Make...It...Stop...

MedPage published a review of the IOC's new treatment guidelines for the female athlete triad. In the review, the writer quotes the guidelines' authors as saying, "Disordered eating with athletes typically involves a willful attempt by the athlete to create a negative energy balance. Part of this attempt is based on the premise that a thinner or leaner body can enhance performance (e.g., lightweight rowing, distance running) and/or a thinner appearance can render a better score in sports that are judged (e.g., diving, figure skating, gymnastics)."

Catch the problem here? Lightweight rowers do not believe that a thinner or leaner body, once below weight, enhances athletic performance. And making weight is done because it is required, not because lower weight enhances performance. There is absolutely no incentive to lose weight below 130 pounds. The incentive is to be as close to 130 as possible, while still ensuring that you make weight. No rower in her right mind would want to create a "negative energy balance." Of course, an individual with an eating disorder could be seen as not being in her "right mind." The point here, however, is that unlike non-athletes, lightweight rowers actually have an incentive not to create this negative energy balance. This would suggest that any worries about what making weight does to the fragile psyche of those delicate lightweights is balanced by the offsetting incentive not to go below 130.

One of the worries about the proposal to add hydration testing to lightweight weigh-ins is that it DOES provide an incentive to go below 130. Some weight would need to be reserved for water alone. Because you can never know for certain before actual testing on race day if you meet the hydration requirement, you'll have to drop below 130 to make room for the extra water you'll have to consume.

By the way, the actual Olympic triad guidelines mentions a study by Brownell and Rodin which it says suggests that "athletes have more problems with eating, dieting, and body image than nonathletes, and the problem appears to be greatest in sports in which there is an emphasis on thinness, either for performance or appearance. Athletes most at risk would be those involved not only in sports that emphasize a thin body size or shape (e.g.,
distance running) but also in sports that utilize weight categories (e.g., rowing, martial arts)..." I don't have Brownell and Rodin's book so I can't read what they actually conclude, but as usual the statement is mushy. Rodin, however, is the former president of Penn - maybe that's why there are no lightweights there?

Just a Question...

What are "openweight" women? Men are lightweight men and heavyweight men, but women are lightweight women and "openweight" women. My spellchecker flags the word and it doesn't seem to show up in other sports. (Well, that's not quite true.)

Dayton Notes Lightweights' Success

A University of Dayton press release listed the lightweight eight's achievement of reaching a #6 national ranking in the USRowing poll in 2005 (also their final ranking in FITD's Best in Show!). Somehow they missed the fact that they won Dad Vail!

Tis' the Season?

Another article about women athletes with eating disorders appeared on Monday. This is two in about a week and a half.

These stories all have the same flaws. They talk about "eating disorders" which includes simple dieting (according to the American College of Sports Medicine), they don't compare female athletes to female college students, and they substitute intuition for facts when suggesting that lightweight rowers are more at risk.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, as long as dieting is considered disordered eating, 98% of college women evidence disordered eating. These researchers do themselves a great disservice here because when I see the words "disordered eating" I know that what follows is essentially useless to me. Yes, some serious eating problems are also included in disordered eating but using the broader category is not helpful.

This article actually does present some numbers. The first statistic is that about 1/3 of female athletes have some type of disordered eating. Huh? Can you imagine only 1/3 of college women answering "no" to a question like, "Over the past six months, have you dieted?" What was their definition of disordered eating? Again, this is useless. The next statistic is that 43% of female college athletes said they were "terrified" of becoming too heavy! "Terrified?" I'm terrified when I open my closet and find the Alien in there. I'm terrified when my parachute doesn't open. I'm terrified when... well, you get the idea. This has to be BS, and therefore, useless. Finally we learn that "2% to 3% of female college athletes have full-fledged, diagnosable eating disorders." Then we learn that this is, uhh, about the same as the general population. My next question - "How does that compare to the college female population?" Athletes may actually be lower, but we aren't told.

Then we have the gratuititous lightweight rowing comment, "Female athletes who seem especially vulnerable to disordered eating and excessive exercise are in either the 'thin-build sports' or activities that require a lean body weight, such as ... lightweight rowing, says Beals." [Emphasis mine.] Is this an opinion or a study result?

Eating disorders are a terrible, life threatening problem, but I've yet to see anything to suggest that they are a greater problem among lightweight rowers.

New Weigh-In Procedure?

A reader wrote in a comment to the CRCA post that the CRCA lightweight committee is re-evaluating weigh-ins and is advocating that part of the weigh-in procedure will be a urinalysis. This test would measure hydration. I discussed these tests before and noted that it is very easy to turn up as dehydrated. My guess (and that's all it is) is that if you or I were tested right now we'd both show up as dehydrated. The problem is that the only way to ensure you pass this test is to overhydrate. Even a rower whose natural weight is 130 pounds, just the kind of woman you'd want rowing lightweight, can't risk overhydrating before a weigh-in. Does this mean she's taking risks with her health? Of course not. It means she weighs 130 and can't afford to be bloated with water before a weigh-in. This procedure may actually result in rowers losing weight to 125 so they can fill up with 5 pounds of water before weighing-in.

Trying to get a handle on weight control issues is a good thing. The problem is that no test or rule will ever really work. The only thing that works is having responsible coaches in focused lightweight programs working with good trainers. As this reader noted, serious lightweight programs have trainers and team doctors who weigh rowers away from coaches to make sure weight control is being handled properly.

2006 Season Preview - University of Central Florida

UCF will be a team to watch this spring. Except for a bad race at Dad Vail, they had a good season last year. Although during the season they lost to some of the same teams they lost to at Dad Vail, I don't think their 4th place finish there reflected their true speed at the end of the year. A drop from 6th (2004) to 7th (2005) at IRAs may not sound good either, but they got pipped by Stanford in their IRA heat and were relegated to the petites. Had they made the grand final they may very well have beaten Stanford. I think UCF is serious about lightweights and within a year or two they should be a model for how to become national players.

I have to say, the UCF schedule listing is one of the most uninformative listings around. Every race is a named race so no opponents are listed. The first four races listed are the Metro Cup (which I thought was with Rollins), the Rollins Invitational, the Rollins Tri-Meet, and the Spring Break Race. Sounds like a lot of racing with Rollins, which doesn't usually put out a lightweight boat. I guess we just don't know who they'll be racing, but given that I can't think of any Florida crews who can really give UCF a run for their money, I'll consider these races early season tune ups.

In early April UCF travels to Camden, NJ for the Knecht Cup. As I mentioned below, this has become a premiere race for lightweights and this will provide the Golden Knights' first real test. UCF doesn't race again for a month or so, when they head out to California for the Pacific Coast Rowing Championships. This race should give UCF an opportunity to avenge losses last year to Stanford and UCSB. Unfortunately this race takes the place of Dad Vail on UCF's schedule. There was only a five boat V8 race at Dad Vail last year so UCF will be sorely missed. It is good, however, to see some intense lightweight racing on the west coast and it does give the rowers a great trip to look forward to. UCF's coach came from USD which no doubt played into her decision to bring the team (heavies go too) to California. The PCRC is followed three weeks later by the national championship race at IRAs.

I have no doubt that UCF will belong at IRAs this year and I expect they'll be ready to put on a good show. It looks like last year's IRA boat only lost the coxswain to graduation so they should be at least as fast again this year.

CRCA Update

Stephen Kish wrote me to say that in fact, Cecil Tucker, Radcliffe's lightweight coach, took over the chairmanship of the CRCA lightweight committee the day after he left office. The notes and minutes on the web site made it seem as though there might have been some difficulty in filling the spot - apparently that's not the case.

I think that Cecile Tucker's chairmanship is especially good news. While Kish's crew, Bucknell, does (and intends to continue doing) some serious lightweight rowing, he is head women's coach and also has to concern himself with heavyweights. Tucker will not have these dual loyalties. In addition, Radcliffe's role in the development of women's collegiate lightweight rowing was seminal and I think the school has a real interest in seeing it grow.

The CRCA, though, seems to be the Trilateral Commission of collegiate rowing - just what are those guys up to? And in particular, what does the lightweight committee do?

Is There a Benefit?

So is there a benefit to having a NCAA championship? I can only think of two. First, there are no doubt some athletic directors who don't consider a sport a sport unless it has a NCAA championship. If such a championship would cause more schools to race lightweights, that's a benefit. Maybe more important though, is the organization the NCAA provides. By organization, I mean the self organization such as that found in the CRCA as well as the NCAA's committees. The CRCA supposedly concerns itself with lightweights but it currently doesn't even have a chairman of the lightweight committee (Stephen Kish has taken another role).

Speaking of committees, just who are these NCAA committee members? You can find them here. You'll see that there are some schools represented that have lightweights, but it's doubtful that the individual representatives care about, or even know much about, lightweight rowing. Bryn Mawr's representative is the tennis coach!

Lightweight coaches though, could create their own organization to govern the sport. I'm not talking about a revolution, simply a group to make rules, address issues of interest to lightweights, and yes, promote the sport. Does this exist?

The NCAA Talks Lightweight Rowing - Comments

The NCAA's answers to my questions (see below) amounted to a punt. A punt because the answer to most of the questions was, "We do whatever the membership wants." I'm not suggesting that this is wrong or untrue, only that it seems a bit disingenuous for the most powerful sports governing body in the country to act as if they only do the will of their members. Nonetheless, let's look at each question.

As for the question of whether the NCAA intends to make lightweight women's rowing an NCAA sport (for better or for worse), the answer is no. Of course, it's up to the rowing committees, and they apparently have no interest. In fact, viewing rowing strictly as a team sport, it appears that lightweights would almost never have a NCAA championship because a lightweight eight would have to be made a component of the team. This is why a reader wrote a week or two back to say that the best move to help lightweights get a championship would be for rowing to move from a team sport to an individual sport. Currently, however, some V8s are invited to the NCAAs without the rest of the team when the full team doesn't deserve an invitation, which suggests that if desired, lightweight eights could be invited as single boats also. It's far from certain, by the way, that a NCAA championship would be good for lightweights, but it probably would signify an increase in popularity.

The NCAA states that to be considered for a championship 40 schools would have to sponsor lightweight rowing. As my previous research shows, well over 40 schools race lightweights, although only 30 or so lightweight V8s race. With a championship invitation at stake, however, I think the schools racing only fours would be able to find their way to racing eights. I don't think the 40 threshold is a problem.

I thought the next two answers were very interesting. The NCAA said that schools themselves determine if they have to follow NCAA rules with their lightweight programs (recruiting, etc.), depending on how the institution counts the sport. What does that mean? How CAN an institution count the sport? I suppose it refers to my next question, which asks if lightweights count for Title IX purposes. The NCAA's answer is that this is an institutional decision. I suppose that is really a trick question because, although I'm not an expert, I think that if a school is sued under Title IX, it will not be the NCAA making the determination to sue or not. Which sports count will be up to a judge or jury. Ultimately, I don't see how the NCAA has any leverage at all over a sport for which they don't offer a championship, which would suggest that lightweight programs are on their own. Nearly all varsity programs, however, follow NCAA guidelines because it would be too hard to separate out what the lightweights are doing versus what the rest of the teams are doing.

The NCAA says that it would be very complicated trying to hold other championships (men's and lightweights') with the heavy women. I really can't imagine why - a fair, well run regatta is fair and well run for everyone.

In answering the last question, the NCAA suggests that rowers care much more about winning a championship sponsored by the NCAA than one that is not. I don't understand why this would be so. People worked pretty darn hard to win championships before the NCAA and those not under the NCAA's rule still work hard to win them.

There was a lot of talk here about growing the sport, but there was never any inkling that supporting lightweight rowing might aid that growth. But then again, it's all up to the membership, isn't it?

(Gratuitous insult - when "NCAA's" is spell checked with Blogger's spellcheck, the suggested word is Nazis.)

The NCAA Talks Lightweight Rowing

A few weeks ago I sent seven questions to Tina Krah, Associate Director of Championships, who handles the women's heavyweight championship for the NCAA. My purpose was to try to get a better understanding of the NCAA's view toward women's lightweight rowing. My questions and Tina's answers, both unedited, are below.


1. Do you intend to make lightweight women’s rowing a NCAA sport? If not, why not?

The NCAA National Office does not determine what the format is for any of the championships, the committees do. At this point in time, the NCAA Rowing committees, made up of college coaches and administrators, do not have intentions to add lightweight rowing to the women's championship format. We have had and will continue to have discussions on the format as well as what defines a team at all three divisions. Presently, Division I defines a team as I Eight - II Eight - Four; Division II defines a team as I Eight and Four; Division III defines a team as I Eight and II Eight.


2. Is there a minimum number of schools that have to race lightweight women’s boats before you consider sponsoring a NCAA championship?

Certainly to add lightweight rowing we would want to know the membership feels there is a desire to add this event to the format. I do not believe there is magic number of institutions that needs to have lightweight rowing. Presently, for the women sports, we would need to have 40 institutions sponsoring the sport to consider it for a championship. Since we have the championship in place it would be a matter of considering if lightweight rowing is what the membership wants to add this to the present championship format. As stated in the previous answer the committee has been discussing the championship format with the rowing coaches.


3. Since the NCAA doesn’t sponsor a lightweight women’s championship, do schools have to follow NCAA guidelines in their lightweight women’s programs (recruiting, etc.)?

The institutions would determine this. It would depend how the institution is counting the sport on their individual campuses. It is not determined by whether there is a championship or not.


4. Do varsity lightweight crew programs count as a women’s sport for Title IX purposes?

This is an institutional decision.


5. Is it the NCAA’s intent to discourage women’s lightweight rowing?

The national rowing committee has been in discussions with the rowing coaches to determine how to continue to grow the sport of rowing. We have not discouraged any event. The decisions to add or change the format of the championship are driven by the membership. The rowing committee continues to look to the membership for direction.


6. Why is the heavyweight women’s championship regatta separate from the men’s and lightweight women’s championship?

The NCAA championships are exclusive to the events that are considered for crowning the champion. If the lightweight events would want to be held at the same time but not be included into the NCAA championships there would be restrictions on how the lightweight event would be run. There would be several issues and would be complicated in having both events at the same time especially since at this point in time we do not have a men's championship. You would have to keep the events completely separate.


7. What do you think has been the major benefit NCAA sponsorship has brought women’s heavyweight rowing?

I am sure for every sport on a college campus the ultimate accomplishment is winning a national championship not only for the schools but more importantly the student athletes. The fact that rowing has been determined as a team sport the direction collegiate rowing has been heading is (as far as championships) is to keep the team concepts in place. I would hope establishing an NCAA championship in women's rowing has given those student athletes that have a passion for the sport an opportunity they did not have previously on their campus. I would also hope it has aided in continuing to grow the sport at all levels. The fact we have a championship in all three divisions shows there has been growth in the sport.


My comments follow in the next post.

2006 Season Preview - Lehigh

It's almost February, some crews have already gone south for water time, others will be headed there in the coming days and weeks. In about eight weeks the season will be in full swing. Plenty of erg days lay ahead, but soon we'll be slipping and sliding on icy docks as we carry our boats to the water. (If you row in the south, well, please gloat silently.) With all this in mind, it's a good time to look ahead at the coming season. Most schools have published their spring schedules, so I'll take a look at what will be some highlights. I'll go through school by school, starting with last year's number 10 V8 and ending with last year's number 1. Doing one or two teams each week brings us to the season. By the way, since I have the only season ending ranking, by default my ranking is the OFFICIAL national ranking.

This week we start with Lehigh. It can be problematic to do a preview for some of these programs because we can't even be sure they will race a lightweight boat, much less know which races on their schedule will include a lightweight race. In Lehigh's case, they have raced lightweight boats in 2004 and 2005, so I'll assume they will continue, and press on.

Lehigh begins the season on the Schuylkill in Philadelphia against Delaware and St. Joe's. Delaware doesn't race lightweights but St. Joe's often does, so there may be a light eight or four race that day. St. Joe's has the potential to make some noise in the lightweight ranks so if they race a light eight this year, this will be a good test for both. The next week is Villanova in Philly. Villanova often puts out lightweight boats so there may be another opportunity to race. Lehigh may just as well camp out along the Schuylkill because the following week is the Murphy Cup. The Murphy Cup usually has a good field of light fours.

April Fool's Day brings the rivalry race against Lafayette. In 2004 a light eight was contested while in 2005 only a light four was raced. Whatever is raced this year, Lehigh needs to win it if they hope to play any national role.

The following week is the Knecht Cup in Camden. The Knecht Cup has become one of the premier lightweight women's events, but Lehigh hasn't raced it recently. If they have a serious light boat, this is chance to find out what it's made of. The next race with lightweight possibilities is a dual with Bucknell. Bucknell wasn't a factor last year, but they are getting serious about lightweights so maybe they'll have a varsity boat to pit against Lehigh. If so, this will be a key race for Lehigh. The Patriot League Championship follows. This may or may not have a lightweight race so it probably won't be a highlight. Next come Dad Vails and IRAs to end the season.

Early races are just that - early races. They are important for training, less important for results. The Knecht Cup will be big, but still a bit early. The Bucknell race is late enough, however, that if both crews are racing lightweight eights, this will be a key match-up and can provide some good momentum entering the championship season. Of course, if Lehigh doesn't actually race a lightweight eight this year - NEVER MIND! [Update: Lehigh has confirmed that they will be racing lightweights this spring.]

Next up is the University of Central Florida.

Dropping Dangerously

When I first saw this article in the Columbia Spectator, I thought, "Uh oh, here we go again." When I read it, though, I found it to be a fairly reasonable look at weight issues in lightweight rowing. Columbia only has men's lightweight crew, but for the most part the issues are similar. The author took the time to interview Columbia's trainer and lightweight coach, which added to the depth of the information.

Because Columbia has wrestling, it was included in the article along with lightweight crew. This, I think, unfairly suggests that the weight issues in the two sports are similar. In wrestling, because it has multiple weight classes, every athlete is dropping weight. In rowing, with one weight limit, many athletes (most?) don't have to lose any weight at all or are simply monitoring their weight.

Columbia's head trainer draws an important but rarely made distinction between eating disorders and disordered eating. Eating disorders among female lightweight rowers are no more common than they are among the general college age population (I owe you backup for that statement). Meanwhile, disordered eating, which I've never seen actually defined in the many studies that discuss it among athletes, is sometimes found to be prevalent among female athletes (more backup required). In the absence of a definition of that term, I am left to believe that anyone on a diet is guilty of disordered eating. Do you know any college age woman not on a diet? That doesn't make the practice healthy, it just makes it not the result of lightweight rowing. In fact, because lightweight rowers actually have to perform athletically, their diets are generally better than the binge diets to which most college women succumb. "Disordered eating" is the term seen when a researcher has just finished another inconclusive study on female athletes and eating disorders, but intuitively believes there must be a positive correlation - Didn't see any eating disorders, but did see a lot of disordered eating (women on diets).

An interesting claim made in the article is that lightweight rowing is particularly at risk because it is not regulated by the NCAA. Given the NCAA's effect on rowing so far... Actually, the NCAA could be a force for good here if it required programs or leagues to develop their own weight monitoring plans. Unfortunately the NCAA's modus operandi is to require an NCAA developed plan which would undoubtedly be less than satisfactory. Incidentally, as mentioned in the article, most (probably all) varsity lightweight programs have such a plan. In my experience, those schools with serious lightweight women's crews monitor the heck out of them. Health "problems" are uncovered and corrected in lightweights that no doubt exist in 95% of the student population (e.g. slight anemia, slight dehydration). In the case of lightweight women's rowing, though, we see how the NCAA has chosen to address any perceived problems - pretend it doesn't exist and maybe it will go away.

I think that the overall impression the article gives, however, is fairly accurate. Lightweight rowing, like every other sport, can cause health problems if not properly implemented and left in the hands of uneducated coaches and administrators, but it rarely is. Rather, nearly all serious lightweight programs are in the hands of capable coaches, trainers, and administrators who understand that the sport is for lightweights, not wannabe lightweights, and that the way to win is to maintain strength and health while rowing better than your opponents. The answer to any problems isn't found in fewer programs, but rather in more focused programs.

(I've promised a review of health studies of lightweight women rowers and it is coming.)

Why Aren't There More Lightweight Programs (cont.)?

A few months back I began discussing the first of three reasons given me by the head coach of a women’s heavyweight program at an Ivy League school for why there aren’t more lightweight programs. The first reason covered was a lack of resources. The second reason given, which I’ll discuss now, was that many schools have “close-to lightweights rowing in priority boats.”

The argument here is that pulling lightweights into their own program would slow down the heavy boats. The major heavyweight schools, those that hope to win the NCAAs each year, generally don’t have lightweights in their priority boats. Of course, there are a few exceptions that prove the rule (Kok atVirginia and Peters at Columbia), but the recruiting scavenger hunt that heavyweight coaches conduct each year just doesn’t result in lightweights. This argument, therefore, does not apply to the major heavyweight programs and they are back to claiming poverty.

So what about the smaller schools? There is no question that there are lightweights rowing in heavyweight boats at Dad Vail schools and some of the smaller Division I schools. These schools need to take a hard look at the size of women they can recruit (this is mostly on-campus recruiting), the success they’ve had as heavyweights, and the likelihood that they can recruit ever larger girls, and then decide where they can have the most success. Why get knocked out in the semis of the Dad Vail heavy eight when with some focus you might be able to win the light eight (see Dayton)? And, the Dad Vail winner always has a good shot at making the IRA final. The Dad Vail heavyweight winner is sitting at home during NCAAs while the lightweight winner is racing for the national championship at IRAs. Do they compare? There will always be heavyweight programs that race lightweight when it turns out that they have enough for a boat. Why aren’t there lightweight programs that race heavyweight when they have enough heavies for a boat? Villanova seemed to spend a couple of years doing that and they won the lightweight national championship at IRAs. Then they started to concentrate on heavyweights and now they occasionally bounce in and out of the Dad Vail medals. Once they stopped focusing on lightweights, they gave up their chance to win a national championship. Can lightweights be that hard to find on college campuses? We’ve already seen that a typical lightweight falls into the national average size for college age women.

Programs that think pulling lightweights into their own boats would hurt their heavy eights should reassess their programs. They might realize that trying to boat a heavy eight every year is eliminating their chance to win the lightweight national championship. I understand that the heavyweights are seen as more glamorous (racing wise, I mean) than the lightweights, but I also know that winning an IRA medal is more glamorous than sitting at home hitting the refresh button on your computer during NCAAs.

IRAs

In a press release announcing heavyweight coach Lori Dauphiny's talk at the NCAA press conference announcing the location of the heavyweight national championships, Princeton describes the IRAs as the "national championships for both men's crew and women's lightweight crew." It's nice to see someone describe the IRAs as the lightweight national championship. I wonder if Princeton's proud heritage of national championship lightweight crews has anything to do with that? Speaking of which, why aren't the NCAA championships referred to as the women's heavyweight national championship, because that is what they are?

A10 Polls

Dayton took note of its ranking in the recently released A10 poll. The ranking is a team ranking, not a boat ranking (I'm still not sure I get that), so it does not address lightweights specifically. Dayton's release notes that the lightweight 8+ was ranked as high as 13th nationally in 2005. No poll is done at the end of the season and I had Dayton at number 6 at year end.

Among lightweights this year, my guess is that the A10 will come down to a battle between Dayton and URI, although St. Joe's has the capacity to put out a fast 8+. Nonetheless, with 6 rowers returning from last year's 8+, I think Dayton is the boat to beat in the A10.

Will the NCAA Continue to Tear Rowing Apart?

In one of my earlier scoops (you heard it here first), I discussed the Pac-10's proposal to make men's rowing an NCAA sport with an NCAA championship. Well, here's the proposal.

This is all about some Pac-10 men worrying that their competition has more scholarships. The proposal does not mention lightweight men (or women, of course) so it's not clear what happens to them. If there is a NCAA championship regatta for heavyweight men, lightweight women would not be able to race there. According to the NCAA's separate but equal doctrine, the sexes and weights may not mix. The potential for damage to lightweight rowing is great here - I wonder if lightweight coaches have focused on it?

If the NCAA wants a model for a sport that treats women and men the same, maybe they should look at rowing. Both sexes compete in exactly the same manner, using exactly the same equipment, and train exactly the same way. In some events, they even compete together (mixed boats). What is more equal than that? Why does the NCAA (and now the Pac-10 men) want to tear this apart?

Stanford is Recruiting Lightweights

Stanford's recruiting announcement for lightweights includes a FAQ that I think makes a couple of interesting points.

First it notes that over half of the current lightweight team learned to row in college. The number of experienced rowers is no doubt inflated by recent recruiting success because it was certainly lower a few years ago. Nonetheless, a few years ago Stanford was still placing in the top five at IRAs. This shows the importance of focusing on a lightweight program versus worrying about whether you have experience. Any national championship lightweight eight has rowers who never rowed before college. Even the experienced rowers simply found out that they love the sport early. If they made it to college not having rowed before, they would still have made the boat.

Another interesting point is that Stanford crew has one of the highest GPAs of all varsity teams on campus. This is generally true among all colleges and most (all?) of the more stringent academic institutions look to the crew programs to raise the overall varsity sport GPA.

UCF to Skip Dad Vail

In a release announcing its participation in the Windemere Cup Regatta, UCF also announced that its lightweights would skip the Dad Vail Regatta to race in the Pacific Coast Rowing Championships. There is no mention whether the lightweights will race in Seattle. Coach Leeanne Crain previously coached at the University of San Diego and understandably has a soft spot for West Coast rowing.

This is a bittersweet announcement. On the one hand it further depletes an already small lightweight eight field at the Vails. Maybe UCF thinks it's no great loss missing the Vails since it can race the top east coast lightweights at IRAs. On the other hand, last year's Vails was a bad race for UCF and you might think they'd want to regain some respect. The reality, though, is that it might be tough to take the heavyweights to the west coast and not take the lightweights.

On the plus side, this brings some good competition to the west coast. Lightweight rowing can be a bit sparse there, so UCF's appearance is a boost for the regatta. UCF almost beat Stanford at last year's IRAs so the PCRC race should be a good one.

Is Lightweight Rowing a "Dying Animal?"

Thinking about how many schools race lightweight women’s boats brings to mind a series of posts that appeared on the Rowers’ World message boards back in November. Several people were lamenting the low number of serious men’s lightweight programs and made some comments that are often applied to both men’s and women’s lightweight rowing. The gist of the discussion was that “lightweight rowing is a dying animal” and that only the Sprints schools have any real interest in perpetuating it.

The arguments seem to be, 1) USRowing doesn’t support lightweight rowing, 2) there are few Olympic lightweight events, 3) only the Sprints schools are competitive at the collegiate level and anyone else who tries to race them gets smoked. These same arguments are often applied to women’s lightweights so let’s forget about the men right now and just concern ourselves with women.

I think it’s true that USRowing doesn’t support lightweight rowing, but I also think this will change. Some of this change will come more quickly because with the USOC emphasis on medal count, USRowing must emphasize small boats. In a quantitative world a lightweight 2x gold counts as much as an 8+ gold. We see the national team already emphasizing small boats and those coaches will love whichever boat offers the best chance of medaling, lightweight or not. Secondly, I believe that FISA will begin to emphasize lightweight rowing more. Given that the Olympic lightweight events constantly seem to be in danger of elimination, this may sound crazy, but the recent vote on the elimination of all of rowing has made FISA understand that the sport needs to become more popular around the world. What’s the best way to do that? More lightweight events so even nations with athletes of smaller stature can compete. If lightweight rowing becomes more prominent internationally, it will be encouraged at the collegiate level.

I continue to believe that the argument that there is no point in boating a lightweight 8+ because you’ll just get smoked by the Sprints schools is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Schools put together half hearted light eights, send them to IRAs, and then wonder why they bothered when they don’t come close to the top tier. Well guess what – those schools that get their lightweight butts handed to them at IRAs would also get their heavyweight butts handed to them by Sprints schools. I say would because their heavyweights don’t even get invited to the NCAAs (the poor stepsister to the IRAs for heavyweight women). The priority boat in these programs (ECAC and Dad Vail schools) is the heavy eight and still they would get hammered by the Sprints schools. So what exactly is the point here? In fact, only in lightweight events can these schools get anywhere near a national championship (other than breaking into Div I and Div II as the heavies do).

This is where we usually hear the argument that putting together a lightweight 8+ would pull rowers from the heavy 8+, making that boat slower. This is undoubtedly true, but why would coaches prefer to win Dad Vail or ECAC than win the light eight at IRAs? If they think it’s more prestigious to win the heavy eight at Dad Vail than the light eight at IRA, there’s a serious image problem. In fact, we all know that there is a serious image problem with lightweight rowing, and it’s a problem propagated by certain coaches, athletic administrators, and doctors. These people want us to believe that women can’t control their weight without becoming anorexic or bulimic. This greatest of rowing canards creates tremendous pressure against lightweights and keeps the IRA champions from getting their proper due. If Wisconsin’s lights were celebrated as much as Cal’s heavies last year, if lightweight results counted in team points at major regattas, if Rowing News talked about the Wisco Era as they talk about the Harvard Era, schools might actually aspire to race lightweights. (Wisconsin gets it.) In the process they would give more rowers a chance to compete at a higher level of excellence and win more races.

How Many Lightweight Programs Are There? (cont.)

(Continuing with my last two posts, below)
So, what conclusions might we walk out on a limb and draw from this data?

- Women'’s lightweight rowing is strong (stronger than I might have thought) and may actually be growing. The boats that win Sprints and IRAs are at the top of a very big heap, a much bigger heap than most of the rowing world believes.

- If more regattas offered lightweight events, it seems as though there would be more consistent lightweight crews. If this is true, it wouldn'’t happen at once, because teams would have to believe that the events will be there on a regular basis before they would be willing to actually commit to them.

- These numbers, and experience with Dad Vail and ECAC level crews, suggests that the number of lightweight rowers is large, even though the big scholarship programs don'’t have lightweights at all.

- Low lightweight entries at a regatta like the Eastern Sprints reflects few Eastern Sprints schools with lightweights, not few schools throughout the country.

- The relatively large gap in speed from the top lightweight eights to the next group is a result of focus, not lack of rowers. Those schools that are beginning to focus on lightweights are moving into the top ranks. For examples look at Georgetown and Stanford. Now that URI and UCF are beginning to focus there, we'’ll see how they progress.

How Many Lightweight Programs Are There? (cont.)

(Continuing with my last post, below)
Of the 71 schools racing lightweight boats in 2005, 20 did not race lightweights in 2004. Conversely, 23 schools did not race lightweights in 2005, but did in 2004. Among those racing eights, 15 schools dropped off after 2004 and 9 started in 2005, while among fours 18 dropped after 2004 and 23 picked up in 2005. I also wondered about the movement between eights and fours. Of the 9 additional schools racing eights in 2005, 6 raced fours in 2004. Among fours, of the 23 adds in 2005, 17 raced eights in 2004.

Assuming that these two years are typical years (which I cannot support statistically), there seems to be about 50 schools that consistently race lightweights, with another 40 (roughly 20 drops and 20 adds from ’04 to ’05) moving in and out over the years. This totals up to 90, which is similar to the 85 to 90 I got from adding the CRCA schools to either the 2004 or 2005 totals. By the way, the CRCA list totaled 53 schools which is, of course, darn close to the 50 consistent lightweight schools I’ve just calculated. So, although I really can’t say that this result is statistically sound, it sure feels pretty good. My conclusion, then, is that there are about 85 to 90 schools racing women’s lightweight boats at least every few years.

A few interesting points about these drops and adds. Purdue, winner of the lightweight eight at the 2004 Dad Vail, didn’t even race an eight in 2005. They did race a heavyweight eight, finishing fourth. Meanwhile Dayton, winner of the Dad Vail lightweight eight in 2005, didn’t race an eight in 2004 (although it did race the eight elsewhere in ’04). Dayton did not race any women’s boats at the ’04 Dad Vail. Perhaps Dayton saw the light in ’05 and concentrated on lightweights, believing (correctly) that they had a better chance there. The Purdue coach, though, needs to answer the truthteller question, “Which were you happier with – the lightweight gold medal in 2004 or a heavyweight fourth place in 2005?” I wonder how many lightweights were in that Purdue boat?

Next post, some conclusions.

How Many Lightweight Programs Are There?

With so many new collegiate rowing programs, varsity and club, springing up around the country, it’s hard to keep track of how many schools actually have teams. Given the ephemeral nature of some women’s lightweight crews, this is especially true for that part of the rowing universe. Superficially at least, a count seems to be important as a way of establishing a baseline for the popularity of women’s lightweights as well as providing some context for how the category fits into US collegiate rowing. With crews racing as heavyweights one week and lightweights the next, counting is nearly impossible, but certainly worth a try.

I have to admit up front that although it took some work to gather the small set of statistics I used, that set is severely limited and my results should be seen only as anecdotal evidence. For my count I looked at all race results listed on row2k for 2004 and 2005. Alarm bells go off immediately because two years cannot show a trend (but counting more years = even more time consuming) and more races take place than those covered by row2k. In addition, row2k results are limited by the descriptions coaches supply and I suspect (although I can’t be sure) that some lightweight boats raced as heavyweights but didn’t note their lightweight status. In addition, some races were combination races of lightweights and other boats, and I didn’t count those unless the lightweight boats were designated. The race and school totals I have should therefore be considered to be minimum numbers. With those caveats, on to the statistics.

In 2004, a total of 74 schools raced lightweight fours or eights. Thirty-four schools raced eights and 58 raced fours (some raced both, of course). These schools raced lightweight boats 274 times (not counting “B” boats) – 143 eights and 131 fours. In 2005, 71 schools raced lightweight boats, with 28 racing eights and 63 racing fours. These schools raced 302 boats – 143 eights and 159 fours. In addition, a reader was kind enough to send me the list of schools claiming to have lightweight teams from the latest CRCA meeting. Comparing that list to my own, I note that there are an additional 14 schools which could bring the total up to 85 or so.

Does that number surprise you? It surprises me. The NCAA web site lists 144 DI, DII, and DIII schools that sponsor women’s rowing. I think 85 compares pretty favorably to that, particularly given that a lack of NCAA sponsorship for lightweights when heavyweights are sponsored amounts to a tacit campaign to kill lightweight rowing. (Keep in mind that the 85 is not a subset of the 144 because some of the 85 are club teams not recognized by the NCAA.) Contrary to conventional wisdom, not only is lightweight rowing not dying, it appears to be growing. A jump from 274 boats raced in 2004 to 302 in 2005 is a pretty big move. The sponsoring schools stayed roughly the same so there must have been some increase in racing opportunities for lightweight crews. At the very least, there was an increase in depth of field.

As you would expect, more schools raced fours than eights. Even though the number of eights raced is pretty close to the number of fours (even more in 2004), that resulted from fewer schools racing their eights more often. The greater number of fours could suggest that schools have fewer lightweights than heavyweights (assuming nearly all also race heavy eights), but it could also mean that coaches are using their best lightweights in their heavyweight boats. For all we know schools are racing heavyweight boats that are really mostly lightweights with a few heavyweights added in. In this case the prominence of heavyweight rowing blinds coaches to the opportunity they have to make a name for their program racing lightweights. It’s all speculation though, because the numbers alone tell us nothing about what is really happening.

In my next post I’ll look at how many schools dropped between 2004 and 2005 and how many added on.

FISA Says Lightweights Rock!

Well, not exactly, but in a roundup of recent sports honors from around the world, a FISA report noted that lightweights (including men) won 7 of the 13 awards covered. Melanie Kok, a rower at the University of Virginia, was a member of Canada's world champion lightweight quad which won the Rowing Canada Aviron International Achievement Award. This is particularly interesting because UVa is usually seen as a "meat" program. Maybe that reputation is undeserved or maybe Melanie is the outstanding exception that proves the rule. Either way, it makes one wonder where the US lightweight national team members come from - the major collegiate lightweight programs, occasional lightweight programs, or smaller heavyweight programs. A quick look at last year's 7 national team members reveals their college teams to be Simmons, St. Joe's, Vermont, Cal, UCSD, George Mason, and Emory. As best I can tell, there are only two or three that frequently row lightweight (St. Joe's, UCSD, and Emory), and none with a dedicated lightweight program. The Cal rower, Julie Nichols, rowed as a heavyweight. I would have expected to see some representation from Wisconsin, Radcliffe, Princeton, Stanford, or Georgetown. The national heavyweight powers usually seem to be well represented on the national team, why not the lightweights? Of course, there are so few lightweight slots that any one year could give a distorted view.

This also suggests that there are a lot of good lightweights in smaller programs rowing as heavyweights. Perhaps if coaches weren't so fixated on heavyweights they would realize that they could boat nationally competitive lightweight boats instead of regionally competitive heavyweight boats. Maybe the problem is no lightweight events. As I go through results for the past couple of years to see how many schools row lightweight, it seems clear that many row heavyweight as a matter of course, but always enter a lightweight boat when there is a lightweight event. Regatta organizers would no doubt say that they would offer lightweight events if there was demand. It's hard to train and race a lightweight boat, though, when you never know if there will be an event for it.

Speaking of the national team, by now you've seen the USRowing yearbook. It was disappointing that of 9 color pictures of the US senior national team, the silver medal winning lightweight 2x was in none. Their only picture was as a watermark on the background of a page of text. What's a girl gotta do...? (There are some good shots of Wisco, though.)

Miami Also Brings in Lightweights

Miami announced the signing of five recruits for the class of 2010, three of whom raced as lightweights in high school. Of the other two, one is a coxswain. It's more likely that Miami plans to beef the girls up rather than start a lightweight program, but I think it's unusual to see a heavyweight program with three lightweights out of four early recruits.

Tulsa Recruits Lightweights

Tulsa announced that it signed four recruits for the class of 2010,three of whom are lightweights from Saratoga. The Saratoga Rowing Association has had a lot of success lately in lightweight junior rowing and these recruits sound like they have some impressive results on their resumes. Coach Kevin Harris said, "Lightweights are going to become more important as we move forward and we are glad to have them."

Better Late Than Never for Wisconsin

The Wisconsin State Journal published an article today titled, "Some love for UW's other coaching gems." Yup, one of those gems is Mary Shofner, the Wisco lightweight coach. The columnist, though, makes her split the credit for two national championships with heavyweight coach Bebe Bryans. Yes, Bryans is the head women's coach, but c'mon, this was Shofner's crew. Not to mention, Bryans was still at Michigan State for the 2004 title. Nonetheless, it's good to see Shofner and the Wisconsin lightweights getting some credit.

Post Frequency and Topics

Erg season (known as "winter" to the common folk) can be a slow time for rowing news. Heck, even Rowing News slows down its publication frequency. I'm going to try to stick to a schedule of posting at least once each week, probably over the weekend. It'll pick up, of course, when we get into the racing season.

Some topics I hope to cover over the winter:
- When is Four Greater Than Eight? Just how many lightweight programs are there?
- A discussion of the commonly given reasons for not having a lightweight program. (I already started this.)
- All Lightweights are Anorexic, Right? Yes, I'll discuss the eating disorder stereotype. It's a discussion that is usually uncomfortable and uninformed and I'll try to avoid both.
- Preseason ranking. V8s for sure, V4s if I decide I really don't mind making a fool of myself.

Finally, thanks for your comments, they are interesting, informed, and help give me post topics. Speaking of which, if there's anything you would like to see covered, let me know.

How Can You Compete Against Wisconsin's Numbers?

It only seems natural to wonder if Wisconsin might not become dominant in lightweight rowing, simply because with a larger student body than most of the competition they have so many more potential athletes to recruit from. Looking at last year's final top 10 rankings, there are two schools with larger student bodies - UCSB and Ohio State - but those programs are not varsity (I'm only concerned with undergraduate populations). Interestingly, last year's second place boat, Princeton, had the second smallest undergraduate population at 4,678, just 100 more than Lehigh. Wisconsin has 29,078 undergraduates. I also suspected that Wisconsin might offer some scholarship money for lightweights, but a reader told me that is no longer true. If Princeton, Radcliffe, and Stanford are able to offer some admissions preference to rowers, that certainly helps them compete for recruits with Wisco. Studies have shown that rowers are likely to be the smartest group of athletes on campus so that means that many are potential candidates for admission into those selective schools (and of course, lightweights are smartest among rowers!), but there are many more who are not. How then, can schools like Princeton and Radcliffe continue to compete with fewer high school recruits to choose from (due to admissions requirements) and fewer walk-ons to recruit (due to smaller student populations)? Radcliffe's situation is somewhat tempered by the fact that they have a large student body (9,519), but they certainly have difficult admissions requirements. Princeton has a very difficult situation with tough admissions and a small student body. Even worse is a school like Lehigh with very few, if any, recruits, selective admissions, and a small student body. On the other hand, some of the state schools should have a lot of potential if they can just improve recruiting. Ohio State has over 35,000 undergraduates from which to recruit. Of the 2005 top ten schools, however, only four have student populations over 10,000, a reflection of the dearth of scholarships and varsity programs in many of those schools.

This situation should even be worse for the heavyweights. With all of the scholarship money sloshing around those programs, Ivy schools, which are unable to offer scholarships, and small schools should have problems competing. Of last year's top ten heavyweight boats, 6 have student populations over 10,000 with a seventh, Radcliffe, at close to 10,000. Because of the lack of scholarship money in lightweight programs, the smaller schools are probably better able to compete and admissions preferences for varsity programs are a big recruiting advantage. It's hard to think of another sport (hockey maybe?) in which small schools can win national championships. It's hard to imagine that small schools can remain competitive in heavyweight rowing for too much longer, although only time will tell. Although every lightweight rower would like to be on scholarship, it's the lack of scholarships that make lightweight rowing as competitive as it is. There's a pretty wide disparity between the first tier and the second tier of V8s, but that seems to be narrowing as some occasional lightweight schools are adding permanent lightweight programs. The NCAA's presence in heavyweight rowing has had quite an effect on that sport, bringing big scholarship money, tiers of competition (DI, DII, DIII), and removal of the heavyweight women's championship from the wider rowing community. I've heard heavyweight coaches say this is all a good thing, but I have my doubts. I think that lightweight rowing is the place where small schools will continue to be nationally competitive, and smart coaches will increase their focus on lightweights for that very reason.

This discussion raises another question, - just how many women's lightweight programs are there? Over the next week or so I'll be doing some research into that question and will post my results to see if they square with what you think.

Fight in the Dog's Best in Show - 2005 Fall WLV4 Rankings

My 2005 fall rankings based on fall results:

1 Princeton
2 Radcliffe
3 Georgetown
4 Cal
5 SUNY Buffalo
6 Pitt
7 CMU
8 Villanova
9 Duquesne
10 NC State

Just like the V8 ranking, this is a fall ranking, not a spring pre-season ranking, so there is no speculation about who will do well in the spring. Also, when I mention race finishes below, I refer to finishing place among college crews only.

This ranking is controversial right from the start because although Princeton beat Radcliffe at the HOCR, Radcliffe beat Princeton pretty handily at the Chase. Nonetheless, I'll stick to my principle of the HOCR being the fall championship race so Princeton gets Number 1. In the V8 Radcliffe did well at the Chuck but did poorly at the Chase - maybe they were switching people between boats. Next is Georgetown which comes in at number 3 although they did not race in Boston. They move ahead of third place Boston finisher Cal because they were closer to Princeton at the Chase than Cal was at the HOCR. Cal comes in at 4 by virtue of its excellent performance at the Charles.

The rest of the field sorted itself out between the Head of the Ohio and the Head of the Elk where they all raced each other or raced someone who beat someone else who... SUNY Buffalo won the Head of the Ohio which propelled them into 5th, followed by Pitt who was second in Pittsburgh. Number 7 CMU might think they should be higher by virtue of their 3rd place finish at the HOCR, but they were 3rd at the Head of the Ohio. Number 8 Villanova was 4th at both the Head of the Ohio and the HOCR. Number 9 Duquesne makes the field by beating NC State, which comes in at 10, at the Occoquan Challenge.

The big question is what happened to NC State, which won the Head of the South and the Hooch? Once they lost the Occoquan Challenge to Duquesne, which was 6th at the Head of the Ohio, they were out of the running for a higher ranking. It's not clear this is fair, but in the absence of any other evidence, that's the way it is. NC State's result at Occoquan also devalued everyone who raced at the Hooch. Other than NC State, the only boat to race any other ranked boats was Miami (Ohio) which was last (among colleges) at both the Hooch and the Ohio. Given the relatively large field at the Hooch, it's hard to believe it wasn't a more consequential race, but the results speak for themselves. Of course, if NC State had beaten Duquesne at the Occoquan, this would've been much tougher.

Should the Weight Limit be Raised?

An argument I've heard several heavyweight coaches make is that it's not realistic to expect college age women to still meet the same 130 pound weight limit that high school girls meet. The difference between a high school freshman and a college senior is huge in all aspects - physical, mental, and social - and the weight limit needs to be higher in college. Underlying this argument, I think, is the notion that college women have to lose too much weight to get down to 130. I have two points in response to this, one more obvious than the other.

My first point is that I'm not sure the high school weight limit is relevant. The claim is that 130 is too low for college women, but maybe it's too high for high school girls. There may be an argument to be made that high school and college weight limits should be different, but that is independent of any argument about what the college weight limit should be. I've addressed that topic in a previous post. There I took a look at national height and weight figures which lead one to the conclusion that the average 19 year old woman is a 130 pound lightweight. I don't know how the 130 pound limit was originally arrived at, but I've not heard an argument why it should be different for college, only why it shouldn't be the same as high school. One argument would be that the average athletic woman will weigh more (muscle weighs more than fat) but, again, I haven't heard that.

Now for the obvious point. Raising the weight limit will not result in fewer women who need to lose weight to row lightweight, it will result in the same amount of heavier women who need to lose weight to row lightweight. Raising the limit simply shifts the "possible lightweight" weight range up by the same amount the limit was raised. Any issues with weight loss still have the same solution - responsible programs with responsible coaches who only race natural lightweights.

There may be an argument for raising the college weight limit, but if so, it has nothing to do with what the high school limit is. Actually, 130 seems about right to me. Lightweights now get pretty close to heavyweight boats and a boatload of 140 or 145 pounders would be right on them. The weight limit needs to be low enough to provide an obvious strength difference from heavyweights, but high enough to include a large proportion of the population. One-thirty seems to do a pretty good job on both counts.

Should Lightweights be Sculling?

Of the nine lightweight women who race in a world championship, all but 2 (LW2-, has that been raced since 2003?) scull. The two lightweight women who race at the Olympics (LW2x) scull. Should lightweight women be sculling in college?

Not every college rower has the desire to make the national team, and even fewer have the ability, but for those who do, their future lies in sculling. College students row for the glory of the sport and for the glory of their school, not because they are in a feeder system for the national team. In reality, however, they are. There are no LeBron Jameses in rowing and the national team relies on colleges to do their part in nurturing high potential rowers. Many of our best rowers don't even think about the national team until after they've graduated and their whole competitive experience until that point is college rowing, meaning sweep rowing. Because the United States gets thrashed year in and year out (my apologies to last summer's world silver medal winners in the lightweight 2x) in sculling, there has been much handwringing over the emphasis on sweep rowing in our scholastic and collegiate rowing programs. Given USRowing's new emphasis on small boats that hand wringing has become wails of lamentation. Of course, not much is being done about it because this country is in love with big boats. And why not? They're big, fast, and get a lot of people rowing. They're fun to watch. Nonetheless, in the Olympics they only count for one medal. In the past we've been happy winning one rowing medal as long as that medal is in the eight. No longer.

If you want to be an Olympian as a lightweight woman, you want to be a sculler. Chances are though, that you won't learn to scull until you are 21 or 22. The old saying is true - it's easier to teach a sculler to sweep than to teach a sweeper to scull - and our competition has been sculling for years longer than we have. Why not then, try to close the gap a bit and have lightweight collegiate sculling events? Sculling is better for the body, teaches better boat feel and boat handling skills, teaches sweep rowers to row on both sides, and quads go nearly as fast as eights. Just think how much more fun it would be if these big fields of fours at Dad Vails were big fields of quads! The A10 has made some efforts to bring sculling to its member schools and I believe a quad event is part of its conference championships. Maybe more conferences should do this, particularly for lightweight women. After all, sculling requires more skill so it should be perfect for lightweights!

Speaking of Ergs...

Columbia's Elizabeth Peters won the 19-23 lightweight women's race at the Euro Open European Championships in Copenhagen. Libby is a member of the US Indoor Rowing Team and won with a 7:22.8. The interesting thing about this is that Columbia doesn't have a lightweight women's team. No doubt she's beaten out a lot of heavyweights to make Columbia's V8. The women's open lightweight winning time? 7:07.3.

Ergs Don't Float, Do They?

A FITD reader wrote about her dislike of erg season because on the water her lightweight four is equal to or faster than her crew's heavy four, but on the erg they regularly get beat by the same women. As depressing as this may be, the first thing to remember is that for rowers, the erg exists for one reason - to help you go faster on the water. Crossing a finish line first, in a boat, is all that matters. Nonetheless, a cult has built up around the erg because in the ultimate team sport it provides a chance for individual glory. It provides a way to objectively measure and rank rowers and gives coaches a starting point for setting boats. For the less competent coaches it provides the only measure they need to set boats. Twenty-five years ago erg scores were taken with a grain of salt because, as everyone knew, ergs didn't float. They cost thousands of dollars and crews with tight budgets didn't feel a real need to spend money on one. As they became a critical part of national team testing procedures, however, it became obvious to all that they were useful tools and that no serious crew could be without them. (It also helped that Concept II came out with a much less expensive version.) At a time when Mike Teti has been quoted as saying (I'm paraphrasing), "Just give me a big erg, I'll teach him to row," it's understandable that a rower's world seems to revolve around the erg.

The erg, though, has actually helped make some crews go slower. How? The erg has produced "meat" coaches. Meat coaches are women's heavyweight coaches who recruit based almost solely on size, because size generally equals bigger erg scores. (Interestingly, meat coaches seem to be more likely at schools with major football programs.) These coaches are unable to get beyond a girl's erg score and therefore don't so much coach, as simply test. They are like athletic proctors, giving tests, ranking rowers, and setting boats. When recruiting, they only ask two questions - what is your erg score and how big are you? This is the recruiting scavenger hunt - they believe that if they can find the biggest girls, they'll have the fastest boats. What they fail to do (or can't do), is coach. As a result they get beaten by crews who have been coached and actually know how to row. These are the people who give women's rowing a bad name because they simply eyeball girls and offer them scholarships. No wonder other athletes, who have been working at their sport since they were twelve without earning a scholarship, believe women's heavyweight rowing is a joke.

Lightweight coaches, however, don't have the luxury of trying to "out big" the opposition. Everyone weighs the same so they actually have to teach women how to row and row well. If you want to find a good undiscovered coach look for a good lightweight coach. Ergs are just as valuable for training and measurement for lightweights as for heavyweights, but lightweight coaches know that they can't rely on erg scores alone to set boats. They know that there is more to it - technique, obviously, but also heart, guts, and determination. A will to win. There are days when a heavyweight lines up at the starting line, looks over at her opponents, and based on size alone knows that she should have an easy race of it. That never happens to a lightweight. She can never count on winning a race through size. This means that champion lightweights have to be more scrappy, more gutsy, and have more heart. Champion heavyweights are champions because they race like lightweights.

But back to the erg. Yes, heavyweights should be able to pull a better score than lightweights. (This, by the way, is why the Midget Basketball League argument against lightweight rowing is flawed. As erg scores show, rowing is a strength sport, which always have weight classes.) So then, how could a heavyweight lose on the water to a lightweight? Technique is an obvious answer, followed by all of the intangibles discussed above. But there is another way to use erg scores - weight adjust them.

Weight adjusted erg scores started out as a way for lightweights to feel good about themselves. They were supposed to measure some notion of efficiency, but who really cared about efficiency if you still lost the boat race? No matter what your weight you have to pull along your own body weight plus the weight of the boat and the weight of the coxswain. If you don't take this extra weight into account you're kidding yourself with a weight adjustment. Concept II, however, has a weight adjustment calculator that does take these things into account. It also accounts for the additional drag a heavyweight boat has because it sits lower in the water. The next time you take an erg test run your score and the heavyweight scores through this calculator to see how you really did. Both scores have to be adjusted because the calculator tells you the time for an eight made up of rowers with your score. You may find you're still behind on the erg (remember those intangibles), but you'll have a better picture of who can really move a boat.

Dad Vail Fours vs. Eights

A reader posted a comment to a post on dedicated lightweight programs suggesting that the real race at Dad Vails is lightweight fours because that event has more competitors than lightweight eights. This comment was followed by another taking issue with that statement, saying that the light eight winner was closer in speed to the open 8 winner than was the light 4 winner to the open 4 winner.

Both are correct in their facts. There were 18 light four entries vs. just 5 in the light 8, but the light 4 was 3.3% slower than the heavy 4 while the light 8 was only 2.5% slower than the heavy 8. To try to understand what this means, we need to look for some context. We can get that by looking at other races. At Eastern Sprints the light 8 was 5.1% slower and the light 4 was 2.3% slower - the opposite of Vails! IRAs don't work because the heavies row in a different regatta and no fours are raced at IRAs. (Rowing in a different regatta means that times are not at all comparable, but what the heck, I'll do it anyway. The light 8 turns out to be 5.0% slower - a result I attribute to pure coincidence.) I've used 2005 results here, as opposed to going back and doing some sort of averaging over the years.

We've just succeeded in muddying the waters so now let's look at world records. I know they were all set at different times and on different courses, but as world records we can use them as measures because to set a world record the boats will have met up with generally the same conditions. No light eights or light fours race internationally so we'll use doubles and quads as proxies. Here we find that light quads are 5.1% slower and light doubles are 2.8% slower, the same pattern as Sprints. The men, by the way, also follow that pattern at Vails and in the world records (no fours at Sprints).

So, this suggests that the fact that at Vails the light eights are closer to the heavies than the light fours are is an aberration. I'm not sure why this is but I'll guess that it's because the heavyweights in Dad Vail programs are closer in size to lightweights than in the scholarship and national team programs. I think this supports the point I made earlier that if Dad Vail programs would concentrate on lightweights they can be much more successful on a national (as opposed to the Dad Vail) level. Think about the Truthtellers.

Back to the original question about which event is more competitive at Vails - I don't know. I think we can safely say that despite only having 5 entrants, the light 8 is as competitive as any other event. We don't know, however, if they're closer to the heavies because the heavies are slower or the lights are faster. As for the fours, they do seem to be a bit slower than they should be, but still close enough to be in the ballpark.

The other thing that comes out of this is the fact that the men are generally closer to their heavyweight counterparts than the women (except for the light eight at Vails). This probably is due to longer standing and better developed lightweight programs for the men. The good news for the light women is that they can look forward to improving their speed at a faster rate than the heavies.

Truthtellers

As I mentioned below, the "i am not a heavyweight" article reminded me of "truthteller" questions I've used on occasion to help me understand the priorities and philosophy of a coach. There is no right answer to these questions and there can be many of them, but a good series would be as follows:

- Would you rather make the Dad Vail finals in the light 4 or the Dad Vail semis in the heavy 8?

- Would you rather win a Dad Vail gold in the light 4 or make the Dad Vail finals in the heavy 8?

- Would you rather make the IRA lightweight 8 finals or win a Dad Vail bronze medal in the heavy 8?

- Would you rather win an IRA bronze in the light 8 or a Dad Vail gold in the heavy 8?

(I've left the Dad Vail light 8 out of this mix because all boats went to the final last year.)

Any coach who mixes lightweights and heavyweights (i.e. probably doesn't have a dedicated lightweight program) implicitly answers questions like these whenever she decides what boats to race and who to race in them. Of course, she doesn't have perfect foresight, but she consciously or unconsciously makes assumptions about her chances in these races. If you ask direct questions like these, many coaches would have a difficult time answering, but they answer them every season.

There are other questions like this that are more appropriate for specific programs, but you get the idea. Ask a coach these questions in front of both lightweights and heavyweights and you'll see why they are truthtellers.

The Lightweight Experience

A reader pointed me in the direction of the Georgia Tech Crew web site which contains a piece of that program's history recounted in an article titled, "i am not a heavyweight." I like this article for (at least) two reasons. First, I think it tells a story familiar to many lightweights - competing for seats with, and racing against, heavyweights. The way lightweight boats and rowers are handled says a lot about the philosophy and priorities of a program, and leads to a set of "truthteller" questions that I'll talk about in my next post.

Secondly, though, it conveys a mindset that is found in championship lightweight boats, but is missing in all too many others. A champion lightweight doesn't use her size as an excuse. Girls who row only as lightweights early in their career, tend to count close finishes against heavyweight boats as victories. Lightweights who also rowed as heavyweights only count winning as a victory. That girl may suspect, deep down, that all things equal a boat of heavyweights may beat her, but she needs to see it happen before she'll believe it. And then she works to prove that result a fluke. Sort of reminds you of that Nietzsche quote...

Fight in the Dog's Best in Show* - 2005 Fall WLV8 Rankings

My 2005 fall rankings based on fall results:

1 Wisconsin
2 Princeton
3 Radcliffe
4 Georgetown
5 URI
6 MIT
7 Dayton
8 Stanford
9 Penn State
10 Ohio State


First of all, this is a fall ranking, not a spring pre-season ranking, so there is no speculation about who will do well in the spring. If a crew didn't race as a designated lightweight 8 (so that I could tell by looking at results), it's not in this ranking. That means that some schools I expect to compete this spring aren't listed, such as UCF, UCSB, and Bucknell.

Wisco and Princeton are pretty uncontroversial - they finished one-two at the HOCR and Princeton won the Chase (in Wisco's absence). To be serious about fall rowing you must race the HOCR. I know, not everyone can get an entry, but you need to try every year and once you do, race well. This means that the next four places are based on Chuck finishes. Of those four places, some controversy arises between Radcliffe and Georgetown. Radcliffe beat Gtown at HOCR but Gtown beat Radcliffe at the Chase. The Chuck is more important (but the Chase is close) and more prestigious so Radcliffe stays ahead. Dayton only raced once (that I could tell) but they beat Ohio State by over 40 seconds over 2500 meters, suggesting that they have some speed. Combine that with some credibility from last year, and they get 7th. They may be faster than URI and MIT but with only one race who knows, and the other two took up the challenge and raced in Boston. Stanford stayed on the west coast this year and mostly raced in heavyweight races, making results difficult to interpret. Nothing stood out as outstanding, however, so they fall in behind Dayton (which may have been where they would have been last year had Dayton raced IRAs). In a surprise, Penn State, which won the Head of the Occoquan and the Philly Frostbite regattas, comes in at 9, followed by Ohio State at 10, living off the credibility it earned last spring.

Several readers suggested a light four ranking and maybe I'll give that a try. We have the fall results so a fall ranking could be somewhat informed but a preseason ranking would be tough because you never really know who will race fours so you could rank a boat that never actually races.

One reader posted her/his own rankings in the comments section (although it may have been a spring preseason ranking?) so let me know your thoughts. Maybe in the spring I can also post a composite of readers' rankings.

*A reader already noted that the title is rather weak, so if you have a better one...

2005 LWV8 Spring Rankings

As a prelude to fall rankings, it's worthwhile to look at how things ended up last season. This is fairly straightforward but there is some judgment required:

1 Wisconsin
2 Princeton
3 Radcliffe
4 Georgetown
5 Stanford
6 Dayton
7 Ohio State
8 UCSB
9 UCF
10 Lehigh

This is slightly muddled because UCF put a big scare into Stanford in their IRA heat, but Stanford came through in the final to beat Ohio State (which beat UCF at Vails) by 15 seconds, keeping Stanford at 5. There is generally a bias that if you want to break into the top ranks, you need to compete at IRAs. Ohio State made the grand final at IRAs but I kept Dayton ahead because they did beat the Buckeyes head-to-head in a championship race. UCF found itself in a tough heat at IRAs and may very well have finished higher if it were in the other heat, but we can't speculate about that here.

Erg Season is Here

Fall racing is over and erg season is here. That means that there won't be a lot of race results to report or a lot of news to be had. Posting may be a bit slower here, but rest assured that I'll be constantly on the lookout for good scoop and post it when I find it. I'll also use the winter months to explore some simmering issues and perhaps generate some (civil) discussion. If you have any suggestions for topics to explore, please let me know. This site is about encouraging the spread of women's collegiate lightweight rowing and I'm always open to suggestions on how to do that!

One thing I think I'll do over Thanksgiving break is post head season rankings. Why wait for the coaches in the spring when I can do my own? "Dog's Best in Show" sounds about right. I'm sure it will be highly scientific with a methodology that will no doubt be too complicated to explain to mere rowers.

Foot of the Charles

The Foot of the Charles was yesterday and consisted of three (women's) races - varsity 4+, novice 8+, and varsity 8+. The results of the V8 race suggest that the entrants were something other than the top V8s, so I would treat the V4 and N8 races as the priority races.

Radcliffe and MIT were the only lightweight boats in the regatta, with Radcliffe besting MIT in both the V4 and N8 races. In the V4 race, Radcliffe was 9th out of 28 boats, 20 seconds out of third place. MIT was 56 seconds off of Radcliffe's pace. In the N8 race, Radcliffe finished 12th out of 24 boats, with MIT two places and 37 seconds back. That seems like a fairly good result for MIT. Both MIT and Radcliffe were able to enter N8 B boats, which has to be seen as a sign of strength for both teams. The V8 race was won by UNH, which beat two Radcliffe light 8s, a Radcliffe heavy 8, and an MIT light 8. It seems unlikely to me that UNH, two lightweight Radcliffe boats, and MIT lights would beat Radcliffe's top heavyweight boat, so I'm not sure what was going on there. Perhaps the UNH and lightweight boats (combining after the 4+ race) were the top boats and the heavyweight Radcliffe boat was something else. The first MIT light boat was 9 seconds off of Radcliffe, which would be another good result for MIT. If you know about this race, please drop me a line.

What About Penn?

Another Ivy League school that should be in the lightweight mix is Penn. Penn's had a difficult time getting both its men's and women's heavies up to speed, while its men's lightweights are coming on strong. There have been rumors about the school starting a lightweight women's program for a few years, and perhaps the men's success will spur some action. On the other hand, the current women's coaching staff is said to be opposed to lightweights, and without support there, it's unlikely anything will happen.

More Results

Some results I missed:

At last weekend's FIRA Fall Classic UCF's lightweights won the heavyweight B race with a time that was third fastest overall (out of 10 boats).

At the Head of the South last week NC State won the lightweight 4+ over Atlanta and Jacksonville. NC State won by just one tenth of a second over what I assume was the same Atlanta boat that won the Hooch. A tenth of a second out of twenty minutes? That's as close to a tie as you'll see.

Will Yale Add Lightweight Crew?

Rumor has it that the Eastern Sprints schools have been asking Yale for a few years to start a lightweight women's rowing program. Yale would seem to be a prime candidate for the next major rowing school to start a dedicated lightweight program. Their key rivals, Radcliffe (Harvard) and Princeton, have successful programs and their lightweight men are national champions. For years no crew could come close to Radcliffe and that school took the lead in championing lightweight rowing giving the Ivy League a strong, positive tradition in the sport. You might think that "Keeping up with the Joneses" (or the Harvards) alone would motivate them to add lightweights. Radcliffe, Yale, Princeton lightweight races would be exciting (aren't all lightweight races?) and create a great tradition. Yale women were willing to lead in the past (remember "A Hero for Daisy?"), why not now?

Who Won the Belly Bowl??

I initially thought that using Princeton's lightweight women's time in the calculation of times for the Belly Bowl wouldn't have mattered (since corrected below), but an astute reader pointed out that my ciphering was off. In fact, if the lightweight time was used, as it should have been because that boat was the top Princeton boat, Princeton would have won the Bowl! This is Princeton's race, and they must set the rules, but they look silly this year. Again, if you don't have a separate lightweight race, how can you not count the lightweight boats racing in a heavyweight event when determining the winner of the Bowl?

The Freshmen Have at It

It was another beautiful day in Princeton for the Belly of the Carnegie, although we could have done with less wind. The lightweight freshmen crews from Princeton, Radcliffe, and Georgetown hit the water, all trying to draw the first blood of their collegiate careers. Radcliffe showed the most depth as it was the only program able to boat two boats of lightweights. Despite the Belly rule of even boats, since the other schools only entered one boat Radcliffe was asked to stack it's first eight so all crews could get a feel for where they stand heading into the winter. Although they started about two thirds of the way back in the field, Princeton went off first, followed by Radcliffe, then Georgetown, and then Radcliffe (2). Princeton and Radcliffe battled all the way down the course, even as the Tigers interlocked oars with a Villanova boat for 5 to 10 strokes. A power ten pulled them away and the real race continued. In the end, Princeton was 13 seconds faster then Radcliffe, who was followed by Georgetown another 58 seconds back, with the second Radcliffe boat another 62 seconds back.

Princeton and Radcliffe were 8th and 10th overall in this heavyweight event, with Princeton rowing faster than both of its heavyweight boats (of course, those boats were to be evenly matched). Princeton can now feel good about themselves for a few days, while Radcliffe and Georgetown can take solace in the fact that last year's Princeton freshmen, who won Eastern Sprints, were beaten at the Belly by Georgetown (Radcliffe didn't enter). Nobody takes solace, however, in the fact that Wisconsin wasn't there. The Badger freshmen remain in the midwest holding their cards close to their vest, hoping to spring a nasty surprise on the competition come April.

Finally, in one of those curious lightweight anomalies, both the Princeton and Georgetown lightweights were the fastest women's boats on the water for their schools, yet neither time counted in the calculation for the Belly Bowl. If you don't have a lightweight race, then the least you could do is count the lightweights as equal competitors and use their times if they're fastest. I really don't understand that.

Some row2k pictures (I think I'm linking to the right ones):

Princeton lights
Radcliffe lights
Georgetown lights
Radcliffe lights

Georgetown Ramps Up

The word at the Belly of the Carnegie on Sunday was that Georgetown's new coach, Jim O'Conner, was ramping up the intensity of that program. Georgetown has made a lot of progress, but seems to have been stuck in neutral the last few years. O'Conner is coming in to end the 4th place finishes and move into the medals, and it sounds like he's serious about it.

Dad Vail Redux

After finishing 1,2 at Dad Vails last spring, Dayton and Ohio State added a lightweight 8+ event to their fall dual race. This no doubt spiced things up for the race as Ohio State saw an opportunity for revenge. Alas, it was not to be as Dayton won the 2500 meter race by 44 seconds. A decisive margin to be sure, but a fall margin. This has the makings of a nice little in-state rivalry.

More Penn State

Penn State was in action at Philadelphia's Frostbite Regatta, winning the lightweight 8+ over Loyola. In fours, Lehigh beat Loyola and Scranton. Penn State continues to appear intent on surprising some people in the spring.

Update: Penn State also raced Sunday in a heavyweight event in the Braxton in Philadelphia, coming in 15 seconds off of their heat winner (no finals at the Braxton).

Give Me a Break!

So, when I started this blog, I thought that a lot of the emails and comments I would get (assuming that anyone is reading it) would deal with the canard that all female lightweights are anorexic or bulimic - and here they come! I think this is worth a discussion, but I plan to post about it over the winter, when things will be really slow. But, a few words now.

You don't assume all female heavyweight rowers are obese, so why assume all female lightweight rowers are anorexic? If I had to guess, I would say that more heavyweights are obese, than lightweights are anorexic (is that inflammatory enough for you?), simply based on which is a greater health issue in America today.

I'll get to this, so save your thoughts until then...

URI IS Back

An article in the URI student newspaper, The Good 5c Cigar (is that really its name?), says that this "year the team will be able to compete in all the lightweight (130 pounds or less) events. Last year the team was involved in more openweight (130 pounds or more) events than lightweight events." It's good to see URI back in the lightweight ranks this year and Head coach Julia Chilicki Beasely goes on to say, "This year I think we will definitely have a championship team." Is Coach Beasely throwing down the gauntlet?

Dedicated Lightweight Programs

Thinking about Dayton winning the Dad Vails last year makes me wonder if there are any Dad Vail schools with dedicated lightweight programs. Only five schools made it to the starting line last year and I'm not sure any of them have a dedicated program. Some have been racing lightweights for a long time, but with breaks in competition. Villanova won the national championship in 1998, but hasn't maintained that level.

I suppose the problem with dedicated programs is obvious - because lightweights are restricted by weight, fewer potential rowers can fit the category. Anyone can row heavyweight so a heavyweight program is the best way to maximize the use of all team members. On the other hand, you'll have trouble breaking into the top ranks of heavyweight programs mixing lights and heavies in your top boat. What could a program do that emphasizes lightweights?

Suppose Villanova, or Dayton, or Central Florida, or URI focused on lightweights. If they recruited lightweights and put their best lightweights in lightweight boats, rather than in heavyweight boats, how fast could they get? Every program I know wants to boat a heavyweight 8+ before a lightweight 8, but aren't there more athletic lightweights than heavyweights walking around a college campus? The chances that there are 9 girls walking around Dayton's campus that can beat Wisconsin's lightweights must be greater than the chances that there are 9 girls who can beat Cal's heavyweights.

Is that the real decision for these smaller schools - produce a heavyweight 8+ with a shot at winning Dad Vails, or produce a lightweight 8+ with a shot at winning IRAs?

The big heavyweight schools suffer from the same syndrome. I wonder if the Yale women are learning anything from their men. The heavy men beat their heads against a wall every year (i.e. race Harvard) while the lights go out and win national championships. Look at Penn - the heavy men have been down for years while the light men are in the midst of a resurgence. Why don't Penn and Yale add lightweight women? The very nature of a weight restriction means that everyone has a chance at winning. Superior skill, fitness, and coaching come into play. Superior coaching? Hmm.... Maybe that's why coaches are afraid of lightweight programs!

More Results...

A Varsity lightweight 4+ was raced at the Grimaldi Cup and was won by Fordham. I'm not sure I've seen Fordham race lightweight before, so this may be a boat of convenience. They were followed by Iona, Sacred Heart, and Manhattan. I do recall seeing lightweight Sacred Heart boats.

There was more lightweight rowing at the Newport Autumn Rowing Festival. The Stanford lights produced the most puzzling results. They apparently had an entry in the open 8, finishing last. They won the lightweight 8 however, with a time over two minutes faster than their boat racing open. Who raced the open event? Maybe a student newspaper story can clear things up. Meanwhile, Cal's lights finished 5th out of 5 in the lightweight 8 event, although they fared better in the open frosh 8 (16 out of 20) and open four (7/13). I wonder why Stanford didn't race their freshmen? Have they raced this fall?

More Lightweight Rowing in the Heartland

The Wichita Frostbite Regatta was contested last weekend and Tulsa won the lightweight 4+ (there was no 8). They beat Colorado, Oklahoma, Wash U., and Missouri. Nebraska was the lone entry in the novice lightweight 4+. These schools probably don't have dedicated lightweight programs, but it doesn't hurt to see them race.

Alabama Lightweights Win the Hooch

In a two boat race, Alabama won the Head of the Hooch over Texas. Alabama's women are scheduled to go varsity in 2007 so that probably means that the women racing this weekend will be without a sport while the new varsity coaches join the annual scavenger hunt (also known as heavyweight recruiting). If they want to continue they'll just keep the club going and race lightweight through the club, just as the Texas lightweight rowers are doing.

On the other hand, why not start your varsity program with lightweights? Why bother entering the crowded heavyweight field where you'll be just another large school putting big girls in a boat? Enter the less crowded lightweight field where you can have an impact much sooner. The level of competition is just as high as the heavyweights at the upper end, but with schools moving in and out of the lightweight ranks as the type of rowers on the team dictates, the middle and lower ranks are much less stable. More on this when I continue my discussion on reasons to have a lightweight program.

There was also a lightweight 4+ race with 19 entries, some of which were juniors. Atlanta Rowing Club won, followed by N.C. State. Other colleges entered included Jacksonville, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech, UGA, Georgia State, Clemson, and Miami.

Penn State Wins Head of the Occoquan

Penn State boated a lightweight 8+ and won the Head of the Occoquan over Duquesne and Three Rivers. In a twist, the women's lightweight 8 event had more entries than the men. A look at the Penn State crew (a club program) web site shows a list of varsity lightweight women, so it looks like the team intends to race lightweights in the spring. Maybe a Dad Vail appearance? Duquesne just won the lightweight four at the Head of the Speakmon so it looks like they'll also be racing lightweights in the spring.

Dayton is Racing

Last year's Dad Vail champion University of Dayton raced a lightweight four at the Head of the Elk. The good news is that they were second. The bad news is that it looks like they lost to a high school crew. There was no lightweight eight event so Dayton may have raced an eight in one of the heavyweight races. In any case, the spring season is a long way off and Dayton will no doubt be ready for it.

Three Recruits for Stanford

This article in the Stanford Daily says that the Stanford lightweights brought in three recruits this year. A look at the roster suggests that the three are from Washington, California, and Massachusetts. It's good news that Stanford can bring in a recruit from the east coast, but three seems to be on the low end of a good class. Stanford, which has a stated goal of winning the Directors' Cup every year, doesn't bring on sports without doing its best to win a national championship. While certainly in the top echelon of lightweight rowing, Stanford's progress has been of the two steps forward one step back variety. As long as they have a varsity program, though, they're a danger to break through any year.

Bucknell is Serious

Bucknell raced 7 frosh eights at the Head of the Schuylkill! The top eight, which finished 8th, contained all five lightweight recruits, suggesting that it was a lightweight boat. An impressive result since they beat other Bucknell boats that contained some of the 12 recruited heavyweights. It's not clear if the V8 was all heavyweights or if it contained some lightweights.

If Bucknell can boat 7 frosh eights, they must have healthy lightweight and heavyweight freshmen teams. These guys will be a power in the spring, certainly in freshman events if not in varsity as well.

The Stanford Daily Misses the Boat

In the Stanford Daily's fall preview article, the last paragraph begins, " Stanford'’s best national finish in the eight last year belonged to the lightweight women." Kinda makes you wonder why the heavyweights are mentioned first, doesn't it?