5 things I learned from James Mulcahy
- James is a national level rowing coach and former athlete, who currently trains in Saskatoon. James has rowed with the Canadian national team and was also the Columbia heavy mens rowing captain for years. James has also coached in Brockville Ontario, but now coaches out of Saskatoon as e is completing his PhD in English at the U of S.
1. The 3 points of rowing
a. Rowing is a horizontal dynamic movement – there should never be any vertical motion within the rowing stroke to produce optimal force. The chain remains on a steady trajectory along with the forearms in a stroke.
b. There are 3 points of contact always – sit bones, ball of foot, and hands.
c. One must cycle through the stroke with rhythm and efficiency.
We typically now the row stroke as drive (legs, back, arms), finish, recovery (arms, back, legs), and catch, but thinking of the stroke in a different light opens up new mental images of how to teach and view the row stroke.
2. Maintain a long hang for optimal force
- to produce optimal force one must keep the shoulders in front of the hips as long as possible (long hang) and maintain handle and hip movement throughout (meaning the handle travels the same rate as the hips on the initial phase of the drive).
3. Individualize to the athlete
– what may work for one individual (cuing, mechanics, and machine settings) may not be optimal for another. Individualizing training and settings may be needed to optimize each athletes within their chosen sport (CrossFit).
4. Always maximize efficiency
– although each athlete may have individual differences within their stroke, 9 out of 10 times a mechanical fault will lead into poor efficiency and hence a higher level of exertion. Not to contrast with statement #3 – every athlete may have individualized settings and mechanics, but if those altered mechanics produce inefficiencies they may produce a higher rate of exertion, but not a different power output. (less efficiency).
Example; Rowing at a damper of 7 may not produce a better performance than at damper 5, but it may leave the athlete with a very different fatigue level. This can be considered less efficient.
5. Even splits may be preferable to negative or positive splits
- When training longer intervals (1000-5000m) an even split may be preferable to a positive or negative split when it comes to optimizing times and efforts. A fly and dye approach (which most CrossFitters use) is not optimal for efficiency and fatigue levels. This goes back to point 3 – each athlete will need to find where they row best and understand their own performance values and abilities. Finding a time to maintain for a 2000m test may be more beneficial than trying to start at a fast rate and slowly decrease performances throughout. This would require an athlete to know their numbers and capabilities very well, but would produce optimal results.
Chad Benko
