Distance Per Stroke

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » April 17th, 2005, 2:39 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>What is the value of low SRs and low power rowing? </td></tr></table> One of the major factors in rowing fast involves (natural, effortless, steady state) stroking power. In all repetitive activities, the body is very good at getting used to doing something over and over, if you give it a chance to adapt. If the repetitive task is difficiult, this adaptation can be difficult to get, but it seems that in almost all cases, it is best got by long continuous bouts of repetition (rather than a few short bursts). Rowing involves repeated strokes at a certain power per stroke. The best way to get your body to adapt to the effort of a certain (significantly high) stroking power is to row continuously at low rates and that stroking power (or a bit above, if you can). For instance, if you row 30K at 1:52 and 22 spm you take 2486 strokes at about 11.5 SPI. At 34 spm, a comfortable rate for the 2K, 11.5 SPI is about a 6:25 2K. The logic is that if you can get used to stroking along for long periods of time in a steady state (i.e., with consistently little effort), it will be easier to row at 11.5 SPI when you are stroking along at 34 spm in a 2K. As you mention, the other way to row with a strong stroke is to do faster but shorter intervals. For example, you could row 4 x 1K at 1:40 and 30 spm, which is also about 11.5 SPI. Both sorts of rowing need to be done--but in different quantities, at different periods in the training cycle, and for different reasons. In the long continuous rowing at low rates, you take many strokes (almost 3000) and the goal is muscular and CV habituation/adaptation, the foundation for faster rowing (sharpening, etc.). In the 4 x 1K workout (the sharpening, etc.), you take about 400 strokes, only about 1/10 as many, but since you take them much faster, the task is harder and therefore the goal is to develop aerobic capacity (not to mention pschological strength, tolerance to pain, etc.!). Another advantage to rowing at low rates and high power over long distances is that it can be done every day, and training is best done as a daily (or twice daily, or thrice daily) regimen. It is the experience of most that they cannot do 4 x 1K as a daily (or twice daily, or thrice daily) regimen. If they try, they get stale. The final advantage to rowing most of your meters at low rates and high stroking power is that it fits naturally into a training program that respects the body's tolerances and preferences while introducing the full variety of what needs to be done in a structured way. The rowing at low rates and high power over long distances sets a base and therefore is the most frequent rowing. Rowing at high rates can then be done by progressively upping the rate and shortening both the distances rowed continuously (i.e., introducing rests, doing intervals) and the total meters rowed (because of the increased intensity of the rowing at the higher rates). BTW, rowing at a constant SPI in all of your training is not at all novel. In fact, it is the basis of the advice given in the Interactive Plan in the C2 manual (hardly an obscure or dubious source!), especially to those here on the C2 training forum! ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » April 17th, 2005, 2:48 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>A great example of this is Ranger, who since training with spi over the last 2 years has bombed out of every single competition and is now nowhere as fast for a 2k as he was at that time -- despite improving his spi greatly! </td></tr></table> Patience, John, patience. These things take time. The verdict is still out on this one. You are right that I am not as fast in the 2K at the moment. In fact, I am not yet as fast in _anything_. But this might not be relevant to how fast I will be--in _everything_. What intervenes? Training. John, you talk as though you don't believe in training. This is a a pretty odd position to take on a training forum! ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » April 18th, 2005, 7:25 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'>BTW, rowing at a constant SPI in all of your training is not at all novel. In fact, it is the basis of the advice given in the Interactive Plan in the C2 manual (hardly an obscure or dubious source!), especially to those here on the C2 training forum! </td></tr></table> The interactive plan in the C2 manual suggests the following workout rates, paces, and distances for me, given my 6:28 2K UT2 1:52 @ 22 spm (11.4 SPI) continuously for 20K, etc. UT1 1:47 @ 24 spm (11.5 SPI), 4 x 5K, etc. AT 1:41 @ 28 spm (12.1 SPI), 3 x 2K, etc. TR 1:37 @ 34 spm (11.3 SPI), 4 x 1K, etc. AN 1:35 @ 36 spm (11.4 SPI), 8 x 500m, etc. If the AT rowing were done at 29-30 spm instead of 28 SPI, and no reason why it shouldn't, I think, the one factor that would remain exactly constant in such a training schedule is SPI. Advice: Always row with a consistently strong stroke. I used to row my distance rows at about 7.8 SPI but my 2Ks at 10.5 SPI. Not good. ranger

[old] jamesg · Post by **[old] jamesg** » April 18th, 2005, 3:20 pm

When I first looked at the Watt rates corresponding to both the Interactive paces and the L4 Wolverine paces, the W-minute/stroke levels seemed so rigorously constant that I thought that was the basis for those tables, and that the paces served only to mask this. It doesn't really matter how the tabled paces are reached tho', and indeed if this result was reached by other routes, not least coaches' experience, this reinforces the method - all roads lead to Rome. Surely it's so simple and obvious anyway - if we have found an ideal pull force, and an ideal length, why change them? The product is necessarily our ideal work per stroke, and all we have to do to change the power level (and the training band) is change the rating.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » April 18th, 2005, 4:32 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(jamesg @ Apr 18 2005, 02:20 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Surely it's so simple and obvious anyway - if we have found an ideal pull force, and an ideal length, why change them? The product is necessarily our ideal work per stroke, and all we have to do to change the power level (and the training band) is change the rating. </td></tr></table> Yes. The issue is the "ideal work per stroke," though. In this case, at least, ideals do not come pre-packaged. It's a lot of work, but you can change your "ideal work per stroke." Another term for this is "getting faster." ranger

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » April 18th, 2005, 5:09 pm

Work per stroke is like work per lap of the track. If I do a lap every 90 seconds, and someone else does a lap every 4:00, then both do the same "work" per lap. Maybe the one taking 4:00 has a higher spi.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » April 18th, 2005, 5:10 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(ranger @ Apr 17 2005, 10:48 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>You are right that I am not as fast in the 2K at the moment. In fact, I am not yet as fast in _anything_. </td></tr></table> Well you have a much higher spi than 2 years ago. And your 2k is not as fast. That's basically all that needs to be said about spi and 2k times.

[old] Jim Barry · Post by **[old] Jim Barry** » April 18th, 2005, 5:33 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Surely it's so simple and obvious anyway - if we have found an ideal pull force, and an ideal length, why change them? The product is necessarily our ideal work per stroke, and all we have to do to change the power level (and the training band) is change the rating. </td></tr></table> James, The work may be the same, but I would note that the work (on the drive) is done at different speeds as you progress through the ladder of ratings. It is not like a stack of weights where we do the exact same motion and increase power (F*D)/T by shortening up the rest period (increasing the average power). (sidetrack somewhat related: anyone notice in the gym how incredibly different a seated cable row is from really rowing?) Work on the flywheel is accomplished technically a bit differently throughout all its various pick-up speeds. 22 spm at 14 spi (308 watts) is not the exact same drive as 30spm and 420watts (same 14 spi). The drive is slower at 22 spm. I'm not sure how different they are or how much it matters when all is said and done, but my instinct say this is not so simple.

[old] Dickie · Post by **[old] Dickie** » April 18th, 2005, 9:45 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Mike Niezgoda @ Apr 15 2005, 11:48 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Fred, Sorry we missed you at the CRASH-Bs this year, hopefully Paul and I will get to see you next year. I just read through the last couple of pages on this thread and I have a couple of points on SPI and the calculation.... Some housekeeping.... in one of your comments you mention SPI being calculated by (average) Watts divided by stroke count. This is incorrect. SPI is calculated by Average Watts divided by Average Stroke Rate. The "Watts" displayed on the Concept2 PMs are all average Watts - the average Watts of a stroke, the average Watts of a split, the average Watts of a piece, etc. Watts is an instantaneous reading (power/time) - like speed (distance/time). ErgMonitor users are probably used to seeing Watts plotted over a stroke in a sine-like wave, so have a visual understanding of what Watts and average Watts mean. Increasing stroke rate cuts the bottom off of the Watts sine wave and therefore increases the average Watts of a stroke. You can only cut off so much of the bottom of the Watts sine wave before you cannot sustain cutting off any more - and you will reach a plateau in your performance. SPI can tell you when you are approaching that plateau. So, adding "average" to your test case when you say that a rower rowing 280 <average> Watts is going to beat a rower rowing 250 <average> Watts, and challenge someone to prove you wrong, you have a pretty solid argument without inserting the SPI numbers. To go faster, you have to produce more Watts - no argument here. If your point is that SPI should not be used as the sole measurement judge which rowers are better, again no argument here, but I do disagree with your blanket statement that SPI is meaningless. Maybe this analogy will work to help everyone understand SPI. Think about an internal combustion engine. An analogous measure to SPI (average Watts/SR) for this engine could be the engine's horsepower output (HP) divided by the number of cylinder firings per minute (RPM*cylinders). Let's call this measurement Cylinder Performance Index (CPI). In order to increase the engine's maximum horsepower output we can increase the maximum RPM, but in doing so the CPI may start to degrade. When CPI can no longer be maintained as RPM increases, HP output will no longer increase with RPM increases. Or, we can increase horsepower output by increasing CPI, but by increasing CPI we may not be able to maintain RPM. So, SPI, just like CPI in this example is a representation of tradeoffs. SPI is the representation of the tradeoff between Stroke Rate and Power Output Per Stroke. Hopefully, this note increases everyone's understanding of what SPI represents. Use SPI how you will. ErgOn, Mike Niezgoda </td></tr></table> Hi Mike Your analogy of the Engine is interesting, but just as meaningless, if it were meaningful then CPI or whatever that ratio might be called in the automotive world would be all over the Auto mags, strangely enough, its not. Since we agree that the watts displayed on the monitor are all averages (Stroke, Split, Piece), they are average watts per stroke. So just what is the point of dividing by stroke rate again. Average Watts / Stroke / Stroke That is what you have with SPI and it is still meaningless because it can be demonstrated that higher is better in some cases and lower is better in other cases. So in our training when we get a higher SPI on this workout compared to the last, are we doing better or worse. With SPI we can't be sure. Still meaningless, in order to make it meaningful, you still have to show how my example is wrong or fits neatly into SPI. Not ranting, not trying to be offensive, I have all the respect in the world for both you and Paul Smith and I purchased and use Ergmonitor (I Recommend it highly) and when I have put some family issues behind me and can get back to rowing I intend to do some testing. Fred

[old] Dickie · Post by **[old] Dickie** » April 18th, 2005, 10:51 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Dickie @ Apr 18 2005, 09:45 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Mike Niezgoda @ Apr 15 2005, 11:48 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Fred, Sorry we missed you at the CRASH-Bs this year, hopefully Paul and I will get to see you next year. I just read through the last couple of pages on this thread and I have a couple of points on SPI and the calculation.... Some housekeeping.... in one of your comments you mention SPI being calculated by (average) Watts divided by stroke count. This is incorrect. SPI is calculated by Average Watts divided by Average Stroke Rate. The "Watts" displayed on the Concept2 PMs are all average Watts - the average Watts of a stroke, the average Watts of a split, the average Watts of a piece, etc. Watts is an instantaneous reading (power/time) - like speed (distance/time). ErgMonitor users are probably used to seeing Watts plotted over a stroke in a sine-like wave, so have a visual understanding of what Watts and average Watts mean. Increasing stroke rate cuts the bottom off of the Watts sine wave and therefore increases the average Watts of a stroke. You can only cut off so much of the bottom of the Watts sine wave before you cannot sustain cutting off any more - and you will reach a plateau in your performance. SPI can tell you when you are approaching that plateau. So, adding "average" to your test case when you say that a rower rowing 280 <average> Watts is going to beat a rower rowing 250 <average> Watts, and challenge someone to prove you wrong, you have a pretty solid argument without inserting the SPI numbers. To go faster, you have to produce more Watts - no argument here. If your point is that SPI should not be used as the sole measurement judge which rowers are better, again no argument here, but I do disagree with your blanket statement that SPI is meaningless. Maybe this analogy will work to help everyone understand SPI. Think about an internal combustion engine. An analogous measure to SPI (average Watts/SR) for this engine could be the engine's horsepower output (HP) divided by the number of cylinder firings per minute (RPM*cylinders). Let's call this measurement Cylinder Performance Index (CPI). In order to increase the engine's maximum horsepower output we can increase the maximum RPM, but in doing so the CPI may start to degrade. When CPI can no longer be maintained as RPM increases, HP output will no longer increase with RPM increases. Or, we can increase horsepower output by increasing CPI, but by increasing CPI we may not be able to maintain RPM. So, SPI, just like CPI in this example is a representation of tradeoffs. SPI is the representation of the tradeoff between Stroke Rate and Power Output Per Stroke. Hopefully, this note increases everyone's understanding of what SPI represents. Use SPI how you will. ErgOn, Mike Niezgoda </td></tr></table> Hi Mike Your analogy of the Engine is interesting, but just as meaningless, if it were meaningful then CPI or whatever that ratio might be called in the automotive world would be all over the Auto mags, strangely enough, its not. Since we agree that the watts displayed on the monitor are all averages (Stroke, Split, Piece), they are average watts per stroke. So just what is the point of dividing by stroke rate again. Average Watts / Stroke / Stroke That is what you have with SPI and it is still meaningless because it can be demonstrated that higher is better in some cases and lower is better in other cases. So in our training when we get a higher SPI on this workout compared to the last, are we doing better or worse. With SPI we can't be sure. Still meaningless, in order to make it meaningful, you still have to show how my example is wrong or fits neatly into SPI. Not ranting, not trying to be offensive, I have all the respect in the world for both you and Paul Smith and I purchased and use Ergmonitor (I Recommend it highly) and when I have put some family issues behind me and can get back to rowing I intend to do some testing. Fred </td></tr></table> For those of you who are uncomfortable with one example that illustrates SPI as meaningless. I have a few more. The baseline here will be 250 Watts at 25 Spm gives an SPI of 10 Compare that with calculations from the following every combination of wattage from 250 to 259 in 1 watt increments (i.e. 251, 252, 253,...258, 259) at stroke rates from 26 to 40 and above (i.e. 26, 27, 28, ,39, 40) yeilds an SPI less than 10 and would yeild a faster 2k time - add 150 cases every combination of wattage from 260 to 269 in 1 watt increments at stroke rates from 27 to 40 and above yeilds an SPI less than 10 and would yeild a faster 2k time - add 140 more cases every combination of wattage from 270 to 279 in 1 watt increments at stroke rates from 28 to 40 and above yeilds an SPI less than 10 and would yeild a faster 2k time - add 130 more cases every combination of wattage from 280 to 289 in 1 watt increments at stroke rates from 29 to 40 and above yeilds an SPI less than 10 and would yeild a faster 2k time - add 119 more cases (my original case is in this group) every combination of wattage from 290 to 299 in 1 watt increments at stroke rates from 30 to 40 and above yeilds an SPI less than 10 and would yeild a faster 2k time - add 110 more cases every combination of wattage from 300 to 309 in 1 watt increments at stroke rates from 31 to 40 and above yeilds an SPI less than 10 and would yeild a faster 2k time - add 100 more cases every combination of wattage from 310 to 319 in 1 watt increments at stroke rates from 32 to 40 and above yeilds an SPI less than 10 and would yeild a faster 2k time - add 90 more cases every combination of wattage from 320 to 329 in 1 watt increments at stroke rates from 33 to 40 and above yeilds an SPI less than 10 and would yeild a faster 2k time - add 80 more cases We are up to 920 total cases where a lower SPI is coupled with a faster time. How much more proof do you need. Fred

[old] Don Seymour · Post by **[old] Don Seymour** » April 18th, 2005, 11:58 pm

For me SPI is an interesting training index to help you translate how hard to pull at different rates in order to achieve your goals. Take for example michaelb's rates from a previous post. Let's say you've determined that 35 is your optimal stroke rate for a 2k and your goal is 1:40. That's an SPI of 10. So now when you are training at lower rates it's interesting to note what that 2k pull feels like. So rowing at a 20 you should be able to hit 2:00 pretty easily which is also SPI 10 because it's a lot easier to pull hard at 20 than at 35. Then when you bump up to 26 you know you should be able to pull 1:50 etc... In this way you can move through the different rates and get a feel for that power you'll need to be doing when you race at 35 to hit your goal. That's it. Simple. In this way SPI is meaningful to me. -Don

[old] jamesg · Post by **[old] jamesg** » April 19th, 2005, 12:50 am

DS Perfect, your message makes mine useless, but here goes anyway. FD Watts (or Power) has dimension Work/Time. Rating has dimension 1/Time. So if you divide Power by Rating, you get Work. In our case, the work done per stroke, even tho some call it spi. I don't understand why you can't see any meaning. Work is nothing other than Force x the Distance moved by the point of application of the force. In our case, the force we apply x the net stroke length (i.e. the complete stroke, less the catch distance). If Work is meaningless, then everything else is meaningless too, as work always comes into the equation. JB The speed of application does not change the Work done in a single stroke unless we change the length and the force, whatever the subjective impression. These are what the C2 measures (via behaviour of the flywheel), as it can only think in engineering terms. Changing the rating lets us change the power, because we can do more strokes in unit time: so more work in unit time, which = higher power. Clearly 10 W'/stroke at 20 is different from same at 35, but that's the point - it's different as to Cv load, not muscular load. My image of the situation (a first approximation no doubt) is that it's best to keep the muscular load high and the length constant (once we've found the ideal for both), and then change only the rating. That way we train technique and muscles all the time, and the CV systems as needed, in the bands defined by the ratings. Any other scheme seems to me to be useless if not impossible anyway, this is just a description of what actually happens. To go faster, there's no point in shortening or pulling less hard, the rating would have to increase disproportionately even to stay at the same speed. To pull significantly harder could not be maintained for long. Naturally in a boat, if you want to go faster you have first to accelerate the boat, i.e pull harder; then you can up the rating. But this is a dynamic situation, not steady state. Doing it the other way round is also possible, but not so elegant. But then again this type of discussion is nonsense for an oarsman - he always pulls as hard as he can and with the nominal length. Otherwise coach tells hm to go and do something else. R Once you've found your ideal work per stroke (and that I understand is what you are doing now) you'll go faster when you do not only this, but also take the rating to the level that kills you in the 6 minutes. No one expects you to do it every day. Indeed training for a particular event, if you want to do something never done before, means preparing the pieces, and then putting them together on the magical day of the event, in a way that was impossible the day before, and may well be impossible the day after too. Training for fitness is another thing, and mixing ideas that are ok for general training (where anything goes) with ideas for training for an event is certainly meaningless. Cross purposes is the usual phrase. It would be nice to do a Bubka, realise you can pull 10 sec faster but do 1 sec faster every week and get 10 WRs and related prize money. Problem is you've already set your standard too high and at the time there was only one Bubka.

[old] holm188 · Post by **[old] holm188** » April 19th, 2005, 2:35 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Dickie @ Apr 18 2005, 09:51 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>For those of you who are uncomfortable with one example that illustrates SPI as meaningless. I have a few more. The baseline here will be 250 Watts at 25 Spm gives an SPI of 10 Compare that with calculations from the following every combination of wattage from 250 to 259 in 1 watt increments (i.e. 251, 252, 253,...258, 259) at stroke rates from 26 to 40 and above (i.e. 26, 27, 28, ,39, 40) yeilds an SPI less than 10 and would yeild a faster 2k time - add 150 cases .......[just to save some space] every combination of wattage from 320 to 329 in 1 watt increments at stroke rates from 33 to 40 and above yeilds an SPI less than 10 and would yeild a faster 2k time - add 80 more cases We are up to 920 total cases where a lower SPI is coupled with a faster time. How much more proof do you need. Fred </td></tr></table> Fred, 2 things: 1. Your definition of SPI does not match mine as well as it does not match the definition of others in recent posts. I don't know how to explain it otherwise than it has been numerous times. I very confident that I'm right: SPI is Joules per sroke divide by 60. 2. I'm not clear what you would expect from SPI to consider it meaningful. I agree that you do not win a race based on the SPI you were able to maintain. The same as a car race is not won by the higher horsepower or torque, but by the one crossing the finish line first; nevertheless higher HP or torque might give you an advantage and allow you to go faster. I think nobody expects miracles from SPI, it's simply a way of comparing the force you put in a stroke at different stroke rates (in training!). Whatever is your goal over 2k you will achieve it at a certain SR, thus working at a corresponding SPI. In my view if you want to improve your 2k you cannot train endurance at a much lower SPI (at a lower SR) and expect to row at a higher SPI in the 2k race and improve your time. You can row your 60 min training at 2:10 (just an assumption) pace with a SR of your choice, I think better training effects will be obtained with a SR giving an SPI close to the one you do your 2k at. Cheers, Holm

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » April 19th, 2005, 2:59 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'>Well you have a much higher spi than 2 years ago. And your 2k is not as fast. That's basically all that needs to be said about spi and 2k times. </td></tr></table> John-- Yes, but only if you don't believe in training (and therefore don't need training manuals, rowing programs, coaches, trainers, this forum, reflection on what it takes to get better as an oarsman, the patience and fortitude to work through a training regimen over an extended period of time, etc.)! This should be said, too: My SPI is not yet entirely higher. I have indeed learned the mechanics of a stronger stroke, and I now use this new stroke unconsciously and easily. But at the moment, I have only been using this stroke successfully at lower stroke rates and therefore I only have a higher SPI at lower stroke rates, not throughout the full range of my rowing. My training is not yet complete, so my SPI is really _not_ yet higher. This should also be said: When my training is complete, the change in my _racing_ SPI (at 34 spm) will not really be that dramatic, either (although the change in technique necessary to get this small change in SPI has certainly been dramatic). I am working toward a racing SPI that is about 1 watt/stroke higher: 11.5 vs. 10.5. The place where my SPI is now dramatically different is in my distance rowing. As I mentioned, in order to follow a proper training program to get this 1 watt/stroke increase in racing SPI, I have needed to row my distance work at a _much_ higher SPI than I am used to, as much as 6 watts/stroke higher! This is why it is taking so long for me to move beyond this stage in the training regimen. I am learning to develop endurance and facilitation with a stroke that is almost 50% stronger than I am accustomed to using at these distances. This is tough work, but it is coming along. I think I will get over this hump this summer. Then I can move on smoothly and successfully to using this stronger stroke at higher stroke rates, including racing. Those who do their distance rowing at a low SPI, one that is dramatically lower than their racing SPI are just cheating themselves. Rowing long distances is a cinch if you cut your SPI in half (or some such thing). Junk meters. I used to row millions of meters at 2:00 and 32 spm (6.3 SPI). This is nice as mild cardio work for those who are using the erg for general fitness, but it is not good training for the 2K. Learning to row marathon (or ultramarathon) distances easily and enjoyably at 2:00 pace and 32 spm is quite a different task than learning to row marathon (or ultramarathon) distances easily and enjoyably at 2:00 pace and 16 spm (12.6 SPI). I am now learning to do the latter. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » April 19th, 2005, 3:02 am

BTW, it is pretty humorous to see this on-going, passionately dismissive argument against the advice in the C2 training manual, which (I presume) has been the standard regimen for the development of generations of world champion oarsmen. ranger