Concept2 Forum

Hi all! I've recently been looking into how important the factor of body length is in rowing. It is by no means a new discovery that the taller you are the faster your boat/erg will go, other things being equal. The taller person will be much more efficcient by being able to pull a longer stroke.

I believe that in some ways it is a misconception that bodyweight is the most determining factor that contributes to rowing faster. Of course OTW rowing will penalise extra weight more than on the erg. But I think the reason why "scientists" studying the biometrics of rowing claim weight is the most determining factor is simply because taller rowers tend to weigh more and better trained rowers have developed more muscle mass.

While weight is something you actually can do something to change through training, bodyheight remains something only your parents could have changed.
I think that the purpose of classes in sports should be to compensate for genetical differences,
Longer bodyparts will make a person weaker if musclemass stays the same. Try hanging a ten litre bucket on the end of a long stick and holding the stick from the other end. Then try holding the bucket with a much shorter stick. Easier, right?
However if this long thin person adds enough muscle strength his peak performance/speed will be even higher than that of a shorter person with equal strength. A perfect example of this is Usain Bolt. The 100m requires tons of strength, but with enough of it the taller persons stride will be longer than that of the short person.

My conclusion is that there should be height classes instead of weight classes in rowing. Just look at the top lightweight rowers, and it seems that for the 75/72.5 kg lw category, the optimum performance height would be about 187 cm/6'2''. My opinion is that the maximum allowed height should be 180cm/5'11' for the shortheight category.

I hope we can have discussion around this and it will be interesting to hear your opinions!

Height is this context is not the total picture, totale reach should also be involved.
Having wide shoulders and long arms is just as important as height alone.

I think there should be only one class. Heaving the right tools/genes is what makes someone good at a given sport.

We also don,t have classes for short highjumpers, or for heavy marathonrunner or for swimmers with small hands and feet


So my standpoint is, away with the lightweight/heavyweight, make it one class only.

that would only allow a few people to do competitive rowing. I agree that there are many factors, like arm-length etc., but making hundreds of different classes is impossible. Also just having one open class would discourage a huge amount of people from at all trying competitive rowing. The not-so-tall population already have few enough sports that favour short height.

karldiesen wrote:that would only allow a few people to do competitive rowing. I agree that there are many factors, like arm-length etc., but making hundreds of different classes is impossible. Also just having one open class would discourage a huge amount of people from at all trying competitive rowing. The not-so-tall population already have few enough sports that favour short height.

Yes but that's the same for other sports.

I some sports being tall is an advantage, in many other others being short/light is an advantage. And for most sport, not absolute height/strenght is not important but the relative one. Being average of smaller in body size doesn,t matter for that.

Examples enough, marathonrunning, tour cycling, gymnastics, F1 racing , sky flying. etc.

If having only 1 class would discourage people I don,t know. 99.x % of all people will never be worldclass, they all know that they won,t be olympic champion, but they still compete.

For me sports with only one champ are also much more worthwile, when you win the 100m dash you are truly the best.

It would be enough for me if the ranking table on the C2 web site contained sortable columns for height and weight.

Not always the case.

Tufte is about 4 inches shorter than Synek and Drysdale.

Balmary, the WR holder on the ergo, is by no means a tall rower.

Things are as they are.

Height's not necessarily a predictor of performance. My best year in the scull got me a third at our nationals a few years ago. The two blokes who beat me are about 3 or 4 inches shorter.

Now they both have gold medals.

I don't.

If you introduced a height category where would the distinction begin? - what is tall, what is small?
I am in the lightweight category, my parents handed me some good genes on the weight side of things, but i don't agree with being able to control my weight - i've been the same weight for over 20 years, can't keep the weight on, no matter what i eat!

It's an interesting idea. I think people like Steve Tucker pretty much blow the conception right out of the water. I've seen Steve (5'8") doing pieces with Jamie Shroeder (6'8").

I've competed at an advanced recreational level in running, rowing and road cycling since I was in my 20s. I'm a middle top of the pack kind of competitor. At this level, I think having numerous categories is OK, and I think age group categories are great (I'm 58). This encourages people to get into the activity and there is competition for everyone at every skill level. However, when you're talking about elite level competition, then I think it should be whoever is the best rises to the top, regardless of their weight, height, etc. In the case of rowing, the lightweights (or short heights) had better be darn good or work extra hard to get there, but it's possible. There are examples of "wrong" size people doing well in various sports at that level.