It's not the size of the dog in the fight....
It's the size of the fight in the dog.
I feel like this is something that I need to get through with nearly every coach, every athlete, every parent regarding coxswains. I hear it year in and year out from junior programs up to big time college gigs:
We need small people.
I suppose using that same argument about size, any 6'5" guy or 5'11" girl is automatically a great rower and athlete? No, no, that's not right. We've all seen smaller athletes beat bigger athletes or teams with less talent upset the bigger and better teams.
Rowing, like all sports, doesn't have a mold. There are general characteristics that you look for but in general, in rowing or at least on my teams, I will take the ass kickers and name takers over those who have "the look."
It has been said that you cannot teach height and that is absolutely correct. But you cannot coach heart, desire, determination, want to, or to simply put it, "the stuff" either. I have had athletes who walk through the door with every physical facet needed and they can't row worth a damn and no amount of coaching can break through the wall they've put up. They don't really want to do it, they don't really want to be there, they don't really want to work that hard, so they don't. At the same time I have had kids - note the change here - who walk through the door, and are terrible, slow, unable to adjust to their bodies as they grow but just kill every single piece coming their direction. They're the first to arrive, the last to leave, they jump at the chance to work hard and they take on whatever you give them.
The same goes with coxswains and the same should be considered. Two of my absolute best coxswains, coxswains that I would put up against almost anyone in the world - literally the world - and be more than 70% sure that they'd come out on top, were not coxswain size. One guy was 154 lbs. Another was 5'10. Both could out cox any other coxswain who they came up against. The heavy guy even won his seat races against a guy who was easily 20 pound lighter.
The book, "Moneyball" talks about Billy Beane and the way he approached putting together the Oakland A's and how he went against the status quo of assessing talent and assembled a team that on paper, against the traditional measures, didn't measure up. And yet, despite this, the team was very successful. I don't know his exact method but when I'm looking for coxswains, I factor in height and weight but I don't use that as my first or last litmus test.
Clearly the height and weight method works because that's what most everyone reverts to whenever you ask them about finding coxswains. However, like in the book, there are different ways to look at the same person and come up with different figures and different ideas of their viability within a program. And I think that my way is better than the traditional way.
I feel like this is something that I need to get through with nearly every coach, every athlete, every parent regarding coxswains. I hear it year in and year out from junior programs up to big time college gigs:
We need small people.
I suppose using that same argument about size, any 6'5" guy or 5'11" girl is automatically a great rower and athlete? No, no, that's not right. We've all seen smaller athletes beat bigger athletes or teams with less talent upset the bigger and better teams.
Rowing, like all sports, doesn't have a mold. There are general characteristics that you look for but in general, in rowing or at least on my teams, I will take the ass kickers and name takers over those who have "the look."
It has been said that you cannot teach height and that is absolutely correct. But you cannot coach heart, desire, determination, want to, or to simply put it, "the stuff" either. I have had athletes who walk through the door with every physical facet needed and they can't row worth a damn and no amount of coaching can break through the wall they've put up. They don't really want to do it, they don't really want to be there, they don't really want to work that hard, so they don't. At the same time I have had kids - note the change here - who walk through the door, and are terrible, slow, unable to adjust to their bodies as they grow but just kill every single piece coming their direction. They're the first to arrive, the last to leave, they jump at the chance to work hard and they take on whatever you give them.
The same goes with coxswains and the same should be considered. Two of my absolute best coxswains, coxswains that I would put up against almost anyone in the world - literally the world - and be more than 70% sure that they'd come out on top, were not coxswain size. One guy was 154 lbs. Another was 5'10. Both could out cox any other coxswain who they came up against. The heavy guy even won his seat races against a guy who was easily 20 pound lighter.
The book, "Moneyball" talks about Billy Beane and the way he approached putting together the Oakland A's and how he went against the status quo of assessing talent and assembled a team that on paper, against the traditional measures, didn't measure up. And yet, despite this, the team was very successful. I don't know his exact method but when I'm looking for coxswains, I factor in height and weight but I don't use that as my first or last litmus test.
Clearly the height and weight method works because that's what most everyone reverts to whenever you ask them about finding coxswains. However, like in the book, there are different ways to look at the same person and come up with different figures and different ideas of their viability within a program. And I think that my way is better than the traditional way.
Comments