Advertisement

Sports Medicine

, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 343–358 | Cite as

Measures of Rowing Performance

  • T. Brett Smith
  • Will G. Hopkins
Review Article Measures of Rowing Performance

Abstract

Accurate measures of performance are important for assessing competitive athletes in practical and research settings. We present here a review of rowing performance measures, focusing on the errors in these measures and the implications for testing rowers. The yardstick for assessing error in a performance measure is the random variation (typical or standard error of measurement) in an elite athlete’s competitive performance from race to race: ~1.0%for time in 2000m rowing events. There has been little research interest in on-water time trials for assessing rowing performance, owing to logistic difficulties and environmental perturbations in performance time with such tests. Mobile ergometry via instrumented oars or rowlocks should reduce these problems, but the associated errors have not yet been reported. Mea- surement of boat speed tomonitor on-water training performance is common; one device based on global positioning system (GPS) technology contributes negligible extra randomerror (0.2%) in speedmeasured over 2000m, but extra error is substantial (1‐10%) with other GPS devices or with an impeller, especially over shorter distances. The problems with on-water testing have led to widespread use of the Concept II rowing ergometer. The standard error of the estimate of on-water 2000m time predicted by 2000m ergometer perfor- mance was 2.6% and 7.2% in two studies, reflecting different effects of skill, body mass and environment in on-water versus ergometer performance. However, well trained rowers have a typical error in performance time of only ~0.5% between repeated 2000m time trials on this ergometer, so such trials are suitable for tracking changes in physiological performance and factors affecting it. Many researchers have used the 2000m ergometer performance time as a criterion to identify other predictors of rowing performance. Standard errors of the estimate vary widely between studies even for the same predictor, but the lowest errors (~1‐2%) have been observed for peak power output in an incremental test, some measures of lactate threshold and mea- sures of 30-second all-out power. Some of these measures also have typical error between repeated tests suitably low for tracking changes. Combining measures via multiple linear regression needs further investigation. In sum- mary, measurement of boat speed, especially with a good GPS device, has adequate precision for monitoring training performance, but adjustment for environmental effects needs to be investigated. Time trials on the Concept II ergometer provide accurate estimates of a rower’s physiological ability to output power, and some submaximal and brief maximal ergometer performance measures can be used frequently to monitor changes in this ability. On water performancemeasured via instrumented skiffs that determine individual power output may eventually surpass measures derived from the Concept II.

Keywords

Global Position System Time Trial Lactate Threshold Race Time Global Position System Device 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this review. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this review.

References

  1. 1.
    Hagerman FC, Hagerman GR, Mickelson TC. Physiological profiles of elite rowers. Phys Sportsmed 1979; 7: 74–81Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    De Campos Mello F, De Moraes Bertuzzi RC, Grangeiro PM, et al. Energy systems contributions in 2,000m race simulation: a comparison among rowing ergometers andwater. Eur J Appl Physiol 2009; 107: 615–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hagerman FC, Connors MC, Gault JA, et al. Energy expenditure during simulated rowing. J Appl Physiol 1978; 45: 87–93PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Secher NH. The physiology of rowing. J Sports Sci 1983; 1: 23–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mikulic P. Anthropometric and physiological profiles of rowers of varying ages and ranks. Kinesiology 2008; 40: 80–8Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shephard RJ. Science and medicine of rowing: a review. J Sports Sci 1998; 16: 603–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mäestu J, Jürimäe J, ürimäe T. Monitoring of performance and training in rowing. Sports Med 2005; 35: 597–617PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smith TB, Hopkins WG. Variability and predictability of finals times of elite rowers. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2011; 43 (11): 2155–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hopkins WG, Hawley JA, Burke LM. Design and analysis of research on sport performance enhancement. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999; 31: 472–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, et al. Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercisescience. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2009; 41: 3–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kleshnev V. Estimation of biomechanical parameters and propulsive efficiency of rowing. 1998 [online]. Availablefrom URL: (http://www.biorow.com/Papers.htm) [Accessed2011 Jan 17]Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kleshnev V. Propulsive efficiency of rowing In: Sanders RH, Gibson NR, editors. Proceedings of the XVII International Symposium on Biomechanics in Sports; 1999 Jun 30-Jul 6; Perth (WA): Perth (WA): School of Biomedical and SportScience, Edith Cowan University, 1999: 224–8Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    McArthur J. High performance rowing. Wiltshire: The Crowood Press, 1997Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kleshnev V. Prognostic times. Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter; 2005. 1Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Patterson A. Review of rowing technology. World Rowing Coaches Conference; 2011 Jan 22 Windsor. Lausanne: International Rowing Federation, 2011; 1–30Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Langmuir I. Surface motion of water induced by wind. Science 1938; 87: 119–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wu J. Wind-induced drift currents. J Fluid Mech 1975; 68: 49–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kleshnev V. Weather and boat speed. Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter; 2009: 1–3Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pulman C. The physics of rowing. Ithaca: University of Cambridge, 2005Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Witte TH, Wilson AM. Accuracy of non-differential GPS for the determination of speed over ground. J Biomech 2004; 37: 1891–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Duffield R, Reid M, Baker J, et al. Accuracy and reliability of GPS devices for measurement of movement patterns inconfined spaces for court-based sports. J Sci Med Sport 2010; 13: 523–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jennings D, Cormack S, Coutts AJ, et al. The validity and reliability of GPS units for measuring distance in teamsport specific running patterns. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2010; 5: 328–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Petersen C, Pyne D, Portus M, et al. Validity and reliability of GPS units to monitor cricket-specific movement patterns. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2009; 4: 381–93PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pyne DB, Petersen C, Higham DG, et al. Comparison of 5- and 10-hz gps technology for team sport analysis [abstract]. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2010; 42: 78Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Caplan N, Gardner T. Modeling the influence of crew movement on boat velocity fluctuations during the rowingstroke. Int J Sports Sci Engng 2007; 1: 165–76Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hill H, Fahrig S. The impact of fluctuations in boat velocity during the rowing cycle on race time. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2009; 19: 585–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vogler A, Lindg A, Rice A. Accuracy and reliability of Minimaxx GPS technology in rowing [abstract]. In: Cabri J, Alves F, Araújo D, et al., editors. Proceedings of the 13th Annual Congress of the European College of Sport Science; 2008 Jul 9-12. Gamlebyen grafiske; 2008: 413 [online]. Available from URL: (http://www.ecss.mobi/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=323&Itemid=109) [Accessed 2012 Feb 21]Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kleshnev V. Comparison of measurements of the force at the oar handle and at the gate or pin. Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter 2010: 1–3Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Baudouin A, Hawkins D. Investigation of biomechanical factors affecting rowing performance. J Biomech 2004; 37: 969–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Smith R, Galloway M, Patton R, et al. Analysing on-water rowing performance. Sports Coach 1994; 17: 37–40Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lamb DH. A kinematic comparison of ergometer and onwater rowing. Am J Sports Med 1989; 17: 367–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kleshnev V. Comparison of on-water rowing with its simulation on Concept2 and Rowperfect machines. In: Wang Q, editor. Scientific proceedings of the XXIIIth InternationalSymposium on Biomechanics in Sports; 2005 Aug 22-7. Beijing. Konstanz: International Society of Biomechanicsin Sports, 2005: 130–3Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dawson RG, Lockwood RJ, Wilson JD, et al. The rowing cycle: sources of variance and invariance in ergometerand on-the-water performance. J Motor Behav 1998; 30: 33–43Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hahn A, Bourdon P, Tanner R. Protocols for the physiological assessment of rowers. In: Gore CJ, editor. Physiological tests for elite athletes. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 2000: 311–26Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vogler AJ, Rice AJ, Withers RT. Physiological responses to exercise on different models of the concept II rowing ergometer. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2007; 2: 360–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Benson A, Abendroth J, King D, et al. Comparison of rowing on a Concept 2 stationary and dynamic ergometer. J Sports Sci Med 2011; 10: 267–73Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Holsgaard-Larsen A, Jensen K. Ergometer rowing with and without slides. Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 870–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Colloud F, Bahuaud P, Doriot N, et al. Fixed versus freefloating stretcher mechanism in rowing ergometers: mechanicalaspects. J Sports Sci 2006; 24: 479–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Elliott E, Lyttle A, Birkett O. The RowPerfect Ergometer: a training aid for on-water single scull rowing. Sports Biomech 2002; 1: 123–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jurimae J, Maestu J, Jurimae T, et al. Prediction of rowing performance on single sculls from metabolic and anthropometricvariables. J Hum Movement Stud 2000; 38: 123–36Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nevill AM, Beech C, Holder RL, et al. Scaling concept II rowing ergometer performance for differences in bodymass to better reflect rowing in water. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2010; 20: 122–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mikulic P, Smoljanovi T, Bojani I, et al. Relationship between 2000-m rowing ergometer performance times andWorld Rowing Championships rankings in elite-standardrowers. J Sports Sci 2009; 27: 907–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mikulic P, Smoljanovic T, Bojanic I, et al. Does 2000-m rowing ergometer performance time correlate with finalrankings at the World Junior Rowing Championship? A case study of 398 elite junior rowers. J Sports Sci 2009; 27: 361–6Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schabort EJ, Hawley JA, Hopkins WG, et al. High reliability of performance of well-trained rowers on a rowingergometer. J Sports Sci 1999; 17: 627–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Soper C, Hume PA. Reliability of power output during rowing changes with ergometer type and race distance. Sports Biomech 2004; 3: 237–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hopkins WG, Schabort EJ, Hawley JA. Reliability of power in physical performance tests. Sports Med 2001; 31: 211–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bourdin M, Messonnier L, Hager JP, et al. Peak power output predicts rowing ergometer performance in elitemale rowers. Int J Sports Med 2004; 25: 368–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cosgrove MJ, Wilson J, Watt D, et al. The relationship between selected physiological variables of rowers and rowingperformance as determined by a 2000m ergometer test. J Sports Sci 1999; 17: 845–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Faff J, Bienko A, Burkhard-Jagodzinska K, et al. Diagnostic value of indices derived from the critical power test in assessingthe anaerobic work capacity of rowers. Biol Sport 1993; 10: 9–14Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Gillies EM, Bell GJ. The relationship of physical and physiological parameters to 2000m simulated rowing performance. Res Sports Med 2000; 9: 277–88Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Nevill AM, Allen SV, Ingham SA. Modelling the determinants of 2000m rowing ergometer performance: a proportional,curvilinear allometric approach. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2011; 21: 73–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Riechman SE, Zoeller RF, Balasekaran G, et al. Prediction of 2000m indoor rowing performance using a 30 s sprintand maximal oxygen uptake. J Sports Sci 2002; 20: 681–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Russell AP, Le Rossignol PF, Sparrow WA. Prediction of elite schoolboy 2000-m rowing ergometer performancefrom metabolic, anthropometric and strength variables. J Sports Sci 1998; 16: 749–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Womack CJ, Davis SE, Wood CM, et al. Effects of training on physiological correlates of rowing ergometry performance. J Str Cond Res 1996; 10: 234–8Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Bourdon PC, David AZ, Buckley JD. A single exercise test for assessing physiological and performance parameters in eliterowers: The 2-in-1 test. J Sci Med Sport 2009; 12: 205–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hopkins WG. Adjusting regression statistics to assess validity of measures in different populations. In: Loland S, BØ K, Fasting K, et al., editors. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Congress of the European College of Sport Science; 2009 Jun 24-7; Oslo. Oslo: Gamlebyen grafiske, 2009: 413Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sport & Leisure StudiesUniversity of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand
  2. 2.Sport Performance Research Institute NZAUT UniversityAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations