Wolverine Plan Discussion

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » September 23rd, 2005, 5:21 am

Two additional points about these things. First, I think everyone is wildly underestimating the extent and effect of the difference between what I am doing (have done, and will continue to be trying to do) in my training and what many other folks are doing. For me, it is much more important task in my training to get so that I can row a marathon at 1:48 and 22 spm with a nicely controlled heart rate (150-160 bpm or so) than to get so that I can row 6K at 1:47 at 26 spm with a maximal heart rate, as Dennis H. has just done. These are _very_ different tasks! I am just doing a kind of maximal quantity of UT2 rowing--day after day--getting better and better at it as time goes on. This rowing is not at all "harder" than doing fast 5K rows at 30 spm, or 8 x 500m at 40 spm, or whatever. It is just different. _Way_ different. Second, if you follow standard training plans, having high standards for UT2 rowing is given first priority. Therefore, while my approach to these things is more extensive and demanding and exclusive than these training plans, in many other ways, it is not idiosyncratic, much less unique. It is the wisdom of the ages. Nonetheless, almost no one does it. Why? Seems odd. ranger

[old] remador · Post by **[old] remador** » September 23rd, 2005, 5:28 am

The long-distance approach seems good, as far as I am concerned. As Dr. Seiler states, it is the kind of training that gives long-term benefits, by increasing the rowing efficiency of your rowing muscles and cardio-respiratory machine. My personal experience: when I practiced competitive rowing, 15 years ago, there was a group of senior athletes in my club. The training was about 80% long, steady-state workouts (on water, we had no erg's) + weight-training + long runs (10-15km). Nowadays, I am a director in the same club: the coache's approach is much more based on interval training. Differences in results: those boys back there won, for several times, the national championships (rowing was more competitive in my country, back then); nowadays, guys struggle to keep the same performance level of the last season. The former guys are still rowing, and two of them got two single-scull world titles (masters), a silver and a bronze medal. I doubt any of the latter will win even a masters' national title. AM

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » September 23rd, 2005, 5:29 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Interesting to see that Mike C. states that his performance improved once he started doing individual rows in excess of one hour. </td></tr></table> Indeed. And if I read Mike right, I think he implies that he moved to this longer training _in spite of_ how he was coached, what he used to think and do (40' is all you need!), and the customary practice of most of the others who were rowing parallel to him at the time (and now). Result: Mike holds the 40s lwt WR, not them! Dang. There's that baffling, idiosyncratic, accidental "success" again. Or, from another perspective, we might say: there's that _evidence_. _Empirical_ evidence. "Science." I suppose we can continue to ignore the evidence, but if we do, I assume that we will get what we deserve. Blindness and insight lead to pretty different results. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » September 23rd, 2005, 5:47 am

According to the C2 manual, 1:48 @ 22 spm is UT2 rowing for a 6:16 2K. Yep, you have it exactly right, Alan. The bigger the base, the bigger the peak. Interestingly, if I remember right, just before Mike rowed in 6:18 40s lwt WR, he rowed 32K at 1:48 for his level 3 rowing (and said at the time that he could probably continue to a full marathon, if he pushed it). Drat! DRATDRATDRATDRATDRATDRATDRATDRATDRAT! THERE'S THAT "EVIDENCE" AGAIN! ranger P.S. You probably can't row 32K with a heart rate over about 160-165 bpm or so and remain at all comfortable. Therefore, this rowing is just upper level UT2 or basement UT1. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » September 23rd, 2005, 6:15 am

Mike wasn't a marathon _runner_ before he took up rowing. But to do his best in rowing, he indeed became a marathoner--a marathon _rower_. When he did, even though he was 40 years old, he achieved an all time personal best and set a world record in the 2K, one that still stands, even though Mike is now almost 45. Evidence!! Fact!! ranger P.S. Most marathon runners also do a day or two a week of fast running, although it would be a stretch to call this sharpening (or whatever). It is just work on leg speed, quickness, lightness, etc. I usually did one day of short intervals (in a 15 mile fartlek road run) and one day of long intervals (half miles, miles, etc.) on the track--just as Mike WP suggests. The other 80% of the time/distance is taken up with long, steady state endurance work, as long as possible.

[old] Bayko · Post by **[old] Bayko** » September 23rd, 2005, 11:31 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(ranger @ Sep 22 2005, 05:14 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> ranger </td></tr></table> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(ranger @ Sep 23 2005, 08:21 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> ranger </td></tr></table> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(ranger @ Sep 23 2005, 08:45 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> ranger </td></tr></table> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(ranger @ Sep 23 2005, 09:21 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> ranger </td></tr></table> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(ranger @ Sep 23 2005, 09:29 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> ranger </td></tr></table> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(ranger @ Sep 23 2005, 09:47 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>ranger </td></tr></table> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(ranger @ Sep 23 2005, 10:15 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> </td></tr></table> In all due respect, this thread is in danger of being usurped. What had started as a discussion of the Wolverine Plan, and had progressed reasonably in that direction, has turning into another "ranger is great" thread with a few needles at Mike along the way. Giving you the benefit of a doubt that this has happened inadvertently (you just can't help yourself), I'll start a new thread for you to put forth your ideas and for others to respond. Cheers, Rick

[old] bmoore · Post by **[old] bmoore** » September 23rd, 2005, 11:59 am

Bayko, Thank you for pointing out the hijacking. I'm a bit perplexed by this and wonder what the point is. I'm very interested in the Wolverine Plan discussion and implementation. I've been using it since June, and am seeing some great results. Having structure to my training is important for me, and I truly appreciate everything Mike is putting out on this topic. Regards,

[old] Bayko · Post by **[old] Bayko** » September 23rd, 2005, 12:29 pm

Hey Bill, One of the things that kept coming up a few years ago when the L4 sequences were posted was that most people found that 40' seemingly whizzed by much faster than 40' of steady erging. That can be a great benefit all by itself. Rick P.S. I'll be targeting you later for participation in my little 2km race in Newburyport in January. You're only about an hour away.

[old] FrancoisA · Post by **[old] FrancoisA** » September 23rd, 2005, 12:46 pm

1) Let's not forget that this tread is about the Wolverine Plan! 2) The WP purpose is to optimize your performance at the 2K distance, not the hour row or the marathon. 3) training four hours a day is not for beginner! 4) Going from 1:55 to 1:48 (was 1:50 before!) by doing 4 hours of training every day for two years is not phenomenal with regard to the training volume. I believe that such improvements can be reached (exceeded?) with the WP with at most 2 hours of training a day. Let me elaborate: my main physical activity is swimming, and in the past 2 years my pace for the 1500m went from 1:26 to 1:18 per 100m. That is the equivalent of going from 1:55 to 1:44.3 (as in rowing the resistance increases in a quadratic way with speed). These improvements were achieved with at most 12 hours of training a week, following a training plan quite similar to the WP. Our coach has been holding the world record for the 1500m for the past four years in the 40-44 age group, and she also follows a non periodized training plan quite similar to the WP. 5) In the world of running, one training plan that has been quite successful is Daniels' Running Formula, by Dr Jack Daniels (PhD in exercise physiology and World's Best Running Coach according to Runner's World). Daniels' training plan, although periodized, is quite similar to the WP. It consists in four phases of ideally 6 weeks. In all phases, except for the first phase (foundation and injury prevention), you will find the equivalent of the WP levels 1, 2 and 3. And like the WP it relies exclusively on pace, not on HR. 6) What I find quite original in the WP is the level 4. At 20 and 24 spm there are equivalent to UT2 and UT1. The change in spm and consequently in pace parallels fartlek training. They are quite demanding in terms of precision, technique and power, yet paradoxically, they help recover from level 1 and 2 training! Thanks again Mike for sharing your Wolverine Plan with the rowing community.

[old] bmoore · Post by **[old] bmoore** » September 23rd, 2005, 12:54 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Bayko @ Sep 23 2005, 12:29 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Hey Bill, One of the things that kept coming up a few years ago when the L4 sequences were posted was that most people found that 40' seemingly whizzed by much faster than 40' of steady erging. That can be a great benefit all by itself. Rick P.S. I'll be targeting you later for participation in my little 2km race in Newburyport in January. You're only about an hour away. </td></tr></table> The L4s are more fun. They're really a bunch of 2, 3, or 4 minute challenges. I'm just trying to get the feel for more accuracy down now. By the end of the workout, I'm amazed at how much work is done by accumulating a bunch of little pieces. A race in January? Cool. Hopefully it will help to relieve any anxiety for February in Boston.

[old] Porkchop · Post by **[old] Porkchop** » September 23rd, 2005, 1:19 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(FrancoisA @ Sep 23 2005, 11:46 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>3) training four hours a day is not for beginner! </td></tr></table> Training four hours a day is not for most people with jobs and families. Those who able to schedule that amount of training time are very, very fortunate. (Not that I would give up either my job or my family in exchange for an additional uncommitted four hours each day.) I suspect that most of the participants in these forums do not have four hours available to train each day. Ranger, my hat is off to you for your accomplishments, but I don't think many of us could undertake a training program like yours, simply for want of time. Perhaps (speaking with certainty only for myself) even fewer of us would be capable of the perseverance you have shown. What I look for in a training plan is one that gives me most efficiently the results I want in the time I have available. In my case that usually averages about an hour for all aspects of training, i.e., rowing and everything else. Some variation of the Wolverine Program might fit that timeframe, keeping in mind that I am "exercising" rather than "training." I suggest that this thread ought to be separated into two -- the first, to discuss the details of the Wolverine Plan and the second to discuss whether it is the "optimum" training plan for any particular purpose, which seems to be the general thrust of the immediately preceding messages -- the hijack portion of the thread.

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » September 23rd, 2005, 7:31 pm

For those interested in the Wolverine Plan, I am going to see if I can reproduce my updated Level 4 tables here. For the past couple years, I have been using Level 4 sequences that are built around odd-numbered stroke rates, in addition to the even-numbered sequences of the original WP. The advantages include more variety as well as a greater level of precision (rate and pace) required to execute the workouts. I’ll give more observations on Level 4 rowing in the near future. Mike Caviston [attachmentid=76] [attachmentid=77] [attachmentid=78] [attachmentid=79]

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » September 23rd, 2005, 10:17 pm

I forgot to include the new Level 4 “pace vs. stroke rate” table. This tells which pace to hold for each stroke rate (16-26spm) for a given Reference Pace. I also have an Excel file with all Level 4 information, for those who prefer it. But I don’t have any more file space available on the site (C2Bill arranged for me to have some; maybe I can get more). Mike Caviston

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » September 25th, 2005, 10:08 pm

NOTES ON LEVEL 4 When I put together the Wolverine Plan, the aspect most different from my previous training was the Level 4 training band. Training at lower rates using rhythm & rating pyramids & ladders was certainly not a new concept. I had used such things with my crews on the water for years, but had avoided using them for indoor training. Part of the rationale involved trying to maximize fitness in a limited amount of time (in my early days of involvement with rowing as a coach, we had limited access to ergs and the commitment of the athletes wasn’t as developed as it is today). Watching other coaches run indoor workouts based on shifting ratings sequences, I didn’t like the generally low intensity or lack of accountability these workouts had. Athletes were instructed to pull at specific rates, but were given no clear instructions about pace. Athletes were free to pull harder or not as they chose, and frequently as workouts progressed and ratings got higher, splits would actually get slower. Now, I just can’t abide a training paradigm where someone can shift from 24 to 26spm and go slower in the process. As I set about restructuring my training into what is now the WP, I thought I could take advantage of certain aspects of low rate work as long as I developed standards for consistency. The initial workouts were primarily a matter of trial-and-error as I tried different paces at different rates to see what felt right. I wanted to keep things fairly simple using evenly spaced whole numbers, so I settled on 2:00 @ 16spm, 1:56 @ 18, 1:52 @ 20, and 1:48 @ 22. After I started fooling around with different workouts, different 10-30’ pieces with various 2’/2’/2’ etc. combinations, I added 1:44 @ 24 and 1:40 @ 26 to my list with the idea that I’d eventually use them when I got in better shape. The paces seemed to be appropriate, and there wasn’t really any more science behind them than that. I had no preconceived notion of “power per stroke” or anything like that. During that first year of Level 4 training, my best 2K ended up being 6:24, so I began to think of my 2K pace (1:36) in relation to these low-rate workouts. Later calculations would eventually show that, indeed, the amount of energy (Joules) per stroke for the low-rate work was roughly the same as for my 2K. That may just be a coincidence or it may be the reason those Level 4 paces “felt” right. The next step was to create standard 10’ and 6’ sequences to save time in planning workouts, give me a shorthand to record them with, make it easier to look at different patterns, etc. The first year or two, I experimented with a wide variety of workout formats: 6-10 x 10’ with various recovery periods, depending on intensity; 40-80’ of continuous rowing; and longer pieces with recovery, such as 3-4 x 20’, 30’/20’/10’, etc. I gradually decided the best formats were continuous rows of 40-70’ duration (the exception being 4 x 10’, which I’ll discuss below). When I began working with the Michigan women’s team, I expanded the “Reference Pace” concept to other 2K paces. My most recent update to Level 4 has been the addition of sequences based on odd-numbered stroke rates. I have heard and read a lot of discussion about Level 4 over the past few years, and one of the frustrating things about sharing my plan with the masses is the number of myths & misconceptions that have arisen. Some have persisted despite many attempts on my part to dispel them. Let me try again. Myth #1: “Level 4 is strength training.” It’s not; it’s endurance training. Sure, it requires a certain amount of strength, or “power per stroke”, or whatever you want to call it. Lack of power was one of my original complaints about low-rate rowing as many people performed it; I never saw the benefit of putzing along at paces well over 2:00. But the amount of power required for Level 4 is proportional to established 2K ability; it’s not intended to exceed it. It’s intended to tax endurance, not necessarily strength. A 60’ Level 4 workout may have as many as 1200 strokes, or 1200 consecutive “reps” without pause. What kind of strength program would feature sessions like that? Who would walk into a weight room, pick up a couple dumbbells, and pump out more than a thousand reps? How light would the weight have to be? Would they really expect to get stronger? Amusingly to me, some individuals who have stated that Level 4 uses too much power per stroke also do workouts such as “30r20” which involves maximal power for half an hour at 20spm. This requires far more power per stroke than any Level 4 workout. Myth #2: “Level 4 isn’t appropriate for heavyweights.” The idea here being that since the training was developed by a lightweight and popularized by women, it doesn’t address the needs of big men. This ties into the mistaken belief that Level 4 focuses on strength and power rather than endurance, and heavyweight men already have enough power. This thinking is flawed on two levels. First, enough power relative to whom? Women and lightweight men? Second, as I keep saying BUT APPARENTLY NOT OFTEN ENOUGH, Level 4 is endurance training. So, any heavyweight that wants to improve endurance would benefit from Level 4 workouts. Myth #3: “Rowing at low rates keeps you from reaching higher rates during a 2K race.” Nonsense. Never doing workouts at higher intensity (2K rate and pace) keeps you from optimizing your 2K rate. Which is why the WP includes Level 1 & 2 workouts every week. Myth #4: “Rowing continuously at a steady rate according to the WP Level 4 guidelines gives the same effect as shifting the rate.” Wrong, wrong, wrong. Some people don’t want the challenge or responsibility of thinking about the different shifts in pace and rate; they want to get into a comfortable groove and just keep one steady rate for the entire workout. That’s still training, and if that’s what they want to do, more power to them. But they are mistaken if they think rowing for 60’ @ a constant 20spm according to WP guidelines is the same as doing the 200 sequence (4’/3’/2’/1’ @ 18/20/22/24) six times in a row. In the first place, due to the relationship between velocity and power, the average watts for the varying rate sequences will be higher than for the steady rate, even though the total number of strokes taken is the same in both scenarios. Secondly, and more importantly, the steady “groove” creates a neurological adaptation that improves efficiency, making it easier to hold a given pace, while disrupting the groove (changing the rate) reduces efficiency. [I came across the concept of perseveration, the persistence of a movement pattern after performing a rhythmic activity for an extended period, while researching efficiency for my Sports Biomechanics class. For example, in triathlons, during the transition from cycle to run, the effect of the cycling cadence persists and disrupts the triathlete’s running economy for about 6’ after getting off the bike. This means that the athlete requires more oxygen to run at a given pace following the cycling leg than running at the same pace without having cycled. This occurs even with the same stride length/frequency and controlling for prior fatigue by having the athlete run before running economy is measured.] The take-home message is that rowing at a given average pace with changing rates is more physically demanding than rowing at the same pace with a constant rate. You can’t use Level 4 predictors or assume Level 4 adaptations just because you can hold a particular pace at a steady rate. The simple proof for me is that I can cover MANY more meters in a given time frame using a constant rate than by using the same average rate with Level 4 sequences. There are several other benefits to Level 4 training besides increased ENDURANCE (did I mention Level 4 was good for endurance?) It gives athletes a chance to work on overall technique as specified by a coach or according to whatever parameters an individual is trying to develop. Low rates = more time between strokes = more opportunity to think & modify. Things like consistency, ratio, suspension & acceleration on the drive, control on the recovery, length, and so on. (BTW, I strongly encourage everyone to row strapless as often as possible and certainly for all Level 4 rowing.) As I discussed in a previous post, the skills required for Level 4 rowing correlate with fast rowing on the erg as well as on the water. Mentally, breaking up long pieces into 1, 2, and 3 minute chunks makes things go by a lot faster. The overall variety using the Level 4 format makes it possible to do 60’ workouts again and again and again without ever doing them the same way twice. Some have asked about different physiological aspects of Level 4. Regarding heart rate, I have no idea, as I never monitor HR while training. I don’t know about lactate, either, but I would bet money that lactate levels after a workout are no higher than resting. I find the relationship between breathing and level 4 very interesting. I am a long-time asthmatic and while I haven’t had a truly serious attack in years, it does occasionally limit my performance or cause me to shorten or alter my workouts. With Level 4’s lower rates, even when my bronchi are constricted, there is time for slower, more deliberate breaths and I find I can get adequate air. Slow, deep breathing is more effective than rapid, shallow breathing at allowing gas exchange (greater alveolar ventilation for given minute ventilation) and I try to maintain a slower, deeper pattern for all workouts. I can’t imagine breathing more than once per stroke! Another interesting observation I’ve had about Level 4 is that it apparently utilizes more muscle glycogen than other workouts. I never “bonk” during other workouts, even 25-30K Level 3s, but I have to be careful with Level 4. (As I will eventually describe, my overall diet is very high in carbohydrates of all kinds). In general, I think Level 4 is a fairly simple concept. Learn your paces, and construct workouts that slowly/gradually increase the number of strokes taken in a given time frame. As a result, more meters will be accumulated and endurance will improve. The hardest step in many cases is choosing an initial Reference Pace (which dictates what paces to pull for various rates). This is the trickiest to discuss because while I have some pretty clear guidelines there are some cases where I don’t have solid advice, and a little trial and error will be required. The Ref Pace is ideally selected based on your best 2K pace from the previous season. If your 2K was 7:00 flat, use a 1:45 Ref Pace, consult the appropriate tables, and base your workouts accordingly. If your 2K pace was in between 2 whole numbers, I would generally recommend rounding down (slower) for anyone new to Level 4 training. But for people who think the training is “hard” (which concept I’ll discuss shortly), I also discourage people form choosing an even slower Ref Pace. If you completed a maximal 2K last year, even if you are out of shape now, you should be able to handle the designated pace (you can start at low volume and at the lower end of the ratings spectrum). You should never, NEVER choose a Ref Pace faster than your 2K. Yet I hear of people doing this again and again. They choose a Ref Pace based on what they want to do or think they will or should do. They invariably burn out and abandon the program before they can realize its benefits. The Ref Pace should be selected based on what you have actually done, not what you hope to do in the future. If training goes well this year, you can increase the pace next year. Some people try to compensate for a lower training volume by using a higher Ref Pace to maximize the intensity, but I strongly discourage this. [The 4 x 10’ workout in the WP is only meant to gradually acclimate users to more intense sequences that will eventually be incorporated into the continuous rows.] Another myth about Level 4 is that it predicts 2K. In fact there is only a modest correlation. The truest predictors of 2k ability are workouts such as 4 x 1K and 4 x 2K. Even though my 2K has been slipping for the past couple years, my Level 4 performance has continued to improve (very slightly, but it’s the only training band that has continued to improve since I set my PR four years ago). I try to get people away from the mindset that “If I row Ref Pace X, I will get 2K score Y”. Instead I try to encourage the mindset that “Since I’ve pulled 2K score Y, I should use Ref Pace X”. For a total novice, it will be impossible to choose an appropriate Ref Pace, and I would encourage more informal drills or short workouts trying different Level 4 rates and paces. After a couple months, the newbie could probably do a Level 1 workout like 8 x 500m with a good enough effort to estimate 2K pace and Level 4 Ref Pace. But that’s not going to be an exact science, and will likely require some occasional adjustments. For the non-competitive rower, one strategy is to choose a Ref Pace on a given day based on how you feel. If you feel ambitious, choose a harder pace; if you feel sluggish, choose an easier pace. (I know a few former varsity rowers who break up their stairclimbing and spinning classes with a few erg workouts. They like having a format that gives the workout some structure with the option of taking it easy when they feel like it.) But for athletes training seriously to maximize their 2K speed, it is preferable to work within the framework of one stable Ref Pace for a season. The last thing I’ll address today is the question of how “hard” Level 4 should feel. Many athletes are set on the notion that training must include “easy” or “recovery” days, and they are surprised and alarmed at just how challenging Level 4 can be. I think “hard” is a relative term, but no workout should ever feel “easy”. If it’s easy, it’s not training, because training means pushing yourself to new levels. OTOH, training needs to be realistic, and possible; it rarely needs to be excruciating. The level of effort I am searching for with ALL my workouts is “tough, but doable”. I want to feel tired but not exhausted. I want to feel like if I HAD to, I could’ve gone a little harder – but I’m glad I didn’t have to. And next time I WILL go a little harder, but by then I will have adapted and will be physically and mentally prepared. Now, some days it becomes clear to me pretty early in the workout that I’ve bitten off maybe more than I can chew, and that every stroke is going to be a dogfight. When that happens, I get through it as best I can and then try to set the goal pace more accurately next time. With the Wolverine Plan, I want every workout to be “hard” but not necessarily the same kind of hard. Different training bands have different intensities, durations and other parameters to stress different aspects of our physiology (and psychology). – Having said all that, I wouldn’t worry or quibble if a workout feels “easy” as long as you create a format that systematically has you increasing the intensity. If you can get through a whole season, improving beyond past performances, and it still feels “easy” – more power to you. Next week I’ll go through some guidelines for designing a single Level 4 workout (what sequences in which order, etc.) as well as tips for progressing the intensity level systematically over a training season. I’ll give various examples from my training and explain why I did what I did. If anyone wants to provide some examples of Level 4 workouts they have done, or how they increase volume/intensity during the season, I’ll try to comment (don’t be shy – I’ll even do it in a supportive, non-sarcastic manner [you hope]). Best wishes, Mike Caviston

[old] Coach Gus · Post by **[old] Coach Gus** » September 26th, 2005, 12:54 am

Great post Mike. Thanks for taking the time to write in such detail.