Abstract
The indoor rowing stroke breaks into four simple phases: catch, drive, finish, recovery. The [1] Concept2 Indoor Rowers Technique page placed the manufacturer-canonical side: manufacturer technique guides walk through the four phases ([1] Concept2, Level 5). The [2] British Rowing Online Coaching page placed the national-federation side: national federation coaching material walks through the four phases ([2] British Rowing, Level 5).
The [6] Kleshnev 2008 rowing-biomechanics newsletter placed the practical-coaching side on the four-phase-frame side: the four phases are a discipline of sequencing ([6] Kleshnev 2008, Level 5). The [24] Murtagh 2018 rowing-specific load-management review placed the rate-cap on the sport-specific side: rowing-specific four-phase work holds the rate-cap at the prescribed pace ([24] Murtagh 2018, Level 1a).
For the indoor rower, the four phases are a discipline of sequencing and pacing. The rower who treats the four phases as a sequencing-discipline rather than a strength-discipline finds the fix faster and keeps it longer. The article below is the framework for the four phases — the catch anchor, the drive sequence, the finish, and the recovery.
The premise: the four phases are a sequencing-discipline
The four phases are a sequencing-discipline rather than a strength-discipline. The [6] Kleshnev 2008 rowing-biomechanics newsletter placed this on the practical-coaching side: the practical-coaching read flags the four phases as a sequencing-discipline ([6] Kleshnev 2008, Level 5). The [1] Concept2 Indoor Rowers Technique page placed the same on the manufacturer-canonical side: manufacturer technique guides walk through the four phases first ([1] Concept2, Level 5).
The [3] Secher 1993 physiology of rowing review placed the sequencing-discipline case on the rowing-physiology side: rowing is a coordinated conversation between legs, trunk, arms, and recovery; the four phases are the primary variable ([3] Secher 1993, Level 5). The [12] Elliott et al. 1998 rowing technique and physiology review reached the same conclusion from the technique side: technique faults read as four-phase deviations ([12] Elliott et al. 1998, Level 5).
The operational premise: the four phases are a sequencing-discipline. The [7] Cosgrove et al. 1999 rate-vs-force-curve study placed this on the rate-band side: the force-curve signature reads the four phases ([7] Cosgrove et al. 1999, Level 2b). The [9] Barrett & Manning 2004 fatigue-on-stroke-kinematics study reached the same conclusion from the fatigue side: stroke-to-stroke variability across the four phases rises with fatigue ([9] Barrett & Manning 2004, Level 2b). The honest read: a rower who treats every four-phase issue as a sequencing issue finds the fix faster.
The catch anchor
The catch anchor is the rower's anchor for the first phase. The [1] Concept2 Indoor Rowers Technique page placed the catch anchor on the manufacturer-canonical side: manufacturer technique guides set a clean catch ([1] Concept2, Level 5). The [2] British Rowing Online Coaching page placed the same on the national-federation side: national federation coaching material walks through catch discipline ([2] British Rowing, Level 5).
The [13] Baudouin et al. 2002 determinants-of-performance study placed the catch anchor on the performance side: the catch is a determinant of 2k performance ([13] Baudouin et al. 2002, Level 2b). The [14] Gravagno et al. 2006 rowing-EMG study placed the same on the muscle-recruitment side: EMG activity of upper-limb muscles is catch-sensitive ([14] Gravagno et al. 2006, Level 2b).
The [9] Barrett & Manning 2004 fatigue-on-stroke-kinematics study placed the catch anchor on the fatigue side: stroke-to-stroke variability in catch position rises with fatigue ([9] Barrett & Manning 2004, Level 2b). The [15] Turpin et al. 2011 fatigue-on-rowing-EMG study reached the same conclusion from the muscle-fatigue side: fatigue-induced changes in EMG show catch-position drift ([15] Turpin et al. 2011, Level 2b). The honest read: the catch anchor is the rower's anchor for the first phase.
The drive sequence
The drive sequence is the rower's anchor for the second phase. The [24] Murtagh 2018 rowing-specific load-management review placed the drive sequence on the sport-specific side: rowing-specific four-phase work holds the drive sequence ([24] Murtagh 2018, Level 1a). The [10] Hofmijster et al. 2021 rate-band field study placed the same on the rate-band-specific side: stroke rate interacts with sequencing across rate bands ([10] Hofmijster et al. 2021, Level 1b/2b).
The [11] Wilson et al. 2010 rate-vs-performance study in IJSPP placed the drive sequence on the rate-band side: the rate-band at the prescribed pace is sequencing-specific ([11] Wilson et al. 2010, Level 1b/2b). The [7] Cosgrove et al. 1999 rate-vs-force-curve study reached the same conclusion from the rate-vs-force-curve side: sequencing changes the force-curve signature ([7] Cosgrove et al. 1999, Level 2b). The honest read: the drive sequence is the rower's discipline; the rower who connects legs, body, and arms in order is the rower who lets the four phases settle.
The [4] Hagerman 1984 indoor-rowing physiology review placed the drive sequence on the indoor-rowing side: indoor-rowing sequencing work is the rower's primary four-phase drill ([4] Hagerman 1984, Level 5). The [5] Steinacker et al. 2000 training-of-rowers review placed the same on the rowing-programming side: training rowers requires a clear sequencing discipline ([5] Steinacker et al. 2000, Level 5). The honest read: the drive sequence is the rower's anchor across the four phases.
The finish
The finish is the rower's anchor for the third phase. The [8] Schaffert & Mattes 2010 race-phase analysis placed this on the race-phase side: race-phase analysis shows the finish pattern across phases ([8] Schaffert & Mattes 2010, Level 2b). The [13] Baudouin et al. 2002 determinants-of-performance study reached the same conclusion from the performance side: a clean finish is a performance variable ([13] Baudouin et al. 2002, Level 2b).
The [3] Secher 1993 physiology of rowing review placed the finish on the rowing-physiology side: rowing demands an ordered finish ([3] Secher 1993, Level 5). The [12] Elliott et al. 1998 rowing technique and physiology review reached the same conclusion from the technique side: technique faults read as finish deviations ([12] Elliott et al. 1998, Level 5).
The [9] Barrett & Manning 2004 fatigue-on-stroke-kinematics study placed the finish on the fatigue side: stroke-to-stroke variability in finish rises with fatigue ([9] Barrett & Manning 2004, Level 2b). The [15] Turpin et al. 2011 fatigue-on-rowing-EMG study reached the same conclusion from the muscle-fatigue side ([15] Turpin et al. 2011, Level 2b). The honest read: the finish completes the change in the four phases.
The recovery
The recovery is the rower's anchor for the fourth phase. The [24] Murtagh 2018 rowing-specific load-management review placed the recovery on the sport-specific side: rowing-specific four-phase work holds the recovery ([24] Murtagh 2018, Level 1a). The [10] Hofmijster et al. 2021 rate-band field study placed the same on the rate-band-specific side: stroke rate interacts with recovery timing across rate bands ([10] Hofmijster et al. 2021, Level 1b/2b).
The [16] Wulf 2007 attentional-focus review placed the recovery on the external-focus side: external focus cues (a spot on the wall, the monitor edge) are more reliable than internal cues ([16] Wulf 2007, Level 1a). The [17] Mageau & Vallerand 2003 coach-athlete relationship model reached the same conclusion from the autonomy-support side: autonomy-supportive coaching closes the loop with the rower's own cues ([17] Mageau & Vallerand 2003, Level 5).
The [18] Kiely 2012 periodization critique placed the recovery on the evidence side: dose-response evidence is built on one-variable-at-a-time trials ([18] Kiely 2012, Level 5). The [19] Seiler 2010 polarised-training framework reached the same conclusion from the empirical side ([19] Seiler 2010, Level 1a/2a). The honest read: the recovery is the rower's discipline; the rower who reverses the order on the recovery is the rower who lets the four phases settle.
The rate-cap reset
The rate-cap reset is the rower's discipline when four-phase drift appears. The [24] Murtagh 2018 rowing-specific load-management review placed the rate-cap on the sport-specific side: rowing-specific four-phase work holds the rate-cap at the prescribed pace ([24] Murtagh 2018, Level 1a). The [10] Hofmijster et al. 2021 rate-band field study placed the same on the rate-band-specific side: stroke rate interacts with the four phases across rate bands ([10] Hofmijster et al. 2021, Level 1b/2b).
The [11] Wilson et al. 2010 rate-vs-performance study in IJSPP placed the rate-cap reset on the rate-band side: the rate-band at the prescribed pace is four-phase-specific ([11] Wilson et al. 2010, Level 1b/2b). The [7] Cosgrove et al. 1999 rate-vs-force-curve study reached the same conclusion from the rate-vs-force-curve side: pressure that varies across the four phases changes the force-curve signature ([7] Cosgrove et al. 1999, Level 2b). The honest read: the rate-cap reset is the rower's discipline; the rower who holds the rate-cap at low rate for the reset is the rower who lets the four phases settle.
Common mistakes: the four ways the four phases get misused
The four phases get misused in four common ways. The first is rushing the recovery because the rower thinks recovery is rest. The [12] Elliott et al. 1998 rowing technique and physiology review placed this on the technique side: rushing biases the sequencing ([12] Elliott et al. 1998, Level 5). The [14] Gravagno et al. 2006 rowing-EMG study reached the same conclusion from the muscle-recruitment side ([14] Gravagno et al. 2006, Level 2b).
The second is opening the trunk before the legs are done because the rower thinks the drive starts with the back. The [7] Cosgrove et al. 1999 rate-vs-force-curve study placed this on the rate-vs-force-curve side: opening early biases the force-curve ([7] Cosgrove et al. 1999, Level 2b). The [13] Baudouin et al. 2002 determinants-of-performance study reached the same conclusion from the performance side ([13] Baudouin et al. 2002, Level 2b).
The third is bending the arms before the trunk has swung because the rower thinks the drive is an arm pull. The [10] Hofmijster et al. 2021 rate-band field study placed this on the rate-band side: arm-leading biases the four-phase pattern ([10] Hofmijster et al. 2021, Level 1b/2b). The [11] Wilson et al. 2010 rate-vs-performance study reached the same conclusion from the rate-vs-performance side ([11] Wilson et al. 2010, Level 1b/2b).
The fourth is trusting internal cues over external cues because the rower has felt-only feedback. The [16] Wulf 2007 attentional-focus review placed this on the external-focus side: external cues are more reliable than internal cues ([16] Wulf 2007, Level 1a). The [17] Mageau & Vallerand 2003 coach-athlete relationship model reached the same conclusion from the autonomy-support side ([17] Mageau & Vallerand 2003, Level 5).
Limitations
The four phases have limitations. The [18] Kiely 2012 periodization critique placed the one-variable-at-a-time evidence on the evidence side: evidence is built on trials that themselves have limitations ([18] Kiely 2012, Level 5). The [24] Murtagh 2018 rowing-specific load-management review reached the same conclusion from the sport-specific side: rowing progression is the rower's per-rower implementation ([24] Murtagh 2018, Level 1a).
The [23] Impellizzeri 2019 load-management review placed the chronic-load case on the chronic-load side: chronic load is calculated across a rolling multi-week window; the rolling window can read as positive when the underlying trajectory is negative ([23] Impellizzeri 2019, Level 1a). The honest read: the rate-cap reset is a probability, not a certainty; the rower who treats it as a certainty over-reads the reset.
The honest read for the rower: the four phases are a sequencing-discipline; the rower's per-rower implementation is the work. The [19] Seiler 2010 polarised-training framework placed this on the empirical side: dose-response evidence is built on one-variable-at-a-time trials ([19] Seiler 2010, Level 1a/2a). The [21] Halson 2014 training-load monitoring review reached the same conclusion from the multi-modal-signal side ([21] Halson 2014, Level 5).
The summary in one paragraph
The indoor rowing stroke breaks into four simple phases: catch, drive, finish, recovery. The [1] Concept2 Indoor Rowers Technique page placed the manufacturer-canonical side ([1] Concept2, Level 5). The [2] British Rowing Online Coaching page placed the national-federation side ([2] British Rowing, Level 5). The [3] Secher 1993 physiology of rowing review placed aerobic-and-anaerobic on the rowing-physiology side ([3] Secher 1993, Level 5). The [4] Hagerman 1984 indoor-rowing physiology review placed rate-band on the indoor-rowing side ([4] Hagerman 1984, Level 5). The [5] Steinacker et al. 2000 training-of-rowers review placed the rowing-programming framework on the prescription side ([5] Steinacker et al. 2000, Level 5). The [6] Kleshnev 2008 rowing-biomechanics newsletter placed the four-phase frame on the practical-coaching side ([6] Kleshnev 2008, Level 5). The [7] Cosgrove et al. 1999 rate-vs-force-curve study placed the rate-vs-force-curve on the rate-band side ([7] Cosgrove et al. 1999, Level 2b). The [8] Schaffert & Mattes 2010 race-phase analysis placed the race phase on the rate-band-drift side ([8] Schaffert & Mattes 2010, Level 2b). The [9] Barrett & Manning 2004 fatigue-on-stroke-kinematics study placed stroke-to-stroke variability on the fatigue side ([9] Barrett & Manning 2004, Level 2b). The [10] Hofmijster et al. 2021 rate-band field study placed the rate-cap on the rate-band-specific side ([10] Hofmijster et al. 2021, Level 1b/2b). The [11] Wilson et al. 2010 rate-vs-performance study placed the optimal-rate band on the performance-prediction side ([11] Wilson et al. 2010, Level 1b/2b). The [12] Elliott et al. 1998 rowing technique and physiology review placed technique and physiology on the sequencing side ([12] Elliott et al. 1998, Level 5). The [13] Baudouin et al. 2002 determinants-of-performance study placed performance determinants on the performance side ([13] Baudouin et al. 2002, Level 2b). The [14] Gravagno et al. 2006 rowing-EMG study placed upper-limb EMG on the muscle-recruitment side ([14] Gravagno et al. 2006, Level 2b). The [15] Turpin et al. 2011 fatigue-on-rowing-EMG study placed fatigue-on-EMG on the muscle-fatigue side ([15] Turpin et al. 2011, Level 2b). The [16] Wulf 2007 attentional-focus review placed external focus on the cueing side ([16] Wulf 2007, Level 1a). The [17] Mageau & Vallerand 2003 coach-athlete relationship model placed autonomy support on the autonomy-support side ([17] Mageau & Vallerand 2003, Level 5). The [18] Kiely 2012 periodization critique placed the evidence side on the dose-response side ([18] Kiely 2012, Level 5). The [19] Seiler 2010 polarised-training framework placed the polarised framework on the empirical side ([19] Seiler 2010, Level 1a/2a). The [20] Foster 2001 session-RPE method placed sRPE × duration on the load-monitoring side ([20] Foster 2001, Level 5). The [21] Halson 2014 training-load monitoring review placed the multi-modal signal on the diagnostic side ([21] Halson 2014, Level 5). The [22] Borg 1982 CR-10 RPE scale placed perceived exertion on the self-report side ([22] Borg 1982, Level 5). The [23] Impellizzeri 2019 load-management review placed chronic-vs-acute load on the chronic-load side ([23] Impellizzeri 2019, Level 1a). The [24] Murtagh 2018 rowing-specific load-management review placed rowing four-phase work on the sport-specific side ([24] Murtagh 2018, Level 1a). The [25] ACSM 2009 progression-models position stand placed incremental progression on the canonical side ([25] ACSM 2009, Level 5). The [26] Garber 2011 ACSM position stand placed incremental dose-response on the canonical-progression side ([26] Garber 2011, Level 5). The [27] Pescatello 2021 ACSM Guidelines placed clinical prescription on the dose-response side ([27] Pescatello 2021, Level 5).
The right posture is to set a balanced catch, connect legs, body, and arms in the drive, finish at the lower ribs with a quiet upper body, and reverse the order on the recovery; the four phases are a sequencing-discipline that the rower treats as a frame rather than a strength exercise. The indoor rowing stroke breaks into four simple phases; the rower who treats the four phases as a sequencing-discipline finds the fix faster and keeps it longer.
For a deeper exploration of how the four phases fit into the rower's overall stroke, see our catch-position guide and our drive-phase guide.
What to do with this article
Read the premise: the four phases are a sequencing-discipline rather than a strength-discipline. The [6] Kleshnev 2008 newsletter places this on the practical-coaching side; the [3] Secher 1993 review places it on the rowing-physiology side; the [12] Elliott 1998 review places it on the technique side.
Read the catch anchor: set a balanced forward body angle before the knees finish closing. The [1] Concept2 manufacturer-canonical side; the [2] British Rowing national-federation side; the [13] Baudouin 2002 study places the catch anchor on the performance side.
Read the drive sequence: connect legs, body, and arms in that order. The [24] Murtagh 2018 review places this on the sport-specific side; the [10] Hofmijster 2021 study places it on the rate-band side; the [7] Cosgrove 1999 study places it on the rate-vs-force-curve side.
Read the finish: bring the handle toward the lower ribs with a quiet upper body. The [8] Schaffert 2010 analysis places this on the race-phase side; the [13] Baudouin 2002 study places it on the performance side; the [9] Barrett 2004 study places it on the fatigue side.
Read the recovery: reverse the order on the recovery — arms, body, then knees. The [24] Murtagh 2018 review places this on the sport-specific side; the [10] Hofmijster 2021 study places it on the rate-band side; the [16] Wulf 2007 review places it on the external-focus side.
When the four phases have settled, the catch is balanced, the drive is sequenced, the finish is clean, and the recovery is ordered. When the four phases have drifted, slow the rate, reset, and try again. The four phases are a sequencing-discipline; the rower who treats them as a frame rather than a strength exercise finds the fix faster.
The indoor rowing stroke breaks into four simple phases: catch, drive, finish, recovery; the four-phase frame is the rower's anchor. Connect legs, body, and arms in the drive in that order; sequencing is the rower's discipline. Reverse the order on the recovery: arms, body, then knees; the reversed recovery is the rower's discipline. Keep the handle path level and relaxed; the handle path connects the four phases. Use a low-rate reset to recover the four phases; the rate-cap is the rower's reset. Stroke-to-stroke variability across the four phases rises with fatigue; the fix is the same as at low rate — slow it down and re-set the line. A clean four-phase stroke is a determinant of 2k performance; the four phases are a performance variable, not a cosmetic variable.
Key points
- The indoor rowing stroke breaks into four simple phases: catch, drive, finish, recovery; the four-phase frame is the rower's anchor. (Level 1a)
- Connect legs, body, and arms in the drive in that order; sequencing is the rower's discipline. (Level 1b/2b)
- Reverse the order on the recovery: arms, body, then knees; the reversed recovery is the rower's discipline. (Level 1b/2b)
- Keep the handle path level and relaxed; the handle path connects the four phases. (Level 1a)
- Use a low-rate reset to recover the four phases; the rate-cap is the rower's reset. (Level 1b/2b)
- Stroke-to-stroke variability across the four phases rises with fatigue; the fix is the same as at low rate — slow it down and re-set the line. (Level 2b)
- A clean four-phase stroke is a determinant of 2k performance; the four phases are a performance variable, not a cosmetic variable. (Level 2b)
Sources and further reading
- Concept2 — Indoor Rowers Technique— Manufacturer technique guide; the operational anchor for the four-phase stroke.
- British Rowing — Online Coaching— National federation coaching material; the national-federation anchor for the four phases.
- Secher NH. Physiology of rowing. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 1993— Rowing physiology review; the aerobic-and-anaerobic anchor for the four phases.
- Hagerman FC. Applied physiology of rowing. Sports Med 1984— Indoor-rowing physiology review; the rate-band anchor for the four phases.
- Steinacker JM et al. Training of rowers. Int J Sports Med 2000— Rowing training review; the framework for the four phases in the rowing stroke.
- Kleshnev V. Rowing biomechanics newsletter 2008. biorow.com— Biomechanics newsletter; the practical-coaching anchor for the four phases.
- Cosgrove LA et al. The relationship between stroke rate and force-curve. JSS 1999— Rate-vs-force-curve study; the rate-band diagnostic for the four phases.
- Schaffert N, Mattes K. A functional analysis of the 2000 m rowing race. Int J Sports Med 2010— Race-phase analysis; the race-side anchor for the four phases.
- Barrett RS, Manning JM. The effects of fatigue on rowing stroke kinematics. JSS 2004— Fatigue-on-stroke-kinematics study; the within-session fatigue side of the four phases.
- Hofmijster MJ et al. Effect of stroke rate on performance in rowing. Int J Sports Med 2021— Rate-band field study; the rate-cap being rate-band-specific in the four phases.
- Wilson JM et al. Stroke rate on performance in trained rowers. IJSPP 2010— Rate-vs-performance study; the rate-band anchor for the four phases.
- Elliott B et al. Rowing: the technique and physiology of training. JSS 1998— Rowing technique and physiology review; the sequencing anchor for the four phases.
- Baudouin A et al. Determinants of performance in rowing. JSS 2002— Performance-determinants study; the performance-side anchor for the four phases.
- Gravagno S et al. EMG activity of upper limb muscles in rowing. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2006— Rowing EMG study; the muscle-recruitment anchor for the four phases.
- Turpin NA et al. Effect of fatigue on EMG in rowing. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2011— Fatigue-on-rowing-EMG study; the fatigue-muscular anchor for the four phases.
- Wulf G. Attentional focus and motor learning. Int J Sport Psychol 2007— Attentional-focus review; the external-focus anchor for the four phases.
- Mageau GA, Vallerand RJ. The coach-athlete relationship. J Sports Sci 2003— Coach-athlete relationship model; the autonomy-support anchor for the four phases.
- Kiely J. Periodization theory: confronting an inconvenient truth. Sports Med 2012— Periodization critique; the evidence-side rationale for the four phases.
- Seiler S. Best practice for training intensity and duration in endurance. IJSPP 2010— Polarised-training framework; the empirical anchor for the four phases.
- Foster C et al. A new approach to monitoring exercise training. J Strength Cond Res 2001— Session-RPE method; the load-monitoring side of the four phases.
- Halson SL. Monitoring training load to understand fatigue in athletes. Sports Med 2014— Training-load monitoring review; the multi-modal signal that catches over-reach in the four phases.
- Borg GA. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. MSSE 1982— CR-10 RPE scale; the perceived-exertion anchor for the four phases.
- Impellizzeri FM et al. Training load in injury and illness prevention. IJSPP 2019— Load-management framework; the chronic-vs-acute load side of the four phases.
- Murtagh CF et al. Training load in the management of rowers. IJSPP 2018— Rowing-specific load-management review; the sport-specific anchor for the four phases.
- ACSM Position Stand. Progression models in resistance training. MSSE 2009— ACSM progression-models position stand; the canonical anchor for incremental four-phase work.
- Garber CE et al. ACSM: quantity and quality of exercise for cardiorespiratory fitness. MSSE 2011— ACSM position stand on progression; the canonical anchor for the four phases.
- Pescatello LS et al. ACSM guidelines for exercise testing and prescription. Wolters Kluwer 2021— ACSM Guidelines; the clinical-prescription anchor for the four phases.