Concept2 Forum

I’ve been asking myself for a while now how much my technical skills are responsible for my performance in competitions. I would instinctively say that on the erg technique makes about 5 - 10 % at the most. <br />Don’t get me wrong: Of course you need a certain technical skill in order to move efficiently. I’m aware that you can’t really generate power if you pull the handle while moving forward for example. I’m also aware that you need to completely stretch you legs and stuff like this.<br /><br />What I’m actually talking about is that I’ve got the feeling that on a certain level indoor rowers can’t make much progress anymore only because of technical improvements. <br />Well, this is a “problem” or situation which you probably face in every sports…sooner or later…I think that on the erg you get quite quickly to this stage.<br />Ever since I’m indoor rowing I’ve been improving my personal bests only because of physical stamina and physical strength.<br /><br />It’s not my intention to insult “champions of technique”. I also don’t want to question any technical theories…, not at all. I just wonder whether I could improve my personal bests if I gave more attention to my technique – honestly, I don’t think so... <br />But if yes, how to do this if there is absolutely no indoor rower community in your associated area who can watch you and give you helpful advices? Would it make sense to buy Xenos latest DVDs for example?<br /><br />Any comments or advises are greatly appreciated.<br /><br /> <br />

What's the difference between physical efficiency and technique?<br /><br />Your times look very good on paper, but you don't say your age, height and weight, to put them in context?<br /><br />I think technique is important, as you say to be physcially efficient. Having bad technique can hold your times back a lot.

Technique is not just style either, however important this is; we can extend the meaning of technique to cover all aspects of how to train, race, warm up, avoid injury, pull an efficient stroke; it means using our brains. Would be sad to lose a race by 0.1s for lack of a little thought.<br /><br />Ulysses is the man to remember, not Samson.<br /><br />Longer term, technique is even more important. Keeping fit is a lifelong business; and if we don't learn how to do it stylishly and efficiently, I think much of the incentive, if not the possibility, would disappear.<br /><br />I can still scull and swim reasonably quickly; and so enjoy both. Otherwise I'd have given up both long ago. Being somewhat far fetched to ascribe this to my limited fitness and strength only, I have to thank technique as there's nothing else left.

<!--QuoteBegin-Pete Marston+Jun 20 2005, 08:33 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Pete Marston @ Jun 20 2005, 08:33 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What's the difference between physical efficiency and technique?<br /><br />Your times look very good on paper, but you don't say your age, height and weight, to put them in context?<br /><br />I think technique is important, as you say to be physcially efficient. Having bad technique can hold your times back a lot. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />In consideration of your great times I surely won’t question this.<br />Nevertheless, I’ve still got the feeling that in my case technique won’t bring me too much further. Although, I’ve never ever been taught any technical skills (never been on water/no indoor rower community/support at all), I suppose that I wouldn’t gain much more than maybe 2 or 3 seconds for the 2k for example, whereas improvements of my physical condition might bring me like 5 – 10 seconds…(pretty hard work though.., but my “long levers” might be advantageous!) <br /><br />However, this doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t appreciate these 2 or 3 “technical” seconds just as much… <br /><br />Therefore, I’ll keep on trying…<br /><br />Thanks for your feedback!<br /><br />PS: You're right! I forgot about my age, height and weight - I'll add this to my signature, Thanks!<br />

<!--QuoteBegin-jamesg+Jun 20 2005, 09:53 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(jamesg @ Jun 20 2005, 09:53 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Technique is not just style either, however important this is; we can extend the meaning of technique to cover all aspects of how to train, race, warm up, avoid injury, pull an efficient stroke; it means using our brains. Would be sad to lose a race by 0.1s for lack of a little thought.<br /><br />Ulysses is the man to remember, not Samson.<br /><br />Longer term, technique is even more important. Keeping fit is a lifelong business; and if we don't learn how to do it stylishly and efficiently, I think much of the incentive, if not the possibility, would disappear.<br /><br />I can still scull and swim reasonably quickly; and so enjoy both. Otherwise I'd have given up both long ago. Being somewhat far fetched to ascribe this to my limited fitness and strength only, I have to thank technique as there's nothing else left. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Even I use – from time to time – my brain while erging… <br />Seriously, technique from your point of view includes all these aspects you mentioned, and I absolutely agree with you.<br /><br />But the things I actually meant were things like “pull the handle right towards my chest – or better 5 cm lower?” or for example “does it make sense to end each pull with a strong impulse or better concentrate on smooth movements?”<br />But maybe I pay to much attention to such (trivial?) questions…, I really don’t know…<br />At the end I also want to enjoy my exercises, therefore technique definitely is essential.<br /><br />I appreciate your comment – Thanks a lot!<br /><br /><br /><br />

What drag do you row at? <br /><br />Drag has an enormous effect on technique. As your technique improves, you can row at a lower and lower drag.<br /><br />In my experience, the lower the drag, the more efficient the technique. If you are interested in developing your technique, learn to row well at about 100 df.<br /><br />ranger

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Jun 21 2005, 12:25 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Jun 21 2005, 12:25 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What drag do you row at? <br /><br />Drag has an enormous effect on technique. As your technique improves, you can row at a lower and lower drag.<br /><br />In my experience, the lower the drag, the more efficient the technique. If you are interested in developing your technique, learn to row well at about 100 df.<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Honestly, I’ve checked the drag factor on my concept c maybe once… <br />But usually I row at damper setting 9 for short distances (500 – 2000 m) and between 7 and 8 for longer distances (5000 – 10’000 m) and I feel pretty comfortable like this… <br /><br />As far as I know this must be pretty close to drag 200, right?<br />This would mean that I’m “miles” away from your suggested level.<br /><br />It sounds logical to me and I absolutely agree with you that learning a proper technique at lower drag must be much easier.., but rowing at about 100 df – which must be about damper setting 1 or 2, (right? ) is from my point of view for a guy like me (1.93m/93 kg) definitely too less…<br />(I mean, at which drag does a 1.60m girl have to learn?) <br /><br />Nevertheless, I’ll try to put your advice into practice, and try “to make friends” with settings below 5. <br /><br />Thanks for your message!<br />

<!--QuoteBegin-GoodC+Jun 21 2005, 10:25 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(GoodC @ Jun 21 2005, 10:25 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><br />Honestly, I’ve checked the drag factor on my concept c maybe once… <br />But usually I row at damper setting 9 for short distances (500 – 2000 m) and between 7 and 8 for longer distances (5000 – 10’000 m) and I feel pretty comfortable like this… <br /><br />As far as I know this must be pretty close to drag 200, right?<br />This would mean that I’m “miles” away from your suggested level.<br /><br />It sounds logical to me and I absolutely agree with you that learning a proper technique at lower drag must be much easier.., but rowing at about 100 df – which must be about damper setting 1 or 2, (right? ) is from my point of view for a guy like me (1.93m/93 kg) definitely too less…<br /><br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Well, I think Dwayne Adams (about 1.9m/100kg) rowed a 5:47.1 2k last year at drag 130 or so. Clearly, great times can be accomplished without a ridiculously high drag/damper setting. Most of the better rowers on the forum seem to use something in the 105-140 drag factor range.<br /><br />Regardless of what drag factor you settle on as optimal for you, if you use different machines, you should check the drag factor and adjust the damper accordingly; the condition and cleanliness of the machine can make a big difference in the drag, even though the lever is on the same number on both.<br /><br />Bill<br />

You need to get the drag down. Do it slowly so your training doesn't go to pot, but get it down and your technique will improve. <br /><br />I row at 115 (3ish) and Pete Marston is usually at 125-130 (5ish). Most of the guys (and ladies) on our team are in the 125 to 140 range and this includes a number of BIRC, EIRC, and WIRC medalists.

<!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Honestly, I’ve checked the drag factor on my concept c maybe once…  <br />But usually I row at damper setting 9 for short distances (500 – 2000 m) and between 7 and 8 for longer distances (5000 – 10’000 m) and I feel pretty comfortable like this… <br /><br />As far as I know this must be pretty close to drag 200, right?<br />This would mean that I’m “miles” away from your suggested level.<br /><br />It sounds logical to me and I absolutely agree with you that learning a proper technique at lower drag must be much easier.., but rowing at about 100 df – which must be about damper setting 1 or 2, (right?  ) is from my point of view for a guy like me (1.93m/93 kg) definitely too less…<br />(I mean, at which drag does a 1.60m girl have to learn?) <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Wrong logic. Erging/rowing and weight llifting are very different. In rowing, the force on the handle and chain are proportional to the speed of application of the levers, not the height of the drag. If you row at a high drag, you row sluggishly, with no foot speed, leg speed, back speed, arm speed, hand speed. In the rowing stroke, low drag also encourages a separation of the levers: legs, then back, then arms. A high drag encourages a collapsing of the levers into one simultaneous motion. Because of the sliding seat, collapsing the levers into one motion has a significant on stroke length, if you calculate this in terms of cumulative distance of levers applied. In rowing, stroke length is one of the most important factors in generating physiologically efficient speed.<br /><br />Rowing at low drag is girlish only if being male is oafish, slow, and thick-headed relative to being female. <br /><br />Don't think so.<br /><br />Rowing at different drags has nothing to do with strength. It has to do with quickness and technical accomplishment (precision). <br /><br />If you are rowing a 200 df., you are not really rowing yet. You are weight lifting.<br /><br />If you want to go faster, learn to row.<br /><br />ranger

Perhaps Dwayne Adams can get on the line here and fill you in about these things. When Dwayne switched from rowing at max drag to rowing at 120 df. (and training at 110 df.), his 2K time dropped 16 seconds!<br /><br />Big deal, you say.<br /><br />Well. Dwayne is 40 years old, (what?) 6'4", 225 lbs., a former power lifter, not a little girlish character at all, and does, to sample his times, 5:47 for 2K and 2:27 for the marathon. Not bad for an old fart.<br /><br />It appears that Dwayne learned to row. You should, too.<br /><br />ranger

<!--QuoteBegin-GoodC+Jun 22 2005, 11:25 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(GoodC @ Jun 22 2005, 11:25 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->.., but rowing at about 100 df – which must be about damper setting 1 or 2, (right? ) is from my point of view for a guy like me (1.93m/93 kg) definitely too less…<br />(I mean, at which drag does a 1.60m girl have to learn?) </td></tr></table><br /><br />Interested in what you base this on - I am 1.98 / 108kg and have dropped down to 120df not because it is easier but because it makes me faster over any distance which involves any sort of endurance - so for me say 1k marginal but definitely 2k and up.<br /><br />George<br /><br />ps Your 2k PB is quicker than mine, but our 1000's are about the same and my 500 PB is quicker and I am 15 years older....just as a point of reference.

<!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am 1.98 / 108kg and have dropped down to 120df not because it is easier but because it makes me faster over any distance which involves any sort of endurance - so for me say 1k marginal but definitely 2k and up. </td></tr></table><br /><br />George--<br /><br />It seems to me that, when done well, both a 500m and a 1K take significant endurance, too Therefore, if your technique were fully developed, your times should also be better at these shorter distances when rowing at low drag.<br /><br />ranger

Frankly speaking I’m quite surprised...! <br />I’ve really not expected that obviously so many experienced rowers have this philosophy.<br />Apparently I’m on the wrong way…<br /><br />According your statements achieving a good rowing style affords practicing at low drags.<br />After all the things I’ve heard now, I immediately had to tired it out today… <br />First of all I checked the drag factor at different damper settings: <br /><br />Damper 8 = 154<br />Damper 5 = 120<br />Damper 4 = 110<br />Damper 1 = 83<br /><br />As I said I haven’t done this check so far. However, I finally decided to make a “careful 5000” at damper 4. I really didn’t expect that I was still able to generate such speeds like 1:40/500. <br />Furthermore, I was also astonished that I did not even have to make much more spm than at high settings. <br /><br />I admit that I have to revise my opinion a little bit…!<br /><br />Well, at the end the time was not that good though, but as I said, this was supposed to be a test in order to get the feeling for such drags. I’m optimistic for the future, and I’ll try to modify my training a little bit – Therefore, thanks a lot for all the helpful advices! <br /><br />Nevertheless, I’ll still not cancel “the weight lifting” units from my training program!<br />Maybe this might be not the best for learning proper technique, but it’s for sure a good alternative for a workout in the gym, if you’re short of time for example…!<br /><br />And even though I don’t know too much about rowing techniques (which I never denied by the way!), I know for sure that this so called “ridiculous high damper settings” helped me a lot in the past to build some honest and natural muscles…!<br />I think that the guys from concept didn’t create 10 levels “just for fun”! <br /><br />Last but not least: <br />I usually try to be polite and respectful – especially if I’m the one who is asking for help, advices and stuff…<br /><br />So when I’m saying that it is my own personal feeling that rowing at very low drags might be not perfect for me, and I just ask myself at which drags lightweight girls learn, this is supposed to be a “question” or a “remark” – and not an insult!<br /><br />I can tell you; if it really was my conviction that strong guys who row at low drags were girls, I would tell you this….straight!!!<br /><br /><br />Cheers

<!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Would it make sense to buy Xenos latest DVDs for example? </td></tr></table> <br /><br />I've found them extremely helpful. They're a lot of fun, and I find it helps me to try to imitate Xeno and Xeno or Lucas during the workouts (except for the hilarious spots when Lucas shows you bad technique.) My suggestion is to use a mirror in front as Xeno suggests, and also to use a mirror on the side occasionally so you can see if you're doing the body swing and using the arms at the correct times.<br /><br />On the 3 by 6 cardio workout DVD, Xeno mentions that he and Lucas have the "resistance set at 1." I'm not sure what the drag factor is, but I assume it's low. <br /><br />Byron<br />