## 4 Discussion
This reinforces the idea that asymmetry in rowing at handle should not necessarily be viewed as a negative feature affecting performance [10]. Indeed, due to the hands overlapping during the drive, a certain degree of asymmetry is inevitably introduced. It is also possible that asymmetry between the board and starboard angles is a tool used by the rowers to compensate for disturbing factors like wind and water current, so it is not necessarily an inefficient technique but a fundamental characteristic to keep the boat on track. Similar to findings with ergometer rowing, earlier T2P and greater M2P have been associated with increased performance in on-water rowing [2; 3; 12]. While an earlier peak of force with respect to the normalized time proved to have a beneficial effect on performance, the angle at which this peak occurred had no effect. This points to strategies that involve a faster and more uniform force application to the oars as more performant. Regarding the effects of body kinematics on performance, it appears that reaching the finish position with the pelvis and trunk leaning more towards the back was beneficial for performance, expressed in speed and power. Also, an increased range of motion of all the back segments contributes to higher performance. Thus, at least for the rowers participating in the study, an increased trunk involvement seems to improve overall performance. Contrary to previous findings on ergometer, where the range of motion of the pelvis did not affect performance [6], this study showed a positive effect on performance with increased pelvis range of motion. This difference could be explained by the differences between on-water and ergometer rowing. Even though the dynamic ergometer has a high degree of similarity with the boat when it comes to the body accelerations, the kinematics of the hands and arms as well as the force response at the handle are quite different. Moreover, it is easier to keep balance while rowing on an ergometer, which might lead rowers to easily reach a large RoM. Having the pelvis leaning more forward at the catch improved power but not speed. While this strategy to increase the pelvis forward tilt at the catch can increase the range of motion of the back and the power generated, it is possible that it might hinder the rower's coordination and introduce counterproductive boat speed fluctuations. At the end of the drive phase, more RA and DA activations benefit performance. A study comparing different stroke rates on an ergometer [4] found that increased RA activity at the end of the drive phase was associated with increased stroke rate. Even though the rowers in our study were instructed to row at a constant stroke rate, it is possible that increased RA activity shortens the final part of the drive, where less power is produced, thus allowing for a more efficient finish. Based on the modifying effects of kinematics and neuromuscular activations, the most performing strategy seems to have a straighter, more forward, and stiffer arm at the catch and less flexed at the finish, which aligns with [PERSON] et al. [38] and the recommendations from trainers. Indeed, higher elbow flexion at both the catch and finish was found to be detrimental to power and speed in this study, and elbow flexion in the first half of the drive is considered a technical error (known as \"grubbing\") [3; 5; 38]. Indeed, starting the rowing movement with a flexed elbow can reduce the range of motion and require the rower to finish the drive phase at higher degrees of flexion, where it is more difficult to generate force and power. To reduce the finish slip angles, the best neuromuscular strategy seems to be with increased activations of BB, BR, DA, and DP in the third quarter of the drive phase rather than in the last quarter, where more TBL activity, to invert the direction of the elbow movement, is beneficial. In the first part of the recovery phase, more activations in the arm muscles (DA, TBL, FC) also predicted higher performance.