Natalie Legge
Katie Slattery
Mark Watsford2,3
Frank Nugent- 1School of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Strathfield, NSW, Australia
- 2School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Moore Park, NSW, Australia
- 3Human Performance Research Centre, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- 4Sport Science Department, NSW Institute of Sport, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- 5Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
- 6Sport and Human Performance Research Centre, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
Movement competency combines fundamental patterns and movement quality that enables the confident and competent execution of activities, sports and everyday tasks. This perspectives article addresses the lack of a clear definition and guidelines relating to the sport-specific movement competency required for safe and effective rowing, particularly in the context of enhancing performance. In our opinion, movement competency should be emphasised together with the physiological and biomechanical attributes of rowing performance. Based on the literature, we have proposed the following definition, ‘sport-specific movement competency for rowers incorporates the physical attributes of mobility and stability through the shoulders, trunk, hips, knees and ankles along with the associated muscular strength and endurance’ to coordinate and execute a technically effective stroke’. Our definition highlights that rowers need to coordinate different regions of the body through appropriate joint positioning and movement patterns to safely optimise force development capacity during the stroke cycle. Examples of the mobility and stability requirements during the four main stroke phases are provided. The concept of sport-specific movement competency for rowing could provide benefits for rowing participation, technical rowing efficiency, injury prevention and performance enhancement.
1 Introduction
Movement competency refers to the fundamental patterns underlying movement that facilitates the confident and competent execution of activities, games, sports and everyday tasks (1–3). Developing appropriate movement competency early in the sporting pathway is critical to ensure physical readiness for the demands of sport (3, 4). The movement competency specific to a sport relates to a person's physical capacity to execute technique, whereby technique is defined as a coordination pattern that provides a movement solution specific to a sport (5). Movement competency in sport has largely been examined in relation to sports injury (4, 6); relationship with sport specialisation in youth populations (7); and association with the demands of particular sports (8). Despite a growing body of work, the literature is limited on the possible role of movement competency in the context of enhancing sports performance.
Sport-specific movement competency and enhanced performance outcomes have been documented for some sports. For instance, netballers who improved physical performance measures such as balance, agility and peak power after a 6-week neuromuscular training intervention also improved their movement competency through the assessment of a netball-specific movement screening tool (9). In a sporting context, competency across a range of movements has been recommended for safe, effective and long-term athletic development of young athletes (8, 10). Recent systematic reviews evaluating fundamental movement skills and movement competency in relation to sporting success have highlighted the need for clearer definitions and methods to define and measure sport-specific movement competence (11–13). Guidelines focussed on sport-specific movement competency are needed to provide benchmarks that reflect the movements of a certain sport (i.e., stability, mobility, balance, coordination or muscular strength) considered important to enable correct technique and safely meet the demands of the sport.
Essential movement competencies in rowing such as greater hip flexion, anterior pelvic tilt, trunk muscle strength and endurance have been highlighted in relation to injury (14). However, an all-encompassing term with a clear definition has not been established to reflect these attributes. Establishing a clear understanding of the movement competency requirements for rowing is needed, including quantitative performance-related benchmarks and guidelines for movement competency assessment specific to rowing. This has the potential to improve performance, reduce injury and retain participation in the sport. This perspective paper proposes the concept of movement competency specific to rowing.
2 Movement competency for rowing performance
Rowing is a technical sport that involves coordinating movements of the whole body and applying those movements to generate force on the oars and footplate that propel the boat forward (15). A definition for movement competency in rowing was informed by seminal articles identifying attributes that describe movement competency in rowing (14, 16). Potential attributes were condensed into key themes, and necessary attributes were then used to develop a preliminary definition (17). The preliminary definition was then refined in consultation with experts in rowing (18) to ensure internal consistency, simplicity and effectiveness. Following this process, our definition proposes that, ’sport-specific movement competency for rowers incorporates the physical attributes of mobility and stability through the shoulders, trunk, hips, knees and ankles along with the associated muscular strength and endurance to coordinate and execute a technically effective stroke’ (14, 19, 20). Mobility is defined as the range of movement (ROM) around a joint in combination with the associated flexibility which refers to the length of a muscle (21). Stability is defined as the restriction of joint movement controlled by several static and dynamic structures and mechanisms including ligaments and joint capsules, proprioceptive positional sense and muscular strength (22). Specific attributes of mobility and stability are required during each of the four main phases of the rowing stroke as outlined in the following section.
3 Main phases of the rowing stroke
Rowing is a cyclical sport that involves the stroke being repeated over 200 times during a 2,000 m race. Given the high levels of repetition, movement competency in a cyclical sport like rowing may be of greater importance, in comparison to movement competency in field sports which have higher degrees of variability in movement such as jumping, catching, and tackling (23, 24). There are four main phases of the rowing stroke, the catch, drive, finish and recovery [Figure 1; (Legge et al., 2024)]. The “catch” position is the most unstable and technically challenging aspect of the stroke. It involves the blade being placed in the water and force rapidly developed to propel the boat forward (15, 25). This requires a position of full hip/knee flexion, and ankle dorsiflexion, while the spine remains neutral, and the upper limbs place the oar in the water with finesse to minimise disruption to boat momentum (26, 27). The “drive” phase involves knee, hip and trunk extension to transfer force from the foot-stretcher to the oar handle and blade in the water for forward propulsion. The “finish” completes the drive phase where the blade is extracted from the water in preparation for the “recovery” (27). The knees are fully extended at the finish position, the ankles are plantarflexed and the hips have finished extending; however, remain in a flexed position due to the upright seated posture (26, 28). The recovery is the non-propulsive phase of the stroke; however, it requires coordination and balance to mirror the sequence of body movements in the drive phase. The recovery is executed in the reverse order to the drive to initiate the optimal position for the subsequent catch. Rowing-specific movement competency requirements are specific to each of these four main phases.
Figure 1. Proposed key mobility and stability attributes across the rowing stroke.
3.1 Catch
The catch is a precise and challenging movement where the blade is placed in the water and force is rapidly developed to propel the boat forward (15, 25). To successfully execute this part of the stroke, an appropriate ROM to achieve the body position is required (28) alongside the associated force producing capabilities to maintain optimal posture for the development of boat propulsion (29, 30). With the legs and trunk producing 80% of rowing power (31), particular focus is required on the hips and trunk regions. Appropriate hip flexion has been reported in the range of 130° (28) and trunk stability required for rowing includes the muscular strength and endurance to maintain the required posture for the duration of a race (32, 33). Without these physical attributes, a rower may succumb to technical faults that are biomechanically inefficient and place undue repetitive loading through the lumbar spine/hips (14, 34).
Despite limited literature on the degree of ankle dorsiflexion required for an effective catch position and stretcher force application, an increase in passive ankle dorsiflexion range may enable a steeper foot-stretcher angle that can optimise propulsive force capabilities (35, 36). Conversely, if ankle dorsiflexion is limited, heel contact on the stretcher is reduced. To promote heel contact, the foot-stretcher angle and height may need to be adjusted, negatively impacting the ratio of horizontal to vertical stretcher forces and ultimately propulsive stretcher force (35, 37).
Shoulder stability is required at the catch as force is applied on the handle simultaneously with the foot-stretcher (Image 1, Figure 1). A stable shoulder girdle allows for more efficient transfer of force between the trunk and the oar handle (38). Chest wall injuries including rib stress injuries are common in rowing and although the aetiology is unclear (39, 40), excessive shoulder protraction can alter the balance with the shoulder retractors and lead to abnormal forces directed on the posterior aspect of the rib cage (41) and the serratus anterior and external abdominal oblique muscles may cause repetitive bending force to ribs (42). Addressing issues and establishing standards related to joint stability and muscle balance around the shoulder girdle and thoracic cage may positively impact both injury risk and performance. Accordingly, these should be considered an important aspect of movement competency for rowing.
3.2 Drive
The early to mid-drive phase is critical for a rapid rate of force development (43) and the lumbo-pelvic positioning should be relatively neutral with the primary movement generated through knee extension (38). The trunk acts as a lever throughout the drive phase and is the major link in the kinetic chain between the legs and arms (33). Trunk extensor muscle activity dominates up to 60% of the initial drive phase along with the hip extensors while trunk flexor activity is involved during the remaining 40%, contributing around the late drive and executing a braking action leading into the finish (8, 44). Strength training for rowing focuses on the drive phase given this is the propulsive phase of the stroke where peak force is achieved around the mid-drive (38, 45, 46). However, skillful rowers apply force earlier in the drive as well as maintain force for longer into the finish compared to less skilled rowers and this requires effective and coordinated movements from catch to finish each stroke (33, 45), highlighting the importance of movement competency.
3.3 Finish
The finish requires abdominal strength and endurance to maintain the trunk in a relatively neutral position and prevent posterior rotation of the pelvis which leads to excessive lumbar flexion (14, 47). At this stage of the stroke, the dominance of the trunk extensors and posterior chain muscles have transferred to the trunk flexors, acting as a brake to slow the trunk into the finish in preparation for the initiation of the recovery phase (33). Ankle plantarflexion around the finish has been suggested to increase stroke length and facilitates a smoother blade extraction from the water (36). However, passive ankle plantarflexion ROM is greater than that achieved during rowing therefore it is unlikely to be a limiting factor (36).
3.4 Recovery
The movement sequence from the finish to the recovery is typically described in coaching resources as commencing with the arms moving away from the body towards the stern of the boat, followed by a trunk rockover and lastly the hips and knees extending to move the seat forward towards the stern of the boat enabling the catch position (26, 27). Limited research has examined the recovery phase from a technical and physical perspective; however, coaches refer to attributes of coordination, balance and ‘boat feel’ when talking about effective recovery (48). Maximal velocity is achieved during the recovery phase, therefore there are two aims: to set up the body position for the next catch, and to minimise any disruption to the boat run during this process (27). Minimizing both intra-stroke and inter-stroke fluctuations in boat velocity has been associated with superior rowing performance and this stage of the stroke cycle is critical given there is no propulsive force application, and the body is moving against the direction of momentum (49).
The ability to ‘rockover’ through the hips is a key aspect of movement competency during the recovery phase (image 5, Figure 1). Therefore, hip mobility including hamstring flexibility is essential along with the trunk strength and endurance to maintain a neutral spine position. Excessive trunk flexion particularly in the lumbar spine may result as a compensatory movement due to lack of hip mobility (14, 50). When considering movement competency, this non-propulsive phase of the stroke cycle has the potential to provide gains in boat speed without greater physiological effort. Optimal body sequencing has been suggested by coaches as a key area for development in junior rowers to maximise boat run during this phase (48).
4 Movement competency screening in rowing
A key aspect of high levels of movement competency is the ability of the rower to coordinate different regions of the body through appropriate joint positioning and coordinated movement patterns to optimise force development capacity during the stroke cycle. Therefore, adopting a functional testing protocol specific to the movements comprising the rowing stroke as opposed to traditional athlete physical screening is needed (38). Physical screening is common in sport with traditional tests measuring isolated joint ROM, muscle strength and flexibility (51–53). However, more functional approaches evaluate an individual's physical attributes tailored to sport-specific requirements (20, 54). Rowing-specific limitations such as low hip flexion, ankle dorsiflexion or shoulder instability can increase risk of injury while also impacting performance. Accordingly, such attributes need to be assessed in an integrated manner reflective of the combined movement patterns of the rowing stroke (20, 38). Furthermore, pelvic and spinal mechanics can change during rowing with increased training durations and intensities. For example, it has been suggested that rowers without low back pain (LBP) display distinct kinematics to those that have experienced LBP (14). Therefore, it is important to consider an individual's movement competency when prescribing training and make adjustments based on known recommendations such as the maximal duration of ergometer prescriptions (14).
The functional movement screen (FMSTM) has been evaluated in relation to rowing injuries (55–57). Two studies examining seasonal data on collegiate rowers suggest the FMSTM is not effective for injury prediction for rowing athletes (56, 57). For sport-specific movement competency, screening should reflect the movements, coordination and loading patterns of the sport. These studies reinforce the need for movement competency guidelines specific to rowing given the distinctive set of physical attributes specific to a rowing race, training demands, and the four main movement phases of the stroke cycle.
To maximise performance, minimise injury risk and to tolerate the demands of training and competition in rowing it is essential young athletes develop the necessary physical attributes (38, 48). This is where an awareness of movement competency can have an impact early in the sporting pathway. As an example, adequate muscular strength and endurance around the hip and trunk to enable maximal force transmission of the leg drive as well as sufficient mobility through the hips to achieve an optimal catch position are common attributes lacking in less skilled rowers and should be a key focus for addressing movement competency in development athletes (27, 48, 58). Moreover, trunk and scapular stability around the catch and finish positions are important physical attributes to optimise force development and decrease the likelihood of injury (59, 60). Common technical faults of a less skilled rower include incorrect sequencing of the body movements during the rowing stroke (48). This relates to movement competency when a lack of mobility and trunk strength and endurance are preventing the athletes from achieving the required positions to optimise their force development capacity (14, 33). Further recommendations for a rowing-specific movement competency screen should be developed and promoted within the rowing community.
5 Discussion
5.1 Practical applications & future perspectives
Strength and conditioning (S&C) programs such as those presented by Young et al. (38), Nugent et al. (26) and Rawlley-Singh (46) provide useful insights into training the movement competency and strength requirements for rowing. Further research that quantifies movement competency for rowing can support such programs and the development of evidence-based movement competency assessment tools will potentially have a greater impact and influence on training practices at all levels of the rowing community. Practical applications should involve implementing resources into rowing organisations and governing sporting bodies, particularly at school-age levels, where young rowers are prone to over-training, overuse injury and early dropout (58, 61). Incorporating movement competency requirements such as minimal benchmark standards for key movements, joint positions and associated screening tools for safe and effective rowing can provide positive outcomes that will safely improve rowing performance.
Assessment and management of an athlete's sport-specific movement competence requires multidisciplinary consideration, communication, and input (30). The physical therapist and S&C coach alongside the head coach can deliver an integrated approach to address each individual's movement competence and technical efficiency and incorporate these aspects into the on-land and on-water training program. We propose that establishing clear guidelines on movement competency for rowing can be beneficial for rowing participation, technical rowing efficiency, injury reduction and performance enhancement (26). More quantitative research is required to establish such guidelines in collaboration with some of the leading experts in rowing including coaches, S&C coaches, physical therapists, rowing biomechanists and applied researchers.
6 Conclusion
The purpose of this perspective paper was to present and describe the concept of movement competency specific to rowing. In our opinion, movement competency in rowing incorporates the physical attributes required to be able to execute a technically effective stroke through appropriate stability and mobility specific to rowing. It is clear that mobility and stability are required to achieve effective and coordinated positions throughout the rowing stroke cycle including the catch, drive, finish, and recovery to optimise performance and minimise injury.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
NL: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. KS: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. MW: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Writing – original draft. DO’M: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. FN: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Ciaran Ward (independent graphic designer) for his contribution to this study.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Lundgren LE, Tran TT, Farley OR, Secomb J, Nimphius S, Newton RU, et al. Atheltic movement competency is related to general athletic performance variables and surfing performance. J Aust Strength Cond. (2014) 22(5):80–3.
2. Pill S, Harvey S. A narrative review of children’s movement competence research 1997–2017. Phys Cult Sport Stud Res. (2019) 81(1):47–74. doi: 10.2478/pcssr-2019-0005
3. Rogers SA, Hassmén P, Roberts AH, Alcock A, Gilleard WL, Warmenhoven JS. Movement competency training delivery: at school or online? A pilot study of high-school athletes. Sports. (2020) 8(4):39. doi: 10.3390/sports8040039
4. Myer GD, Faigenbaum AD, Ford KR, Best TM, Bergeron MF, Hewett TE. When to initiate integrative neuromuscular training to reduce sports-related injuries in youth? Curr Sports Med Rep. (2011) 10(3):155. doi: 10.1249/JSR.0b013e31821b1442
5. Bennett KJ, Fransen J. Distinguishing skill from technique in football. Sci Med Footb. (2023) 8(4):1–4. doi: 10.1080/24733938.2023.2288138
6. Bergeron MF, Mountjoy M, Armstrong N, Chia M, Côté J, Emery CA, et al. International olympic committee consensus statement on youth athletic development. Br J Sports Med. (2015) 49(13):843–51. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-094962
7. Woods CT, Keller BS, McKeown I, Robertson S. A comparison of athletic movement among talent-identified juniors from different football codes in Australia: implications for talent development. J Strength Cond Res. (2016) 30(9):2440–5. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001354
8. Rogers SA, Hassmén P, Alcock A, Gilleard WL, Warmenhoven JS. Intervention strategies for enhancing movement competencies in youth athletes: a narrative systematic review. Int J Sports Sci Coach. (2020) 15(2):256–72. doi: 10.1177/1747954119900664
9. Hopper A, Haff EE, Barley OR, Joyce C, Lloyd RS, Haff GG. Neuromuscular training improves movement competency and physical performance measures in 11–13-year-old female netball athletes. J Strength Cond Res. (2017) 31(5):1165–76. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001794
10. Lloyd RS, Oliver JL, Faigenbaum AD, Howard R, Croix MBDS, Williams CA, et al. Long-term athletic development, part 2: barriers to success and potential solutions. J Strength Cond Res. (2015) 29(5):1451–64. doi: 10.1519/01.JSC.0000465424.75389.56
11. Basman AJ. Assessment criteria of fundamental movement skills for various age groups: a systematic review. J Phys Educ Sport. (2019) 19(1):722–32.
12. Kliethermes SA, Marshall SW, LaBella CR, Watson AM, Brenner JS, Nagle KB, et al. Defining a research agenda for youth sport specialisation in the USA: the AMSSM youth early sport specialization summit. Br J Sports Med. (2021) 55(3):135–43. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-102699
13. Zoellner AC. Sport specialisation, movement competency and injury in New Zealand youth football players (Masters thesis). Auckland University of Technology (2023).
14. Nugent FJ, Vinther A, McGregor A, Thornton JS, Wilkie K, Wilson F. The relationship between rowing-related low back pain and rowing biomechanics: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med. (2021) 55(11):616–28. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-102533
16. Wilson F, Thornton JS, Wilkie K, Hartvigsen J, Vinther A, Ackerman KE, et al. 2021 consensus statement for preventing and managing low back pain in elite and subelite adult rowers. Br J Sports Med. (2021) 55(16):893–9. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-103385
17. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff NP. Recommendations for creating better concept definitions in the organizational, behavioral, and social sciences. Organ Res Methods. (2016) 19(2):159–203. doi: 10.1177/1094428115624965
18. Wacker JG. A theory of formal conceptual definitions: developing theory-building measurement instruments. J Oper Manag. (2004) 22(6):629–50. doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2004.08.002
19. McGregor AH, Buckeridge E, Murphy AJ, Bull AM. Communicating and using biomechanical measures through visual cues to optimise safe and effective rowing. J Sports Eng Technol. (2016) 230(4):246–52. doi: 10.1177/1754337115618552
20. Newlands C. Low back pain incidence in New Zealand rowers and its relationship with functional movement patterns (Phd). Auckland University of Technology (2013).
21. Teichmann J, Burchardt H, Tan R, Healy PD. Hip mobility and flexibility for track and field athletes. Adv Phys Educ. (2021) 11(2):221–31. doi: 10.4236/ape.2021.112017
22. Blackburn T, Guskiewicz KM, Petschauer MA, Prentice WE. Balance and joint stability: the relative contributions of proprioception and muscular strength. J Sport Rehabil. (2000) 9(4):315–28. doi: 10.1123/jsr.9.4.315
23. Kempton T, Sullivan C, Bilsborough JC, Cordy J, Coutts AJ. Match-to-match variation in physical activity and technical skill measures in professional Australian football. J Sci Med Sport. (2015) 18(1):109–13. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2013.12.006
24. Silva B, Rodrigues LP, Clemente FM, Cancela JM, Bezerra P. Association between motor competence and functional movement screen scores. PeerJ. (2019) 7:e7270. doi: 10.7717/peerj.7270
25. Simpson C, Flood J. Advanced Rowing: International Perspectives on High Performance Rowing. London: Bloomsbury Publishing (2017).
26. Nugent FJ, Flanagan EP, Wilson F, Warrington GD. Strength and conditioning for competitive rowers. Strength Cond J. (2020) 42(3):6–21. doi: 10.1519/SSC.0000000000000531
27. Thompson P, Wolf A. Training for the Complete Rower: A Guide to Improving Performance. Wiltshire: Crowood (2016).
28. Wilson F. Managing low Back Pain in Rowers. Can it Teach us Something About Managing the General Population? InTouch Articles (2018).
29. Iguchi J, Kuzuhara K, Katai K, Hojo T, Fujisawa Y, Kimura M, et al. Seasonal changes in anthropometric, physiological, nutritional, and performance factors in collegiate rowers. J Strength Cond Res. (2020) 34(11):3225–31. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002521
30. Rawlley-Singh I, Wolf A. A philosophical approach to aligning strength and conditioning support to a coaches’ performance model: a case study from a national rowing performance programme. Int J Sports Sci Coach. (2023) 18(1):278–91. doi: 10.1177/17479541221105454
31. Kleshnev V, Kleshnev I. Dependence of rowing performance and efficiency on motor coordination of the main body segments. J Sports Sci. (1998) 16(5):418–9.
33. Simon FR, Ertel GN, Duchene Y, Maciejewski H, Gauchard GC, Mornieux G. Prediction of rowing ergometer performance by technical and core stability parameters. J Sports Sci. (2023) 41(5):1–9. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2023.2219076
34. Trease L, Wilkie K, Lovell G, Drew M, Hooper I. Epidemiology of injury and illness in 153 Australian international-level rowers over eight international seasons. Br J Sports Med. (2020) 54(21):1288–93. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2019-101402
35. Liu Y, Gao B, Li J, Ma Z, Sun Y. Increased foot-stretcher height improves rowing performance: evidence from biomechanical perspectives on water. Sports Biomech. (2020) 19(2):168–79. doi: 10.1080/14763141.2018.1453540
36. Soper C, Reid D, Hume PA. Reliable passive ankle range of motion measures correlate to ankle motion achieved during ergometer rowing. Phys Ther Sport. (2004) 5(2):75–83. doi: 10.1016/S1466-853X(03)00144-5
37. Draper C. Optimising rowing performance in elite womens single sculling (PhD). University of Sydney (2005).
38. Young D. Strength and conditioning programming for the school aged rower. J Aust Strength Cond. (2019) 27(5):38–44.
39. Harris R, Trease L, Wilkie K, Drew M. Rib stress injuries in the 2012–2016 (rio) olympiad: a cohort study of 151 Australian rowing team athletes for 88 773 athlete days. Br J Sports Med. (2020) 54(16):991–6. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2019-101584
40. Vinther A, Thornton JS. Management of rib pain in rowers: emerging issues. Br J Sports Med. (2016) 50(3):141–2. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2014-094168
41. McDonnell LK, Hume PA, Nolte V. Rib stress fractures among rowers: definition, epidemiology, mechanisms, risk factors and effectiveness of injury prevention strategies. Sports Med. (2011) 41:883–901. doi: 10.2165/11593170-000000000-00000
42. Karlson KA. Rib stress fractures in elite rowers. Am J Sports Med. (1998) 26(4):516–9. doi: 10.1177/03635465980260040701
43. Holt AC, Aughey RJ, Ball K, Hopkins WG, Siegel R. Technical determinants of on-water rowing performance. Front Sports Act Liv. (2020) 2:178. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2020.589013
44. Pollock CL, Jenkyn TR, Jones IC, Ivanova TD, Garland SJ. Electromyography and kinematics of the trunk during rowing in elite female rowers. Med Sci Sports Exerc. (2009) 41(3):628–36. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e31818c1300
45. McGregor AH, Bull AMJ, Byng-Maddick R. A comparison of rowing technique at different stroke rates: a description of sequencing, force production and kinematics. Int J Sports Med. (2004) 25(6):465–70. doi: 10.1055/s-2004-820936
46. Rawlley-Singh I, Ferreira M, Chen L. A strength and conditioning technical framework for olympic rowing. J Aust Strength Cond. (2021) 29:40–54.
47. McGregor A, Anderton L, Gedroyc W. The assessment of intersegmental motion and pelvic tilt in elite oarsmen. Med Sci Sports Exerc. (2002) 34(7):1143–9. doi: 10.1097/00005768-200207000-00015
48. Legge N, Watsford M, Sharp P, O’Meara D, Slattery K. “A feeling for run and rhythm”: coaches’ perspectives of performance, talent, and progression in rowing. J Sports Sci. (2023) 41(10):1–10. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2023.2249752
49. Hill H, Fahrig S. The impact of fluctuations in boat velocity during the rowing cycle on race time. Scand J Med Sci Sports. (2009) 19(4):585–94. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2008.00819.x
50. Buckeridge E, Hislop S, Bull A, McGregor A. Kinematic asymmetries of the lower limbs during ergometer rowing. Med Sci Sports Exerc. (2012) 44(11):2147–53. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182625231
51. Comerford M. Screening to identify injury and performance risk: movement control testing-the missing piece of the puzzle. SportEx Med. (2006) 29:21–6.
52. Garrick JG. Preparticipation orthopedic screening evaluation. Clin J Sport Med. (2004) 14(3):123–6. doi: 10.1097/00042752-200405000-00003
53. Newlands C, Reid D, Palmar P. Low back pain incidence in New Zealand rowers and its relationship with functional movement patterns. Physiotherapy. (2015) 101:e1268–e9. doi: 10.1016/j.physio.2015.03.1177
54. Cook G, Burton L, Hoogenboom B. Pre-participation screening: the use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function–part 1. N Am J Sports Phys Ther. (2006) 1(2):62.21522216
55. Arslan S, Dinç E, Yapalı G, Aksoy CC. Comparison of functional movement screen scores of soccer players and rowers. Physiother Quart. (2021) 29(1):30–4. doi: 10.5114/pq.2020.96426
56. Clay H, Mansell J, Tierney R. Association between rowing injuries and the functional movement screen™ in female collegiate division I rowers. Int J Sports Phys Ther. (2016) 11(3):345.27274420
57. Torrisi T. Function movement screening used as a predictor for rowing injuries (Honors thesis). Nova Southeastern University (2015).
58. Keats MR, Emery CA, Finch CF. Are we having fun yet? Fostering adherence to injury preventive exercise recommendations in young athletes. Sports Med. (2012) 42:175–84. doi: 10.2165/11597050-000000000-00000
59. Pollock C, Jones I, Jenkyn T, Ivanova T, Garland S. Changes in kinematics and trunk electromyography during a 2000m race simulation in elite female rowers. Scand J Med Sci Sports. (2012) 22(4):478–87. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01249.x
60. Wilson F, Gissane C, Gormley J, Simms C. Sagittal plane motion of the lumbar spine during ergometer and single scull rowing. Sports Biomech. (2013) 12(2):132–42. doi: 10.1080/14763141.2012.726640
Keywords: rowing, movement competency, physical attributes, stability, mobility
Citation: Legge N, Slattery K, Watsford M, O’Meara D and Nugent F (2025) Movement competency in rowing: the key to an effective stroke. Front. Sports Act. Living 7:1601563. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2025.1601563
Received: 28 March 2025; Accepted: 10 June 2025;
Published: 19 June 2025.
Edited by:
Lazar Toskić, University of Pristina, SerbiaCopyright: © 2025 Legge, Slattery, Watsford, O’Meara and Nugent. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Natalie Legge, bmF0YWxpZS5sZWdnZUBhY3UuZWR1LmF1