rsk_at_gsp.org wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 23, 1998 at 07:46:23AM -0400, Michael Neverdosky wrote: > > Applying information from racing to recreational pastimes is of limited > > usefullness at best, and may be flat wrong at worst. > > I strongly disagree. Many of the innovations in boating have come > from racing: I am not saying that there is not technology transfer. I AM SAYING THAT WHAT IS BEST FOR RACING IS NOT BY DEFINITION BEST FOR EVERYBODY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > in particular, the duffek stroke, squirt boating, and > the sweeping changes in PFD design over the past couple of years all > came from slalom racing. I must allow for your bias. > Those are completely obvious Sorry, I don't think anything is completely obvious. > -- but there's also a more subtle transfer > of technique going on. I do a fair amount of river paddling in addition > to racing, and one of the things I've noticed over the years is that it's > pretty easy to tell who the racers are while on a trip. They're the ones > who can put their boats anywhere they want to -- catch any eddy, surf > across any wave, and so on. They're also the ones with energy left > over at the end of the day. Most of that is due to their use of correct > techniques which maximize their paddling efficiency and boat control. > Recreational paddlers who learn those techniques are often amazed > at the difference that it makes -- I know, I teach them. Maybe it is just that racers spend a lot more time practicing and training. People in all sports benefit form improving their skills, that still doesn't mean they should use the same equipment and techniques as the racers. I find you statement to be something like saying a professional football player is better than the guys on a saturday 'pickup' game. On the road I can spot race car drivers also. So what? Most of the things a driver does on the race track do not apply to the street. The race drivers are more skilled and tend to prefer to drive in a much more precise manner > > The test in racing is winning. To win you must go as fast as possible > > while still being able to finish the race. Efficiency only enters > > the equation in the being able to finish part. > > Not true. Efficiency is necessary in racing in order to go > fast *and* conserve energy for critical moves. (In downriver, that > might mean "running the big drop"; in slalom, that might mean "avoiding > hitting the gates in the hole".) Nearly *everyone* can finish -- so > that's not much of a factor at all. But efficiency is always secondary to speed in racing. To win you must finish FIRST! To finish first, you must finish. In auto racing, once you cross the finish line any leftover fuel, brakes, tires, tricks, etc are useless. If you finished first, fine. If you didn't finish first you probably should have used up (or tried to) one or more of these things. If you finish other than first, and you still have energy left at the end, you either did not race hard enough, or you are not really racing. When I am paddling there are lots of things more important than speed and efficiency, depending on what I am doing at the time. I may value silent, non-obtrusive movement if I am watching wildlife. I may do things that I find Fun just because they are FUN. IOW For you, racing may be the most important thing in the world, it may even be the only thing in the world. Most of the people in the world are not racers. michael *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
Real paddler, real boat, real water, real forward stroke. The claim that I am disputing is that in the forward stroke the paddle does not move through the water. So the paddle must be in WATER, and in the same water the boat is moving through. No having the boat in one tank of liquid water and the paddle frozen in ice alongside. :-)) michael JCMARTIN43_at_aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 98-07-23 08:23:59 EDT, John Winteres <735769_at_ican.net> > writes: > > << > Michael wrote; > > -(SNIP) > > > > >I will offer $100 US to anyone who can prove that the paddle does not move > >throught the water during a forward stroke in a kayak or canoe. > > > I will add another $100. >> > > <Now> this is getting interesting! > > Does the demonstrator get to specify the water? Fresh, salt, sewer, very > thick? The depth? Like three inches? > *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
On Thu, Jul 23, 1998 at 09:34:39AM -0400, Michael Neverdosky wrote: > rsk_at_gsp.org wrote: > I AM SAYING THAT WHAT IS BEST FOR RACING IS NOT BY DEFINITION BEST > FOR EVERYBODY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please don't shout. It's rude. I have never advanced such an argument, in any case. I have made the point that good technique is best for everybody; and given that there is a profound emphasis on good technique in the racing community (out of necessity), that's the first place to look for it. > I must allow for your bias. I'm sorry, no bias was involved. That was a statement of fact. If you have differing facts, please present them. Otherwise, please leave baseless allegations of bias out of the discussion. > Maybe it is just that racers spend a lot more time practicing and > training. I see no evidence to support this conclusion. I have observed a great many river runners who spend *more* time in their boats than racers but who have not developed the same skillset. > People in all sports benefit form improving their skills, that still > doesn't mean they should use the same equipment and techniques as the racers. I didn't specify equipment: I specified technique. And while I don't know what your background is, I can tell you that every whitewater instruction program I'm familiar with (e.g. Zoar, NOC, Riversport, Four Corners, etc.) teaches techniques developed by racers, *not* because they're racing techniques, but because they're optimal and because they work. ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk_at_gsp.org *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
rsk_at_gsp.org wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 23, 1998 at 09:34:39AM -0400, Michael Neverdosky wrote: > > rsk_at_gsp.org wrote: > > I AM SAYING THAT WHAT IS BEST FOR RACING IS NOT BY DEFINITION BEST > > FOR EVERYBODY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > Please don't shout. It's rude. Sometimes it is needed to get people to pay attention. > I have never advanced such an argument, in any case. But you have, again and again, by implication that racing technique is best come hell or high water. > > I must allow for your bias. > > I'm sorry, no bias was involved. Are you NOT a slalom racer? Did you not make a statement that nearly every important inovation of recent years came from slalom racing? If I am wrong of either of these points then I appologize. > Otherwise, > please leave baseless allegations of bias out of the discussion. Sorry but everyone has some bias. > > Maybe it is just that racers spend a lot more time practicing and > > training. > > I see no evidence to support this conclusion. I have observed > a great many river runners who spend *more* time in their boats > than racers but who have not developed the same skillset. But just running rivers is not training and practicing. The old statement that "Practice makes perfect" is incomplete, "Perfect practice makes perfect" is much more correct. > > People in all sports benefit form improving their skills, that still > > doesn't mean they should use the same equipment and techniques as the racers. > > I didn't specify equipment: I specified technique. And while I don't > know what your background is, I can tell you that every whitewater > instruction program I'm familiar with (e.g. Zoar, NOC, Riversport, > Four Corners, etc.) teaches techniques developed by racers, *not* > because they're racing techniques, but because they're optimal > and because they work. I didn't notice that this was a 'whitewater' list. Maybe that is another bias I need to keep in mind. Are you saying that there is no technique that was deveolped by nonracers that is being taught and is good? That IS your implication. It might be usefull to point out how the application of techniques differs between people who are racing and who are not racing. I ca teach someone to use good racing line in driving a car, but if they do it the same way on the street it will get them killed. The underlying principles remain the same but the application is very different. Lots of good stuff comes from racing, but not everything good came from racing. michael *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
On Thu, Jul 23, 1998 at 10:50:54AM -0400, Michael Neverdosky wrote: > Sometimes it is needed to get people to pay attention. Convincing arguments based on solid facts and sound reasoning do much better. Shouting at me tends to persuade me that you have nothing substantial to put forth, so you've resorting to screaming. It won't work. > But you have, again and again, by implication that racing technique is > best come hell or high water. I do not imply. Ever. I have clearly outlined my position, and it consists solely and entirely of the statements I have made. Any "implication" that you find in it is entirely fabricated -- by you -- and I feel no compunction to defend such a fictitious point of view. > Are you NOT a slalom racer? I am a slalom and downriver racer. > Did you not make a statement that nearly every important inovation of > recent years came from slalom racing? I made no such statement. If you believe I did, I invite you to go back through past messages, find it, and quote it verbatim. If you can do so, I will retract this statement. Otherwise... > If I am wrong of either of these points then I appologize. ...I await your apology. > Sorry but everyone has some bias. Perhaps, and perhaps not. But that is why solid arguments rest on the facts and the logic which connects them, and not on bias, prejudice, supposition, and wishful thinking. > But just running rivers is not training and practicing. It's not? Please explain. I think it's excellent training and practice, and in fact, it's *all* the training and practice that a great many paddlers ever do. It certainly seems to fulfill this function, as most of them get better as time passes. > I didn't notice that this was a 'whitewater' list. > Maybe that is another bias I need to keep in mind. I have made no claim that it is so. Its charter specifies paddling, but neither restricts it to {whitewater, flatwater, etc.] nor rules any of them out. > Are you saying that there is no technique that was deveolped by nonracers > that is being taught and is good? That IS your implication. Again: I do NOT imply. You have made that statement up out of thin air and falsely attributed to me. For the record, I have never said any such thing. ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk_at_gsp.org *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
Does the video use proper scientific technique to take precise measurements? Like reflective markers, a fixed grid system, and a calibration testing to demonstrate the size of any motion that is, or is not detectable. I am calling for real proof. By this standard UFOs have long been proven to be extra terestrial. :-)) BTW How stationary are the bouys? Also the burden of proof is on YOU, if you want to use that tape as part of your evidence, then you must provide the tape. I will allow the phrase "correctly performed forward stroke" and I will stipulate that anything less than 0.01 inch of movement constitutes "stationary". Depending on the test setup and resolution that is even possible I might even relax the requirement to 0.1 inch. Hey a tenth of an inch is a lot of movement. michael MichaelN_at_cycat.com rsk_at_gsp.org wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 23, 1998 at 09:21:15AM -0400, JCMARTIN43_at_aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 98-07-23 08:23:59 EDT, John Winteres <735769_at_ican.net> > > writes: > > > > > > > >I will offer $100 US to anyone who can prove that the paddle does not move > > >throught the water during a forward stroke in a kayak or canoe. > > > > > > I will add another $100. >> > > I will be happy to take this bet, provided the phrase "forward stroke" is > changed to "correctly performed forward stroke", since of course it's > possible (however undesirable) to take a poor stroke and move the paddle. > > Please purchase a copy of "The Kayaker's Edge" video available any number > of places, including directly from Performance Video, 550 Riverbend Road, > Durango, Colorado 81301, 888-259-5805 24-hour order line, 970-259-1361 > voice line, 970-259-4148 fax line. There is a demonstration of > this -- using stationary buoys -- about halfway through the tape. > > You may deduct the cost of the video from my $100 reward. *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
On Thu, Jul 23, 1998 at 05:02:47PM -0400, Michael Neverdosky wrote: > Also the burden of proof is on YOU, if you want to use that tape as part > of your evidence, then you must provide the tape. I'll do no such thing. Buy your own. Or drop by someplace (NOC, Durango, South Bend, T'Ville, Feeder Canal, etc.) where slalom paddlers work out and see it in person, like I do every day. ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk_at_gsp.org *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
rsk_at_gsp.org wrote: > I am a slalom and downriver racer. > > > Did you not make a statement that nearly every important inovation of > > recent years came from slalom racing? > > I made no such statement. If you believe I did, I invite you to go > back through past messages, find it, and quote it verbatim. If you > can do so, I will retract this statement. Otherwise... I don't save every message. Somebody have the one from a few back where all sorts of things like paddles, life jackets and squirt boats are atributed to slalom racing?? > > If I am wrong of either of these points then I appologize. > > ...I await your apology. Keep waiting. > > But just running rivers is not training and practicing. > > It's not? Please explain. I think it's excellent training and > practice, and in fact, it's *all* the training and practice that > a great many paddlers ever do. It certainly seems to fulfill > this function, as most of them get better as time passes. Simply running the river over and over with sloppy techique only makes that slpooy technique permanent. Why is it that every (nearly every, but I have never heard of an exception) olympic gold medal winner has worked with a coach for a long time? > > I didn't notice that this was a 'whitewater' list. > > Maybe that is another bias I need to keep in mind. > > I have made no claim that it is so. Its charter specifies paddling, > but neither restricts it to {whitewater, flatwater, etc.] nor rules > any of them out. But you make major statements that completely leave out the possibility that people in different paddling areas than yours might even exist. > > Are you saying that there is no technique that was deveolped by nonracers > > that is being taught and is good? That IS your implication. > > Again: I do NOT imply. You have made that statement up out of thin > air and falsely attributed to me. For the record, I have never said > any such thing. Now this one I DO have; "I didn't specify equipment: I specified technique. And while I don't know what your background is, I can tell you that every whitewater instruction program I'm familiar with (e.g. Zoar, NOC, Riversport, Four Corners, etc.) teaches techniques developed by racers, *not* because they're racing techniques, but because they're optimal and because they work. ---Rsk" If that doesn't say that they are teaching technique from racers then we are speaking far different versions of english. Again, lots of good stuff (equipment and information) come out of racing but that is not the only source of good information. michael *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
On Thu, Jul 23, 1998 at 05:34:29PM -0400, Michael Neverdosky wrote: > rsk_at_gsp.org wrote: > > > Did you not make a statement that nearly every important inovation of > > > recent years came from slalom racing? > > > > I made no such statement. If you believe I did, I invite you to go > > back through past messages, find it, and quote it verbatim. If you > > can do so, I will retract this statement. Otherwise... > > I don't save every message. Then perhaps you shouldn't make accusatory claims without the evidence to back them up. (I *do* save every message, by the way.) > Somebody have the one from a few back where all sorts of things like > paddles, life jackets and squirt boats are atributed to slalom racing?? The quote you are misremembering is "[...] Many of the innovations in boating have come from racing: in particular, the duffek stroke, squirt boating, and the sweeping changes in PFD design over the past couple of years all came from slalom racing." > > > If I am wrong of either of these points then I appologize. > > > > ...I await your apology. > > Keep waiting. I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed to find that you cannot be trusted to keep your word. > > > But just running rivers is not training and practicing. > > > > It's not? Please explain. I think it's excellent training and > > practice, and in fact, it's *all* the training and practice that > > a great many paddlers ever do. It certainly seems to fulfill > > this function, as most of them get better as time passes. > > Simply running the river over and over with sloppy techique only > makes that slpooy technique permanent. That's true. But it's not the point under contention. You asserted that it "is not training and practicing". It quite clearly *is* "training and practicing", even though in some cases it may be sloppy training and practicing. > Why is it that every (nearly every, but I have never heard of an > exception) > olympic gold medal winner has worked with a coach for a long time? Because that's what it takes to get good enough to compete at that level, let alone medal. I don't see how this comment is in any way relevant to the discussion. > > I have made no claim that it is so. Its charter specifies paddling, > > but neither restricts it to {whitewater, flatwater, etc.] nor rules > > any of them out. > > But you make major statements that completely leave out the possibility > that people in different paddling areas than yours might even exist. I have made no such statements. Your claim that I have done so is false. > Now this one I DO have; > "I didn't specify equipment: I specified technique. And while I don't > know what your background is, I can tell you that every whitewater > instruction program I'm familiar with (e.g. Zoar, NOC, Riversport, > Four Corners, etc.) teaches techniques developed by racers, *not* > because they're racing techniques, but because they're optimal > and because they work. > > If that doesn't say that they are teaching technique from racers then > we are speaking far different versions of english. Of course that's what it says. Note that it does NOT say that these are the *only* techniques that they teach. That's a deliberate omission on my part, because I have been to many of these places and am well aware that they also teach certain techniques that have come from other parts of the sport (e.g. rodeo). ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk_at_gsp.org *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
Deliberate omissions are just as important as what is said. Usually more important. michael rsk_at_gsp.org wrote: > Of course that's what it says. Note that it does NOT say that > these are the *only* techniques that they teach. That's a deliberate > omission on my part, *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:32:50 PDT