New Rower - Any Potential?

[Bob S.]

i feel i have excellent natural speed and this is the best possible scenario for becoming a pro rower.

Pro rower?? If by that you mean an elite rower, i.e. in the upper few percent of the open rowers, well possibly, and I wish you lots of luck. If you meant a professional rower — someone making a living at, I suspect that you must be kidding. There just ain't no such thing. Some elite rowers have gone into coaching as a profession, but professional rowing? Forget it.

Bob S.

[canspeed]

yeah elite is what i meant, i realize there is no money in ametuer sports like this

[pmacaula]

Canspeed -

To state the obvious, rowing and the ergometer are slightly different beasts. The erg is simpler, is less sensitive to technique & requires no coordination with others. Though most of the very fastest times on the erg have been recorded by OTW rowers, that likely reflects the fact that there are few, if any, non-Olympic athletes with the same level of conditioning.

There are certainly talents & physical characteristics that are typical of elite heavyweight rowers - tall (6'2"+); big but not huge (195-240lbs), freakishly high VO2 Max,...

Speed, in the sense that differentiates 100m sprinters from 1500m guys in track, is pretty much a non-factor. Rowing just doesn't require that much quickness.

I am convinced that the single most important differentiator is mental toughness and control. While this is probably true for many, if not most, sports at the elite level, I think it is more the case for rowing.

A few interesting comments & links in this UK forum thread on elite oarsmen. http://www.concept2.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... &sk=t&sd=a

None of this sounds like it would hold you back from performing very well & possibly at the elite level on the erg. Proof, as always, is in the last 500m of the race.

Cheers. Patrick.

[michaelb]

You are faster then me at the 500m already by a lot (but I don't have any potential and won't ever be an elite rower, even at age 80 judging by how fast Bob S is still). But I don't think the 500m tells you very much, like Nosmo, do a hard 5k and tell us how that goes, or just do the 2k.

The "problem" with using the 500m as a predictor in this context is that the 500m row is short enough to be manipulated, at least in part, by issues like the start and the stroke rate and "bad" technique. The longer distances, over 1000m, are so much more punishing and so much more endurance, that they weed out those tricks much more in the overall time.

A 6:40 2k would correlate more or less with a 17:30 5k. I would be very impressed to see you hit either target any time soon, but I really have no way of knowing, so good luck really, and come back and let us know how you do.

[neilb]

Canspeed,

I stopped rowing (indoor and outdoor) about three years ago but am looking at possibly getting back on/in.

My 2k best was 6:48 which was not that good but 5k was 17:31 (1:45 pace), 10k 35:51 (1:47.5 pace) and 60 min was 1:49.3. My 500m was really bad. This was at age 47 and hw.

I had good technique and endurance and had put in around 4m meters a year over a few years so was very well conditioned. Also I worked hard at mental toughness to be able to maintain the pace.

So, I was pretty good at distance and relatively quicker as distances become longer. Working backwards my predicted 2k should have been sub 6:40 but I did not ever get anywhere near that.

My point is that fast 500m or slow 500m is no real indicator but if you already have good endurance and mental toughness and add in good technique and plenty of meters then you have great chance to be in the elite category certainly at the longer distances and who knows as regards 2k.

[hjs]

did a workout today

4x500m @ 1:40, 1:38, 1:37, 1:36 with 2 minutes rest between each.

any predictions for a 2k? this was my 3rd time ever on the rower, total distance rowed in lifetime = 3k

Nothing much, start rowing more first if you want to know.

Next time just try a 2k. go off at 1.45 and see how far you can get.
A standalone 500m tells you not much. There are plenty of good 500m ergers who are not very good on the longer distances.
Good 2k rowers on the other hand, all do have fine endurance.

Good natural speed is fine, but that doesn,t make a elite rower.

[Chris on the Beach]

Canspeed,

Never said that endurance was "easier" to get then speed. What I was saying was, you should do a 2K as fast as you can; this will give you a base time. Then, if that is the distance that you intend to compete in, work to better your time as you increase your endurance through various programs. The farther off you can postpone fatigue the faster you will be because your endurance will be better - with good technique of course. This way you can take advantage of your natural speed by making it last longer. We do not get 2 minutes of rest after every 500. Remember the Erg and rowing in water are two different animals, as are the 2k and 5k (6k for the National Team). A puzzle needs all the pieces to be complete.

[throughthepin]

If hair is missing, you may well be a master's age rower, so the sprint distances are 1,000meters not 2,000. (oops on the water)

[Chris on the Beach]

Yes, quite true, good point. But by the tone of "canspeed" he sounds like he is planning on gold in London so I think the 2k is in play here. Plus he makes reference to it and not the 1k. He should check out this page:

http://www.usrowing.org/Olympic_Nationa ... index.aspx

From what he is saying, he should have no problem getting on the U.S. National Team! It would be rad to wake up one day and decide to row and make the National Team.

[BLN]

well you are probably several weeks into your training right now, and you've probably decided whether to continue to try to row, or have decided to pursue alternative means to stay in shape. How has the training been?