no
I haven’t either. I have heard it called the compound reverse sweep.
This thread has gotten away from
the OP. The question was about "Canoeing: A Trailside Guide by Gordon Grant and the text about what he terms a Solo Reverse Sweep. What I described above is hopefully an explanation of that specific topic. I see no mention of Palm Roll or the term “Compound” in this section. Although not discussed in this book, I agree that WW canoeists seldom use this and its best use is from a stand still in non WW canoes.
Pag
“Compound” seems perfectly relevant
– Last Updated: Jun-15-14 1:27 PM EST –
Just because Grant doesn't use the word "compound" doesn't make it off-topic in this discussion. It seems to me that most people use "compound" to describe a stroke in which both power faces get used, so bringing up that point is relevant when explaining to the OP why the stroke he'd previously seen described as a solo reverse sweep is different from the one he mentions here. The stroke being discussed is one that most other people would call a compound solo reverse sweep, even if Grant doesn't differentiate it from the simpler, "non-compound" sweep.
Whitewater canoeists
use that stoke all the time - it just would’d be called a solo reverse sweep. Not sure what it would be called - reverse sweep/bow draw? It’s also not explained very well in the book. You do a better job of explaining it above.
Similar to a christie
The paddler in this Mark Molina video gets so much turn out of her low speed initiation (via a stern pry = reverse draw = inverted draw = pushaway) that she doesn’t need to use much of a forward sweep on the low brace move or the bow draw conclusion move. She uses a palm roll to go into the brace/sweep and another palm roll to go into the dynamic bow draw.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAueM-kjNC4
Patrick Moore says “Christie” is an informal term for a “2 degree inverted axle”. Knock yourself out with his terminology, which I actually think makes the most physics sense of all the Babel-onian terminological schemata.
http://moorecanoeing.com/school/skills_philosophy.htm
The reason I went into a detailed
explanation is, just as you say, it is not explained very well in the article and that I think is the source of a lot of confusion. As a result it has been discussed around many a campfire, since its publication.
I couldn’t agree with you more
I’m just saying the word “Compound” is not used in the article in question and the use of it in this thread has confused some folks.