Ranger - News To Shock

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Jan 24 2006, 02:01 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Jan 24 2006, 02:01 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->With this more powerful stroke, 1:30 @ 40 spm is coming very nicely at 110 df. and getting smoother and smoother. The footwork and sequencing is challenging on these. Getting used to it quickly, though. Did a raft of nice little 200s to work on this. I'll add 50m a week or so to these. A nice afternoon froliic! This is my ultimate target pace for 500s, if I want to do 6:16. </td></tr></table><br />If you can do 2 hours of 200s at 1:30 pace with 10 to 15 seconds between each, I'll say you're ready for a 6:16 for the 2k right now.

[[old] Jim Barry]

Happy Birthday, Rich!<br /><br />NOW...you are 55.<br /><br />

[[old] FrancoisA]

<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:blue'>Happy Birthday Rich!</span></span> <br /><br /><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>You have turned 55 just in time to set a new WR this weekend!</span><br /><br />All the best!<br /><br />Francois

[[old] mpukita]

Happy Birthday Rich! Double Nickel!

[[old] NavigationHazard]

Yes, Happy* Birthday! <br /><br />* Unless you have other plans.....

[[old] george nz]

I am sure you will do exceedingly well in your races Rich and I will have the utmost respect for those results, but no matter what you say I believe they could have been achieved 18 months ago with smarter training. In my opinion and it carries no more weight than that with the amount of effort you have put in you have wasted 18 months to 2 years of competitive improvement / success.<br /><br />You had the fitness you had the strength, your technique you say was poor but an off season of concerted effort would have fixed that especially if you had sought some coaching. I believe you would have lowered the record to a level Graham Watts would not have approached given the time you put in and your starting point.<br /><br />No need to respond in screeds - I have read you point of view ad nauseum, considered them and disagree with the bulk.<br /><br />cheers George

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you can do 2 hours of 200s at 1:30 pace with 10 to 15 seconds between each </td></tr></table><br /><br />Hey, that's an idea, but no, I didn't do 2 hours. Just a few. I will be doing lots of rowing at 1:30, though. This is a wondeful challenge to technique, given my longer, more powerful, and more complicated stroke now that I am rowing at full slide with proper technique. At such speeds, learning to relax through the six beat sequence of the drive, getting the timing and leverage exactly right is an interesting exercise. It takes a while to learn. Clearly, I would want to learn to do this before I can try to do challenging workouts at this speed. All of this is a nice change, though, and for the better. With my other stroke, I never contemplated anything organized and efficient at 1:30. I just pulled like mad and hoped for the best, trading rate for pace to beat the band. As I result, I never came close to effficient 500s at 1:30. 1:34 or so was pretty much it. I am hoping the better technique I have now might take me a little further. We'll see. I'm in no hurry, though. I am just taking it slowly, puttting the pieces together. It is nice to see that I don't lose any stroking power at all at this speed, though. If I concentrate on technique and hit all the buttons, I pull a nice 12 SPI, even at 40 spm.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

Thanks for the birthday greetings, guys, although at this age, I am not sure we even want to be reminded! <br /><br />Oh well. <br /><br />We ergers are young at heart rate, I guess. Cardio cronies!<br /><br /> <br /><br />Hate those AARP folks, though. Sheesh. They are out to wreck the country. The young people need to have a shot at keeping the money they earn. If I can, I am going to hand my social security checks right back to my children. I won't need them. I have already bought my house and cars, raised and educated my kids, had a life. They need some resources to do the same. I am afraid that the retired boomers, once they get going and realize what a party it can be, are going to suck up the goodies in this country like you wouldn't believe. Consumerism gone wild. Material madness. Going to be ugly.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I believe they could have been achieved 18 months ago with smarter training </td></tr></table><br /><br />Not a smidge of evidence for this, George, and all of the evidence is _overwhelmingly_ in the other direction. My times plateaued, and those who are exactly parallel to me in this situation who trained by standard methods have now slowed down about six seconds over those two years. So we can compare results, I guess. It is that comparison that is factual, George, nothing that you arbitrarily believe.<br /><br />If you think standard training methods are so good, then show us. Take the next five years, and as you are getting older and slowing down, try to get better. We'll all be interested in seeing the results, and again, this will be the only thing that is factual, George, nothing that you arbitrarily believe. <br /><br />Truth is, training as I train and making the training decisions I have made, I have _already_ been there, done that. This is the only thing that is factual, George, nothing that you arbitrarily believe.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin-NavigationHazard+Jan 25 2006, 12:32 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(NavigationHazard @ Jan 25 2006, 12:32 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes, Happy* Birthday!  <br /><br />* Unless you have other plans..... <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Well, I am planning some repeat 2Ks this morning for the first time in a long while, and I am not sure that this plan makes for a kind of _ideal_ morning, whatever pleasures I might find in the experience along the way.<br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />Is this the way to be *happy on your birthday? I don't know. But I suppose it is a certain kind of twisted way we ergers are attracted to. Perhaps the rest of the day will bring easier, less stressful things.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] george nz]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Jan 25 2006, 09:40 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Jan 25 2006, 09:40 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I believe they could have been achieved 18 months ago with smarter training </td></tr></table><br /><br />Not a smidge of evidence for this, George, and all of the evidence is _overwhelmingly_ in the other direction. My times plateaued, and those who are exactly parallel to me in this situation who trained by standard methods have now slowed down about six seconds over those two years. So we can compare results, I guess. It is that comparison that is factual, George, nothing that you arbitrarily believe.<br /><br />If you think standard training methods are so good, then show us. Take the next five years, and as you are getting older and slowing down, try to get better. We'll all be interested in seeing the results, and again, this will be the only thing that is factual, George, nothing that you arbitrarily believe. <br /><br />Truth is, training as I train and making the training decisions I have made, I have _already_ been there, done that. This is the only thing that is factual, George, nothing that you arbitrarily believe.<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Believe what you want to, your the only one paying the consequence. Graham Watt now holds a record you had the chance (no guarantee) to re-take, but you balked at the opportunity presented several times. That water is now long under the bridge - gone forever.<br /><br />And actually I do intend to be quicker in 5 years than I am now and intend to do it spending less than 5 hours a day training and without wondering what the f*#@ a six beat drive is.<br /><br />You keep working on your if, if, if, if ,if and one day your might wake up and realise that all you are left with is ......... <b>"if only"</b><br /><br />Pretty sad really for someone with your ability and talent (and you have a lot, your a talented athlete in the upper echelon I believe) - <u>he achieved a lot they might say but how much more ...... if only.</u><br /><br />George

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin-Chad Williams+Jan 24 2006, 05:19 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Chad Williams @ Jan 24 2006, 05:19 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ranger, can I ask how often you get your lactate and UT/AT…. etc bands retested? Do you do it every six months, yearly, quarterly?? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I have never had them tested. I can feel them, though, can't you? So what's the use in being bested? When I rowed my 60min pb at 1:48 a couple of years ago, I rowed for an hour with my heart rate flat at 172 bpm. Clearly, that was my anaerobic threshold. I couldn't go any faster and make it for 60 minutes. When I got to the last 1K, I kicked it in at 1:39 pace and my heart rate went close to 190 bpm. That was clearly getting close to my maximum heart rate. I can also feel that 160 bpm or so is my threshold between UT2 and UT1. How? That's where I start breathing significantly. Anything below that and it is just business as usual, relaxed, enjoyable work. When I do my 2 hour stepping routines, I just stay a bit below 160 bpm and have no aerobic distress whatsoever; then I try to push it a little beyond that in the last 30 minutes, just to get breathing a bit, ending about 170 bpm, if I can.<br /><br />As I am told, these figures are indeed a bit freaky, but so it goes. Good genes, I guess (both of my parents were professionaly physical educators) and good lifetime habits (I have been a marathon runner most of my life, and before that a swimmer, skater, canoeists, and some other things). I have always been physically active.<br /><br />ranger<br />

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->you had the chance </td></tr></table><br /><br />Not a smidge of evidence for this, George. Only now, I think, do I have a chance of rowing 6:24 and under, and if I do, I don't care that Watt rowed 6:25+ when he was 50. I wasn't in the postion to row at the 50-54 lwt WR when I was 50. I had just begun rowing and I was a heavyweight. If I row 6:24 or below at 55 or beyond, the 55-59 WR will be set below Watt's 6:25+. That situation is fine with me. It makes the point--in spades. <br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And actually I do intend to be quicker in 5 years than I am now and intend to do it spending less than 5 hours a day training and without wondering what the f*#@ a six beat drive is. </td></tr></table><br /><br /> <br /><br />If, if, if, if, intend, intend,intend, intend. All hypotheticals, George. You are just a dreamer!<br /><br /> <br /><br />(Just kidding. I am happy to hear you have ambitious goals. I do, too.)<br /><br />Hey, I wouldn't disparage technique, though. If you do,<br /><br /><br />Yoooooooooooouuuuuuuuu'llllllll be ssssssssssooooooooooooooooooooorry.<br /><br />(IMHO)<br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--> but no matter what you say I believe </td></tr></table><br /><br />It is good to have an alter ego to bash so that you don't have to look _yourself_ directly in the eye, huh, George, especially if that alter ego is quite a bit more accomplished than you in the matters at hand, and therefore your (mis)use of this model can inflate your ego (through false comparison) at the same time that you can freely criticize that alter ego's (supposed?) limitations, mental and physical, in order to fantasize how you might be even better yet and, in doing so and being so, _certainly_ show that you are more intelligent, visionary, reasonable, consistent, hard working, and (the best little secret) more talented than that poor scrap of humanity that you log on to the computer and freely bash whenever you get the opportunity. <br /><br />Fun in the postmodern world!<br /><br />Sheeeeesh.<br /><br />Nothing like the internet, huh, guys and gals.<br /><br />ranger