Weight Vs Length

[[old] afolpe]

I don't row on water, and probably never will, so pardon me if this is obvious or ignorant. I was just wondering why rowing is handicapped by weight, rather than height. It seems like tall rowers have a significant advantage (for a given weight), whereas heavy rowers have no advantage at all (for a given height). I realize a heavier rower may be more muscular, but I would imagine the best LWT's are those people tall enough to be HWT, but disciplined or lucky enough to be able to make the weight cutoff.<br /><br />Enlighten me?<br /><br />Andrew

[[old] John Rupp]

Good grief.

[[old] Byron Drachman]

Hi Andrew,<br /><br />Here is a partial answer to your question:<br /><br /><a href='http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/rowing/physics/ ... l#section5' target='_blank'>http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/rowing/physics/ ... on5</a><br /><br />However, this only discusses the effects of weight. I think everybody, well almost everybody, agrees that height is a big advantage in rowing on water. I suspect the real reason is that it would be hideously complicated, if not downright impossible, to handicap the exact effects of height. <br /><br />By the way, there was a thread a while ago mentioning that weight classes in rowing on water is dying out. <br /><br />Byron

[[old] Ray79]

I think that height is a definate advantage for stroke length. But if you look at some of the top guys in the world of HWT rowing on the water, they generally have both height and muscular weight on their side. The are not short heavy blokes.<br />I agree with the point that some of the best LWT's are those who are tall enough to be HWT, but I guess that is just the luck of the gene pool for ya. I myself am 6' 5", and a steady 75kg, even with rowing training for 2 years. Am planning on trying to up my weight during the winter season, but not til after the Irish Indoors .<br /><br />This is a good point though. If you look at racing results, and I know there are weather conditions etc to take into consideration, there would not be a massive distance between a top LWT crew and a top HWT crew, but I do think that it would be more than the LWT's could make up by just being fitter than the equally very fit HWT guys. That extra bit of grunt multiplied into 200 strokes (over and above their body weight) would tell the story of te race.

[[old] Gibbon]

I think height can be an advantage in a boat and on the erg, but a problem with handicapping for it would be actually measuring it. I believe that you tend to get slightly shorter during the day, and gain a bit of length over night as you sleep so the time of day you are measured could be a factor. I could also imagine taller people slouching into the “measure in” desperately trying to make it into the shortarse category. With weight it’s a bit more clear cut.

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-afolpe+Nov 16 2005, 10:41 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(afolpe @ Nov 16 2005, 10:41 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't row on water, and probably never will, so pardon me if this is obvious or ignorant. I was just wondering why rowing is handicapped by weight, rather than height. It seems like tall rowers have a significant advantage (for a given weight), whereas heavy rowers have no advantage at all (for a given height). I realize a heavier rower may be more muscular, but I would imagine the best LWT's are those people tall enough to be HWT, but disciplined or lucky enough to be able to make the weight cutoff.<br /><br />Enlighten me?<br /><br />Andrew <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />It's non-obvious and certainly not ignorant.<br /><br />With the ability to adjust the rigging in boats and the DF on the Erg, Height alone is not a particular advantage. The ability to produce power is the only thing in question, and generally more muscle mass is going to be able to produce more power, keeping all other things equal. Typically more muscle mass is going to weigh more, though there might be frame differences that would allow a person to be of equal weight to another but have more muscle mass at the same time.<br /><br />Certainly being very short or very tall have their own set of anthropomorphic disadvantages/advantages. The short have very good leverage but less length to exercise it over, the tall have poor leverage but more length with which to work.<br /><br />As said above, since rowing involves mechanical devices, we can adjust the machine to use either to the most effective manner.<br /><br />There is a similar argument regarding weight, if you weigh more you sink the boat more and require more power to move the whole system along. The on-water differences are quite small between top lwts and hwts, though the hwts seem to have maintained this slight lead across the board.<br /><br />This is not intended to be exhaustive, but should give a place from which you can think all about what the various scenarios might yield.<br /><br />Have fun.

[[old] Carl Henrik]

<!--QuoteBegin-afolpe+Nov 16 2005, 06:41 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(afolpe @ Nov 16 2005, 06:41 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't row on water, and probably never will, so pardon me if this is obvious or ignorant. I was just wondering why rowing is handicapped by weight, rather than height. It seems like tall rowers have a significant advantage (for a given weight), whereas heavy rowers have no advantage at all (for a given height). I realize a heavier rower may be more muscular, but I would imagine the best LWT's are those people tall enough to be HWT, but disciplined or lucky enough to be able to make the weight cutoff.<br /><br />Enlighten me?<br /><br />Andrew <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Probably because that's how it is in other sports with different classes for different body types. I don't know why they couldn't make different distances for different body types instead, so that everyone could "shine" as much as the heavy weights do for 2k. Think if Eskild Ebbesen had been competing in one hour races on water! Ouch! <br /><br />Shorter people could probably be competitive at short distances than 2k also (?).

[[old] Byron Drachman]

Hi Paul,<br /><br />I stand corrected. I thought there was a consensus that height is an advantage. Here was my thinking: If I use the assumption in the cited physics article that anaerobic power is proportional to weight and aerobic power proportional to weight raised to the 2/3 power, then a taller rower with the same weight will have the same strength and more leverage. For instance, during the body swing, if I think of the lever arm as the torso from the seat to the shoulders, with the same force applied the longer lever arm has more torque. If I think of a power curve with force plotted on the vertical axis against distance on the horizontal axis, and if the taller rower can apply the same forces but with a longer slide due to longer legs and reach, then the power curve for the taller rower will be the same as for the shorter rower except stretched out horizontally. The area under that curve will greater than for the shorter rower, so more work was done by the taller rower. <br /><br />Of course that discussion is greatly simplified. If somebody is too tall for his/her weight, then the assumption that muscle mass and hence anaerobic power being proportional to the weight breaks down.<br /><br />Still, I wish I were a few inches taller. A little more muscle mass would be nice, too.<br /><br />Byron

[[old] Carl Henrik]

<!--QuoteBegin-Byron Drachman+Nov 17 2005, 12:30 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Byron Drachman @ Nov 17 2005, 12:30 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hi Paul,<br /><br />I stand corrected. I thought there was a consensus that height is an advantage. [right] <br /> </td></tr></table><br />There is such a consensus. Look at who is the fastest and you'll know why.

[[old] afolpe]

<!--QuoteBegin-Carl Henrik+Nov 16 2005, 07:49 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Carl Henrik @ Nov 16 2005, 07:49 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Byron Drachman+Nov 17 2005, 12:30 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Byron Drachman @ Nov 17 2005, 12:30 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hi Paul,<br /><br />I stand corrected. I thought there was a consensus that height is an advantage. [right] <br /> </td></tr></table><br />There is such a consensus. Look at who is the fastest and you'll know why. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Well, that was sort of my sense. When I look at pictures of the Olympians, they are all tall guys (and women), even the lightweights. There must be something to it, no?<br /><br />It's somewhat different in kayaking (my principal competitive sport). Height is a bit of an advantage, up to a point, but extra weight is a big problem. So the best people tend to be fairly similar in size, with very similar power to weight ratios. Somewhere around 5'11"-6'1"" and about #170-190 seems best, as far as I can tell. Of course there are some exceptions- the best surfski paddler in the world, Oscar Chalupsky, is a huge South African, with the balance skills of a gymnast. Quite a package.<br /><br />Andrew

[[old] chickenlegs]

first of all: consensus and validity are completely independent.<br /><br />whether "..it is widely accepted that height is an advantage.." or "...height is not necessarily an advantage as it can be counteracted with rigging..." and so on and so forth has no consequence on reality.<br /><br />what is reality?<br />perti karpinnen: 2.00 m<br />rob waddell: 2.00 m<br />olaf tufte: 1.93 m<br />marcel hacker: 1.96 m<br />matthew pinsent: 1.95 m<br /><br />the list could go on and on, and it applies to women too.<br /><br />if height was NOT an advantage in rowing, why is it that the best rowers in the world are exceptionally tall compared to the rest of the population?<br /><br />in rowing height is an advantage.<br /><br />why?<br />this is where it can get complicated.<br />maybe because taller rowers have longer strokes in the water, and it is through the stroke that the boat is moved.<br />but taller runners have longer strides than shorter ones, so why aren't the fastest runners in the world exceptionally tall?<br /><br /><br />

[[old] george nz]

<!--QuoteBegin-chickenlegs+Nov 17 2005, 02:26 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(chickenlegs @ Nov 17 2005, 02:26 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ... but taller runners have longer strides than shorter ones, so why aren't the fastest runners in the world exceptionally tall? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />As someone who does not know anything about on the water rowing could the answer to this be similar as to why your max HR can be higher running than rowing - the work against gravity. <br /><br />Taller rower = bigger rower = stronger rower (also rowing is generally a slow twitch movement) = advantage, whereas taller runner = bigger runner = maybe stronger runner = heavier runner is at a disadvantage carrying the extra weight over a decent distance.<br /><br />However in sprinting maybe a taller runner might have an advantage if he had the power and the fast twitch to get the legs/arms working.<br /><br />Then again this may all be crap <br /><br />George<br />

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-chickenlegs+Nov 16 2005, 05:26 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(chickenlegs @ Nov 16 2005, 05:26 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->if height was NOT an advantage in rowing, why is it that the best rowers in the world are exceptionally tall compared to the rest of the population? </td></tr></table><br /><br />Because you can carry more weight and muscle mass on a larger frame.<br /><br />Someone who is 6'9 can carry 230 pounds and be fit for rowing, whereas there is no way that someone who was 5'3 and weighed 230 pounds would be fit. However a rower who was 5'3 and 115 pounds would more be fit and also therefore faster than one who was 6'9 and 115 pounds.<br /><br />Weight and muscle mass are determining physical aspects for rowing, and these are proportional to one's height.

[[old] george nz]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Nov 17 2005, 04:10 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Nov 17 2005, 04:10 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->... more be fit and also therefore faster than one who was 6'9 and 115 pounds.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Probably as at 6'9" and 115pounds you have been dead for a month<br /><br />George

[[old] remador]

Height is, undoubtly, an advantage in rowing, and not only because a taller guy may carry more muscle mass around. If you can put the oar on the water over a wider range of space and time (and at least the same pressure), then you will make the boat go faster - specially if this wider range is directly related to the catch angle. <br /><br />Nevertheless, I think I understand what PaulS said: with proper rigging, you can make a short guy have less disadvantage when compared to someone taller. Of course there are limits to this and, if you're a coach and can have a taller guy rowing, maybe you should pick him to the crew.<br /><br />Another thing is that longer muscles produce more power. Taller guys tend to have longer muscles.<br /><br />Besides, their absolute VO2 max will be, <i>ceteribus paribus</i> (all other things being equal), higher, just because of his size. This, along with more muscle power, is something we can't turn our backs to.<br /><br />AM