42195 Meters...tough, Very Tough.

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » October 22nd, 2004, 11:34 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (GeorgeD @ Oct 23 2004, 11:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (John Rupp @ Oct 23 2004, 09:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> This result is regardless of some idiot's insecurities, for example GeorgeD and some other fools who don't have the capacity for rational thinking.  </td></tr></table> Thanks John you just made my day .... needed a good laugh and I guess your it. Tks  </td></tr></table> Nearly 5 hours late and still chuckling ....

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » October 22nd, 2004, 11:35 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (PaulS @ Oct 22 2004, 07:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I recall that you were a proponent of "trading weight for pace" and arguing that being heavier was an advantage all unto itself. </td></tr></table> Your recollections are faulty. I have never been a proponent of trading weight for pace. As to weight being an advantage, all anyone needs to do is to look at the rankings, or have at least a basic understanding of rowing to be able to see that excess and/or greater weight is an advantage on the erg, and even more so on slides. For example, 248 is 8 times 31, which gives a great leverage ADVANTAGE on the slides. This is simply from weight and the slides, nothing else, and has nothing to do with fitness. Too bad for Xeno, there are no slides on the water.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » October 22nd, 2004, 11:38 pm

George, Get control of yourself young man.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » October 23rd, 2004, 12:04 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (John Rupp @ Oct 23 2004, 03:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Your recollections are faulty.  </td></tr></table> Really, let's visit the past and see about that: Ralph Earle - 5/27/2003 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On May 14, in a post titled "RE: Race against 350 pounds of lard," John Rupp wrote: "If I recall corrently, there was a 14 year old in New Zealand a year or two ago who weighed somewhere around 350 to 400 pounds and did a 100 meters in 14.1. Descriptions were that he was totally out of shape physically, yet was the fastest of the group for the sprint. You know, there is no point to discuss rationally with idiots. And an open mind is not to be confused with those that are empty. ..." I have met the young man, and feel that Forum readers should know the facts, from his coach, Bob Bridges: "[T]his fellow does not know what he is talking about. The report was a case of sour grapes from some rowing coaches after the boy in question thoroughly dominated several Inter School Competitions. First the facts. Second the explanation. Facts. The boy's name is Robert Hunt. He was 13 going on 14 when he rowed the 100 meters in question in 2000. The time was 15.9, still a New Zealand Record. At age 15 going on 16 in 2002 he achieved 14.6. As a 13/14 year old he had a 2000 meters of 6:57.8, a 1000 meters of 3:19.5, a 500 of 1:29.9, and an hour of 15000 plus meters. At the time in question he stood 6ft2in tall, weighed 115kg, certainly had a good coating of baby fat, but one of the best attitudes to training I've ever seen in one so young, an aerobic base second to none and was the strongest, fittest and best Indoor Rower his age in New Zealand and in the top four world wide. NO ONE CAN ROW 100 METERS THIS FAST UNLESS THEY HAVE IT ALL. SIZE, STRENGTH, FITNESS AND SUPERB TECHNIQUE. Explanation: Size, whether muscular or fat is no real indication of fitness. Unbeliveable as it may sound a moderately fat person can have a superb aerobic base, superior muscular strength, fine mental application and therefore blow away their skinny cohorts who lack in any of these areas." JimRau - 5/27/2003 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I thought it was a 500 lb bearded lady who didn't get any respect in the forum??? JimR Let's call a spade a garden tool .rjw. - 5/27/2003 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ralph, Thank you for that bit of research/information. Things are not always what they seem and there are some who distort facts to emphasize a point. Raoul John Rupp - 5/27/2003 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Ralph, Thanks for the information and reaffirming my previous post about "trading weight for pace". John -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, lookie there, you were bleating out something about "trading weight for pace" and even claiming it at the time. Fear not, it's nearing the end of the month and you can refill you meds. (Up the dosage.) - Paul Smith

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » October 23rd, 2004, 12:33 am

Of course someone can gain 100 or 200 or 300 pounds and go faster, i.e. trade weight for pace, as pointed out above. But it is a stupid idiotic idea to do such a thing, as you well know, this being a part of your program. I have certainly never advocated such a thing and never would. Your recollections and your thinking are faulty.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » October 23rd, 2004, 10:08 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (John Rupp @ Oct 23 2004, 04:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Of course someone can gain 100 or 200 or 300 pounds and go faster, i.e. trade weight for pace, as pointed out above.  </td></tr></table> Right, that's what you were proposing. (Why did you deny it earlier?) That you don't "advocate" the actual gaining of the weight is not the issue, it's that you seriously advance (advocate, are a proponent of) a theory that gaining weight alone facilitates an increase in speed, is the ridiculous part. Of course, there are many here that are losing weight and becoming faster at the same time, so support for your theory is not particularly strong. My Program, nor any I prescribe, has anything in it regarding gaining weight as an action item, where did you come up with an idea that it did? The, "voices" perhaps? - Paul Smith

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » October 23rd, 2004, 11:05 am

Wrong again, Paul Smith. Much as you would LIKE for me to, I have not proposed nor advocated the Paul Smith plan of gaining weight and trading weight for pace, nor would I ever do so. There is your contention, for example, that a man weighing 250 pounds is somehow "better" than a woman weighing 125 pounds, because he does a 6:57 for the 2k and she does a 6:59. Another example of this is your adherence (when it should be abhorance) to having everyone row at 10 meters per stroke, regardless of weight, height, reach, torso, rhythm or timing, and that for most people it throws their ratio out of whack. You are conveniently unable to comprehend the differences in fitness and performance per weight because, to you, gaining weight and trading weight for pace is an asset. Thus it is you, Paul Smith, who is the advocate and proponent of the terrible gaining weight and trading weight for pace program. Very strange how on one thread you continue to push your program, while on this thread you deny having anything whatsoever to do with it!

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » October 23rd, 2004, 12:47 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (John Rupp @ Oct 23 2004, 03:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Thus it is you, Paul Smith, who is the advocate and proponent of the terrible gaining weight and trading weight for pace program.  </td></tr></table> Those "voices" in your head must be pretty loud and confusing, I recommend upping your dosage's once again. Why do you insist on receiving a continual spanking in the forum? If you are proud to be an Idiot, so be it, but your point is made and no-one here needs any more proof of your unique and novel view of the world. Bad Dog! Sit! - Paul Smith

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » October 23rd, 2004, 3:28 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Xeno @ Oct 23 2004, 03:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> at the time of the piece I weighed 234 pounds  </td></tr></table> Hi Xeno, how tall are you and how would you clasiffy your current state of fitness (relative to your peak) at the moment. - tks George ps Not asking you to compare your fitness to mortals

[old] Xeno · Post by **[old] Xeno** » October 23rd, 2004, 7:26 pm

Hi George Do you row on the water too? Currently my fitness level is OK. Since the US trials, last May, I have not been able to consistantly row at steady heart rate (roughly 1:45 for longer periods of time). My kilometers on the ergo are good since I run two to three workouts a day six days a week. But as mentioned earlier, the quality of the kilometers are NOWHERE near when I was training full time. With smarter pacing and proper fuel, I believe I can hold a 1:46 average in the near future for the marathon. However, as long as I can not absolutely focus on training, I won't put any pressure on myself... I have fourteen rowing machines at the Iron Oarsman and it would be fun to fill them for a marathon. We should pick a day. XENO www.gorow.com

[old] Xeno · Post by **[old] Xeno** » October 23rd, 2004, 7:34 pm

Where is "Alan Geweke" Cheers, XENO www.gorow.com

[old] grams · Post by **[old] grams** » October 24th, 2004, 3:29 pm

Hi folks, Any hints on how to minimize time loss while drinking? Other than making the Camelbak mounted on a stool thing? I'm looking more for technique doing strokes or half strokes with one hand or whatever. So Paul & John, how many of us long distance folks have you baited into doing 2 marathons to prove the various assumptions for which is better, slides or not? I guess I will have to borrow some slides now and give them a try. Got to hang on to my marathon ranking for another year of course. Anyone out there in the Seattle area with a pair of slides gathering dust? I just rearranged the furniture in my office-cum-gym, and have enough room now. Xeno, you re so lucky to be so big. I'm 100 pounds lighter than you. It takes me a lot longer to do a fm. Regarding the sore butt-I use a big gel-filled bicycle seat cover on my erg. I'm therefore giving up some speed due to the minuscle amount of wasted energy.(less efficient energy transfer from my butt to the seat, leading to a small increase in watts needed to move the seat forward and back). Any suggestions on how to measure the energy loss created by gel-seat compression? I'm not giving up my seat cover. Ithink thebutt pain waould slow me down more than the loss in efficiency. I suppose we could also analyze butt size and efficiency of moving the seat. Anyone want to crunch numbers on this parameter?? John & Paul, keep your suggestions clean, please. grams 5'3" 62 years lwt fm 2:43:55

[old] Xeno · Post by **[old] Xeno** » October 24th, 2004, 4:05 pm

The absolute Marathon Record is held by Alan Geweke, where is he?

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » October 24th, 2004, 4:36 pm

How about the unstoppable Tore Foss, with any form of age handicapping (not that he needs it), I'd put him in #1 and we all know he's still running around. - Paul Smith

[old] Xeno · Post by **[old] Xeno** » October 24th, 2004, 4:40 pm

Here are the top three. BERCI KUKA 27 na HUN 42195 02:25:15.8 IND 2 ALAN GEWEKE 21 na WI USA 42195 02:28:13.7 IND 3 TORE FOSS 48 na NO NOR 42195 02:29:52 IND

Concept2 Forum

42195 Meters...tough, Very Tough.

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General