One line of thinking is that coaches build a personality/power relationship with college rowers and that does not translate well.
A second line is that unlike other countries US colleges row as many different ways as there are coaches.
Comments?
Are college coaches good for the US national team?
Re: Are college coaches good for the US national team?
College sport does not exist to support the US national team.
That said, I think there are far bigger issues especially around funding and making training livable that have a far larger impact. Training in the 90s and early 2000s it was possible to make 40ish a year between athlete support and working 5 hours a week at Home Depot. I don’t think anything like that exists anymore.
That said, I think there are far bigger issues especially around funding and making training livable that have a far larger impact. Training in the 90s and early 2000s it was possible to make 40ish a year between athlete support and working 5 hours a week at Home Depot. I don’t think anything like that exists anymore.
-
fullmetal
- Old timer
- Posts: 3670
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 2:07 am
- Location: right on your bow ball and walking
Re: Are college coaches good for the US national team?
The personality/power relationships are not an issue imo. As for style, yes, even looking at this year's M8+, there are big differences in style. One issue is that every coach is different. Another is that a coach only has the athlete for four years -- is that enough time to drill down and rework a bad habit? Is that a good use of time when there are walk-ons with worse habits to spend time on?
Finally, the issue of scholarships to foreign elite athletes: college coaches are incentivized to win with the fast available talent. They are not incentivized to focus on building the national team development pipeline.
College coaches operate with their own constraints/goals, and that does have downstream effects on the US national team.
Finally, the issue of scholarships to foreign elite athletes: college coaches are incentivized to win with the fast available talent. They are not incentivized to focus on building the national team development pipeline.
College coaches operate with their own constraints/goals, and that does have downstream effects on the US national team.
Re: Are college coaches good for the US national team?
Follow the money. Top collegiate coaches are paid very well compared to other rowing coaches around the world, and those positions provide much more stability and better lifestyle than a national team job. Any of the top men's or women's collegiate coaches would do very well at international level, but they already have a terrific job.
The issue of varying techniques is typically resolved with practice. Good athletes can adapt to different styles, and we see that every summer as U23 teams do very well with only a few weeks together.
The issue of varying techniques is typically resolved with practice. Good athletes can adapt to different styles, and we see that every summer as U23 teams do very well with only a few weeks together.
Re: Are college coaches good for the US national team?
At the end of the day, the US national team is competing in a sport, at a level, where every other major contender is getting state funding to a significant degree and we're not. It's just that simple.
Want to be an Olympian today in the US? You have to deal with napoleons for coaches, live like a pauper, train like a monk, and hope for the best. The entire program from top to bottom creates and fosters prima donnas, starting at the top.
Hell for the past 20 years+, it's been the elephant in the room when it comes to retaining collegiate talent. With today's' economic reality, you literally have to be lucky enough to get a full ride scholarship, and willing to basically give up on 10 years of your professional development, in order to MAYBE be an Olympian. People are not idiots. 99.999% of them are going to run the numbers and realize that it's not worth it - especially after their experiences as a collegiate athlete in a competitive university. And the rest? Well, either they've got that support system on their own, They've somehow decided that the sacrifices are worth it, or they're just plain nuts. But you can't be ACTUALLY having mental health issues either, because there's no support system in this country for that either, so hopefully you're just faking being crazy.
This is completely my opinion based on a very few anecdotal experiences from friends and acquaintances over the decades, and also observing the economic realities at large.
Want the US to get gold medals again and dominate every Olympics? *PAY YOUR F.U.C.K.I.N.G ROWERS*. Simple as that. We have the talent, it's been painfully obvious that that's the case for decades. They are certainly learning how to be strong, again, as has been demonstrated by every single D1 rowing program in the US (hell, we're training up half the international rowing community in one way or another too), and there are absolutely dozens upon dozens of capable coaches at a score of rowing clubs around the country that can get athletes to that elite level. You don't need open trials to get 'em either - stick with the camp system, but maybe do a 1 year program every 4 years for the olys, and 4 months before world's ever year. athletes can row where they want, train how they want, and be able to do that full time with funding - JUST PAY THE F.U.C.K.I.N.G ATHLETES.
The one thing that has absolutely confounded me in the past 20 years of rowing is how every year ,every Olympics, there's this complete ignorance of how we got where we are, and there's this complete confusion as to how to retain talent from the college level and develop them into Olympians. It's as if every year we're re-living a Goundhog Day of athleticism. "We've tried nothing, and we're all out of options!".
And of you're a coach at one of these top level colleges? How about not being an asshole. Believe it or not, the vast majority of sucessful US Olympians over the past 100 years have not been coached by guys who alternated between yelling and cold shoulders. If your athletes are being up front about it, that's a great sign! It's literally the lowest bar for being a decent human being, so this should be an easy ask for any competent individual.
Focus on developing your athletes as people, not as machines. Maybe read some books on leadership. Keep rowing personally, so that you can know for sure whether or not what you're trying to teach actually works. I've known too many "coaches" who think yelling, berating, or ignoring are valid tools to coaching. Last I checked, "coaching" actually involved reaching out to your athletes one on one to guide their development.
And don't be a f.u.c.k.i.n.g creeper doing it too.
Want to be an Olympian today in the US? You have to deal with napoleons for coaches, live like a pauper, train like a monk, and hope for the best. The entire program from top to bottom creates and fosters prima donnas, starting at the top.
Hell for the past 20 years+, it's been the elephant in the room when it comes to retaining collegiate talent. With today's' economic reality, you literally have to be lucky enough to get a full ride scholarship, and willing to basically give up on 10 years of your professional development, in order to MAYBE be an Olympian. People are not idiots. 99.999% of them are going to run the numbers and realize that it's not worth it - especially after their experiences as a collegiate athlete in a competitive university. And the rest? Well, either they've got that support system on their own, They've somehow decided that the sacrifices are worth it, or they're just plain nuts. But you can't be ACTUALLY having mental health issues either, because there's no support system in this country for that either, so hopefully you're just faking being crazy.
This is completely my opinion based on a very few anecdotal experiences from friends and acquaintances over the decades, and also observing the economic realities at large.
Want the US to get gold medals again and dominate every Olympics? *PAY YOUR F.U.C.K.I.N.G ROWERS*. Simple as that. We have the talent, it's been painfully obvious that that's the case for decades. They are certainly learning how to be strong, again, as has been demonstrated by every single D1 rowing program in the US (hell, we're training up half the international rowing community in one way or another too), and there are absolutely dozens upon dozens of capable coaches at a score of rowing clubs around the country that can get athletes to that elite level. You don't need open trials to get 'em either - stick with the camp system, but maybe do a 1 year program every 4 years for the olys, and 4 months before world's ever year. athletes can row where they want, train how they want, and be able to do that full time with funding - JUST PAY THE F.U.C.K.I.N.G ATHLETES.
The one thing that has absolutely confounded me in the past 20 years of rowing is how every year ,every Olympics, there's this complete ignorance of how we got where we are, and there's this complete confusion as to how to retain talent from the college level and develop them into Olympians. It's as if every year we're re-living a Goundhog Day of athleticism. "We've tried nothing, and we're all out of options!".
And of you're a coach at one of these top level colleges? How about not being an asshole. Believe it or not, the vast majority of sucessful US Olympians over the past 100 years have not been coached by guys who alternated between yelling and cold shoulders. If your athletes are being up front about it, that's a great sign! It's literally the lowest bar for being a decent human being, so this should be an easy ask for any competent individual.
Focus on developing your athletes as people, not as machines. Maybe read some books on leadership. Keep rowing personally, so that you can know for sure whether or not what you're trying to teach actually works. I've known too many "coaches" who think yelling, berating, or ignoring are valid tools to coaching. Last I checked, "coaching" actually involved reaching out to your athletes one on one to guide their development.
And don't be a f.u.c.k.i.n.g creeper doing it too.
Re: Are college coaches good for the US national team?
This is a lot to unpack
“At the end of the day, the US national team is competing in a sport, at a level, where every other major contender is getting state funding to a significant degree and we're not. It's just that simple.
Want to be an Olympian today in the US? You have to deal with napoleons for coaches, live like a pauper, train like a monk, and hope for the best. The entire program from top to bottom creates and fosters prima donnas, starting at the top.
Hell for the past 20 years+, it's been the elephant in the room when it comes to retaining collegiate talent. With today's' economic reality, you literally have to be lucky enough to get a full ride scholarship, and willing to basically give up on 10 years of your professional development, in order to MAYBE be an Olympian. People are not idiots. 99.999% of them are going to run the numbers and realize that it's not worth it - especially after their experiences as a collegiate athlete in a competitive university. And the rest? Well, either they've got that support system on their own, They've somehow decided that the sacrifices are worth it, or they're just plain nuts. But you can't be ACTUALLY having mental health issues either, because there's no support system in this country for that either, so hopefully you're just faking being crazy.
This is completely my opinion based on a very few anecdotal experiences from friends and acquaintances over the decades, and also observing the economic realities at large.
Want the US to get gold medals again and dominate every Olympics? *PAY YOUR F.U.C.K.I.N.G ROWERS*. Simple as that. We have the talent, it's been painfully obvious that that's the case for decades. They are certainly learning how to be strong, again, as has been demonstrated by every single D1 rowing program in the US (hell, we're training up half the international rowing community in one way or another too), and there are absolutely dozens upon dozens of capable coaches at a score of rowing clubs around the country that can get athletes to that elite level. You don't need open trials to get 'em either - stick with the camp system, but maybe do a 1 year program every 4 years for the olys, and 4 months before world's ever year. athletes can row where they want, train how they want, and be able to do that full time with funding - JUST PAY THE F.U.C.K.I.N.G ATHLETES.
The one thing that has absolutely confounded me in the past 20 years of rowing is how every year ,every Olympics, there's this complete ignorance of how we got where we are, and there's this complete confusion as to how to retain talent from the college level and develop them into Olympians. It's as if every year we're re-living a Goundhog Day of athleticism. "We've tried nothing, and we're all out of options!".
And of you're a coach at one of these top level colleges? How about not being an asshole. Believe it or not, the vast majority of sucessful US Olympians over the past 100 years have not been coached by guys who alternated between yelling and cold shoulders. If your athletes are being up front about it, that's a great sign! It's literally the lowest bar for being a decent human being, so this should be an easy ask for any competent individual.
Focus on developing your athletes as people, not as machines. Maybe read some books on leadership. Keep rowing personally, so that you can know for sure whether or not what you're trying to teach actually works. I've known too many "coaches" who think yelling, berating, or ignoring are valid tools to coaching. Last I checked, "coaching" actually involved reaching out to your athletes one on one to guide their development.
And don't be a f.u.c.k.i.n.g creeper doing it too.”
“At the end of the day, the US national team is competing in a sport, at a level, where every other major contender is getting state funding to a significant degree and we're not. It's just that simple.
Want to be an Olympian today in the US? You have to deal with napoleons for coaches, live like a pauper, train like a monk, and hope for the best. The entire program from top to bottom creates and fosters prima donnas, starting at the top.
Hell for the past 20 years+, it's been the elephant in the room when it comes to retaining collegiate talent. With today's' economic reality, you literally have to be lucky enough to get a full ride scholarship, and willing to basically give up on 10 years of your professional development, in order to MAYBE be an Olympian. People are not idiots. 99.999% of them are going to run the numbers and realize that it's not worth it - especially after their experiences as a collegiate athlete in a competitive university. And the rest? Well, either they've got that support system on their own, They've somehow decided that the sacrifices are worth it, or they're just plain nuts. But you can't be ACTUALLY having mental health issues either, because there's no support system in this country for that either, so hopefully you're just faking being crazy.
This is completely my opinion based on a very few anecdotal experiences from friends and acquaintances over the decades, and also observing the economic realities at large.
Want the US to get gold medals again and dominate every Olympics? *PAY YOUR F.U.C.K.I.N.G ROWERS*. Simple as that. We have the talent, it's been painfully obvious that that's the case for decades. They are certainly learning how to be strong, again, as has been demonstrated by every single D1 rowing program in the US (hell, we're training up half the international rowing community in one way or another too), and there are absolutely dozens upon dozens of capable coaches at a score of rowing clubs around the country that can get athletes to that elite level. You don't need open trials to get 'em either - stick with the camp system, but maybe do a 1 year program every 4 years for the olys, and 4 months before world's ever year. athletes can row where they want, train how they want, and be able to do that full time with funding - JUST PAY THE F.U.C.K.I.N.G ATHLETES.
The one thing that has absolutely confounded me in the past 20 years of rowing is how every year ,every Olympics, there's this complete ignorance of how we got where we are, and there's this complete confusion as to how to retain talent from the college level and develop them into Olympians. It's as if every year we're re-living a Goundhog Day of athleticism. "We've tried nothing, and we're all out of options!".
And of you're a coach at one of these top level colleges? How about not being an asshole. Believe it or not, the vast majority of sucessful US Olympians over the past 100 years have not been coached by guys who alternated between yelling and cold shoulders. If your athletes are being up front about it, that's a great sign! It's literally the lowest bar for being a decent human being, so this should be an easy ask for any competent individual.
Focus on developing your athletes as people, not as machines. Maybe read some books on leadership. Keep rowing personally, so that you can know for sure whether or not what you're trying to teach actually works. I've known too many "coaches" who think yelling, berating, or ignoring are valid tools to coaching. Last I checked, "coaching" actually involved reaching out to your athletes one on one to guide their development.
And don't be a f.u.c.k.i.n.g creeper doing it too.”
Re: Are college coaches good for the US national team?
#1) I'm confused .. was there any unpacking? or did you just repeat the previous post?
#2) Depending on the definition of "top" how many college coaches could "do very well" at the international level? As against Jurgen Grobler, Gianni Postiglione, Harry Mahon, Lyall McCarthy, Michelle Darvill, Ian Wright, Tony O'Connor, Josy Verdonkschot ...
#3) Only four years? If you can't decide to either fix or fire someone in two years you should find some other occupation.
#4) This started in one direction and then went another, from two problems (college coaches build teams with individual charisma -- Parker and Gladstone -- which produces guys who row for big personalities and can't fit into other systems; and the influence of these charismatic coaches on the lack of any common idea of how boats move) to fixing the national team experience. It's as if the US is too big to focus on the small number of rowers at the top of the pyramid needed to win at world championships. Netherlands (17.5 million), New Zealand (5), Romania (19), Australia (26 -- maybe they are getting to big to have focus), Ireland (5). The arguments on RI indicate that US rowers need too many creature comforts .. perhaps it would be better to identify 12 year old kids with few academic prospects who would like to live on $N/year and just row for 15 years and make a living that way. The old DDR without drugs.
#2) Depending on the definition of "top" how many college coaches could "do very well" at the international level? As against Jurgen Grobler, Gianni Postiglione, Harry Mahon, Lyall McCarthy, Michelle Darvill, Ian Wright, Tony O'Connor, Josy Verdonkschot ...
#3) Only four years? If you can't decide to either fix or fire someone in two years you should find some other occupation.
#4) This started in one direction and then went another, from two problems (college coaches build teams with individual charisma -- Parker and Gladstone -- which produces guys who row for big personalities and can't fit into other systems; and the influence of these charismatic coaches on the lack of any common idea of how boats move) to fixing the national team experience. It's as if the US is too big to focus on the small number of rowers at the top of the pyramid needed to win at world championships. Netherlands (17.5 million), New Zealand (5), Romania (19), Australia (26 -- maybe they are getting to big to have focus), Ireland (5). The arguments on RI indicate that US rowers need too many creature comforts .. perhaps it would be better to identify 12 year old kids with few academic prospects who would like to live on $N/year and just row for 15 years and make a living that way. The old DDR without drugs.
Re: Are college coaches good for the US national team?
Yeah, it kinda went into a bit of a different direction, but I think it's still on point. The questions that always circulate around are always "what's keeping good talent out of the USNT?".
The short answer to the original question is yes. I do think there are dozens upon dozens of talented coaches out there, but they are either not recognized, or not interested, or in some cases just outright ignored for favoritistic reasons. And honestly, for similar reasons as why we don't retain good elite talent, we also can't retain good coaches. Doing it right means putting in a fair amount of work, and not just in driving boats and setting lineups. IMHO, a coach's primary position is to coax out of their athletes their best performance, and that means you really have to know and understand what's going on with them, and doing what you can to get them to push a bit harder. Hell, That's the entire definition of what a *coach* is - which ties into my point that coaches need to use greater interaction with their athletes in terms of actually moulding them individually into technical refinement as well as providing accountability and inspiration. Many people think it's not the coach's job to inspire, but I disagree - it's ENTIRELY their job. I would assume that any elite coach not only has a technical mastery of rowing and continues to review their own understanding of the rowing stroke, but also has at least a fair understanding of enough physiology and physical training education to be able to identify athlete weaknesses and provide plans to strengthen said weaknesses. If having too many athletes inhibits this, then you have other talented but less experienced coaches owning those other boats and providing the same (and funnelling any bright stars up to the lead coach). Hell, that's your feeder pool right there for elite coaching.
What, specifically, makes these coaches somehow a cut above any others? Aside from already having the job? We all started from somewhere, and they did too. I honestly don't know because I have very obviously never interacted with any of them. What do they do to get their athletes to become their best selves?
For athletes, it's not about needing creature comforts here - it's about being able to survive, in a new economic reality where the vast majority of students are going to be saddled with a SIGNIFICANT amount of debt, and that debt needs to be paid back starting right after graduation. No other country you mentioned in your list saddles their students with that kind of load right out the door. So, that's #1. #2 is that the earning potential of a college degree is also being eroded. Wage growth in the US, when adjusted for inflation, has largely stagnated for over 30 years. None of these things enable any adult to enjoy the time or physical availability to train effectively. Literally, they can't afford to compete. And in rowing, there's no farm league. There's no non-collegiate elite talent funnel. If you want to be an elite Olympian rower, you first need to be be a collegiate rower. So, athletes are stuck in a "double bind" situation - unless they're extremely intelligent and somehow managed to wrangle full ride scholarships to top level institutions, they're forced to assume a large amount of debt. Then they're stuck in a situation where they can't afford to pay off that debt if they want to continue to train. The people who somehow make it through that economic filter are going to be a very small subset of the overall pool at large.
If there was just one thing I would focus on fixing, more than any other thing - pay the athletes, something more than just survival wages. I guarantee not only will you see a greater pool of potential Olympians come out of the woodwork, but you'll end up with a more successful team because of it.
The short answer to the original question is yes. I do think there are dozens upon dozens of talented coaches out there, but they are either not recognized, or not interested, or in some cases just outright ignored for favoritistic reasons. And honestly, for similar reasons as why we don't retain good elite talent, we also can't retain good coaches. Doing it right means putting in a fair amount of work, and not just in driving boats and setting lineups. IMHO, a coach's primary position is to coax out of their athletes their best performance, and that means you really have to know and understand what's going on with them, and doing what you can to get them to push a bit harder. Hell, That's the entire definition of what a *coach* is - which ties into my point that coaches need to use greater interaction with their athletes in terms of actually moulding them individually into technical refinement as well as providing accountability and inspiration. Many people think it's not the coach's job to inspire, but I disagree - it's ENTIRELY their job. I would assume that any elite coach not only has a technical mastery of rowing and continues to review their own understanding of the rowing stroke, but also has at least a fair understanding of enough physiology and physical training education to be able to identify athlete weaknesses and provide plans to strengthen said weaknesses. If having too many athletes inhibits this, then you have other talented but less experienced coaches owning those other boats and providing the same (and funnelling any bright stars up to the lead coach). Hell, that's your feeder pool right there for elite coaching.
What, specifically, makes these coaches somehow a cut above any others? Aside from already having the job? We all started from somewhere, and they did too. I honestly don't know because I have very obviously never interacted with any of them. What do they do to get their athletes to become their best selves?
For athletes, it's not about needing creature comforts here - it's about being able to survive, in a new economic reality where the vast majority of students are going to be saddled with a SIGNIFICANT amount of debt, and that debt needs to be paid back starting right after graduation. No other country you mentioned in your list saddles their students with that kind of load right out the door. So, that's #1. #2 is that the earning potential of a college degree is also being eroded. Wage growth in the US, when adjusted for inflation, has largely stagnated for over 30 years. None of these things enable any adult to enjoy the time or physical availability to train effectively. Literally, they can't afford to compete. And in rowing, there's no farm league. There's no non-collegiate elite talent funnel. If you want to be an elite Olympian rower, you first need to be be a collegiate rower. So, athletes are stuck in a "double bind" situation - unless they're extremely intelligent and somehow managed to wrangle full ride scholarships to top level institutions, they're forced to assume a large amount of debt. Then they're stuck in a situation where they can't afford to pay off that debt if they want to continue to train. The people who somehow make it through that economic filter are going to be a very small subset of the overall pool at large.
If there was just one thing I would focus on fixing, more than any other thing - pay the athletes, something more than just survival wages. I guarantee not only will you see a greater pool of potential Olympians come out of the woodwork, but you'll end up with a more successful team because of it.
Re: Are college coaches good for the US national team?
I'd add that getting the resume of a qualified NT coach takes significant sacrifice as well. If you're not solidly within the college ranks before having kids, good luck. Add to that, most people don't have that "pedigree" needed to get a position just out of college or the NT. Same as the athletes, either you sacrifice a lot, or you have the means. And a system that favors those who are merely able to have the job is not conducive to success.
Maybe it's sour grapes on my part, but I feel like a particular celestial alignment is necessary to get on that path.
Maybe it's sour grapes on my part, but I feel like a particular celestial alignment is necessary to get on that path.
-
fullmetal
- Old timer
- Posts: 3670
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 2:07 am
- Location: right on your bow ball and walking
Re: Are college coaches good for the US national team?
I think there's a certain difference between college coaches and NT coaches, similar to the difference between college football coaches and NFL coaches. I agree that random chance/luck are sometimes necessary to succeeding on the college coaching path. Timing and resources are sometimes everything.
-
SQUAREdown
- Varsity
- Posts: 240
- Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: United States
Re: Are college coaches good for the US national team?
Many college coaches rely on cult of personalities in order to obscure their lack of tangible knowledge and/curiosity to improve that knowledge. Mix that with limited accountability from ignorant athletes/3rd party onlookers (admin, “fans”, etc) and the result is functionally useless candidates for international rowing coaching.
I’ve said it before, but in basketball, or football, or soccer, etc your average high school player is more discerning of good coaching than your average college rower because their average sport specific iq is much higher. “Pull hard” or “slow on the slide” or even continuing to advance the static erg as something more than a CrossFit device does not make for effective rowers. As for 3rd party onlookers, they’re educated to believe “rowing is different” which translates “please suspend disbelief” in practices that would be completely alien in any other sport setting.
It’s a terrible ecosystem for identifying and/or developing coaches that can have success on a stage where understanding conservation of momentum is a baseline.
I’ve said it before, but in basketball, or football, or soccer, etc your average high school player is more discerning of good coaching than your average college rower because their average sport specific iq is much higher. “Pull hard” or “slow on the slide” or even continuing to advance the static erg as something more than a CrossFit device does not make for effective rowers. As for 3rd party onlookers, they’re educated to believe “rowing is different” which translates “please suspend disbelief” in practices that would be completely alien in any other sport setting.
It’s a terrible ecosystem for identifying and/or developing coaches that can have success on a stage where understanding conservation of momentum is a baseline.
Step Up
-
fullmetal
- Old timer
- Posts: 3670
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 2:07 am
- Location: right on your bow ball and walking
Re: Are college coaches good for the US national team?
Newtonian mechanics escapes so many coaches at all levels. It's really frustrating.SQUAREdown wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2023 8:35 amIt’s a terrible ecosystem for identifying and/or developing coaches that can have success on a stage where understanding conservation of momentum is a baseline.
Re: Are college coaches good for the US national team?
Conservation of momentum? I thought the object was to find the highest first derivative in the right direction.
-
SQUAREdown
- Varsity
- Posts: 240
- Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: United States
Re: Are college coaches good for the US national team?
I’m guessing sarcasm here, but as far I know, nobody has found a way to finish a 2k in less than 30 seconds, so “highest sustainable first derivative for 5+ minutes” is a more accurate characterization of the objective. Kind of hard to figure that out if you don’t understand what goes into optimizing efficiency.
Step Up
Re: Are college coaches good for the US national team?
++ to this. To stray into the more technical knowledge sphere, I think a LOT of what we see today in terms of rowing technique is not really based on an actual motion that is shown to increase the speed of the boat, but instead on actions that are easier for a coach to observe. IMHO, the general technical proficiency of rowing as a whole has degraded over the past 50 years, because more and more our coaches are not people who have any current and active knowledge of rowing that's continually refreshed by experimentation.SQUAREdown wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2023 6:24 pmI’m guessing sarcasm here, but as far I know, nobody has found a way to finish a 2k in less than 30 seconds, so “highest sustainable first derivative for 5+ minutes” is a more accurate characterization of the objective. Kind of hard to figure that out if you don’t understand what goes into optimizing efficiency.
Imagine ANY OTHER SPORT OR INDUSTRY that had the supposed masters of that being people who never actually do the thing anymore. Seems bizarre, doesn't it? If a doctor stopped taking CME, would you trust that doctor to be proficient? Or imagine an engineer who has their P.E., but stopped doing actual engineering work - would you ask them to build your bridge? HEck, the best teachers I had in school were those who would do extra work over the summer in their field to keep relevant, and to continue to explore and investigate the very things that they decided to become experts in. How come it seems like your typical coach pretty much stops rowing once they step into the launch? Doesn't that seem kinda weird, when you look at it from the perspective of "staying relevant"?
I'd argue that most coaches in the world today are generally people who were great oarswomen and oarsmen in their youth, but once they put up their competitive oar, it seems like all thought into progressing technical knowledge gets hung up with it. Rowing is a sport where you really have to understand how to move a boat well *by figuring out how to move a boat well on your own* - then communicate those ideas to less experienced folk who are willing to listen in a manner that helps connect with them.