rowing style and 122-123, 122f-123f
amateur rowing 8-9, 14-15 Buschbacher, Hartmut 225
anaerobic fitness 74-76, 76f, 77t buy-in 227
anaerobic threshold 72-74, 72f, 73t-74t, C
78-79, 78t
caffeine 194
ankle and foot mechanics 93-95, 94f-95f
calendar planning, for competition 48-49
athlete development. See long-term athlete
calories 184-186, 185f
development
Cambridge 8-10, 17, 283
athlete selection
Canadian LTAD model 41-42, 42f
best model of 243-244
carbohydrate (CHO) 184, 186-188, 192-193, 195
common questions about 239-241
case discussions, coaching philosophy and
crew composition, eligibility and 13-14
22-26
equipment and 242-243
catch angle 115, 139, 140f
ergometers and 241-242, 242t
championships 197-198, 198t, 209, 259,
factors 234-235
259t, 291
methods 233-234
character development 20-21, 25
rigging and 242-243
CHO. See carbohydrate
seat-racing models for 236-238, 238t-239t
classifications, adaptive rowing 200-201
testing justification 235-236
club rowing, future of 280-282, 283f
athletics 43
◾ 309
310 ◾ Index
coaches E
biomechanics and 124 early specialization 45, 61
collective voice for 22 Eastern Bloc 15, 17, 286
control and 82, 90 East Germany 12, 286-287
equipment and 125, 132 economy, in athlete selection 235
loads on body and 105 effectiveness, rower’s 115-116, 118-121,
LTAD and 57 119f, 121f, 121t
mentoring and 217, 222 efficiency 115-120, 116f-119f
perception and 178 effortless rowing
perspective of 5 defined 174
power of 215 movement in 174-176, 181
rowing science and 68, 80 process of 176-177, 178f
women’s 209-210, 212-218, 216f promotion of 178-182, 180f
coaching philosophy response in 175-176
alternative approaches to 19-20 training for 173-182, 178f, 180f
development of 19-27 underlying concepts of 174-178, 178f
goals and 20 elbow and wrist mechanics 102-103, 102f-103f
moral development in 20-21, 25 emotional development, in LTAD 44
outcomes of 26-27 energy, from nutrition 184-186, 185f
statement of principles and values in 22 energy systems 71-72
support for 25 environment, pressure on 295
themes and principles 26 equipment. See also rigging
values in 20-22, 24-25 adaptive rowing 199, 199f-200f, 202-
workshop exercises and case discussions 204, 206
for 22-26 adjustments 132-138, 133t-134t, 135f,
coastal rowing 290, 293 137t-138t
cognitive development, in LTAD 44 athlete selection and 242-243
Cold War 286-287 coaches and 125, 132
competition developments 144
calendar planning for 48-49 importance of 125
control 86-87, 87f new experiences in 141-142
in Learn to Compete stage 42, 43f, 52, 63t selection 125-127
LTAD and 48-49, 61-64, 63t testing 142-143
minimum allowable body mass for 186 ergometer
in Train to Compete stage 42, 43f, 52 in adaptive rowing training 205-206
continental games and championships 291 athlete selection and 241-242, 242t
control C2 104
approaches to 88-90 footstretcher angles and 139
coaches and 82, 90 goals 242, 242t
competition 86-87, 87f tests 3, 74-76, 76f, 77t
planning and 81-90, 83f-84f, 83t, 87f Ernst, Bob 223
Cornell 10-12 Eton College 8, 10, 16
Courtney, Charles 11 evaluation 223-227, 223t. See also athlete
coxswains 14, 243 selection
creatine 194, 194f excellence, winning v. 25
crew. See athlete selection exercises, for coaching philosophy 22-26
C2 Ergo 104 expertise
cybernetic models 83, 83f primary influences on 35-37, 37f
D secondary influences on 37f-38f, 38-39
dehydration 191-192 skill acquisition and 33-35, 34f
development program 289, 293-294 expert-performance approach 34-35, 34f
distance per stroke 263-266, 265t F
drive length, measurement of 108-109, 109f fast-twitch (FT) fibers 166-167, 166f
drug testing 287 fast-twitch oxidative glycolytic (FOG) fibers
dryland training 170 166, 166f
Index ◾ 311
T results 68
tactics 260-262, 262t, 263f speeding up procedures of 85
tapering tapering process 245-246
adaptations to 246-247 volume 79-80, 80t, 167-170, 167f-169f,
design 247 249-250, 249t-250t
major 248-251, 249t-251t Train to Compete stage 42, 43f, 52
minor 248, 248t Train to Train stage 42, 43f, 51, 63t
moderate 248 Train to Win stage 42, 43f, 53
for races 245-252, 248t-251t trim 141
stress of 252 U
training process 245-246 undifferentiated fast-twitch (FTc) fibers 166, 166f
team management unsportsmanlike conduct 10
evaluation in 223-227, 223t
leaders in 227-228 V
at Stanford 221-225 validity, in athlete selection 234, 237
team needs and 223t, 224-227 values, in coaching philosophy 20-22, 24-25
technique velocities 111-114, 112f-113f, 168
adaptive rowing 204-205 venues 290
importance of 69 visualization 160, 227
loads on body and 91-92 vitamins 190-191
management and 226 V·O2max 72, 72f, 74-75, 78-79, 78t, 206
10,000-hour rule 33-34, 56 volume, training 79-80, 80t, 167-170, 167f-
10-year rule 33-34, 49, 56-57 169f, 249-250, 249t-250t
Terhaar, Tom 225, 227 W
tests Walsh, Bill 221-222, 226-228
drug 287 waste power 116-117, 119, 119f
equipment 142-143 water intoxication 192
ergometer 3, 74-76, 76f, 77t Weatherly, Frederic 14
justification of 235-236 Wingate test 74-76, 76f, 77t
three Ps 61-64, 63t winning at all costs 4, 7-18, 25
three Rs 58-61, 59f women, in rowing
timing, suspension and 98-99, 99f challenges facing 209-219, 216f
Title IX 213, 222 coaches of 209-210, 212-218, 216f
trainability, in LTAD 45-48, 46f distance changes for 269-270
training. See also mental training; strength FISA and 209, 211-212, 269
training history of 209-212
adaptive rowing 205-206 nutrition and 184, 185f, 191
dryland 170 Title IX and 213, 222
for effortless rowing 173-182, 178f, 180f Woodgate, W.B. 14
expertise and 35-37, 37f, 39 work, efficiency and 118-120, 119f
health and 15-18 workshops, coaching philosophy and 22-26
improvement from 145-149 work-through 128, 130f, 137t-138t, 139
log 153, 154t world championships 197-198, 198t, 259,
overtraining 84 259t, 291
physiology and 79-80, 80t wrist and elbow mechanics 102-103,
planning and control 81-90, 83f-84f, 83t, 87f 102f-103f
priorities and 15-18, 16f
races and 229-230 Y
recovery and 83-84, 83t, 84f yoga 181
About the Editor
Dr. Volker Nolte is an assistant professor teaching biomechanics and coaching and is
also the head rowing coach at the University of Western Ontario. Since 1993, Nolte’s
leadership has led the Western Mustangs men’s rowing team to 10 Ontario University
Athletics Championships and three Canadian University Rowing Championships. The
Western Mustang Rowers had a particularly successful year in 2008. They won the German
university championships, the Temple Challenge Cup at the Royal Henley Regatta against
74 other crews from around the world, and the Canadian University Championships. In
addition, Nolte was the lightweight men’s national team coach with the German Rowing
Association from 1984 to 1990 and with Rowing Canada Aviron from 1992 to 2000. His
crews won an Olympic silver medal at the 1996 Atlanta Games, two world championship
titles in 1993 and 2000, and several more medals at world championships.
Nolte received undergraduate degrees in both physical education (1976) and civil
engineering (1979) from the University of Saarbrücken and a PhD in biomechanics
(1984) from the German Sport University in Cologne, Germany. He is an internationally
acknowledged expert in biomechanics and coaching, and presents frequently at scientific
and coach education conferences worldwide. Additionally, Nolte regularly follows national
and international invitations as a guest coach in club, university, and national programs.
His research includes biomechanics of high-performance sport and coaching. He is also a
distinguished researcher in the field of sport equipment, and his innovations range from
special measurement tools to new boat designs. His research has produced many papers
in refereed journals, articles in various publications, and several books.
Nolte is an experienced rower, representing his home country Germany at several
world championships. He is still a keen competitor in the masters events.
Nolte lives in London, Ontario.
316 ◾
About the Contributors
Dr. Joe Baker is an associate professor of life-span health and performance at York
University, Toronto, and the current president of the Canadian Society for Psychomotor
Learning and Sport Psychology. His research focuses on the acquisition and maintenance
of physical and cognitive skills across the lifespan. He is the author of over 100 articles
and book chapters as well as four books, including the forthcoming Talent Identification
and Development in Sport: International Perspectives.
Dr. Jörg Schorer is at the University of Münster in the department of sport psychology.
His research considers the development and maintenance of expertise across the lifespan
from multiple perspectives. Additionally, he is interested in the role of perceptual skill
and laterality in motor behavior. His rowing success is limited to an hour of training
without drowning or falling out of the boat.
Istvan Balyi is a world-renowned coaching educator, and his series on long-term ath-
lete development (LTAD) and periodization has been published in Australia, Canada,
the United States, and the United Kingdom. Since 1994, he has been the resident
sport scientist of the National Coaching Institute in Victoria, British Columbia. He has
worked with 16 Canadian national teams as a high-performance adviser and planning
and periodization consultant, and he is currently LTAD adviser for Bahrain and Sport
Canada. He has worked with 19 sports in the United Kingdom and 17 in Canada to
develop LTAD models. He has authored three books, published over 75 chapters and
articles, and delivered over 400 presentations and conferences on LTAD and planning
and periodization.
Dr. Kirsten Barnes is a mental performance consultant for the Canadian Sport Centre
Pacific. She graduated from University of Victoria in human performance and completed
her PhD in sport psychology at University of Bristol. She is an Olympic double gold med-
alist from the 1992 Barcelona Olympic Games and world champion at the 1991 World
Rowing Championships in both the 4− and 8+ for Canada. Kirsten spent 13 years in
the United Kingdom, where she worked for Lane4 Management Group and as a mental
performance consultant.
Karen Lewis is the head coach of the USRowing adaptive rowing national team. Since
2005, she has coached the team to two gold medals, a silver medal, and two bronze
medals at the world championships as well as a silver medal and a bronze medal at
the 2008 Paralympics. Lewis has been coaching for 25 years and has been involved in
adaptive rowing since 2002. She received the Schuylkill Navy Coach of the Year award
in 2009.
◾ 317
318 ◾ About the Contributors
Yasmin “Yaz” Farooq has been involved in coxing and coaching for over 25 years. As
the coxswain for the U.S. national team from 1989 to 1996, she competed in the 1992
and 1996 Olympic Games and won numerous international medals, including a gold
medal at the 1995 world championships—the first ever won by a U.S. women’s eight.
She has been the rowing analyst for NBC TV’s telecasts of the past three Summer Olym-
pics and currently serves as an analyst for NBC and Universal Sports, covering world
cup regattas and world championships. Yaz is currently the head coach of the women’s
rowing team at Stanford University, where she guided the Cardinal to their first-ever
NCAA championship in 2009.
Tim Foster was one of Britain’s most technically gifted oarsmen, the first to win two
successive world junior championship gold medals. In 1993 he underwent back surgery
but went straight back in the boat for the 1994 season, winning bronze in the coxless
four at the world championships and then bronze at the 1996 Olympics. In 1997 he
won a seat in the coxless four alongside Steve Redgrave, Matthew Pinsent, and James
Cracknell. In the run-up to the Olympics, he again needed back surgery. Despite these
challenges, he was in the final Olympic crew and they won gold at the Sydney 2000
Olympics. He was awarded an MBE for his part in this in 2001. After retiring from active
rowing, he was chief coach at University of London Boat Club, apprentice coach for the
British Olympic rowing team, and a broadcaster at the BBC. In 2007 he became head
coach of the Swiss national rowing team, preparing the Swiss team toward qualification
for the 2012 Olympic Games in London.
Dr. Wolfgang Fritsch is a lecturer in the department of sport science at the University of
Constance, Germany, teaching sport sociology and training science. He began as a success-
ful international rower, competing in several German championships and winning the
gold medal in the lightweight eight at the 1975 world championships. As a head coach
in the German Rowing Association and lightweight squad leader of the Swiss Rowing
Federation from 1984 to 1992, he led teams to 6 gold medals and 14 overall medals
at world championships. He was an executive board member of the German Rowing
Association (1992-2004), and since 2007 he has been responsible for rowing science and
coach education in the Provincial Rowing Federation of Baden-Württemberg. Wolfgang
is a renowned international speaker known for his innovative approaches to training.
He has authored several books, published many papers, and presented at numerous
coaches’ conferences.
Dr. Valery Kleshnev is the rowing science consultant, founder, and director of the web-
site www.BioRow.com. Currently, he is working with a dozen national teams around
the world and also is a visiting lecturer at Brunel University. From 2005 to 2009, Valery
worked with British Rowing as a national biomechanics lead in the English Institute of
About the Contributors ◾ 319
Sport, and before that he spent 7 years working with the best Australian rowers at the
Australian Institute of Sport. Valery began his sport science career in 1986 at the Saint
Petersburg Research Institute of Physical Culture, where he defended his PhD thesis in
1991. As a competitive sculler from 1973 to 1986, Valery won a gold medal at the 1975
FISA junior world championships, a silver medal at the 1980 Olympic Games, a bronze
medal in the 1982 world championships (all in the quad), and four national champion-
ship titles in single, double, and quad.
Dr. Peter W.R. Lemon, FACSM, is the director of the Exercise Nutrition Research Labora-
tory at the University of Western Ontario. His main responsibilities include instructing
classes (exercise nutrition and exercise physiology) and mentoring graduate students’
research. His research focuses on the effect of exercise on nutrient requirements and
how specific nutrient supplementation affects exercise performance. In 2002, he became
the first head coach of the University of Western Ontario women’s softball program and
has guided his teams to five consecutive conference championships (2005-2009) and
six consecutive provincial medals (2004-2009).
Marnie McBean is one of Canada’s most decorated Olympians. As one of only two
Canadians ever to win 3 gold medals in the Summer Olympics, she is used to performing
under pressure; her 12 world and Olympic medals bear witness to this. After a record-
breaking rowing career, the Canadian Olympic Committee hired her as a specialist in
Olympic athlete preparation and mentoring. She has worked closely with the last three
Olympic teams, including the very successful Vancouver 2010 Olympic team, and is now
involved with the athletes who are focusing on the 2012 London Games. A member of
the Canadian Sports Hall of Fame and Guinness World Records as well as a recipient of
the Governor General’s Medal, McBean also managed to finish a degree in kinesiology
from the University of Western Ontario concurrent to her Olympic career.
Ed McNeely has been a physiologist and strength and conditioning coach with Rowing
Canada since 1992. During that time a Canadian crew has medaled at every world
championships and Olympic Games. He is a consultant to many U.S. college rowing
teams. Ed is a regular speaker at rowing coaches’ conferences and has helped develop
the physical conditioning portions of Rowing Canada’s coaching education programs.
Al Morrow is the women’s head coach for Rowing Canada Aviron (RCA). He has coached
in RCA programs since 1978 and at the University of British Columbia, University of
Victoria, and University of Western Ontario. His Olympic coaching résumé includes four
gold, one silver, and three bronze medals. His crews have also won eight gold, five silver,
and five bronze medals at the world championships. Al was FISA Coach of the Year in
1999 and is a member of seven halls of fame in Canada. He has been involved in many
aspects of the RCA coaching education program. As a rower, Al was a member of five
national teams from 1970 to 1976.
Chris O’Brien has been a coach on the Australian rowing team since 1996. He has
coached a number of boat classes; however, from 2002 to 2008 he coached the men’s
pair oared boat. During that time, his crews won two Olympic gold medals and three
world championship gold medals. These achievements saw him named national coach
of the year on two occasions. As head coach of the Victorian Institute of Sport, he leads
one of the country’s biggest and most successful elite rowing programs.
320 ◾ About the Contributors
Dr. Derek Porter was a member of the Canadian national rowing team from 1989 to
2000. He stroked the men’s 8+ to victory at the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona and followed
up with a victory in the single scull at the world championships in 1993. He won a silver
medal in the 1996 Olympics in the single, and he also won multiple world champion-
ships, Pan Am Games, and national medals. He is presently a chiropractor practicing in
Vancouver, British Columbia.
Katrin Rutschow is currently a national team coach with the German Rowing Federa-
tion. As a competitor from 1989 to 2004, Katrin won 11 national championships, three
world championships, and three Olympic medals (1996 gold in the quadruple sculls,
2000 bronze and 2004 gold in the single). She was FISA Female Rower of the Year in
2004. Since retiring in 2004, Katrin has been working as a coach, and she is currently
responsible for the German U23 women scullers.
Matt Smith has been the executive director and secretary general of FISA in Lausanne,
Switzerland, since 1995. He holds a bachelors degree (1981) and an MBA (1985) from
the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). From 1976 to 1981, he rowed at UCLA,
winning three varsity letters, until a back injury stopped his career. He then coached at
UCLA from 1983 to 1985 and was assistant to Thor Nilsen at the Italian National Rowing
Center in Piediluco, Italy, from 1986 to 1988. He was USRowing program director from
1989 to 1991 and FISA development director from 1992 to 1995. Smith has been a
member of the IOC Sport and Environment Commission and the IOC Development
Commission.
Carolyn Trono has worked in the Canadian sport system for over 30 years as an ath-
lete, coach, and sport leader. Currently, she is the director of coaching education for
Rowing Canada Aviron (RCA), and she is the project leader for the development and
implementation of RCA’s LTAD model. She has worked with a number of other national
sport organizations in strategic planning and the application of LTAD principles. Carolyn
has been the technical director for two provincial rowing associations, has coached at
the club level for 20 years, and is a graduate of Canada’s National Coaching Institute.
At the age of 33, Bryan Volpenhein finished his education at Ohio State University
(philosophy, ’02) and The Art Institute of Seattle (Culinary Arts, ’07). He is now the
head coach of the Pocock High Performance Team in Seattle. He began his rowing career
at Ohio State in 1994 and made his first national team in 1998, where he won his first
gold medal at the world championships in Cologne, Germany. He is a 10-time national
team member, winning four gold medals, a silver medal, and a bronze medal at the
world championships. He is a three-time Olympian, stroking the men’s eight to a gold
medal in Athens where his crew set a World Record time that still stands and a bronze
in Beijing. He was an assistant coach at the University of Washington from 2004 to 2005
before going to culinary school at The Art Institute of Seattle. He coached several crews
as part of the USRowing coaching staff at the 2009 and 2010 world championships.
Thomas E. Weil has spent most of his professional life as a lawyer, and after rowing for
Yale and serving in the U.S. Navy, he has spent most of his free time over the last 40 years
as a rowing historian and collector. He lectures, and he has written one book, Beauty and
the Boats: Art and Artistry in Early British Rowing (2005), and several articles and chapters
on rowing. Weil’s collection of over 10,000 items has been used for research and as a
source of illustrations for numerous authors. Weil is a founding member of the Commit-
tee for Rowing History, a trustee of the National Rowing Foundation, and a life member
of USRowing, the Leander Club, and the North American Society for Sport History.
“Do you still row?” That’s a question Brad Alan Lewis, 1984 Olympic champion, gets
asked fairly frequently. “Not too often,” is his usual response (meaning pretty much
never). One reason to row did come up not long ago—the father–son double scull event
at the Head of the Charles. The thought of lining up next to Tiff Wood and son, Jim
Dietz and son, Scott Roop and son, and Paul Fuchs and son intrigued him. The fact that
Lewis has no kids might be a bit of a deterrent. Maybe he could borrow a kid for the
day. God knows the thought of practicing beforehand seems above and beyond the call.
Why no rowing? He’s busy working construction, doing a bit of writing, and hiking in
the Sierra Nevada mountains. This summer will be his 15th consecutive time hiking the
length of the John Muir Trail (223 mi [359 km]). If he can hang tough and keep hiking
the JMT for another 15-odd years, he will have achieved kooky old guy status. Dig it!
You’ll find
other outstanding
rowing resources at
www.HumanKinetics.com
In the U.S. call
1-800-747- 4457
Australia................................ 08 8372 0999
Canada...............................1-800-465-7301
Europe.......................+44 (0) 113 255 5665
New Zealand......................... 0800 222 062
HUMAN KINETICS
The Premier Publisher for Sports & Fitness
P.O. Box 5076 • Champaign, IL 61825-5076 USA