Head of the Charles Draw

The Head of the Charles draw is out for the light eight and light four. Last year there were 14 entries in the eight, 6 of whom were US collegiate crews (plus U. of British Columbia). This year 16 eights are entered including 9 US college crews. The 6 crews from last year are entered again (Wisconsin, Princeton, Radcliffe, Georgetown, URI, and MIT) plus Holy Cross, Marist, and Cal. Other entrants are Atlanta Rowing Club, which often puts out a boat largely made up of Georgia Tech alums, Havergal College which looks to be a youth eight, Quinte Rowing Club from Canada, and Rudergesellshaft Munchen 1972. I don't know much about the last two. Also entered is Picnic Point Rowing Club a pleasantly named club comprised primarily of Wisconsin alumni. Given that heritage it should have the potential to surprise. The final two entrants are last year's first and second place finishers - London Training Center and Riverside Boat Club. Both crews will contain women training for their respective national teams.

It's good to see both URI and Cal in this field. URI's presence suggests that the new staff will continue building the lightweight program, which started to receive some attention last year. [Update: URI is no longer listed.] Cal makes the trip east after missing 2005's race (in the eight, they did race the four). Although they did race last spring, Cal seemed to be missing in action, perhaps because they raced in few lightweight events and those they did race were really only against Stanford. Speaking of Stanford, the Cardinal skips another year. Stanford raced in 2003 and 2004, but missed last year. I guess it's a pretty long trip from California. Marist's entry may mean that they'll have an eight to race in the spring, something they do fairly frequently. Holy Cross made some half-hearted attempts at boating a light eight last year, but an entry here may mean that they finally feel like they've the personnel to make a run.

Interestingly enough, since 1998, only last year did the HOCR collegiate winner (Wisconsin) ultimately become the national champion the following spring. Perhaps the squirreliest year was 2001 when Wisconsin, Radcliffe, and MIT all beat eventual champ Princeton. Despite that record, it would be really nice to have a Charles gold medal.

Next, the fours.

New Coaches at URI

URI lightweight coach Tina Paniel has left the school to coach a high school program in Seattle. In their first season as a permanent part of the program, the URI lightweights turned in a respectable performance, beating all non-IRA crews they faced during the season, as well as a pre-IRA MIT crew. At IRAs URI was ninth, beating Lehigh, Ohio State, and Stanford in the petite final.

Last October I noted that head coach Julia Chilicki-Beasley pointed to Paniel's appointment as a sign that the lightweight program has become a permanent fixture. I should note that Chilicki-Beasley has also left URI, replaced by Shelagh Donohoe. Donohoe is an Olympic medalist and former coach at BU and Northeastern. Assistant coach Jessica Lizzi also coached at BU and Northeastern and assistant Bridgid Myers coached at Northeastern. There are lightweight events on the 2006-07 schedule so hopefully URI's lightweights continue to be a "permanent fixture," coached by either Lizzi or Myers. Myers rowed heavyweight at Wisconsin so she knows how a good lightweight crew operates.

New Lightweight Coach at UCF

A reader posted a comment saying that UCF has just hired a new lightweight coach, Andy Derrick. I'll post more when the announcement comes out (i.e. when I know I'm thinking of the right person).

Fun With Numbers

The posting about ErgScores.com got me thinking about... erg scores. I started to wonder about lightweight erg scores vs. heavyweight scores. I wrote about this once before in a post about the Dad Vail regatta, but I thought I'd briefly revisit it.

A look at the world record for heavy and light men and women, as well as the record for both in the 19 to 29 age group, shows that lightweights are roughly 7.5% slower than heavies. The 19 to 29 age group is pretty wide and includes much more than just college rowers, but it will have to do for now. A look at water world record times, however, tells a bit of a different story.

The LM2x and the LW2x are 1.9% and 2.8% slower respectively than the heavy 2x. The LW4x, however, is 5.1% slower than the heavy 4x while the LM4x is only 2.1% slower than the heavy 4x. I would guess that the difference in the light women's times is because of the emphasis placed on the 2x since it is an Olympic boat. Of course, the LM4x is not an Olympic boat either, but the light men have been around longer than the women and we would expect them to be generally closer to their heavy counterparts. It's really pretty amazing that the light women are almost up to the light men's standard in the 2x in such a short time. It shows what emphasis and focus can do.

One other interesting statistic is the median of 2006 CRASH-B scores. The median score of LM is 5.5% slower than the heavies, while the median score of LW is only 3% slower than the heavies. Both lightweight fields contained 121 rowers, while there were 99 more heavy women (333) than men (Title IX effect?). It's silly to read too much into this, but it suggests that the light women's field was higher quality than the light men. By the way, because we've been talking about weight limits lately, I should note that the CRASH-Bs apply their own weight limit - 135 pounds for women.

Shofner at Stanford

A reader left a comment saying that Mary Shofner is now an assistant at Stanford under new head coach Yasmin Farooq. Farooq coxed at Wisconsin as an undergraduate and certainly would have followed the Badger lightweights' progress over the past three years. [Update: Mary Shofner is listed as the women's coach for Stanford recruits.]

Winning the Ones That Matter

Matthew Pinsent had an article in The Times last week in which he talked about the Searle Brothers. According to Pinsent, the Searles "used to race for a full season, which entailed half a dozen regattas each summer in the build-up to the World Championships or, once every four years, the Olympic Games, and yet their sum total of medals and victories from these build-up races is outnumbered by their world and Olympic medals almost two to one." They won when it mattered.

We all want to win every race we enter, but not all races are created equal. Early season races are less important than late season, and as prestigious as it would be to win the Head of the Charles, I'd rather win IRAs. The Searle Brothers understood that and, more recently, so have the notoriously slow starting Wisconsin Badgers. In fact, a quick look at recent history shows that rarely has the eventual national champion been a dominant force throughout the season.

There's been a pretty strong correlation between Sprints winners and IRA winners as in the nine years since 1998 the Sprints champion has won IRAs six times. If we go earlier in the season to the Knecht Cup, however, the relationship isn't as strong. The fast IRA boats have been racing at Knecht since 2001 so if we look at the six years since 2001, the Knecht champion has won IRAs only twice. In those six years only one crew (Princeton) has won all three regattas. In fact, only that one crew has won both Knecht and Sprints. In it's three national championship seasons, Wisconsin has been third at Knecht twice, and second once. Knecht seems to be a particularly bad predictor of the eventual national champion.

Tufts Looking for Lightweights?

The team overview for Tufts crew says "the program also focuses on attracting women under 130 pounds for the lightweight squad." I can't remember seeing Tufts race a lightweight boat recently. I suspect this is an evergreen overview and hasn't been updated in a while. Still, I wonder if Coach Gary Caldwell has any plans to build a lightweight team?

Wisconsin Schedule

Wisconsin's 2006-07 schedule is out and the fall looks much as it did last year - Milwaukee River Challenge, Head of the Rock, Head of the Charles, and Head of the Iowa. The Badgers are the defending collegiate lightweight eight champion at the Head of the Charles. Interestingly, the heavyweights skip the HOCR but make an East Coast trip by sending some of the team to the Princeton Chase.

There were six collegiate lightweight eights racing at the Charles last year. It would be nice to beat that number this year. Crew applications are due September 1st, so the draw should be out in a few weeks.

New Erg Score Tracking Service

I recently received an email from the developer of a new erg score tracking service called Ergscores.com. I haven't actually used this service and features are still being added, but it's free and has a team component that should make it useful to coaches. Of particular interest to lightweights is a built in weight adjustment feature. If your team is all lightweights this doesn't matter too much, but if you're being compared to heavyweights it does. It's not a "pity adjustment" made to take into account some vague notion of efficiency. Rather, it uses the Concept II formula (more choices are coming) which attempts to adjust for a lightweight rower pulling less body weight down the course while still pulling the same boat and coxswain weight. It purports to show you how fast a boat of your clones would go compared to a boat of your teammate's clones. It also has a feature which allows high school rowers to release scores to college coaches. Seems like it's worth a try (unless, like me, you do your best never to record an erg score so it can't be used against you later).

You can read more about the site and an interview with the developer on The Daily Erg.

Weigh-In Differences

A few days ago a reader asked why collegiate weigh-ins are different from USRowing (e.g. USRowing nationals) weigh-ins. Collegiate weigh-ins are typically the day before a race, with a certification requirement at IRAs. USRowing requires an athlete to weigh-in not more than two hours prior to each race (heat, semi, and final). In an attempt to get an answer to this question, I went to the font of all knowledge on such matters (collegiate, anyway), the lightweight committee of the CRCA.

As with many rowing practices, the true reason for the difference is a bit murky, but probably results largely from tradition. In addition, the collegiate practice was developed to help protect the health of the athlete as a single weigh-in prior to the regatta helps avoid race day dehydration issues. There is also the convenience factor of one weigh-in for regatta officials, coaches and rowers. (With a goal of growing the sport, convenience does play a part.) While not a USRowing practice, FISA (international) sets a single rower weight limit of about 130lbs, and a boat average limit of about 125 lbs. This kind of boat average weight limit is not used in college rowing because of the inherent danger of forcing a boat average five pounds below the individual average. This typically results in all members of a boat losing weight, even those well under 130 pounds, to allow athletes near 130 to compete.

It's tempting to want athletes to weigh in every day and let those near-weight rowers row dehydrated. If they are that close to the limit either they shouldn't be rowing lightweight or they should pay a price for not managing their weight as well as everyone else. If the penalty for dehydration was simply fatigue or a loss of strength, that might work. Unfortunately the penalty could be injury, or worse. The certification requirement at IRAs, however, is an attempt to weed out those rowers who really aren't lightweights by forcing them to weigh-in during the season.

There is one USRowing weight practice that I find to be particularly egregious. Elite lightweight rowers are allowed to weigh 140 pounds when they submit their April erg score. That is 15 pounds heavier than the boat average. Elite level lightweights actually have weight management plans that have them bulking up to 140 in the off season so they can max out the erg test, and then dropping weight for the racing season. This is obviously unhealthy and I don't understand why USRowing encourages it. Why not require lightweights to be at weight whenever testing, racing, or seat racing?

[Update: See comments - I get slapped around a bit on this one.]

URI Lightweight to Coach at Rutgers

Kate McKeown, a 2006 graduate of URI and a member of the URI lightweight eight that raced at IRAs, has been named an assistant coach at Rutgers.

Bucknell Media Guide

Bucknell's media guide is out and there are some good things happening there. There is an exception, which I've discussed before, and it rears it's head in the guide. Assistant coach Sera Coppolino is lauded for bringing the Second Varsity Eight to new heights last season. Second Varsity is Bucknell speak for varsity lightweights. In one paragraph we go, without explanation, from reading about the 2V heavy(?) eight racing the Princeton lights to the lightweight eight turning in its best ever performance at IRAs. Later in the guide we learn that the 2V "transitioned from its regular-season status to the lightweight eight in order to compete at the IRA National Championship." I guess there are no regular season lightweights? You'd have to read FITD to know what the heck they're talking about. Well, I had my rant about that last season so let's move on to the good stuff, because there's plenty. Bucknell did have a great season last year and Coach Coppolino gets some well deserved kudos.

The Guide also tells us that Bucknell began sculling last year and will do so again this year. They added 10 sculling boats last fall! This is a great move for Bucknell, as it would be for any program because it is so beneficial for technique development. It's particularly good for lightweights since any post-collegiate rowing will be sculling. There are actually regattas to race sculling boats in the fall so it's a great time to break them out.

The Guide also includes an athlete journal which is written by Caitlin Doolin, last year's stroke of the light eight. Oops, sorry. The journal is about Dad Vails so that would be pre-transition and she would have only been in the 2V.

Bucknell has seven lightweight recruits entering this fall and they are expected to have "an immediate impact on the Varsity Lightweight Eight." (I guess these rowers were recruited for the lightweight 1V, not the heavyweight 2V?)

Bucknell's lightweights are coming off a great 2006 season and are the most successful program in the Bucknell boathouse. They've got good recruits coming in who will add speed to last year's young V8. One thing this Guide tells us is that the Bison aren't standing still.

Yo, Philadelphia! How About It?

FITD was fortunate to get a mention in the latest issue of the Schuylkill Navy newsletter, so some of you are Philadelphians coming here for the first time. I have a question for you: Where are all of your lightweight programs? Philadelphia, arguably the center of rowing in the United States, does not have one dedicated lightweight women's rowing program. Villanova (which now rows outside of the city) won the national championship in 1998 but now only rows lightweight boats of opportunity. St. Joseph's occasionally puts out lightweight boats, which can be quite competitive, but doesn't race the category consistently. Think of all the college programs on the Schuylkill - Bryn Mawr, LaSalle, Drexel, Penn, Temple, and Haverford, in addition to Villanova and St. Joe's - and not one lightweight program.

Lightweights do row in Philadelphia, as evidenced by the current national team LW2x out of Penn AC and last year's national team LW4x out of Vesper, not to mention the lightweights at Undine Barge. Lightweights row there in high school too - Archbishop Prendergast and Mount St. Joseph's are two examples. Boston, though, has the MIT and Radcliffe lights and Washington DC has the Georgetown lights. Even San Francisco has lightweight women - Stanford and Cal. Why aren't there any in Phialdelphia?

Penn seems to be the prime school to start a lightweight women's program. They have lightweight men so they understand the value of lightweight rowing, and those lightweight men are the most successful program in the boathouse. Why not lightweight women? They would have plenty of nearby competition, including Ivy League competition. Penn is one of largest Ivies so they have a great recruiting base. Everything is in place for the launch of a successful program, even a new coach who just may be bringing some new thinking to the team.

Maybe the city is still scarred from being named the nation's most obese a year or two ago. Maybe in Philadelphia there are no lightweights because, well, there are no lightweights.

Naaah. C'mon Philadelphia, just do it!

Colleges Advocate Disordered Eating?

Longtime readers of FITD know that one of my pet peeves is the unfounded claim that an inordinate number of female lightweight rowers have eating disorders. None of the studies I've seen on the subject (not an exhaustive survey by any means) have offered real evidence of this claim. Typically, after the authors fail to find evidence of eating disorders, they find evidence of "disordered eating" and wrap up their study by saying that it makes intuitive sense for female lightweight rowers to be at risk so they must be. The catch is the definition of disordered eating which includes limiting caloric intake or limiting certain foods. Don't all college age women exhibit disordered eating then?

With the arrival of the "Back to School" season comes the first of many "Freshman 15" articles. The author begins by talking to students and nutritionists who worry about overeating as they begin college. Then an odd thing happens. By the time the article ends, we're told we need to worry that "students have more opportunity to compare themselves with each other because they spend so much time together" and that "super-fit bodies that saturate TV shows and commercials can exacerbate such problems." The first link given at the end of the article is to Duke's Eating Disorders Program. It turns out that the real problem isn't gaining 15 pounds, but trying to lose it later. At the University of Missouri, we're told, "students are trained to make presentations to their peers ... on eating healthy, handling stress, exercising and generally leading a healthy lifestyle." Gee, that sounds like they want to turn everyone into a lightweight rower, doesn't it?

The more "experts" make it seem like everyone has an eating disorder, the less likely it is that the appropriate resources will be focused on those who actually need help. This does a disservice to all concerned.

(Disclaimer: I'm not a doctor and this isn't medical advice. I can, however, read.)

Ohio State - The New Place to Be For Lightweights?

I recently heard from Coach Hugh Dodd, the new head coach at Ohio State. In addition to correcting my erroneous belief that he and Wisco's new coach, Erik Miller, were teammates at Washington (they were not; I corrected my earlier post), he also told me that he intends to revive men's lightweight rowing at OSU. This is good news for the women lights because it means that they have a coach who cares about lightweights and that they will have fellow travelers in the OSU boathouse. Success by one team will encourage and raise the standards for the other. With the huge recruiting base at Ohio State, a little rise in the popularity of the lightweight programs could mean a huge rise in the number of recruits and the speed of V8s.

While at Washington, Coach Dodd weighed around 170 pounds, making him essentially a lightweight competing for a seat on one of the nation's premier heavyweight teams. Only someone with fire in the belly (aka lightweight attitude) survives in that kind of environment. This may go a long way toward explaining his favorable attitude toward lightweights. I think that over the next couple of years the OSU light women will be a crew to watch as they try to break into the top five. Whether they get there or not, I'm pretty sure their journey won't be uneventful.

UCF Coach Re-Ups

UCF head coach Leeanne Crain signed a new three year contract last week. I don't know how directly involved she is with the UCF lightweights, but they've certainly made a name for themselves since she arrived in 2003. There's no mention in the announcement of an intent to hire an assistant (lightweight?) coach, as has been rumored. We'll have to wait and see on that one. There was mention, however, of plans for a new boathouse and practice facility. UCF continues to show that it's serious about women's rowing.

Another sign of the impending fall racing season - Radcliffe announced that it will hold it's crew information meeting on September 13th.

Only 9 weeks until the Head of the Charles.

A Suggestion

In championship regattas, team points trophies are a desirable piece of hardware. Although I'm not a big fan, coaches want them, athletic directors want them, and the NCAA's rule over women's heavyweight rowing as a "team sport" has made them more important than ever. The only championship regatta I'm aware of, however, in which the results of the light eight counts toward such a trophy is the A10's. It seems to me then, that one way to grow lightweight rowing would be to make it count toward a major championship team trophy. I suggest we start with the Willing Trophy at EAWRC Sprints.

There are probably easier championships with which to start, but none with more tradition or prestige. Sprints are the place to have the biggest impact. If the Sprints schools began to develop lightweight programs, that would represent some real progress in growing the sport. Of the 16 schools entered in the V8 competition last season, 10 have lightweight men's programs so they are no strangers to lightweight rowing. The points at stake for the LV8 event need to be substantial as well. They need to reflect the fact that the light eight is a varsity eight race. One point down from the V8 points seems about right (actually that would be similar to the 2V8 and N8). If there were 17 or 18 points at stake in the LV8 race it might make some schools think about a program.

Of course, if this were implemented there would be a hue and cry from those schools without women's lightweights. No problem, announce it two or three years in advance. Give each school a chance to develop a lightweight program before the points count.

Clearly this is no panacea, but it can't hurt. It would give the heavyweight coaches in the CRCA an opportunity to truly represent lightweights to the ECAC when they support this move. It would broaden the growth of women's rowing. The major heavyweight programs have more scholarships than they can possibly give to big high school girls with rowing experience, yet many high school rowers don't row in college but would like to. They are lightweights. This is how the women's side of the sport will continue to grow and a role in the Willing Trophy is a place to start.

Lightweights and the CRCA - Comments

The most obvious point to make about Coach Teitelbaum's answer is that he does not say that the CRCA supports the continued growth of women's lightweight rowing. This was my first question and it goes unanswered. I find that curious because that question was clearly a softball, an icebreaker meant to get us both on the same page so we could ease into more difficult areas.

In fact, none of my questions were answered as the coach simply said that the CRCA considers only those issues raised by the lightweight committee. This suggests that he is unfamiliar with the lightweight issues I raised and is reluctant to say that the organization supports the category. By comparison, I would ask if the Executive Director of USRowing would be able to answer questions about lightweights in the Olympics and state USRowing's position on the growth of lightweight events. I'm quite sure he would. (Coach Teitelbaum implied he was reluctant to answer my questions because he couldn't possibly know what all heavyweight coaches think. I replied that I was looking for an organizational response and that I was writing to him as the head of the organization.)

As Coach Teitelbaum himself implies, the fact that the head of an organization of heavyweight coaches is unfamiliar with lightweight issues is not surprising. What is surprising, however, is that the organization purports to represent lightweights to USRowing, the NCAA, and other legislative arenas.

Although I asked, Coach Teitelbaum did not name any specific measures the CRCA has taken to support lightweight rowing. Again, for a heavyweight organization this would be perfectly understandable, but that is not what the CRCA claims to be.

Finally, for all of the reliance Coach Teitelbaum puts on the lightweight committee, until this past year it was headed by a heavyweight coach who happens to have lightweights racing in his program.

Coach Teitelbaum's comments make me continue to believe that the CRCA sees lightweights and the lightweight committee as an unwanted step-child for whom they've been forced to care. With new leadership I think the committee will play a larger role in CRCA activities. This committee structure may actually prove to be useful for lightweights, but it's impossible to tell until it raises some difficult issues to the full membership. Until it becomes an unruly step-child.

There is a problem, however, with the unruly step-child model. The lightweight coaches on the committee will have to be unruly to their bosses and future bosses. In many cases, but not all, lightweight coaches report to the women's heavyweight coach (see the recent Wisconsin coaching announcement). In many more cases, for reasons of pay and authority, those lightweight coaches someday hope to be heavyweight coaches (men's or women's) at the more prominent heavyweight powerhouses. All that makes it awfully tough to be unruly.

Nonetheless, I do believe that the current committee, building on the momentum of the best lightweight season ever, will be able to make some major inroads in the CRCA. It will require a deft political hand and an ability to uncover latent lightweight support. There are many heavyweight coaches who support lightweight rowing, and the lightweight committee needs to mobilize that support.

The obvious question, of course, is mobilize that support to what end? I'm not privy to the committee's agenda and I'm sure it doesn't need my help to set it, but...
I have a suggestion that would help grow lightweight rowing, but would be perceived to cause some pain for heavyweights. A suggestion that could only become reality with the support of the heavyweight coaches. A suggestion that would probably be dismissed out of hand but shouldn't be. I'll explain it in a coming post.

Lightweights and the CRCA

A few months ago a reader took me to task for criticizing the CRCA (Collegiate Rowing Coaches Association) without really understanding what the CRCA does. I thought that this was a fair criticism so I decided to write to Andy Teitelbaum, the president of the CRCA, to ask what that organization's attitude is toward women's lightweight rowing and how they have supported the category. I began by noting the existence of the CRCA lightweight committee and said that I was interested in how the organization as a whole, not the committee, views lightweight rowing. My questions were as follows:

One of the missions of the CRCA is to "Promote women's rowing as a collegiate sport." Given that mission:

- Does the CRCA support the continued growth of women's lightweight rowing?

- If so, what actions has and will the CRCA take to support that growth? If not, why not?

- Does the CRCA support a NCAA National Championship for women's lightweights?

- If so, what actions has and will the CRCA take to support that championship? If not, why not?

- What is the CRCA's involvement with the IRA Regatta, the National Championship regatta for women's lightweights?

- What does the CRCA believe is the most pressing issue in women's collegiate lightweight rowing today? What has the CRCA done to address that issue?

The pertinent part of Coach Teitelbaum's response was as follows:

The CRCA is a membership run organization. The activities and emphasis of the association are driven by its members. We have a Lightweight Committee. It is an opportunity for any coach (lightweight or otherwise) or CRCA member to be involved with issues and agenda items that specifically involve lightweight women's rowing. As President of the CRCA I entrust that committee to be the mechanism which brings issues pertaining to lightweight rowing to the rest of the membership.

Of course I wrote again and raised a few specific issues such as the inherent conflict of interest in the CRCA's sponsorship of a lightweight committee when most heavyweight coaches (as I've been told by a few) see lightweights as a drain on heavyweight resources. I also noted some more symbolic issues such as the ineligibility of lightweights for All-America honors and of lightweight coaches for coach of the year honors. I think a few quotes from Coach Teitelbaum's response will accurately convey his meaning.

There are many conflicting interests that reside within the CRCA. While it may be true that coaches have told you that lightweight rowing may cause a reallocation of resources at their school, there is still a place for a lightweight voice within the organization. As for the All America awards, perhaps the lightweight committee should bring up this issue to be considered by the awards committee or directly to the board. It doesn't seem fair to criticize the CRCA members or the Board for neglecting to address lightweight issues which the lightweight committee has never identified as a priority.

The CRCA is looking out for the interest of lightweight rowing exactly to the extent that the active members which represent that segment of the rowing population have expressed.

You are correct that lightweight rowing represents a minority interest in the overall membership of the CRCA. As such, much of the membership is not actively working on lightweight issues. It is for this reason that we created a special committee for lightweights in the first place.

The idea that the CRCA membership as a whole should be paying more attention to lightweight issues is unrealistic. The people who should be moving the lightweight agenda within the organization are the people who are most affected by it.

Chew on this for a day or two and I'll next post my thoughts.

Lightweight Entries at Worlds

I like to look at lightweight entries at Worlds every year as another check on the health of women's lightweight rowing. There are three events for lightweight women - the 2x (the Olympic event), the 1x, and the 4x. This year both the 2x and the 1x have more entries than last, while the 4x has one fewer. Only four events have more entries than the LW2x (22, the same as the heavy women's 1x and LM4-), and they are all mens'. The LW1x has 21 entries, seventh in popularity. The LW4x is farther down the list with only six entries, although the LM4x has five and the heavy women's 4x has eight highlighting the lower popularity of that boat class (the heavy men have fifteen). It's interesting to note that the light women and light men both have a slightly higher percentage of entries than events, while the heavy men and women are the opposite. I don't know how meaningful that is but I'll take it as a sign that demand for lightweight events is relatively strong.

I think this kind of indicator is important because if demand remains high internationally, FISA will look favorably on lightweight events. If FISA looks favorably on lightweight events they stay in the Olympics and remain a medal winning opportunity for the US. If they remain a medal winning opportunity for the US, USOC and therefore USRowing will see lightweight rowing as worth developing. That can only be good for collegiate lightweights. As the USOC and USRowing continue to emphasize number of medals, a WL2x gold is just as valuable as a M8+. This kind of thinking has resulted in the mens' priority boat being the 4- this year, not the eight (i.e. let's see if we can win in a smaller boat and then spread around those 8+ rowers). It's kind of like a team championship, isn't it? The country with the most medals wins, except there are no extra points for eights. Hmmm, the LW2x just as valuable as the M8+? That's not very NCAA like, but that might be where the USOC is headed.

Lightweight 1x Trial

There's a great story on row2k about the last race of the lightweight 1x trial which concluded last Saturday. It's just so, well, "lightweight." Early morning weigh-in followed by a launch from an empty dock. Almost no one was there except the two rowers and the officials. The trials for the other boat classes had already concluded as the lightweight 1x went to three races. "...in the single on a morning like this, after the starter calls 'Attention, go,' the competitors will row side by side for over a mile without hearing another human voice."

At the end of this race one athlete was on the national team and the other went home. They wished each other good luck at the start and shook hands over the gunwhales at the finish. Unlike so many crews these days who stand in boats, hold up oars, and jump into the water or each other's arms, these two lightweight women won and lost with dignity. They showed respect for each other and for the sport. I have yet to see a winning women's lightweight crew make fools of themselves when they win and I hope I never do. Let others hug and salute themselves and act like they've never won before, while lightweight women win with class. That is what rowing is all about.

USRowing Nationals

USRowing Nationals took place July 19th through the 23rd and a quick look at the competitors in the intermediate lightweight events shows that college lightweights didn't stop going after one another when IRAs ended. I'm sure I missed an athlete or two, but there were several women in Indianapolis who looked across the lane markers to see a familiar face.

In the Elite/Open Lightweight 4x, '06 Harvard grad and NYAC rower Sara Bates met up with Pocock rower and '05 Wisconsin grad Katie Sweet. In a three boat race the Pocock 4x finished first over NYAC, which finished third. Despite the dearth of entries in this event it was incredibly competitive as Sweet's winning Pocock 4x later won trials and will represent the US at Worlds in Eton. Marist rower (they put out some lightweight boats) Lisa Daniello also rowed in the NYAC 4x. Bates went on to win a national championship in the senior lightweight 2x, beating five other boats.

UCF rower Melissa Kroll competed for the Chicago Rowing Center in the intermediate lightweight 4x, finishing third of four boats. Kroll won a national championship in the senior lightweight 2-, finishing first of two. UCF teammate Lauren Schueler, rowing for Steel City, raced the intermediate lightweight 2-, finishing second out of two boats. Kroll also raced the senior lightweight 4+, finishing second out of five boats.

The intermedaite lightweight 2x and 1x saw the most collegiate foes face off. Rowing for the Boston Development Camp, an all Radcliffe 2x of Mariah Evarts and Naomi Ford went out in the heats. UCF's Lauren Schueler's 2x finished fifth in the nine boat field. Under the heading of mixed marriages, the fourth place intermediate lightweight 2x from Undine Barge Club was comprised of Bucknell's Caitlin Doolin and Princeton's Madeline Davis.

Three of the 2x competitors also faced off in the intermediate lightweight 1x. In a sixteen boat field, Radcliffe's Ford went out in the semi, as did UCF's Schueler. Princeton's Davis made it through to finals and finished fifth of sixteen. Although not a lightweight event, Davis also raced the Elite/Open 1x Dash, finishing fifth out of eight.

Both Radcliffe and UCF had at least two returning rowers competing at nationals and who will come back to their college programs with great racing experience. Summer racing isn't for everyone and is best avoided for those worried about burn out. For those enthusiastic about maintaining a high level of training through the summer months, however, it provides great racing experience, exposure to new coaches, and, as is the case with at least one 2x, the opportunity to train and compete with women you previously only knew as rivals.

If you look at the number of entries in these events, you'll notice that the sculling events, and particularly the single, have the largest fields. (The elite events are a special case because there aren't many rowers at that level and this year trials started just one week after nationals.) Not only does sculling help you become a better sweep rower, but if you want to row as a lightweight outside of college, you must scull. The only Olympic event for lightweights is the 2x and the only event at Worlds for lightweights are the 1x, 2x, and 4x. You'll notice that each of the rowers I mentioned above competed in at least one sculling event.

Canadian Henley begins this week and no doubt some of these same rowers will compete there. The competition there is from all over North America and the fields will be much larger. Many of the larger events will run heats with only two to advance to semis (no reps). This method of progression certainly finds the very top boats, but it does result in some fast crews getting knocked out early. By Sunday evening Eastern Daylight Time, the summer rowing season will officially be over (unless you're off to Worlds!). Then it's time to pack the unis and the Coolmax shirts and head back to school for the head season.

Badger Makes National Team

Despite what I said below about how few national team members come from the top lightweight teams, Katie Sweet, who graduated from Wisconsin in 2005, made the national team in the lightweight quad this morning. (A reader beat me to this post with a comment a few minutes ago.) Needless to say, this is a tremendous achievement and given how we've seen the quality of lightweight rowing rise in the past year, I hope Katie is in the vanguard of an assault on the national team by rowers who rowed lightweight in college.

UCF Rumor

A reader posted a comment that said, "UCF is looking for a new coach." I have no confirmation of this and I don't know anything more than that, including whether this might be a lightweight coach or a coach for the entire program (heavies and lights). If it's the latter, I happen to know of a former Wisconsin lightweight coach who attended UCF as an undergraduate and is available...

As a sign of how close the season is, UCF has already announced their informational meeting.

[Update: See comments for the latest.]

Dodd to Lead Buckeyes

The Ohio State Lightweights also have a new head coach after Peter Steenstra moved on to coach at Cornell. Hugh Dodd, takes over a lightweight women's program that has worked its way onto the national scene and has won the ECAC title. There is a lot of upside for Coach Dodd to exploit. Dodd, formerly the men's freshmen coach, will be head coach for both the men and lightweight women.

Interestingly enough, Coach Dodd rowed at the University of Washington, the same alma mater as Wisconsin's new coach, Erik Miller. [Update: I originally thought that the two coaches were teammates but as a result of some paperwork requirements and other red tape Coach Dodd's official graduation date is out of kilter with his actual rowing dates. They missed being teammates by three years or so.]

Miller to Lead Badgers

Erik Miller has been named head coach at Wisconsin. Miller will have the difficult task of following three-time national championship winner Mary Shofner. Miller has a sparkling rowing resume, having spent eight years as a member of the US national team. He spent those years as a lightweight so he should be in tune with the unique peculiarities of lightweight rowing. He served as an assistant coach for the Wisco men and for the Wisco summer collegiate women's camp so he was a known quantity for Bebe Bryans. One thing seems certain, he knows what it takes to compete at the highest level so we'll see how he brings that knowledge to his athletes.

Under the heading of old web pages never die, check out Coach Miller's old site. [Update: Well, they do die when the owner realizes it's been linked to and replaces the content.] You can get an idea of some of the workouts he went through while on the national team as well as few other things about him (the accompanying picture, for example). Stand by for a lot of "rusties," Badgers. It also turns out that cooking and BBQ are hobbies of Coach Miller, so I guess the Wisco women can expect a lot of cookouts at his house (turkey burgers, of course).

Coach Miller went to the University of Washington which doesn't have a lightweight men's program, yet he raced for the US as a lightweight. This is something I've noticed among lightweight national team women as well - it seems as though most national team lightweights come from heavyweight programs. Where are the Wisco, Radcliffe, Georgetown, and Princeton national team lightweights? A few theories come to mind, but they're for another time.

Coach Miller walks into the best of situations and the worst of situations at Wisconsin. The best because he will be coaching the three time national champions. The worst because he will be coaching the three time national champions. They can't win forever (can they?), and with the improvement we saw in the field last season, there are plenty of worthy successors. I don't know how much you'll need, but good luck, coach and take care of the top lightweight program in the country!




[The news about Coach Miller's hiring was posted in the comments section of FITD by a Wisco lightweight while I was on "hiatus." Thank you for that posting and please keep them coming. Thanks to a reader, FITD was first with the scoop. As you may have guessed, this post means that FITD will be back for at least another year. (Some of you are smiling, some of you are cursing; just so you're not yawning!) Even though it's the summer, I've missed a lot. I'm getting my head back in the boat and should be up to speed soon. As always, please send me your news, comments, and suggestions. I pay attention to them all and because you all know much more about lightweight rowing than me, you're the best source of information I have.]

One Year

Today marks one year since the first post on Fight in the Dog. Since that time we’ve seen the best racing women’s lightweight rowing has to give as more dedicated programs have come on the scene and parity looks achievable. Unfortunately, the sport has also faced one of the largest threats ever to its existence.

FITD began like most blogs, read only by its author. It slowly grew until by the end of the spring season it had readers from teams around the country, including all of the top 10 programs. The first reader who ever contacted me was a former Georgia Tech rower who began to spread the word with a link from her own blog. The first team I knew to read FITD was UCF. Rowers, coaches, parents, and regatta officials have all contacted me about women’s lightweight rowing at some point over the life of FITD. Those who have read and commented on this site are simply proof that women’s lightweight rowing is alive and vibrant in the US. True, there are those involved with women’s rowing who couldn’t be bothered enough to answer my questions about lightweights, and there are those who desperately wish this blog didn’t exist. In the end, though, rowers of all weights and sexes recognize that we all share a love of the same sport, we all take the same strokes, over the same distance, and experience the same pain in the pursuit of perfection. We are all the same.

Not too long ago, a reader posted a comment in which she said that there was nothing on FITD that you couldn’t find on row2k. I have to admit that stung a bit, probably because I had just finished a series of posts that mostly consisted of race results. It did get me wondering, however, just what I might have written about that was new and informative to lightweights. Here are some things I could think of:

- FITD was the first to report to a wide audience (outside of the conference) that the Pac 10 was pushing for a NCAA championship for heavyweight men.

- FITD was the first to publish a Q&A with the NCAA on women’s lightweights

- FITD was the first to report on the 2006 IRA weigh-in requirements

- FITD was the first to do a study of the number of lightweight programs

- FITD is the only place you’ll see eating disorders and lightweight rowing discussed without a politically correct bias

- FITD is the only place to find an ongoing discussion of how the NCAA affects lightweight rowing

- FITD is the only place you’ll find a discussion of why there aren’t more lightweight programs

- FITD was the first to do a post-season ranking of V8s

- FITD was the only place to find race reports of lightweight women’s races

- FITD is the only place to find an analysis of lightweight vs. heavyweight race times

- FITD is the only to place to find season previews for women’s lightweight programs

- FITD was the first to call out the Rowing News on its lack of women’s lightweight coverage in its season preview issue

There was other unique information on FITD but perhaps the biggest scoop was also the one that stimulated the most negative feedback – the IRA dam opening. Of all the outlets reporting on the IRAs no one else was alert enough (or cared enough) to recognize aberrant results and look for the cause. In some quarters FITD will be forever despised for making a lot of people look silly.

As the summer flies by (teams will be back to school next month), lightweights with national team ambitions are testing themselves at U23 trials, Nationals, and Canadian Henley and will provide leadership to their teams and the sport in the fall. Like all major endeavors, progress for women’s lightweights will come in fits and starts. Much progress was made last season, but who knows what will happen this coming season? The trend in dedicated programs is up, in quality of crews is higher, and in parity is more. The 2007 season should be better than the last. More crews than ever have shown they are fast, and more crews than ever believe they can win. As Georgetown and UCF have shown, the top five slots of the national poll are no longer safe. There will always be threats to lightweight rowing, but the best way to fight them off is for more women to row harder, row faster, and row smarter. I firmly believe that will happen, just as I believe the best days of women’s lightweight rowing are yet to come.

“The future’s so bright, I gotta wear shades.”

Tulsa Developing a Lightweight Program

Tulsa coach Kevin Harris has informed me that Tulsa is "'developing' a lightweight program within our existing structure with the hopes of making it a full fledged varsity program in the next few years." There will not be a full time coach, but the program will be "actively recruiting true lightweight women."

This is great news! Where this initiative goes in the coming years will depend a lot on the success enjoyed by Tulsa lights. Clearly programs with a combined heavyweight/lightweight coach can do extremely well, just look at Bucknell and Georgetown of a few years ago. Congratulations to Tulsa and good luck in 2006-07.

Growth

Now that the summer club season is here, it's a good time to think about growing women's lightweight rowing, probably the single most pressing issue in the sport today. We've just finished possibly the most competitive season ever, yet women's lightweight rowing remains the smallest of the four categories in the sport. Total participation is good, and may actually show the women to be close to men's lightweights. When I looked back at the 2004 and 2005 seasons, I found that around 90 schools boated lightweight eights or fours over the two years. Seventy did in each year alone and, of those, 50 were consistent between the two years. The problem, however, is that the dedicated programs are growing realatively slowly (although I think at an accelerating rate). Most of those 50 programs raced fours, as in any one year there were about 20 to 25 schools racing eights. Dedicated programs race eights.

The combination of Title IX and a NCAA championship has resulted in explosive growth for women's heavyweights, and logic would suggest that a NCAA championship for lightweights would do the same. While the desirability of such a championship for any category is far from settled, a major hurdle exists for a lightweight championship - the NCAA considers rowing to be a team sport. The most obvious manifestation of this is the emphasis on team championships. The latest issue of Rowing News announced Cal's team championship in the headline of it's NCAA championship article. A reader had to get into the text to read about Princeton's V8 which won it's championship after one of the most dominating seasons in history. Did any rowers care about the team championship other than Cal? I ask the question again, Would you rather win the V8 or the team championship? A newspaper reporter had an apt description for the team championship - it's like winning the Home Run Derby.

More important to us, however, is the fact that since rowing is a team championship, if lightweights were to be added they would have to be added as an event in that championship. In other words, those teams receiving team bids would need to have lightweights. No teams would receive bids for just a lightweight boat (which would be similar to a team receiving a bid for a V4). Since almost none of the programs sending teams to the NCAAs have lightweights, it's hard to imagine a lightweight event ever making it into the championship. In addition, some of the better lightweight programs are DII or DIII schools, which would not be allowed to mix with DI schools. Perhaps the structure could be changed to allow lightweights in separately, but it's not clear how.

Interestingly enough, if lightweights were simply another event, like a 2-, it wouldn't be so difficult to add them. The problems arise because lightweight rowing is more similar to another sport, not another event. A lightweight program requires different athletes, different coaches, different equipment, and different schedules. The NCAA tells lightweights they're simply another event, while the rowing world says it can't add that event because it would be like adding another sport. Perhaps this is another sign of how the NCAA misunderstands rowing, or perhaps a sign of how the NCAA would like to see lightweights go away.

While saying it wants to grow women's rowing at all levels, the NCAA has also said that it has no plans to add lightweights to its championship, a decision it leaves up to its membership. As best I can tell that membership has a voice through an advisory committee. It would be interesting to know if that committee has ever discussed lightweight rowing and what its attitude is toward the category. Perhaps we can find out.

Summer Rowing

Now that the summer is here, it begs the question of what are college lightweights doing? Cross training, rowing, or nothing? No doubt we'll see some college lightweights racing at summer regattas, including nationals and Canadian Henley. Rowers with international aspirations will view the summer as an important part of their rowing career because it is a chance to test themselves against intermediate and senior lightweights who also have the same aspirations. Of course, it's also the time to learn (or continue to learn) sculling because the only international lightweight events for women are sculling events.

Thinking about national team lightweights raises another question - how many national team lightweights were lightweight rowers in college? While I don't know for sure, it seems to me that most weren't, or at least didn't compete as lightweights. For all of the worry at the collegiate level about lightweights and weight issues, at the international level extreme weight loss is almost encouraged. USRowing allows lightweights to weigh 140 pounds for the April erg test, 15 pounds over the international weight limit. Why are these large weight fluctuations allowed and what good does it do anybody to test at 140 pounds?

I also wonder if lightweight collegiate coaches encourage national team aspirations, or at least make known the opportunities, as much as heavyweight coaches. There is, however, at least one collegiate lightweight on the national squad. Hannah Moore lists her most memorable sporting achievement as "winning the varsity lightweight eight title for Villanova at the IRA Championships." Remember that? It was 1998. Villanova now rows lightweight boats of opportunity and hasn't been heard from since.

IRA Dam Opening: The Final Word

As I reported earlier, the Camden County Parks Director informed me that the Cooper River Parkway Dam was, in fact, open during the afternoon of June 3rd - the most important afternoon in college rowing. During the championship races that afternoon, including the women's lightweight eight, the dam opening created seriously unfair conditions for lane 1 and most likely lane 2 as well. Since lanes one and two were given to those qualifiers with the fastest times, the championship finals were seriously flawed. I gave this information to the ECAC which, to its credit, conducted its own investigation. The ECAC has determined that THE COOPER RIVER DAM WAS OPEN that afternoon.

It is difficult to imagine a more serious error in rowing than racing when there are drastically different conditions for different lanes. This was made all the worse by the fact that the affected races determined the national championship for the men's heavy eight, the men's light eight, and the women's light eight.

This is no small matter. While no one can say what the outcome would have been of fair races, we do know that fabulous crews had their hopes dashed against the shoals of miscommunication. While pride and lasting memories hung in the balance, so too did alumni donations and coaches' jobs. Wouldn't it have been great to see Princeton v Cal from lanes 5 and 6? What would a resurgent Princeton women's light eight have done from lane 5? What would a highly touted Navy men's light eight have done from lane 6? What's done is done, but it was done unfairly and it should not be allowed to happen again.

Gothard Lane, Director of Championships for the ECAC, did the research for the regatta committee. Gothard explained to me that "Without notifying us, the dam was opened on Saturday. From what we understand, the water got so high that they had no choice but to open the dam. If they had not released the water when they did then some of the local neighborhoods might have experienced some flooding later on that day during high tide." It seems then, that this was a tragic case of miscommunication. It's more difficult to understand, however, how spectators and coaches alike knew of the dam opening but the regatta committee did not. As Gothard goes on to say, "If we had been notified by the dam operator, then we could have gathered the coaches together to decide about what to do with regard to the schedule." If I were a coach, I would want to know what the regatta committee's plan is to ensure that this does not happen again. I would expect a letter acknowledging the problem and the plan.

Here is a short chronology of how this all came to light:

- As the women's light eight grand final is crossing the line on June 3rd, spectators mention to Fight in the Dog that the dam has been opened

- FITD analyzes race results after the rumored dam opening and finds obvious abnormalities

- row2k publishes a post-race report stating that the dam was closed all afternoon and was incapable of being opened because of the force of the current

- FITD reads the row2k report but decides that the facts still suggest a serious problem and publishes a post-race report noting the rumored dam opening and its affect on the races

- After taking some criticism from readers for publishing the rumored opening, FITD decides to research the issue and is told by the Camden County Parks Director that the dam was open from 1pm until 3:30pm.

- FITD informs the ECAC of the dam opening; the ECAC launches its own investigation

- The ECAC confirms that the dam was open during the IRA championship races

Sometimes, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.

[Update: The most recent issue of Rowing News repeats the false story about the dam not being opened and unable to be opened for the championship races. No doubt the truth came out after they went to press. It's particularly unfortunate that they led the IRA article with the false story. The article also says that the Cornell light men were in lane one while they were actually in lane two and Navy (sixth place) was in lane one.]

Wanted: Opposing Views

Over the past year, I’ve written frequently about the NCAA and somewhat less frequently about the Collegiate Rowing Coaches Association. My last post on the CRCA was a tongue-in-cheek criticism of the organization for excluding lightweight coaches from the voting for Coach of the Year and Assistant Coach of the Year. A reader took me to task for this post saying “the baseless claims about the CRCA, NCAA, and any woman who rows and isn't under 130 lbs are getting to be a little too much.” Of course, I would argue with the term “baseless” and I really don’t think I knock heavyweights very much at all (except for my refusal to use the weenie term “openweight”). I would imagine, however, that because I am the only one posting here, reading what I think of the NCAA and the CRCA can get pretty tiresome. So, in the interest of community, dialog, etc., etc., I’d like to post an opposing view (or views). If you think the NCAA, with its current involvement, has been good for the sport of rowing in general, and more specifically has been good for women’s lightweight rowing, tell me why. If you think the CRCA has supported and advocated for women’s lightweight rowing, let me know how.

Before anyone writes to me, however, take a look at what I’ve written about the NCAA. You can start with an email interview I conducted with a NCAA representative here, and my comments here. Read some thoughts on a women's lightweight championship here, and here is a coach who confirms the NCAA's worry about the "eating disorder" canard among lightweights. (Honestly, I think the NCAA is hostile to lightweights.) Finally, most of what I've written about the NCAA has been related to the Pac 10 proposal for a men's heavyweight NCAA championship. Frankly, if all categories of rowing, or no categories of rowing, had NCAA championships, I’d worry a lot less about the NCAA. As long as certain categories do and certain categories don’t, I’ll hammer them every opportunity I get.

I’ve written less about the CRCA so let me just say that I consider the CRCA to simply be an NCAA advisory body with little interest in, or concern with, women’s lightweight rowing. Yes, there is a lightweight committee which I suspect does some good work, but I don’t consider the existence of that committee dependent on the CRCA. It seems to me that the work done by the committee is a result of the interest and dedication of the members of that committee, and is done in the face of total indifference from the rest of the CRCA. I can’t recall ever seeing a lightweight issue addressed in CRCA board minutes. My questions for the CRCA would be (maybe I’ll ask them one of these days): Do you advocate the growth of women’s lightweight rowing? What are you doing to support that position? Do you advocate a NCAA championship for lightweight women? What are you doing to support that position?

Let me know your thoughts because, I am coachable.

What Did They Know and When Did They Know It?

I was feeling bad after being taken to task by a few readers for writing so much about the lane problems at the IRA final (I should have written it in a separate post) and I decided it would only be fair to see if I could get more information.

After some online research I determined that the dam in question was the Cooper River Parkway Dam at Kaighn Avenue. I then made a few phone calls and sent a few emails before I determined that Camden County Parks controls the dam. Finally, I sent an email to Caren Fishman, the Director of Parks for Camden County and asked for the Cooper River Parkway Dam opening times for June 2nd and June 3rd. This morning I received the following response:

6/2/06 12:45 - 2:45 p.m. dam opened
6/3/06 1:00 - 3:30 p.m. dam opened

The June 2nd opening coincides with the halt in racing on that day - the last race ran at 12:36 and the next race ran at 3:15 - so it provides confidence that this is the correct dam.

If you recall, the row2k June 3rd post-race report said

the water folks did not open the dam during racing - in fact, they were not able to, as there was too much water for them to be able to do so, so they had to let water spill over the top of the dam naturally.

We have a serious discrepancy. The dam was open during the final races of the day Saturday. I'm not sure who "the water folks" are, but they didn't seem to know when the dam was open and when it was closed.

There was a 2 hour dam opening Friday, racing was halted, and when it resumed the lane seedings were switched. Saturday there was a 2.5 hour dam opening, racing continued during the opening and lane seedings were not switched. A mistake was made on one of these days and judging by the Saturday results, it was that day. The current effect first showed up on Saturday in the men's heavyweight V8 final, which was raced at about 2:15 (it was delayed). Races just prior to that, ending at 1:45, did not show the effect. The river current had to go from near zero to fast enough to affect racing and, although I don't know how long that would take, 45 minutes seems within reason.

So here we are. The rumors seem to be true and it looks like we had a serious problem with the fairness of the National Championship races. This is not a function of rowing being an outdoor sport. This condition was controlled for on Friday and it should have been controlled for on Saturday. Competing championship regattas (e.g. ECAC) have been organized as a result of perceived unfair conditions such as this. Serious questions need to be asked of the IRA Regatta committee. We are now left to wonder how much of a disadvantage lane one, and probably lane two, had in the men's heavy V8 grand, the women's light V8 petite and grand, and the men's light V8 petite and grand.

The worst part of all of this? It gives the Pac 10 ammunition on their quest for a men's heavyweight NCAA championship.

[Update: The ECAC is checking into this; see comments.]

IRA Race Video

The IRA race video is up over at goldmedalfilms.com. Good video and for those of you who tend toward the excessive, you can click through it frame by frame.

Wisconsin Under Shofner

Just as you know an artist by her work, so you know a coach by her crews. Over the past three years, her entire tenure at Wisconsin, Mary Shofner’s crews have been champions. During a period when women’s lightweights have been getting faster and more numerous, the Badgers have been National Champions every year. More than simply fast, Shofner’s Wisconsin crews have been models of technique. They’ve been smooth, fluid, and long. In the 2005 IRA final, when Princeton was still making a race of it coming into the last 250, both crews went into their sprint. Within two strokes you saw that it was over; Wisconsin would win. The Badgers actually seemed to get longer as their rate came up. They were an image of swing. In my mind, that moment defined Wisconsin lightweight rowing. Most would point to the 2004 twelve second mauling of the IRA field instead, but that victory was so fantastic as to seem almost unrepeatable. It was ’05, when Wisco showed its typical poise and responded to pressure with, “Oh yeah? Watch this.”

As Mary Shofner leaves the University of Wisconsin, we should all be grateful for what she helped the Badgers bring to the sport. When she arrived, Wisconsin was a bridesmaid program that just couldn’t quite get its bowball over the line first. She leaves behind the foundation of a dynasty. Wisconsin’s rise has been one of the best stories in women’s lightweight rowing. The program has thrived at a Big Ten school, where heavyweights usually rule. It thrives at a school in “flyover country” and shows Eastern crews that women know how to row in the Midwest too. It became the premier program in a boathouse with a long and rich rowing tradition. It brought red and white checked tablecloths to IRA tents and cowbells to the shores of the Cooper River (ok, so not everything is good). It brought competition and respect to lightweight rowing and throngs of new fans to the sport - no one travels as well as Wisconsin. Perhaps the most fitting tribute to Coach Shofner’s crews came from a Princeton rower I overhead at IRAs this year. Responding to the chest beating the men were doing about East Coast vs. West Coast crews, this rower said, “The thing about Wisconsin is, they don’t run around crowing about being from the Midwest, they just go out and get the job done. The men could learn something from that.” We all could learn something from that.

I don’t know where Coach Shofner will coach next, but where ever it is I wish her success.

They'll Never Get an NCAA Championship That Way

This story about the Harvard - Yale race on saturday mentions that the men's heavyweight V8 coxswain "dropped nearly 30 pounds in one month last fall to return to race shape." Yikes! And some people worry about lightweights.

Lightweight Scholarships

There's been a bit of a debate on these pages over whether any schools offer scholarship money for lightweights, in particular Wisconsin. At one point, I mentioned that they did and was corrected by a reader who said Wisconsin did at one time but no longer does. This story about a lightweight high school rower says she's going to Wisconsin next year on a "a partial crew scholarship." I'm not sure that's probative of anything though, because I frequently hear of girls going to Ivy League schools on "rowing scholarships."

CRCA Regional Coaches of the Year

I'm a little late on this, but back on May 23rd the CRCA announced its Regional Coaches of the Year. My initial thought, of course, was that Jim O'Conner, the Georgetown lightweight varsity coach would be a great choice although he'd have to duke it out with Mary Shofner, of course. Unfortunately the ballots were due May 17th, prior to the Hoya's 3rd place finish at Sprints, and way before their 2nd place finish at IRAs. Oh well... But then, I took a look at the ballot. Low and behold, neither O'Conner nor Shofner were even eligible! Perhaps the CRCA doesn't accept lightweight coaches as members (the riff raff, you know), except that there is a lightweight committee. (Wonder why there's a lightweight committee and not a heavyweight committee? Those heavyweight coaches should complain.) Perhaps he was eligible as an assistant (those lightweight coaches aren't really head coaches now, are they?). Well, I don't know about that, but I do know he didn't win. It may be that O'Conner just isn't a member of the CRCA. Can't imagine why a lightweight coach wouldn't want to join an organization that "exists to unify collegiate women’s rowing coaches, to act as a collective voice, and to inform collegiate women’s rowing coaches on issues related to rowing." [Italics mine]

Oh my gosh, maybe it's all because - gulp - the CRCA doesn't care about lightweights!

A Reader Confirms Coach Shofner's Departure

A reader has posted a comment (see comments below) saying that Mary Shofner has informed her rowers that she is leaving Wisconsin. No word yet on her plans.

Clear as Mud

The Wisconsin coaching position is now posted on their web site and the Working Title is "Varsity Women's Lightweight Coach" while the Official Title is "ASST COACH(N54LN)" A lot about this posting looks like an assistant's position (e.g. salary, although it does say minimum), but the principal duties section says, "This coach will be responsible for all aspects of coaching and developing an extremely competitive Division I Lightweight program, as well as contributing to the overall administration of the women's rowing program." It doesn't mention to whom the position reports. The head lightweight coach may be considered an assistant to the head Wisconsin women's coach. If Dusty Darley is leaving, I would think that this position would be listed as Novice Women's Lightweight Coach. Maybe a third coach? As I said, clear as mud.

The Future of Fight in the Dog

When I first contemplated creating Fight in the Dog, I realized that the only way I could do it would be anonymously. I also realized that one or two members of the very small circle of people who would know of my authorship of the site would eventually find that knowledge an uncomfortable burden. That time has come. As a result, on July 9th, the one year anniversary of Fight in the Dog, I'll publish my last post. Over the remaining month I'll post on some of the issues I believe are important to women's lightweight rowing, why I believe this season has been a turning point for the sport, and finally, some personal impressions of some of the teams I feel I've gotten to know over this season.

FITD has taken more of my time than I ever thought it would, but I've enjoyed every second of it. Most of all, I've enjoyed your comments and emails (even the critical ones) and seeing how much passion you all have for your sport. I'd like to leave the door open just a crack, in case I find a solution for an untenable situation, but I'm not holding my breath.

Coach Shofner Leaving Wisconsin?

A reader has posted a comment here saying that "There was an email sent to the CRCA list that the Wisco lightweight women's position is open. The full posting is expected later this week."

At this point I would consider this a rumor, although this seems to be a pretty good source. This could also be the assistant's position, although I'm sure the poster would've caught that. If anyone has any more information, let me know. I'll try to track it down myself as well.

Furthermore...

If lightweights were heavyweights, and prone to self-congratulatory awards, the crew of the year would likely be Georgetown. To some, a move from fourth to second doesn't seem like that big of a deal. We all know better. Most obviously, it's a move from no medal to a silver medal. Even bigger though, is the fact that Georgetown had become a reliable fourth. Plugging along never quite able to see the big three ahead of them and always worried about Stanford to the rear. No longer. Despite the fact that the light women were the most successful program at Georgetown, they never seemed to get the respect they deserved in their own boathouse. They can't be ignored any more, can they? With a silver medal around their necks and a coach of their own, they've shown what some focus can do.

Another crew that I think should be mentioned is MIT. Earlier in the year MIT lost to Dayton by 20 seconds and URI by 17, both of whom MIT beat in the petite final. With some injuries in the boat, MIT didn't enter an eight at Sprints, so it was something of an unknown coming into IRAs and it showed that it had clearly done some work over the last three weeks.

Cliffies and Princetonians no doubt lament the days when they could win five national championships in a row and then simply trade it off with the other. Those days are gone. This is a new, much more competitive world. Although the Wisconsin dynasty is threatening a similar reign, the deck below is getting shuffled. Wisco's three championships now, are more impressive than Radcliffe's and Princeton's runs in past years because of this new competitiveness. As more dedicated lightweight crews come into existence, the in-season racing gets tighter and more frequent creating momentum for even more programs to enter the fray. Although some would have us think otherwise, this season has once again shown that women's lightweight rowing is growing stronger every year. [See comments for a nice view of the regatta.]




As the inevitable criticisms begin to roll in of my last post, I need to address the lane kerfuffle one last time. I thought long and hard about mentioning it in my post because I knew I would open myself up to accusations of Princeton partisanship and an intent to belittle the achievements of the medalists. I had planned not to mention it, particularly when I saw the row2k report - until I looked at the results. Clearly, there was a problem. In no way does this mean that I think Princeton would have won or medaled in a different lane. I have no idea. The rest of the field may have gone even faster with a faster boat on their tail. There are no asterisks in rowing. There are, however, regatta committees who must make decisions at next year's regatta. At the risk of sounding like Stanford, if no one points out the obvious, they'll think they can continue to fool all of the people all of the time. This went beyond the women's event and into the heavyweight and lightweight men's as well, affecting Yale and Navy. I regret that a full explanation took up so much space, but if I was going to mention it I had to justify it. Remember, it could be you in lane one next time. There, I'm done with it. Shoot the messenger if you will. I've been waiting for it and I've put on my armor in anticipation. Read the comments for opposing views and be civil when you post. Passion is good!

By the way, I may mention it again. Next year. Someone has to stir the pot, right?

Wisconsin - Again!

The University of Wisconsin came out of the reps to win its third consecutive National Championship today. Facing the most talented field in the history of women's lightweight rowing, Wisconsin won the gold by 4 seconds over second place Georgetown and 8 seconds over third place Radcliffe. Princeton, UCF, and Bucknell rounded out the field.


Wisconsin had the race pretty well in hand after 500 meters, although it had to fend off Radcliffe most of the way until Georgetown began storming back on the field at the 1000 meter mark. Georgetown, who was rowing in fourth place for the first half of the race, seemed to catch a second wind at the halfway mark and rowed through both Princeton and Radcliffe to take the silver. Wisconsin looked cool and in control, rowing long in the wind, and powered their way down the course to start dynasty talk in Madison.


In the petite, MIT pulled out a win to signal that they're not content to rest on their history any longer. Dayton came in second, just ahead of URI. Lehigh, Ohio State, and Stanford rounded out the field.

A few years ago, observers would criticize this event as not competitive. Last year the spread between first and sixth was 35 seconds, and the spread between first and tenth was 58 seconds. Two years ago the same spreads were 37 and 64 seconds (1st and 12th). This year the spreads were 15 and 37 seconds. Two months ago, not many outside of the category would have thought that the women's lightweight eight final would be this competitive. Women's lightweight rowing has come into its own this year and I don't think it will ever look back.

A discussion of this race would be improper if it did not mention the elephant in the room - lane assignments. This was a major topic of discussion in the boatyard and among coaches (losing, that is). The first inkling of a problem came when the starting line announcer commented on a strong crosswind blowing from lane one to six. This means lane six is favored. The wind was the least of the problem, however. Yesterday afternoon, the river was drained resulting in a several hour delay. When racing resumed, lane assignments were reversed, with those crews earning a higher seed in earlier racing assigned lane six. This afternoon the river was rumored to have been drained again, beginning around 1pm or 1:30pm. When the river is drained, lane one has a decided disadvantage because it has to row against the heart of the current. This disadvantage eases up as you move to lane 6. This meant that those crews earning the best seed for the final, Princeton and Radcliffe, would be at the greatest disadvantage. The lanes were not switched today.

This kind of talk is heard at regattas all over the country, and is easily dismissed as sour grapes. On row2k Ed Hewitt said that the river was not drained and that the water naturally spilled over the top of the dam. While denying a heavy drainage current, this statement actually confirms the existence of a current. Watching the races that were run after 1:45 (giving the alleged drainage a bit of time to develop a current), there certainly appeared to be a problem with lane one. Despite the row2k report, I heard observers say they could see current in lane one, particularly near the start, and a rower or two who claim to have actually seen the gates open. Readers of FITD know I like to look at statistics, and this situation seems to lend itself to that kind of analysis.

I reviewed all the finals run today except those in which the lanes weren't set until after races today (unfortunately I didn't note those lane assignments) and one race with an incomplete result (MO4+ grand). Not all had six boats. In these races (25 in all) prior to the MV8 grand (at 2:15), the average finish of lane one was 2.4, while the average finish of lane six was 4.2. Further, 39% of the time lane one finished first, and 68% of the time lane one was in the top three. Lane one was last just once. In the four races for which I know the lane assignments after 1:45pm, lane one was last, last, fourth (Princeton), and last. Lane six was 4th, 4th, and 2nd (Georgetown).

Now let's look at specifics. In the men's heavy V8, Yale finished last from lane one. In its heat Yale finished second, 1 second behind Princeton, and won its semi, beating eventual winner Cal. Favorite Princeton rowed in lane two and lost to Cal in lane four. In the WLV8 petite, Stanford, who never had a time slower than any of the boats in the petite, finished last from lane one. In the MVL8 Navy was in lane one. Navy, seeded second going into the regatta, won its heat with a faster time than eventual winner Cornell. Navy finished last in the grand from lane one.

I find this to be pretty damning evidence. In our case, it turns out that the best thing that could have happened to Wisconsin was to go to the reps. The absolute worst thing that could have happened to Radcliffe and Princeton was to win the heats. I'm particularly sorry to see this happen to Princeton (lane one) because yesterday they were a crew risen from the dead, and there is no better story line in athletics than redemption. Radcliffe (lane two) was on course to row possibly its best race ever. I don't think the data suggest an advantage to the outside lanes, but it clearly shows a disadvantage to lane one. Even if true, Ed's report that the water was only spilling over the top of the dam is confirmation of a current and evidence that the lanes should have been switched. They switched lanes yesterday and they should have done so today. Without the switch the five most important races of the day were suspect. Quite honestly, I'm upset that any of us has to spend time talking about this. A few things seem to be obvious - there was a current (from the row2k report) which disadvantaged lane one, there was a cross wind (from the race announcer's report) which disadvantaged lane one, and the lanes should have been switched (from the regatta committee's actions on Friday). Who knows if it would have changed the outcome, but we wouldn't be here now talking about it.

So, that's the conspiracy theory, believe it if you will. Like all good conspiracy theories, the "authorities" deny it but the evidence "proves" it. Despite the lane problems, we all participate in an outdoor sport in which factors beyond our control come into play. We have to believe that for every day conditions go against us, there is a day when they are with us. As Darrell Royal once said, "Breaks balance out. The sun don't shine on the same ol'dog's rear end every day."

Congratulations to Wisconsin, they took the long road to the championship and did the Midwest proud. With all of the East Coast vs. West Coast talk it's great to see the Badgers stand up for the Heartland to remind everyone that people row there too. Six Wisco seniors now head off into the world with cheese hats and three National Championship gold medals. Georgetown finishes its best season ever and will never again be taken for granted. New coach Jim "Beastmaster" O'Conner must be doing something right. Despite seeing bronze once again, Radcliffe is clearly on the way back. With the number one ranking for most of the season the Black and White were the top program in the Weld boathouse and are challenging the men for top program at Harvard. Over this season I've called Princeton the Sybil crew and the light switch crew. Today I have a new name for them - the most courageous crew. They beat their heads against the wall several times this year and, like a knocked-down champion fighter, kept coming back for more, punishing their opponents all the while. After a few years of knocking on the door, UCF and Bucknell are now among the elite of lightweight women. They, along with the crews in the petite final, are part of a new vanguard in women's lightweight rowing making the category stronger than it's ever been and proving that history doesn't make the difference, athletes do.

Oh My!

The lightweight women at IRAs awoke early and were greeted by a steambath of a day. As it turned out, the temperature wasn't the only thing that was hot. After watching today's heats I'll go out on a limb (but not far) and say that when considering all six boats, tomorrow's grand final will be the most competitive in the history of women's lightweight national championships. In years past there has always been one or two boats in the grand simply because someone had to win the reps. That's not so this year - every boat in the final deserves to be there and can challenge for the gold.


On paper, the first heat looked to be a laugher for Wisconsin - they had just beaten Princeton by 16 seconds at Sprints, and UCF had lost to Georgetown earlier in the season. Wisco's relaxed manner at the start suggested they had hopes of only racing for 1000 meters and cruising the rest of the way. Two thousand meters later the Badgers were left looking for the license plate number of the truck that just hit them. The number one seed was sent to the reps by Princeton, a four seed, and UCF, a five seed. UCF, after trailing Wisconsin the whole race, turned on the afterburners in the last 250 and pipped the Badgers by 5/100s of a second. It doesn't get any closer than that. (See picture)


In the second heat, Radcliffe finished 3/10s of a second ahead of Bucknell, who finished about 4 seconds ahead of Georgetown, sending the third seeded Hoyas to the reps. The Radcliffe margin in this race is a bit deceiving, however, because the Black and White hit a log about 250 meters from the finish and swerved severely in their lane as a result. (See picture) At the time, they were a comfortable 3/4 of a length ahead of the Bisons. Give Radcliffe 2 seconds for the log mishap and we have two heats with the same winning times.


Wisconsin and Georgetown both won their reps easily, crossing the line rowing somewhere between a 28 and a 30. We end up with a grand final as predicted, but with all crews but Radcliffe taking unexpected routes to get there. It's no fun to race in the reps, even if you win easily. As the reps approached and the Wisco rowers walked past the port-a-potty sentinels on the way to their trailer in a secluded section of the boatyard, there weren't many smiles. When racing was subsequently delayed for bad weather, and the races started around 6:45pm, relegation to the reps became even more onerous.

I hope you weren't surprised by UCF and Bucknell. As any long time reader of FITD knows, I've been on the UCF bandwagon for a long time. The thing is, you can read about them all you want, but when you actually see them fly down a racecourse, it's always a bit of a surprise. Same goes for Bucknell. We've seen them at Dad Vail and at Princeton, so it was clear they had some speed, but knowing it and seeing it are two different things.


In the end, it may turn out that the reps were the best thing to happen to Wisconsin. They won't be caught napping tomorrow. Neither will Georgetown. UCF and Bucknell now have the confidence they need to win gold. Radcliffe may be the most dangerous boat because they did just what they were supposed to do. If Wisconsin stumbled Radcliffe was next in line and after today their position has only improved. And Princeton - well I warned you about poking wounded Tigers with sticks.

The rest of the field acquitted itself nicely today. I was a bit surprised at the speed shown by MIT, mostly because we haven't seen that boat race too much. Stanford, having a bit of a down year, rowed a nice rep. It was hard to get a feel for what URI, Dayton, Ohio State, and Lehigh can really do because as they saw their shot at the grand final slip away, it's not clear how much effort they put into racing for a lane.


This was a great day for women's lightweight rowing. The top of the field is getting bigger and much more competitive. There is little question that this will be the best final we've ever seen for women's light eights. Taking a minute to think about today's races, I can only remember what Apollo Creed's trainer said to him in between rounds as he fought Rocky, "He doesn't know it's supposed to be a show! He thinks it's a damn fight!"

I Wonder Why...

...if the CRCA "exists to unify collegiate women'’s rowing coaches, to act as a collective voice, and to inform collegiate women'’s rowing coaches on issues related to rowing," there are never any lightweights on its All-America teams? Aren't women's lightweights included in "collegiate women's rowing?" Maybe they've been meeting with Jordan Bice and have decided that lightweights just aren't good enough to be All-Americans. The CRCA has a lightweight committee, what does the committee think abut this? If the CRCA is a heavyweight women's rowing organization, that's fine, it should just stop patronizing lightweights by pretending it cares.

Dayton Too...

Dayton is also sending a new lineup to IRAs. Head Coach Mike Farrey said, "It is hard for us to get a realistic gage of where our speed is currently because this lineup has never rowed together in a regatta. However, with different lineups we finished in the finals of the Knecht Cup and won both the Atlantic 10 Championship and the Dad Vail."

Radcliffe - The Fine Tuning Continues

Radcliffe has switched around their lineup for IRAs. The latest press release has their captain, a starboard, in stroke. Looks like the boat is fully re-rigged to starboard stroke, rather than a bucket. They've also added another freshman into the lineup.

It Keeps Going...

There is an article in the San Francisco Chronicle about Stanford's claim of East Coast bias at IRAs. I think Stanford has some legitimate compliants, but wow, do they not understand how to go about getting them addressed! Part of this is a CYA exercise by the coach. He was the one who apparently went merrily through the season never bothering to check on an issue that was plain for the rest of the world to see - his freshman sophomore. It was his responsibility to make sure the rower was eligible and if not, that he had enough time to work a replacement into the lineup. If he truly thought there would be no problem, that's a serious error in judgment for a head coach to make.

The real problem here is that these claims of bias are the type of issues the NCAA loves to "solve." I think the "federal case" strategy has a good chance of succeeding if there is no public counter to these claims. Whether he understands it himself or not, Craig Amerkhanian is quickly making it his mission in life to destroy lightweight rowing.