Specific 2k Pacing (Per 500m)

[Nosmo]

Mike,
How do/coach starts for OTW? Do you do something like the traditional start (3/4, 1/2, 1/2. 3/4, full, ten to twenty high and settle) just with less power to get the negative split, or do you settle in to race rating and power as soon as you can?

Thanks,

[Mike Caviston]

The traditional start (¾, ½, ¾, full, full is the variation I remember) plus five high then settle should be enough. Whatever it takes to get up to base speed (that is, Goal Pace +1). The coaches I’ve talked to who have seriously worked with this tend to agree seven strokes is enough to get up to speed, and without anyone trying to break an oar. It can be pretty shocking to watch during a race, since it makes your crew look like its standing still early while the other crew blows off the line. I loved one report I got from a coach who managed to upset a nationally ranked crew in a dual race. The other coach saw the start and said, “Oh, that’s a shame”, trying to be diplomatic at what looked like an accident, like maybe somebody caught a crab. The other coach was absolutely stunned when the slow-starting crew worked back into the race and took the lead with only a couple strokes to go. Actually, I know of very few crews that are brave enough to go for a true negative split (the previous example is almost the only case) because they just can’t get their heads around being able to come back from such a big deficit. But I think more will get there as they gradually see the benefits of starting more conservatively.

[Mike Caviston]

Below are summarized results from A-final races of the World Championships and Olympics from 1996-2008 (including World Championships for non-Olympic crews in 2004 and 2008). The totals include 265 races and 1591 crews. The first table shows the average pacing for all crews combined to be almost exactly 103% of final 2K speed for the first 500m, 99% for the 2nd 500m, 98% for the 3rd 500m, and 100% for the final 500m. In other words, the first portion of the race is typically the fastest – by far. When the results are separated by places 1-3 vs. 4-6, the medal winners are seen to start more conservatively (relative pace) than the trailers and show less variation in speed across the entire race. Statistically, all differences are highly significant. Additionally, the results are broken down by individual place (the 7th place row represent a single crew, but the results fall nicely in line with the other places). From places 2-7, there is a clearly defined relationship between opening 500m % and place. As I’ve previously discussed, my theory is that first place crews are less likely to push to their fullest potential (in cases where victory is clearly in hand), artificially inflating the 1st 500m %. The line graph shows the average pacing profile by place; the other two graphs show the relationship between pace of the 1st 500m and final place. The numbers in parentheses below the bars represent the number of crews in each category.

[Mike Caviston]

The combined data includes all boat classes – men, women, HW, LW, sweep, scull, etc. I also separated the results by boat class to see if the relationship between race strategy and place still held. Overall, it did. For most categories, the results were still statistically significant (P-values are provided). Note that in cases where the difference in 1st 500m pace wasn’t significantly different between top crews and bottom crews, the difference was significant for the second 500m (e.g., LM2x, LM4-). There is one category (LM4x) where the top crews started significantly faster than the bottom crews, but this is not at all typical, being a less populated race won by the same country (Italy) every year it was run. In most cases, despite the much smaller sample sizes, the effects of more conservative starts are still quite significant (e.g., M8+ and W8+).

[Mike Caviston]

For amusement, I sorted results by country. Historically, for countries with multiple crews in the data, the Netherlands start more conservatively; Italy, Great Britain, France, Denmark and the USA are middle of the road; while Canada, Germany, and New Zealand have lead foots at the start.

[Mike Caviston]

So, really nothing new to say after compiling data for the past couple years. The data speaks for itself. Yet the perception persists that crews need to push the pace early to have the best chance of winning. Discussion on the internet about recent performances at Beijing tend to harp on the “sluggish” start by the US men’s eight costing them a chance at gold. (The actual profile was 100.3, 98.4, 99.8, and 101.4%; if anything, the second 500m was too weak, but that’s quibbling. A faster start would most likely have kept USA out of the medals.) The gold medal eights from the USA (women) and Canada (men) opened at a mundane 102.6% and 102.8% respectively, though much was made of their “commanding” leads. The perception persists that whatever Olympians do must be correct; they wouldn’t be Olympians if they didn’t know what was best, right? But as a student of Olympic history I know that over the years Olympians have had some strange notions. Fifty years ago, almost nobody in any sport lifted weights, because everyone knew that would make you muscle-bound and slow. A typical pre-competition meal was steak and eggs, and water was restricted during competition because it would give you cramps. Today, everybody knows the way to win races is to start fast and try to hold on, but in fifty years people will look back on 103% and laugh.

[TomR]

I loved those steaks for training meals.

[HammerHead Sk8r]

Dang Man...I just got seriously hungry thinking about that steak...can I have some eggs too?

[gobrian77]

I learned a lot from this thread- I took Mike's advice and finally rowed a 5K under 20 minutes by using (what I believe was) smarter pacing- great stuff.

[Veronique]

I need no more convincing; have experienced enough difference on the erg. Thanks Mike; you changed my life!

Two things that still bug me and I'd like some other's ideas on:
1. How to do this on the water? It's a lot more difficult; especially without a Speedcoach. I've tried using rates but mostly end up around the "classical optimum" anyway. Would somebody here have actual experience on negative splitting on the water and how to do it; especially with a crew? A lot of the issue is mental of course, but that does not make it less real. (As my marketing colleague says: "Perception is reality".)

2. How much negative split is enough? For 2k on the erg, I've been starting about 1s slower (as Mike once recommended) than target but that almost seems like a minimum. Has anybody ever tried out different (negative pacing) pacing strategies to try and determine an optimum? How would you do that?

Eventually the comment that really convinced me to try it is the following: If you're going to produce byproducts that end up hampering your most important energy system, do you want to produce more of them at the beginning of the race or at the end?

Veronique

[Mike Caviston]

Veronique, you’re welcome. I’m glad you’ve gotten some use out of this. To answer your second question first, take another look at the bar graphs on the previous page. The data there suggests the most effective starts are more conservative than even I have been suggesting. I’ve had my very fastest races with starting 500s only slightly less than 100% of final pace (99.4-99.7%), but the CRASH-B results from 2004-2008 seem to indicate a start percent of around 97% worked best, at least for that sample. My “goal pace +1” recommendation for the start was intended to give people a good chance to at least hold steady if they miscalculate the goal pace (many people are a little overly optimistic in that regard). An important take-home message from all this talk about pacing is that there is a penalty for starting too slow, and there’s a penalty for starting too fast. But the penalty for starting too fast is much more severe – both in terms of the pain you suffer and the time you lose. When I was coaching, I always told athletes who were afraid I was giving them too slow a goal pace to start with not to worry – there would always be another test and we could get it right then.

Regarding your question about pacing on the water… Even with a Speedcoach, it’s a challenge, since the environment is never as consistent as on an erg, and there are so many more variables when factoring in the dynamics and technique of an eight or a four. In my opinion the key factor is to develop a natural sense of pacing during all training on the erg and on the water. I think experience can give you a very accurate “feel” even without specific feedback from a monitor or Speedcoach (though given the choice I’ll always use the feedback). If I get around to it I can link to some studies that specifically address our inherent ability to accurately gauge our capacity to hold a pace for a given duration. Part of my job now involves advising guys who have to meet specific standards for various physical tests, including 4-mile runs, during which they don’t receive any feedback (can’t wear a watch and nobody tells them their splits). Guys on the bubble have the tendency to want to go too hard early and build up a “cushion” so they can afford to be slower in the second half, but that’s self-defeating. I tell them they should go slow enough in the first mile that they actually feel guilty, and then gradually pick up the pace the rest of the way. But with the adrenaline buzz at the start of a test, the right pace always feels too easy at first, and by the second mile the pace isn’t all that easy, and in the homestretch it’s usually all they can do to just hold the original pace. So my point (yes, I have a point) is that if the pace feels hard early in the race, you’re pretty much screwed, ‘cuz it’s only going to get harder. And again, there’s definitely a penalty for going too slow, but it’s not nearly as stiff as the penalty for going too fast. I encourage crews on the water to use the early part of the racing season to gradually work towards the optimal pace, and save their very best effort for the championship race at the end of the year. Nobody’s going to be able to brag about beating you early in the year if you clean their clock at the end.

If anyone else has any first-hand experience with negative-splitting on the water, I’m sure others besides me would like to hear about it.

[jamesg]

At school (fifties) our coach was JH (Freddy) Page, then secretary of the UK ARA. He must have been among the first to put the accent on technique AND endurance in rowing.

I stroked our school 3rd 8 in Feb 57, and we raced the Putney to Mortlake course (around 22 minutes for us) against the 1st, at least 7kg heavier each. They gave us a few lengths advantage off the start but rowed past us before Hammersmith Bridge. We passed them at Chiswick Eyot. Rating must have been 25-28. Coach put me in the 1st boat stroke seat on the way back, and my impression was twice as much power behind me.

At Henley 57 (Lizzie), in the first race we were ½ length down from the top of the island. Rating 32. As we went past the enclosures I increased to 36, and we won by ¼ length. We won all the other races by being faster all the way. I never used more than 32, except 10 strokes off the start at 39.

HRR gives you times to halfway as well as to the finish. Freddy knew we'd win, because we cruised fast but didn't fade. The others all did.

In 61 I was 2 in the CUBC boat. Stern pair were from the Harvard Lights and very tough. Oxford were using for the first time the then new Macons. We held them off the start with the help of a couple of sprints, the first slight bend in our favour and with some nifty steering, which always helps on the Tideway. But at Harrods/Hammersmith where the 180° Surrey bend starts, on the inside they were going away. We sprinted maybe 6 times. The other lot blew up, we passed them before Chiswick on the outside of the bend and cruised home. Have to add that the gearing of the Macons and hydrodynamics were unknown factors in those days, and diet was awful; our stroke used to climb out of the window to get at cream buns, and I was always hungry. Could be the other lot were even more so.

In my first race on the erg, 2002, I was in a heat with just a couple of men my age, and a dozen or so 40 yo lightweights. I passed them all in the last 500. So one should hope, they were all very strong gymrats with no endurance and no technique, so they were bound to lose, whereas I'd done a year of long slow work with reasonable technique. Plus my many races albeit many years ago.

In Beijing this August there were some brilliant examples of fly and die. One canoeist in the K1 1000m final had clear water at 500, and came in 8th of 9. In the swimming events, the Chinese site showed times every 50m, so there's plenty of data to show why and how the "wrong" people won. Go fast for the first two lengths and you're in trouble seems to be the message.

My conclusion is that being able to avoid fade is essential; the problem is how. It all comes down to technique (where technique means everything, including race strategy and realising what we're actually doing) and endurance. We just have to believe in the reality and not fantasy, as in all fields. L4s rule.

There's nothing new or unknown about it, and not all fables are fables. Aesop's tortoise won because his strategy was better.

[jamesg]

The Power aspect of going 3% too fast in the first 500 of a 2k is an eye-opener: it means almost 10% more work done, for 2-3 seconds advantage. Bad deal even only on the face of it and even without thinking what comes later.

[hjs]

The Power aspect of going 3% too fast in the first 500 of a 2k is an eye-opener: it means almost 10% more work done, for 2-3 seconds advantage. Bad deal even only on the face of it and even without thinking what comes later.

It is much more, you have to reach cruisingspeed first from a standing start.

[Nosmo]

Relevant to this discussion, this was just posted:

http://www.c2forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=7996

For the Dan and Joe on the 10k, yesterday: I went to hard to earlier. I bonked halfway. I have been progressing in my session, but I put the bar a little high for where I should be at now in training session for 10k. I wanted to exit the month of August with a 1:52 average for 10k and enter the month of August working with averages around 1:51. It is better for me to start out slower and then try to go faster at the end than it is to even pace stuff. I saw Jose Greco rowed a 1:50.7. Great job.

Today, I chose again a 10k and put to test what I just typed above about doing 10k's. It actually worked. I had a 1:51.8 average entering the last 2k and finished wiht a 1:51.1 average. I think this is the best approach since it gets the majority of the meters under my belt with not as much left to go hard knowing the end is near. A couple of times I saw 1:50 during the session but backed off to 1:52 until the last 2k. The backup to this plan is that if it is not there for a dramatic finish, I can settle on just getting the piece done instead of abandoning the piece.

---
Interesting Data on the hour cycling record at this link: http://www.wolfgang-menn.de/hourrec.htm
It give splits every five Kilometers or about 10 splits for the hour. Simply because there more splits then in a 2K one would expect more variation. Excluding the "final sprint", I divided the fastest split (which usually was near the start) by the average pace for the last 7 hour records and these are the numbers I got: 1.0125, 1.008, 1.005, 1.006, 1.013, 1.004, 1.006
They are remarkably close to the average pace. Even those who had positive splits almost the whole way had very little variation in pace. The hour record is one of the most difficult and prestigious in cycling and requires an extreme amount of preparation. Lance Armstrong considered attempting it but abandoned the idea relatively early in the preparation. Those who get it cannot not make mistakes. The graphs on the link I provided are a bit deceptive because the scale is blown up--the pace is much more constant then appears at first glance.

--
Mike I recall you mentioning you looked at cycling pursuit data. My guess is that those show less of a fast start then the rowing data. Is this true?

If you suggest to most road cyclists that they start a time trial fast and try to hang on they will look at you like you are crazy. I think one of the reasons for that is that time trials are mostly close to an hour (for senior men at least). And the fly and die strategy is much more obviously wrong if you die with 15 minutes left to go rather then 100 seconds.
---

I need to verify the details of the following but the following is more or less accurate. I was talking with a local HS coach and he described a race where his crew started very slowly and came back passed four boats and finished I think second. When I pointed out that starting conservatively was a very good strategy he said, "yes but it would have been good not have to come back from four lengths down". HS races are 1500m
--

There was an article on how to time trial on a British cycling site. I can't find the link at the moment, but it gave data on some research the author did. IT compared the pace of cyclists in a time trial test without feed back. The experienced cyclists had very little variation in pace and the novices had a fairly wide variation. No surprise there but it is more support for Mike's point about experience. The author also tells the story of a Benard Hinault (5 time Tour winner and one of the great timetrialist of his era) time trial at the Tour, where his glasses fell down coming out of the starting ramp. He sat up rode with no hands and but them back on. He started very relaxed but his finish was very fast and very intense.

--
I pretty much negative split every race I do. Mostly I do this by controlling the rating at the beginning and slowly increasing it through out the race. Last year in a double at a head race we started 5 of five and passed three boats relatively quickly. The fourth boat which started 45 seconds ahead, we passed with about 1500m to go. They had a 1:30 handicap so we had to make up the additional 45 seconds with less then a 3rd of the race left. I didn't know how much time we had to make up because at the time I wasn't sure how far a head they started. But we managed to make not only that 45 seconds but an additional 24 seconds. They certainly didn't negative split the race. Don't know if they blew up or just took it easy because they knew they had second locked up. We started at about 26 spm and did the last 1000 at about a 28. One of the real advantages I find in starting at a lower rating is that it is easier to make sure our technique is good.
---
At a marathon two weeks ago I did the first 5K about 5 seconds slower then average of the first half (conditions changed radically at the turn around but I think I rowed a good deal harder on the second half). Some of this was because the course was more twisty which slowed me down a lot. Did the first part at 22-23, then most of it at 24-25, the took it up for the last 3K to about 26 and finished at a 29.