THE SPORT OF ROWING than I am, so he was the oldest in the group, and Dan and I rowed the pair a lot, and it was just very easy, very natural. It felt very comfortable. We could row square-blade outside-arm for 1,000 meters and have the blades touch only a couple of times. Like Joey, he was just a natural athlete who hap- pened to be rowing. He was somebody who had hand-eye coordination as opposed to a lot of guys who ended up being rowers be- cause they couldn’t shoot a basketball. Dan Beery: “For me, it felt like Mike Teti sort of continually set and reset the framework for what our technique was go- ing to be. It seemed like we were looking to gradually move toward a technique that was both fast and economical. From there, we all sort of started nudging and polishing it into a sustainable rhythm that had an easy flow. “The biggest asset I think we had as far as the technique went was a very relaxed recovery that gave us time to really pound it on the drive. To me, it seemed like we were looking for length and rhythm, and we tried to find a way to get there by rowing effi- ciently. Given the amount of time and ratio, it was obviously critical that the balance and timing of the catch was dead on. Otherwise the rhythm gets mushy and everyone gets tired really quickly. “If you are trying to row with maximum length at 36, it is seriously detrimental to get all the way ‘out there’ and have the boat fall to one side because the balance is question- able. With guys like Wyatt and J.R. in the bow-pair, we had some excellent power and stabilization, which gave everyone the con- fidence to continually extend out to full length. “I guess what I feel like began to occur was that once we established the technique and rhythm, we all began to communicate about how we were going to execute it dur- ing pieces . . . such as Chip saying some- thing and we would sort of ‘reset’ to that call. Or J.R. would say something like ‘down and away’ if the water was choppy. A call from Chip to ‘sit up’ at the finish in a tailwind or swing back an inch farther at the finish in a headwind would just sort of nudge the technique to match the conditions. “I also remember discussing a lot how the pieces felt. We had great communica- tion, and at the appropriate times someone would say something like ‘great ratio on that one’ or ‘balance was a little off’ or ‘we’re pulling a little to one side,’ and depending on whether the comment was positive or something that needed to be corrected, we would work together to fix it. “I guess, to summarize, it seemed like we sort of found three or four gears, and each one would look technically different . . . at least to me they felt very technically dif- ferent. One ‘technique’ at the start, one for moves, one for base, one to start the transi- tion to the sprint (‘harden on,’ gathering and prepping for the sprint) and then the sprint- ing gear. I guess it may be my opinion, but it seemed like they were all changed de- pending on the conditions. “To me, it even seemed like there were different moves (commitments) during the pieces. One type of move seemed to move the speed (and I’m just generalizing speeds here) from 1:22 per 500 meters to 1:18 per 500 meters for a commitment of the deter- mined amount of strokes and immediately transition back to a base speed. The other type of commitment seemed to drop the speed from 1:22 for 500 meters to 1:18 for 500 meters, and then the move would gradu- ally ‘bleed off’ back into a normal base speed and rhythm at the end of the move. So, if the move was fast and felt efficient, Chip would let it ride and just naturally drift back to the sustainable base speed. “So, I’m not sure if that makes any sense, but there it is. Most of this is summa- rized from the notes I took at the time.”8213 8213 Beery, personal correspondence, 2010 2302
