The Rhythm Of The Rowing Stroke

[old] Douggie Bowwow · Post by **[old] Douggie Bowwow** » January 3rd, 2006, 12:30 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Citroen @ Jan 3 2006, 09:00 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>That's interesting - it's very close to the golden mean: 1.61803399.[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />I'm finding myself agreeing with John Rupp.<br /><br />Power = Watts = the <b>Pace</b> on the monitor! <br />

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 3rd, 2006, 12:33 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> But you have been rowing in 3 beat and 4 beat strokes in the last few days. What could it hurt to look at the force curve and see if there is a difference? </td></tr></table><br /><br />Oh! Is _that_ what you want? No problem. I row with the force curve right in front of me. Both force curves are the same. Why should they be different? They only differ in how they make room for rest-time in the recovery. The sequencings of the gestures in the drives are just the same. The downbeats are still on the arm pull. The preparation still takes 4 pulses: toes-heels-back-legs. The arm pull still takes one pulse, as does the recovery of the hands.<br /><br />The 4-beat measure provides for a 10-pulse recovery (out of 16 pulses in the measure or stroke cycle as a whole). Thus, the 1.67-to-1 ratio. The 3-beat measure provides for only a 6-pulse recovery, exactly equal to the number of pulses in the drive. Thus, the 1-to-1 ratio.<br /><br />ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 3rd, 2006, 12:41 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Citroen @ Jan 3 2006, 11:00 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Jan 3 2006, 08:45 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>The normal stroke has a 1.67-to-1 ratio; the sprinting stroke, 1-to-1. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />That's interesting - it's very close to the golden mean: 1.61803399. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br />You can't fool Mother Nature!<br /><br />ranger

[old] seat5 · Post by **[old] seat5** » January 3rd, 2006, 1:16 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Jan 3 2006, 04:26 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Carla,<br /><br />This really should not have much effect on the shape of the force profile. While we cna do some prety strange things at will with this shape, for the most part it is very slow to change in any sort of permanent way. Some would even suggest that it can not be changed, but that is of course completely wrong. It's just that it takes more time to change than many are willing to commit to working at it.<br /><br />After having been on the water (no Erging) for nearly a full year, it was interesting to see that my own force profile had changed a little, and now is trending back toward what I want it to be when on the Erg. I can't help but thinking that the feeling that is transmitted through the hands is an important factor, though it seems to be outside conscious awareness. I.e. There is a certain profile that I expect in a boat, that results from the "trained" profile on the Erg, the difference in the two is due to having to deal with the flex of the shaft which prolongs the peak pressure. This prolonged peak was evident when returning to the Erg, but now that there was no shaft to be the source of the change, it is slowly becoming "unlearned". When back on the water, the process just starts over again.<br /><br />Cheers. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Thanks. That is basically what I wanted to know--if the fact that the force curve looked the same when I rowed each way was probably what would be true of everyone who tries it, or some strange thing about my stroke.

[old] seat5 · Post by **[old] seat5** » January 3rd, 2006, 1:21 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Jan 3 2006, 04:33 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> But you have been rowing in 3 beat and 4 beat strokes in the last few days. What could it hurt to look at the force curve and see if there is a difference? </td></tr></table><br /><br />Oh! Is _that_ what you want? No problem. I row with the force curve right in front of me. Both force curves are the same. Why should they be different? They only differ in how they make room for rest-time in the recovery. The sequencings of the gestures in the drives are just the same. The downbeats are still on the arm pull. The preparation still takes 4 pulses: toes-heels-back-legs. The arm pull still takes one pulse, as does the recovery of the hands.<br /><br />The 4-beat measure provides for a 10-pulse recovery (out of 16 pulses in the measure or stroke cycle as a whole). Thus, the 1.67-to-1 ratio. The 3-beat measure provides for only a 6-pulse recovery, exactly equal to the number of pulses in the drive. Thus, the 1-to-1 ratio.<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Thanks!<br />Now, how about if you do the 3 beat stroke the way I do. (Not the way you are describing above). Treat the start of the drive as the downbeat, 1. Move your hands forward to start the recovery at 2; start to bend your legs on 3. <br />This is what I mean by a 3 beat stroke. It clearly has a 1:2 drive/recovery ratio. It absolutely does NOT have a 1:1 ratio.<br />What does the force curve look like now? Is it still the same?<br />Do you mind doing just say 10 strokes that way and see the curve changes?

[old] remador · Post by **[old] remador** » January 3rd, 2006, 1:52 pm

<b>Ranger wrote:</b><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I am not sure I am catching anything specific from your claims, though. To be immediately relevant, you would have to show how some particular claims that I have made about these local structures are modified/transformed/etc. by structures at more global levels. Indeed, this often happens in rhythmic structures, but if it is happening here, I am not sure you have said how. </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Ranger, <br /><br />I have no rigorous empirical data about how these forms structure themselves, or about the way by which they are modified, transformed or even reproduced (I guess structure reproduction is quite relevant to rowing) - I guess that, after all, nobody has, around here; obviously, I was talking about the intepretation system more than about the empirical one (assuming, however, that they're not totally mutally external). <br /><br />As far as to what interpretation respects, I suspect, however, that my thesis might have empirical confirmation: the rythmic structure of the rowing stroke varies according to different moments of the same racing strategy - precisely because of this we talk about "race strategy". Thus, at the start, the strokes may be quite different from the ones at the "body" of the race or at the end of it, in which, after all, several differences in structure might occur in direct relation to the history of the race. OTOH, different strategies may produce different starts, or different ends.<br /><br />Your effort to decompose/analyse the rowing stroke, using the musical language, BTW, might be quite meritory. Music is all about systems of differences and structures and about how they may be composed in order to accomplish a given intention; it might be a good metaphor for rowers.<br /><br />AM

[old] remador · Post by **[old] remador** » January 3rd, 2006, 1:59 pm

You may say that I am trying to emphasize the relevance of purpose over structure or, in the specific case, goal over methods. <br /><br />Now, if we introduce "external" factors in the construction of purpose (race strategy), such as rowers' bodyweight, wind or strength/endurance ratio, etc., we might see that any local structure might be related to many wider things.<br /><br />AM

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 3rd, 2006, 2:32 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> at the start, the strokes may be quite different from the ones at the "body" of the race or at the end of it </td></tr></table><br /><br />Sure. I agree entirely. See my coments on starts and finishes for a 2K on the erg. <br /><br />I think my strategy will be to start in a 1-to-1 ratio, and therefore 3-beat meter, then relax into a 1.67-to-1 ratio, and therefore a 4-beat meter, and then finish by going back to the 1-to-1 ration, and therefore 3-beat meter. <br /><br />ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 3rd, 2006, 3:08 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Now, how about if you do the 3 beat stroke the way I do. (Not the way you are describing above). Treat the start of the drive as the downbeat, 1. Move your hands forward to start the recovery at 2; start to bend your legs on 3. <br />This is what I mean by a 3 beat stroke. It clearly has a 1:2 drive/recovery ratio. It absolutely does NOT have a 1:1 ratio.<br />What does the force curve look like now? Is it still the same?<br />Do you mind doing just say 10 strokes that way and see the curve changes? </td></tr></table><br /><br />Sure, the force curve is still the same, but as I said before, the effect is like some sort of disembodied, mechnaical, external ordering that has nothing to do with metrical perceptions of downbeats, pulses, and the controlled flow of energy that is so central to all rhythmic process and therefore is such an essential part of rowing, both mentally and physically. Rowing in this way divorces the rowing stroke from its natural beat, at least it does so for me. The rowing loses all rhythmic animation and envigoration, build up and release, etc., not to mention the fact that, even while rowing this way, I can still feel the real meter, arising from the rowing itself, running across and resisting this externally imposed rhythmic action.<br /><br />Rowing this way would be very hard to do for me. The imposed rhythm is like an external view rather than an expressive gesture. It is like rowing in clock time, spatial time. We synchronize ourselves to clocks; the influence comes from the outside in. A meter is expressive; the influence goes from the inside out. A beat arises from the subjective flow of energy inherent in the gesturing, something that clocks, with their external view, have no access to.<br /><br />For me, it is just this locking into the natural flow of energy in the rhythm of the rowing stroke that leads to the creation of easy, relaxed power, IMHO, the essence of rowing accomplishment and the ultimate source of being able to go fast, especially in the 2K.<br /><br />What I have described in this thread brings out the complex energies of the rowing stroke. Sorry to feel this way, but IMHO, Oom-pah-pah doesn't.<br /><br />ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 3rd, 2006, 3:13 pm

For me, rowing a 2-to-1 ratio to the rhythm of "The Star-Spangled Banner" pushing with the legs on the downbeat is an _entirely_ different experience than rowing a 2-to-1 ratio to "America, the Beautiful" pulling with the arms on the downbeat.<br /><br />No question.<br /><br />ranger

[old] seat5 · Post by **[old] seat5** » January 3rd, 2006, 4:00 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>at least it does so for me. </td></tr></table><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>For me, </td></tr></table> <br /><br />Key words.<br />I think this is largely depending on the way the individual FEELS the rythm of the stroke. Trying to do it the way you do runs counter the the way that feels natural for me, and possibly for a lot of other people. Obviously the way you feel it, it is helpful for you to count and row the way you do, and vice versa.<br /><br />I find it intersting that the force curves are the same, pretty much, for each person even when they row to different counts. This heads off topic a bit, but from this and from what Paul said earlier, does this sort of mean that your force curve is sort of like your fingerprint, in that it's not something that changes easily, though it can be changed. That people are apt to apply the force in a particular way, and unless something pretty significant changes the way a person trains, either because of being on or off the water, or purposely (and for a long enough time to alter it, not just 10 strokes) they are working at changing it, as you have over the last few years.<br /><br />I wish we could see what your force curve used to be say 3 years ago. <br />

[old] george nz · Post by **[old] george nz** » January 3rd, 2006, 4:22 pm

Paul: - <br /><br />If the force curve is exactly the same at 135 as if is at 105 (in otherwords you could overlay one over the other), does that mean that drive time and recovery time are exactly the same and the force applied is exactly the same? - in otherwords the area under the curve is the same?<br /><br />If it is then does that not meant that the pace is the same?<br /><br />tks George<br /><br /><br /><br />

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 3rd, 2006, 5:24 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(george nz @ Jan 3 2006, 03:22 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Paul: - <br /><br />If the force curve is exactly the same at 135 as if is at 105 (in otherwords you could overlay one over the other), does that mean that drive time and recovery time are exactly the same and the force applied is exactly the same? - in otherwords the area under the curve is the same?<br /><br />If it is then does that not meant that the pace is the same?<br /><br />tks George <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />As I have increased the drag, using the same technique, my force curve has lengthened, significantly, while keeping basically the same shape. This reflects the increased pace I get at the same rate when I row at increasingly higher drags with standard OTW technique.<br /><br />The curve steadily lengthens at higher and higher drags because the wheel is spinning more slowly but also because the increased resistance on the wheel extends the time I hang on the handle. At 105 df., I only hang on the handle in the center of the stroke (on pulses 2 & 3). At 122-131 df, I am still hanging onto the handle into the leg drive (pulse 4). At 155 df., I am hanging onto the handle all of the way into the finish with the arms. This increased time hanging on the handle accounts for the greater force and the increased pace. Nothing else changes in my technique, though, as I raise the drag, so the basic shape of the force curve remains the same. The semicircle just gets larger, i.e., longer. <br /><br />ranger

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » January 3rd, 2006, 5:26 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(george nz @ Jan 3 2006, 12:22 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Paul: - <br /><br />If the force curve is exactly the same at 135 as if is at 105 (in otherwords you could overlay one over the other), does that mean that drive time and recovery time are exactly the same and the force applied is exactly the same? - in otherwords the area under the curve is the same?<br /><br />If it is then does that not meant that the pace is the same?<br /><br />tks George <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Wow! That's a lot of "if"'s....<br /><br />It is also a tough question.<br /><br />It would be impossible to keep amplitude, Drive length (cm), Drive time (sec), and Pace the same at different DF's.<br /><br />To have equal drive amplitudes at different DF's, while maintaining an equal drive time, would mean that the drive at the Higher DF would have to be shorter in length (cm), because the flywheel RPM would be less.<br /><br />While the Avg handle force would be equal.<br />The distance the handle travelled would be different.<br />Work = Force x Distance, So there would have been different quantities of work done, for these "identical" profiles. But would that mean that the pace was different or the same?<br /><br />It looks like it boils down to the fact that with a change in DF, there would be no such thing as "identical" Force Profiles. i.e. If they are identical for X axis of Time they would not be the same for X axis of distance.<br /><br />This takes me back to the very simple idea that DF is a "revolution credit" adjuster.<br />We will likely keep a similar Drive length (cm), regardless of DF, but at a high DF that would mean that we cover more meters under power (identical revs/drive but more credit/rev), the downside is that the flywheel is moving more slowly and slows more quickly when coasting. This favors a low ratio, low amplitude stroke, pretty worthwhile on the Erg but not in a boat (unless rigged very strangely).<br /><br />This you can verify with a rather easy experiment. Set the damper to #1 and accelerate up to a 1:30 pace over 20 strokes or so, note the force profile and Stroke rate. Now set the Damper to #10 and repeat the process, shooting for the same rate. Note the difference in amplitude.<br /><br />Now for the tiebreaker: Is it more difficult to produce a high amplitude high ratio 1:30 (#1) or a low amplitude low ratio 1:30 (#10)?<br /><br />Not sure if that even came close to answering your question, but it did was an interesting exercise.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 3rd, 2006, 5:37 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I think this is largely depending on the way the individual FEELS the rythm of the stroke. Trying to do it the way you do runs counter the the way that feels natural for me, and possibly for a lot of other people. Obviously the way you feel it, it is helpful for you to count and row the way you do, and vice versa. </td></tr></table><br /><br />How I row now wasn't "natural" to me at all. It has taken me three years of concentrated work to develop proper OTW technique, perhaps because I was _very_ successful rowing with an entirely different technique.<br /><br />Your relativism is democratic, but I wonder about its relevance to sports, or at least, the discussion here about rowing technique and the effectiveness of rhythmicization to rowing performance. Regardless of how you or I might feel, there may be certain ways of rowing that are especially effective, even though it may take a long time to learn them.<br /><br />This is the relevant fact, I think, not how different individuals might feel at any given moment about how best to rhythmize their stroke: When I rowed with my old technique, which had a different rhythm entirely, I rowed at 7 SPI for long rows and 10.5 SPI for racing. With the technique I use now, rhythmized as I have described, I row everything at about 13 SPI. That is, standard OTW technique produces an enørmously powerful stroke, if you can master it, both its basic mechanics and its inherent rhythms, which, I think, are closely connected.<br /><br />I felt great about the rhythm of my other stroke. What is the advantage of feeling good about the rhythm of a bad (weak, inefficient, etc.) stroke? Peace of mind?<br /><br />The major issue in training, especially training for racing, and even more especially in discussions of things like rowing technique and rowing rhythm, is how to go faster with less effort, i.e., more efficiently, given our different potentials and different commitments to training.<br /><br />ranger

Concept2 Forum

The Rhythm Of The Rowing Stroke

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training