It depends on your music
for the interpretive sort. Halt Masters march to a halt in the music. Halts look funny in a waltz which better suits the Flow Masters.
Now as to FreeStyle Snowshoveling… the Move the Load Masters. Thats what I am practicing more of…and actually there are two FS canoes on my car…but till I Lift and Move the Load to Escape, I can neither be Halt nor Flow Master. I could be Slide Master but think that is not appropriate use for an Aria.
I’ll be happy to bring along the FS Instruction Manual to FFS for anyone interested. It used to be de rigeur reading for anyone attempting to ascend to be an instructor.
We don’t need no stinking linkages!
IMHO, strokes can be linked but the classic FS maneuvers…… not really. This is because each FS maneuver begins with power strokes (forward or reverse) and thus begins a new maneuver. For instance in solo canoe one can execute an offside turn with a Cross-bow-draw linked to a Sweep. In FS Canoe, once the Conclusion is done the maneuver is over and a new set of power strokes must begin. The only valid thing the FS paddler can consider between maneuvers is propensities. As Charlie points out in a previous post, “where is the paddle at the end of the maneuver?, “what was the direction of heel?”, and “momentum”. These are not linkages only considerations to avoid awkwardness. Please do not bring up Sideslips, they are static drawing or prying strokes, not maneuvers. What a lot of the modern competitors were concerned about and often referred to as “linkage” had more to do with body position at the end of the maneuver. For instance, after executing a MacKenzie Reversal, one would hardly want to try a Reverse Wedge, unless you want to be a pretzel in the water.
Additionally trying to codify and promulgate linkages in FS Canoe, is a feel good idea but wrong on so many levels as to be beyond the scope of this post. I relish the opportunity to discuss this over a campfire and adult beverage with anyone here, but only if river knives and paddles are checked at the door.
Pag
Sideslip is a stroke not a FS manuever
I see.
Well, a lot of FS instructors and paddlers wasted about 50 posts above describing how properly to execute drawing and prying sideslips. Some, including the OP, even praised the bloody thing as their favorite practical FS maneuver.
Pag, you sure like to get tied up in terminology. If you don’t like “link” or its cognates, I’ll avoid those words.
Steve, above, appeals to the goal of non-destinational play-paddling in flatwater. Such play implies noodling around with a SEQUENCE of moves.
The point is simple. While others may feel to the contrary, I think it would be beneficial to learn from the experiences other paddlers as to what canoe moves flow in a pleasing sequence from prior moves … and why.
I don’t think we need a campfire to do that. However, we may need a separate thread, as I have acknowledged.
Better yet, I think it would be very instructive to have written descriptions of these move sequences and illustrative videos. And, with some cooperation from other interested paddlers, I volunteer to create these things over the next two years.
Glenn, are you saying
that linking manuevers cannot have a power stroke or two in between? Some linked moves need to be “sequenced” as some forward or reverse momentum is needed…without it you would just spin in place. Certainly true if you hold to the 180 degree goal as the hull is, for all practical purposes, sitting still at that point.
Linked maneuvers need only be connected with the minimal amount of power strokes done gracefully (sliced into, etc.) to be considered linked in my mind.
Over a decade ago
Jim Mandel took a tape from a Texas Rendezvous Interpretive FS competition; killed the sound and sped the thing up. He found a rather boring “three strokes and stick the move” sequence.
So yeah, we’ve tried to / are trying / to link maneuvers more closely without three strokes to come up near hull speed before successive maneuvers.
And, it’s possible to do, by maintaining heel and momentum and paying attention to paddle blade location.
Hey Glenn…
– Last Updated: Jan-19-11 6:28 PM EST –
relax. This is a forum and not everyone is going to fall in line behind your pet topic.
It might help you to know that this topic is not something that you just invented but has been the subject of debate among us for many years. Before you use your valuable time to try and re-invent the wheel, consider this: dozens of competitors, judges, instructors, et. al. have all the films of all the competition including the “First Five Years”, and have studied in detail the sequences (linkage if you prefer) and techniques. We’ve polished, dissected and discussed them ad infinitum. You are obviously an erudite individual but lack background in the FS repartee. You might consider attending more symposia and listening to some of the old hands, before seeking to co-op some of these well worn topics. Take it easy and remember that before you develop a proprietary interest in these topics, we’ve got many years of discussion behind us. IMO, there does not exist a body of linkages which take preference. There have been hundreds and they vary in direct proportion to the number of unique combinations of maneuvers.
In i999 or 2000 (?) I exhibited a routine at AFS, in which the maneuvers were seperated by only one power stroke in an effort to create better transition. I still think it's an interesting idea, although most maneuvers end up being closer to freespins.
Regarding sideslips: I was taught the Sideslip many years before even hearing of FS and it was always a stroke, and could be easily "linked" to other strokes. A "maneuver" is an entity unto itself.
Pag
A manuver is an entity unto itself
and a stroke is just a stroke.
I wasn’t really making that distinction either though now that you’ve said it I can’t argue. Manuvers have an intiation, a number of strokes, palm rolls etc. and a conclusion.
So in the theme of “practical freestyle” do manuvers have a place? If I’m using what I learn at AFS to put my boat where I want it, can I complete the entire manuver? Do I want to complete the entire manuver or does that make it less practical?
Hmmm…
By definition a FS maneuver
has 3 components an initiation, placement and conclusion. When paddling practically, you won’t always use all three.
Example: I often use a wedge placement briefly without initiation for a minor direction change. Conclusion may be a slice to an axle placement to stop rotation, or simply a forward stroke to go forward depending on how fast the boat is turning.
Practical paddling using FS techniques is only about making your boat go where you want it to effectively.
Full 3 step maneuvers are often not necessary. In fact, cross strokes are totally unnecessary as a hull can be moved in any direction from the onside. (I’m talking flatwater here, as that is all FS is supposed to address). Cross forward stroke may be the only exception as it is perhaps not technically “necessary”, but certainly the most effective at maintaining direction when starting from a standstill.
and I disagree… but so what?
an initiation may be .02 percent, a placement 98.5 percent, and a conclusion .03 percent. Is the boat doing what you intended? The object in my mind, is mastery of your craft. I do not particularly care to know that the sideslip (that I know I am accomplishing for a deliberate purpose) is termed a maneuver or a stroke. I do know that I will go into another “maneuver” or “stroke” when it has accomplished what I had intended. However, for the various aspects presented here, in flatwater FS I definitely “initiate” a sideslip; in moving water it is not that obvious as the current is assisting.
Tommy
My remarks were not addressed to you at all, but I believe that in competition FS certain things are expected in practical FS do what fits the situation.
The important thing is to increase your knowledge to do what fits the situation in the best and most empirical way. Learning FS will increase this.
Pag
My apologies to all
I should have known better than to raise the controversial, “what is a stroke and what is a maneuver” question which has been around since before the Mesopotamian Empire was founded and will no doubt be around long after our ashes are scattered on a favorite paddling venue. My bad. So to make amends, let me re-state my concept, with the caveat that this is merely my opinion which no one will be forced to accept.
Regarding the question of Linkage: Differing actions taken to turn a canoe when combined to continue the turn without interruption, can be said to be linked. Inversely, an action taken to turn a canoe followed by a second action which interrupts that turn, cannot said to be linked. I leave it to the reader to apply whatever terminology to these actions their hearts desire.
No apology needed here
– Last Updated: Jan-20-11 12:55 PM EST –
Frankly I'm glad that you made the distinction as it helped me clarify my thoughts.
And if others care to argue that distinction I'll be happy to listen if not concede.
If I'm lucky they may help me the same way.
As for the last bit, when I carve into an eddy on my offside and carve out the other side on my onside without stopping (cross axel, cross forward, axel), have I linked the two turns into an S or have I not linked since I've changed the direction of the turn.
I'd say yes those are linked manuvers.
But I think you'd say no?
Sure
That’s one of the linked maneuvers my Essentials River Canoe/Kayak Instructor Candidates do on the mighty Saranac River.
When you do that on the river in shorts and immersion top it’s elegant maneuvering and sometimes survival.
When on flat water in dress cloths it’s just elegant!
Certainly linked…
and one of the more FUN things to do in a canoe!
Gotta Go w/ Glenn
Sideslips, initiated with s subtle pushaway or draw, including heel to lift the side of opposition, and usually requiring some blade placement movement as momentum fades, and a slice away from position for the next stroke seem to be nameuvers to me. seem
Tommy
I think we may just be getting into a semantic dust up here but for what it’s worth, my remarks were made within the context of a FS Canoe thread and a WW application was not part of my thinking. In my years of WW paddling I had not heard the term linkage and I have never applied FS terminology to WW paddling. I can see how if one learns the term linkage during WW training it becomes part of the lexicon, but that was not my experience. The first time I heard “Linkage” was in association with FS Canoe.
A lot of my thinking goes back to how we defined the “Parts of a maneuver” in the FS curricula. Early on we taught that a FS maneuver had 3 parts, the Initiation, Placement, and Conclusion. Later someone pointed out that every FS maneuver also included a Heel, so the parts should be Initiation, Heel, Placement, and Conclusion. Following that logic, in my opinion every FS maneuver (on flatwater at least) includes Power Strokes as well, so the parts become, Power Strokes, Initiating stroke, Heel, Placement, and Concluding Stroke. In a FS routine, after the Concluding Stroke, the very next stroke is the Power Stroke for the following maneuver. Where is the linkage? What action links these?
Additionally, I don’t like the idea of applying FS terminology to WW. FreeStyle Canoe is done on flatwater and so the expectation of succinct technique can be higher. Let’s take for example the Duffek (Axle in FS). In WW one should set Position and Angle as the eddy is approached. When the bow nears the obstacle the paddler can use Forward Strokes to power the bow into the eddy right behind the obstacle. A Heel and Stationary Draw allows the differential currents to spin the canoe into the eddy. If all goes as planned, a Conclusion is almost never required. If the obstacle is large, the paddle angle during the Stationary Draw can well be angled (rather than vertical) to achieve a wider and/or slower turn as needed. So, I personally seldom use the same Initiation, Placement Angle, or Conclusion in the Duffek as I do in the FS Axle. I do believe the two are near perfect cross-training disciplines but don’t translate word for word across the board. Because FS Canoe is done on quietwater, it can be much more dogmatic, but WW calls for whatever works in a given situation, dogma be hanged.
Getting Back to Glenn’s original post
– Last Updated: Jan-22-11 9:30 AM EST –
I'll include some linkages that I've used and why. Is there some way to catalog these combinations in a usable format? Maybe. Would it be a useful reference to those building or tweaking routines? Probably. Would it ever be a complete reference? Not a chance. Someone will always devise a new way to link or transition from one maneuver to another and that's part of the beauty of the sport.
Cross Axle to Cross Rev. Axle is one of my favorites. The Cross Axle gets you partway into a transverse stance from which it is fairly easy to slice back and do the Cross Rev. Axle with only 1 or 2 Cross Rev. strokes in between to gain some momentum. Both are powerful/dramatic maneuvers, especially if heeled to the rail. The audience hardly notices the Cross Rev. strokes as it all happens so fast and most are still trying to figure out which is the bow and stern.
A Prying Side Slip to an Axle works well as long as the canoe still has some forward momentum when you make the transition. The boat already has a bit of heel during the SS, the paddle is already in a "high brace" position and the stern is already skidding to the offside.. It only takes a slight repositioning of the blade a small initiation and increased heel/pitch to get the hull turning. If done smoothly, with enough momentum, to power strokes are necessary between the moves.
A Drawing Side Slip to a Wedge is another that I've used. The drawing side slip has the stern already moving toward to on side. Slicing the paddle forward and in toward the bow gets it into position for the setting the placement which nudges the bow offside. One needs to be smooth in transitioning the heel from offside (during the SS) to onside for the Wedge. I've continued the sequence into a gimbal though some would maintain that a gimbal is in itself not a maneuver. The gimbal may be for 180 deg., 270 deg., 360 deg. or more as required for positioning and to follow the music.
I'll add more at another time. Perhaps others will contribute some of their favorites.
In classes we almost always talk about which linkages work well, which don't and why. In advance classes I'll often instigate a game of "try this". It starts by my demonstrating a couple of linked maneuvers then asking a student to duplicate the sequence and add a maneuver. After all participants have repeated the sequence, another student is asked to add a forth maneuver and so on. We usually begin with a couple of power strokes between maneuvers and then try to reduce that to one or even none in those cases where that's possible.
An additional note:
Although when I started this thread, my intent was to highlight the practical aspects of FS, like many threads, it has taken on a life of it's own. After 300 plus posts, that's just fine with me. Even when we get into these discussions of exhibition/competition details, Tommy C1, Pblanc and others seem to find and highlight practical uses for the information.
Marc Ornstein
Practical equals Lazy
FreeStylers are lazy; they let the boat do most of the work by letting it know what they want with an initiation and heeling it inside out outside a turn, pitching it bow down or not to get the work done more easily.
FW freestyle = linked sequence paddling
– Last Updated: Jan-26-11 12:01 AM EST –
What, if anything, is the paddling discipline that bears the uninformative name "freestyle".
As a preface to giving my answer, let me first say that I like terminology. I like to use and abuse words. I also like to criticize terminology and the use of terminology. It was not my intention in this thread suggest that anyone here uses terminology too much or has abused it. Egad, this entire thread is chock full of jargon thrown about by all of us.
But these intellectual quibbles -- unknown to brute kayakers -- about the fine distinctions among moves, strokes, maneuvers, links, sequences, practicality and aesthetics, all mask the terrible underlying truth:
Flatwater freestyle, like Mark Twain's Oakland, California, has no there there.
With one exception: the aesthetic linked sequencing of strokes and maneuvers we see in interpretive FS competitions.
Why do I say that?
Because all the individual moves, strokes and maneuvers, whatever their fancied up names, are just basic Algonquin canoeing. That is, they are the same things that the first Algonquin paddler discovered 30,000 years ago in Yulee, north Florida, when Canada and the northern U.S. were covered by an ice sheet. They are all the same basic canoe moves, strokes and maneuvers that you can learn in any basic FW or WW class anywhere on the planet. Of course, as I have said, you can also learn them in a so-called FS course, which likely has the best instructors for these things.
But, what distinguishes and differentiates the paddling discipline of "FW freestyle" from regular Algonquin canoeing? What in substance, not just in neologistic terminology, differentiates it?
I think the answer lies in history. In 1975 there was nothing called flatwater freestyle. There was no ACA committee. There was no axle, no post, no christie, no wedge. Not by those names.
But guess what, there were lots of paddlers who could do all the things taught in a FS symposium today. In fact, there were a lot more paddlers then than now who could dazzle with that stuff. A lot more. Plus those 1975 paddlers were all a lot younger than today's residuum.
But what that greatest generation of canoeists did not do very often was to link a series of flatwater and quasi-whitewater moves together in a continuous, flowing sequence of non-destinational noodling on a duck pond. Some always did that, of course, probably including Son of Yuleeman.
This sequenced-move concept grew in the late 70's and early 80's around those places where the short solo canoes were being made by people like Mike Galt in Tampa and Dave Curtis in Hemlock. Top paddlers gravitated to these Mecca’s, invented new sequences and traded ideas--paddlers like Pat Moore, Harold Deal, Mickey Landry and Bardy Jones. To them, it was a sport, a new sort of canoe sport. In fact, they called it "sport canoeing”. The essence of sport canoeing was the sophisticated sequences of athletic and aesthetic canoe moves.
Galt, Curtis, Moore, Phil Siggelkow and others promoted this new concept of sequential move canoeing by virtue of their writings, photos and the new sport canoeing hulls they developed.
The important historical point is this: the only substantive differentiation between the new idea of sport canoeing and pre-existent set of Algonquin canoe moves WAS the sophisticated sequencing of the moves.
Sport canoeing quickly spread to tandem canoes because the move sequences there were even more electrifying, plus it enabled the boat builders to sell additional canoes.
Eventually, Mike Galt put a boom box on the shore of the Hillsborough River and began to choreograph the move sequences to music. Again, it was all about the aesthetically linked sequences.
I was there for all I have described so far.
Then, in the late 80's sport canoeing attracted a whole new group of innovators and organizers, somehow merged into the ACA, developed a whole bunch of new lingo, refined the teaching texts and methodologies ... and for some reason changed the name of sport canoeing to freestyle. I was not a part of that; others here were.
Thus my conclusion: if "Flatwater Freestyle" is anything substantively different from pre-1980 Algonquin canoeing, it IS the aesthetic sequencing of linked moves-strokes-maneuvers that we now see in what is called interpretive freestyle competition.
So, why are some FS-ophiles trying to run away from this history and this heritage? Why try to justify FS in terms of practicality? Why present it as a sort of jargonized translation of basic Algonquin canoeing?
It ISN'T or SHOULDN'T be those things. Suck it up, folks, and get back to the banks of the Hillsborough River. But, yes, you can turn off the boom box. That is not at all necessary to implement the sport.
I can learn Algonquin canoeing, and all its constituent moves-strokes-maneuvers, anywhere these days. But I can only learn freestyle ... real, historical sport canoeing ... how to merge a Hiding Harold into a cross axle into a reverse cross axle ... in a few places such as Yulee, north Florida. Please teach me Galt and not Mason.
Disagree…
Provocatively written… but if you revisit earlier posts in this thread, I think you could conclude that you’ve rather missed some key elements… including the point where you raised many of these same points the first time around!
Go back and look at SteveT’s contribution of 10th December. I quote: “It’s been said that for decades Canadian guides entertained their clients after dinner with an exhibition of what they could make their canoe do [s]o, yes, the strokes have been around”. Does anyone doubt that the most exceptional Canadian guides had a feel for initiating manouvres, adjusting heel and pitch, paddle placement, the the conclusion of a manouvre - or for “linkage”? I don’t!
Now the crux: no other national canoeing body in the world has managed to come up with a curriculum that codifies and facilitates the transmition of those advanced quietwater principles, skills and manouvres. Everywhere else pretty much leaves off quietwater technique with the basics needed for tripping and journeying; a limited skill-set that can see someone through a lifetime of adventurous paddling if combined with sound judgement and willingness to learn from experience.
SteveT also noted that “We wanted to change the perception of a canoe from a vehicle primarily for travel, to one of a vehicle that could be use for play” and that “WW always had the ‘wow, look at that’ factor, but until the FS gang began proselytizing, flatwater did not”. That, to me, is where the distinctiveness comes in: from the focus on exploring what CAN be done, rather than on the practical but uninspiring focus on what’s minimally useful when getting from A to B.
In short, whilst I don’t doubt that some exceptional instructors who are NOT amongst the ACA Freestyle elite could teach you to an exceptional level… I don’t agree that you “can learn Algonquin canoeing, and all its constituent moves-strokes-maneuvers, anywhere these days” - and here in the UK, I’m not even sure where you’d start looking to get the level of advanced quietwater technique coaching that’s offered each time ACA accredited folk in the US and in continental Europe run a Freestyle symposium!