Ursula & Abby lw2x for USA

[gdoyle]

With so many seats on the team (as a whole), there is little doubt some people could earn the right to sit in more than one.

However.....is that necessarily the best competitive strategy to perform at Worlds? That's the question that falls to the NGB, its committees, and the coaching staff. They give permission to double, assuming the logistics are even possible with the schedule as set by FISA.

The issue is NOT whether some people can win multiple events at US trials. They need to ask whether an acceptable performance is possible at Worlds, where I have heard the competition is just a bit deeper in most events.

Given that some athletes have doubled up in the past, I think you can safely say they have answered "yes" on occasion. It remains an exception.

[lt.wolf]

what if she wants to do the single at trials as well..........either one .

[Grover]

Its not so much about "sacking up"..

Just because you can win several events at the selection regatta doesnt mean you are going to win those event sat the worlds.

I just think win one event ..the olympic event and get used to the world champs without any time pressures rather then trying to do too much.


But then its womens rowing or as like to to call it "assisted drifting" honestly i dont actually care.

im tapping out on this, my final words are if she does do all 3 she better win them all and not burn out and end up bottom of the pile.


Im done

[Guy Noir]

But then its womens rowing or as like to to call it "assisted drifting" honestly i dont actually care.

A bit chauvinistic...I'll bet they work harder than you do.

[caustic]

Don't be an idiot, caustic. The LW4x, like the LM8+ and LM4x, exists primarily as a development boat for the big (i.e. Olympic) events. Plenty of Olympians have gotten their start by making an international event boat class, getting good training and international experience, and then coming back good enough to make an impact at the next step up. If the LW2x doubles into the LW4x, then you're cutting out two athletes who could otherwise become good in time. What happens after this quadrennial if or when the double retires? What happens if one or both of them get injured or are forced to withdraw from the sport for other reasons? If those athletes are taking up twice the spots on the team, then all of a sudden you've got an athlete pool lacking depth and experience. Not a good recipe for success, in my book.

Well, the fact that one athlete could win two spots already shows an existing lack of depth in the pre-development pool anyway. So, I'd be more worried why we have so few athletes of the caliber needed to do well in the elite world, - not that we have a few athletes who are head-and-shoulders better and can double up because no one else is near to them in ability and speed. Giving obviously inferior athletes - yes, GIVING - a spot on the team, instead of them EARNING it, defeats the entire purpose of competition! You give away chocolate bars, you don't give away prime spots for racing.

If you want your pre-elite athletes to get good "in time", save a plane ticket and let them train up to where they can hold their own at home, before worrying about sending them abroad for the "experience" - i.e. a T-shirt from Europe and a chance to trade unis with folks who don't talk english too good.

Last I checked, you don't hand out the winning medals to those with the biggest hearts. You hand 'em out to the ones who are the fastest. I really don't care how unfair it is, but winning is winning, and earning a spot is earning a spot. If someone's so superior, it's not my right as a loser to complain that they are "too good". That's called poor sportsmanship.

Development happens first with athletes working hard to earn a spot. If they don't earn a spot, then they try again later. Learning to deal with disappointment is a skill that has greater returns off the water as well.

[caustic]

Its not so much about "sacking up"..

Just because you can win several events at the selection regatta doesnt mean you are going to win those event sat the worlds.

And if someone can win several events at home, then the folks they beat sure as shooting can't win 'em abroad either. You go with the fastest, and you do the best you can.

[caustic]

Boo-frickin'-hoo. Sack up, nancy.

Always charming, caustic.

I'm not a fan of whiners about it not being fair that they don't get hand-outs.

[Stewie Griffin Should Cox]

I was saying to Wolf privately, I am not sure why people say i don't like Ursula.

It's simply pointing out that things change as you get to the worlds. Crews peak
and it IS the World Championships. You have to bring your A game and be at the
peak of your ability. Its unlikely that anyone was at that point at the first world cup.
Far from it.

Its about minimizing risk of failure to maximize the potential for success for what is
important. Winning the WL4X unfortunately is not important. It is a non Olympic event
By introducing the doubling up, you introduce potential risk in a number of ways. Why would
you do that?

If Ursula wins a gold medal in the WL2X she has a very good chance of gaining what funding is
available but also a corporate sponsor. Winning 2 gold medals will not enhance that potential
If she comes 4th because for one reason or another, and
there are many, the 4x disturbs the 2x performance, the non Olympic gold medal would be
far less of a magnate for funding and an opportunity would be lost.

For all the fanfare, these are not hugely experience athletes. That CANNOT be argued against
A plethora of things can go wrong simply because of this factor. I would imagine as it stands not
physiologically they are at the standard but many other factors influence the performance.
Cluttering the environment with the 4x is unnecessary. Yes they might

Surely one should look to minimize risk factors to the maximal performance in the
Olympic event for the best financial future of the crew?

And can we keep remembering that even if Ursula is Superman in disguise, she does
have a bow girl who is mortal and their opposition IS the best in the world....please don't
underestimate that or forget how much faster peaked crews, especially peaked lightweight crews
are.

I'm done as well

[singlesculler]

Caustic, what you forget is that at trials, she'd only have to trial the 4x. The 2x is already selected. So only one event to race at trials. So sure she might win. But If she were to have to race two events, the 2x and 4x, it may be a different story. having only to race on event, her boat may win. But at trials you wouldn't be able to know what would happen to the order of finish in the 4x trials if you make her weigh in and race an additional event (the 2x).

[Long'n Strong]

The standard of the WL4x will NOT be high at Worlds. There probably will be only enough entries to have a straight final. Ursula and the other girl SHOULD double up, for the simple reason that that will be the only way the other two girls will get to go. The cost to attend the world championships for the winning WL4x and their coach will be in excess of $20,000. The trip for Ursula and the other girl and Carlos is funded through the WL2x, so the incremental cost for the other two rowers is just under $9,000 - which is more reasonable than $20k.

[gdoyle]

The standard of the WL4x will NOT be high at Worlds. There probably will be only enough entries to have a straight final. Ursula and the other girl SHOULD double up, for the simple reason that that will be the only way the other two girls will get to go. The cost to attend the world championships for the winning WL4x and their coach will be in excess of $20,000. The trip for Ursula and the other girl and Carlos is funded through the WL2x, so the incremental cost for the other two rowers is just under $9,000 - which is more reasonable than $20k.

Sorry LnS, I don't buy the math or reasoning there. Unless Ursula and Abby are sharing the wealth of their 2x funding, which I am not sure is even possible, I don't see the per person expenses swinging this one way or the other.

I think the key decision will come down to speed and it will be driven by the interests of the Olympic class LW2x event, not the developmental or strategic prospects for the LW4x.

[bloomp]

The standard of the WL4x will NOT be high at Worlds. There probably will be only enough entries to have a straight final. Ursula and the other girl SHOULD double up, for the simple reason that that will be the only way the other two girls will get to go. The cost to attend the world championships for the winning WL4x and their coach will be in excess of $20,000. The trip for Ursula and the other girl and Carlos is funded through the WL2x, so the incremental cost for the other two rowers is just under $9,000 - which is more reasonable than $20k.

Agreed. Rowers these days are far to namby pamby about doubling up. In the words of caustic, "SACK UP". The longest standing record in our sport is that set by John Kelly Sr. in 1920 - two Olympic Golds in one day. 30 minutes apart! I don't believe the Romanian women that pulled in 2 in 2004 did their finals that close together (or even on the same day).

I liked the suggestion/idea FISA has of making all 8+ athletes double up. A truly elite rower needs to be competitive in more than just one boat.

[Long'n Strong]

Per USRowing:

Cost of World Championships for Non-Olympic Events in 2010

Page 10 lists the estimated price as $4,420 per athlete and 3,600 per coach.

USRowing usually does not cover boat rental or airfare for these athletes. Because of the late date of trials it will be extremely difficult for these athletes to secure a boat in New Zealand. USRowing has secured suitable hulls to be used that will be transported to the venue and will be included in the estimated price of $4,420. Because of the shipping logistics involved this price cannot be refunded if the hull is not used. Airfare will still be the responsibility of the athletes and coaches in these events

If I have a quad that wins Trials in a Non-Olympic Event, no way do we cough up that kind of money for what will likely be a straight final. However if two of the rowers and the coach are funded the costs aren't quite so prohibitive, are they?

[Stewie Griffin Should Cox]

Bloop, have you ever been part of a worlds or olympic team? Because that's an ignorant post.

The World champs is not club nationals.

[bloomp]

Bloop, have you ever been part of a worlds or olympic team? Because that's an ignorant post.

The World champs is not club nationals.

No, but that doesn't mean my point is moot. People do it and they succeed. If the rowers and the coach want to do it I can guarantee they have the means and motivation to capture medals in both. Carlos is not stupid, and even if they do boat a quad there will be a lot of thought going into it. You do not know all the details behind this (and if you did, I think you would be more supportive of their POTENTIAL decision). Many have also lost the sense that the rowers at this level aren't thinking about how to compete - to claim that Grobbler would decide to race a second time because she is greedy for a medal is silly. Give her credit for knowing the sport as well as anyone else, why? Because according to you if you've never raced at worlds or the Olympics you're not capable of making conscious thoughts about elite rowing.

'Stewie', this is an internet forum. Nobody has a shred of credibility because anyone can be whatever they want. That goes the other way and means my opinion is just as valid as your regardless of my level of experience.