Most coaches would be incredibly satisfied to have a crew that was all of the exact same height, weight, fitness level and technical ability. Why? Probably because these are variables we can generally witness and can adjust for within the context of existing rowing equipment. What if we suggested that even with all these identical characteristics the power produced and the way it is applied is likely to be quite different for each of those athletes? That their ability to row certain styles will vary? That their predisposition to injuries will be different?
Considering how more subtle variables affect how we perform the rowing stroke is an area where rowing has been traditionally slow compared to sports such as cycling and swimming. This is an issue when we do not understand the impact of - and more importantly cannot adjust for - the impact of individual variables such as ankle flexibility, tibia length, foot length, hip flexibility or trunk/leg ratio.
For example, our research has demonstrated that the moment of peak leg force coincides with the moment of peak heel force. This is done with a unique force measurement system that can read left - right and forefoot - rear foot force. In itself, this is a not an unsurprising finding. However consider the difference ankle flexibility could make to this reading two otherwise identical athletes: the athlete with the flexible ankle will engage the heel earlier that the athlete with the less flexible ankle, and thus be applying his peak force at a different time.
A goal for all coaches should be to being to understand and be able to adjust for the physical functional differences manifested in their athletes.
When rowing movements have been analyzed by coaches and researchers over the years, there is a keen sense of observation about what the athlete is doing: often this observation is detailed, and technical approaches and biomechanical outcomes have been extrapolated from these observations and measurements of them.
As with all observation however, the object of our review is affected by its context. In the case of the rower the most obvious context is the equipment with which the athlete interacts and the limited variations available within that equipment. From a sports science perspective these are amongst the assumptions on which all our observations are based.
Humans generally find it difficult to imagine outside our established assumptions. Therefore occasionally our assumptions are challenged through our own thought processes, but it usually occurs when an outside perspective is revealed and presented to us.
One of the challenges in a highly technical and traditional sport like rowing is being able to challenge some of the key assumptions that affect how the human body performs the rowing stroke and ask ourselves some questions that may not immediately relevant: why is the handle round? why does the seat have holes in it? why is the footstretcher flat?
Much of BAT Logic’s work in rowing is helping coaches and athletes break the ‘equipment trap’: think outside the box and consider the possibilities.
Let's use a simple example (which we'll start suggesting is actually quite complex). The leg drive is often coached as the most ‘basic’ movement in the rowing stroke. How often have we heard the call of ‘get the legs down faster’ coming through the megaphone?
Lets drill down into this ‘basic movement’ and see what’s actually happening....
When power is applied by the rower (predominantly through the quads and glutes), the rower must attempt to stablise their foot and ankle against this applied force in order for it to be effectively transferred to the boat. The result? At the start of the drive phase, as the athlete is balanced on their toes, the ankle gives way against the larger muscles groups and the heel is forced down until it contacts with the flat footboard (remember that assumption?).
For most rowers, this means the main power muscles are pushing off a moving, unstable platform for most of the leg drive. A typical drive time of 1.3 seconds at rating 20 consists of a leg drive time of 0.77 seconds with the foot in a stable position (with the heel down) for less than 0.3 seconds.
Many of the larger muscle groups cannot engage fully until the heel is in contact with the footboard (ie, the foot is stable). The power that is produced is not transmitted to the boat, instead is absorbed by the foot and ankle, placing stresses on bones and ligaments in that area. At a mechanical level the drop of the heel and instability of the ankle translates to inefficient, or ‘empty’ movements of the main levers (femur and shin) because their main point of leverage is moving. Further, static and fatiguing muscle contractions are required in the lower limb to maintain some level of stability through the drive phase.
All this in a movement that is designed to provide between 45% and 60% (depending on the study quoted) of the power applied to the handle.