Ranger - News To Shock

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 20th, 2005, 7:42 pm

PaulS,<br /><br />If only I could keep from slowing 9 seconds in 4 years as a 50 year old.<br /><br />Oh that's right, it's never happened! <br /><br />However if I ever want to slow that much I'll be sure to give you a call.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » December 20th, 2005, 10:44 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 20 2005, 03:42 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>PaulS,<br /><br />If only I could keep from slowing 9 seconds in 4 years as a 50 year old.<br /><br />Oh that's right, it's never happened! <br /><br />However if I ever want to slow that much I'll be sure to give you a call. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />John,<br /><br />Many things will never happen for you, I'm more concerned with things that can happen.<br />Back to your <b>P</b>ower <b>A</b>djusted <b>T</b>ime <b>T</b>ables, it's the only thing that can make you feel adequate I guess. <br /><br />Pretty sad. <br /><br />Maybe you should get a Life Coach of your own.

[old] onethirtyfive · Post by **[old] onethirtyfive** » December 20th, 2005, 11:11 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 20 2005, 08:41 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><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'>We all know that the HW category is more competitive than the LW </td></tr></table><br /><br />The world records in the various divisions are now becoming very competitive. In the 50-54 category at the moment, I wouldn't say that Ripley's hwt 6:07 is any better than Watt's lwt 6:25. Would you? A spread of 18 seconds between hwt and lwt is entirely normal. NH weighs 85 lbs. more than Graham and must have him by over a half a foot in height. I don't know how big Ripley is, but pretty big indeed.<br /><br />The WR in the 55-59 lwt category is relatively new and therefore is still pretty soft. Who knows, someone might even lower it this year below the 50-54 lwt WR. <br /><br />That would stiffen it up!<br /><br /> <br /><br />ranger<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />What defines a competitve division.<br /><br />In Boston last year in the 55-59 Hwt men there were 26 competitors<br />In Boston last year in the 55-59 Lwt men there were 4 competitors<br /><br />If competitive is defined by numbers competing there is no contest, many more Hwts.<br /><br />In the Lwt division the gap between 1st and 2nd was about 38 secs, while using that same range you had to go down to 15th in the Hwt division. I guess if you are turning up to 'place' in a race then again there is no contest the Hwt division is much more difficult.<br /><br />Just my thoughts<br /><br />cheers<br />

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 20th, 2005, 11:20 pm

PaulS,<br /><br />Yes you are right, I will never be that slow!

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 20th, 2005, 11:28 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(onethirtyfive @ Dec 20 2005, 07:11 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>In Boston last year in the 55-59 Hwt men there were 26 competitors<br />In Boston last year in the 55-59 Lwt men there were 4 competitors[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />It was tougher getting into the lwt division then, as only 4 people made it.<br /><br />If it was really so easy as you said, then some of those hwts would have lost weight and entered the lwt division but they didn't.<br /><br />This, again, proves the lwt division is more difficult.

[old] onethirtyfive · Post by **[old] onethirtyfive** » December 20th, 2005, 11:42 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 21 2005, 01:28 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(onethirtyfive @ Dec 20 2005, 07:11 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>In Boston last year in the 55-59 Hwt men there were 26 competitors<br />In Boston last year in the 55-59 Lwt men there were 4 competitors[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />It was tougher getting into the lwt division then, as only 4 people made it.<br /><br />If it was really so easy as you said, then some of those hwts would have lost weight and entered the lwt division but they didn't.<br /><br />This, again, proves the lwt division is more difficult. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Hi John nice to catch you on line again.<br /><br />Just checked my post and there is no where that I said that one division was easier or harder just more competitive based on times and quantity of opposition (note I did say it would be more difficult to compete in the Hwt and place in the 1st 3, sure that is not in question?)<br /><br />cheers<br /><br />ps I guess for some of the Hwts it may have been physically possible to drop weight and compete as a Lwt, but maybe they prefer to compete in a more 'competitive' division<br /><br />pps If the Lwt division is more difficult as you infer, why do so many Lwts who are by nature Hwts (such as Ranger) shed weight just to compete in a division that is more difficult. Surely they would be better to stay as a Hwt because by your logic they would find it easier to do well?

[old] onethirtyfive · Post by **[old] onethirtyfive** » December 20th, 2005, 11:51 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 21 2005, 01:28 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>This, again, proves the lwt division is more difficult. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Hi John.<br /><br />I may have got the wrong end of your argument sorry, are you saying it is more difficult to make the weight (what is it 165lbs) or to get a place. If so how many of those that competed as Hwts do you think could have physically made the weight given their physiology - (you know natural size).<br /><br />Do you also know how many of those that competed as Lwts had to lose weight to make the weight and if they did lose that weight, why? Again what is the point unless they thought the competiton was easier than 'competing' as a Hwt.<br /><br />Why is Ranger (sorry to pick on him by he is the most prominent) looking to compete as a Lwt and break the record, surely the Hwt record would be easier if that division is not as competitive)<br /><br />cheers John, tks for all the responses they are interesting.<br />

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 21st, 2005, 12:13 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(onethirtyfive @ Dec 20 2005, 07:42 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Just checked my post and there is no where that I said that one division was easier or harder just more competitive based on times and quantity of opposition (note I did say it would be more difficult to compete in the Hwt and place in the 1st 3, sure that is not in question?) </td></tr></table><br />Well if you mean more competitive because it had a lower standard and was easier for people to get in the race then I would agree with you.<br /><br /><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'>I guess for some of the Hwts it may have been physically possible to drop weight and compete as a Lwt, but maybe they prefer to compete in a more 'competitive' division </td></tr></table><br />Yes if they found it impossible to meet the standard, it would be more competitive for them to be in the division with the lower standards.<br /><br />I agree.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 21st, 2005, 12:18 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(onethirtyfive @ Dec 20 2005, 07:42 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>why do so many Lwts who are by nature Hwts (such as Ranger) shed weight just to compete in a division that is more difficult. Surely they would be better to stay as a Hwt because by your logic they would find it easier to do well?[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />I guess you are asking why I don't gain 80 pounds and compete as a heavyweight?<br /><br />Surely that would be easier, right?<br /><br />Actually, yes it would. At 220 pounds I would likely have the 50+ record for hwt's.<br /><br />But I don't want to get out of shape and weigh that much.<br /><br />Also, I think anyone who is 6' or less would be better off being a lightweight.<br /><br />Best would be to have more divisions. <br /><br />However rowing is not a very popular sport and is likely to stay this way.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 21st, 2005, 12:26 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(onethirtyfive @ Dec 20 2005, 07:51 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>are you saying it is more difficult to make the weight (what is it 165lbs) or to get a place. </td></tr></table><br />Both.<br /><br />Most rowers obviously can't make the weight.<br /><br />If they can't make the weight then they can't get a place in the lightweights.<br /><br />Even if they made the weight and still could row fast enough.<br /><br /><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'>how many of those that competed as Hwts do you think could have physically made the weight given their physiology </td></tr></table><br />On the average, anyone 6'2 or less could be lightweight.<br /><br /><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'>Do you also know how many of those that competed as Lwts had to lose weight to make the weight and if they did lose that weight, why? Again what is the point unless they thought the competiton was easier than 'competing' as a Hwt. </td></tr></table><br />Some people like Rich choose to meet the challenge. <br /><br />Obviously, most could not do that. The exceptions prove the rule.<br /><br /><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'>Why is Ranger (sorry to pick on him by he is the most prominent) looking to compete as a Lwt and break the record, surely the Hwt record would be easier if that division is not as competitive) </td></tr></table><br />Yes the 50+ hwt record is very weak. It should be under 6:00.<br /><br />Rich had the choice of getting five inches taller, which is not possible, and getting up to 220 to 240 pounds, or else becoming a lightweight. Actually he is only 6' tall so he is better off being in the lightweight division. <br /><br />Free free to ask anything else you'd like to know.<br /><br />Cheers.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 21st, 2005, 3:40 am

<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'>If competitive is defined by numbers competing there is no contest, many more Hwts. </td></tr></table><br /><br />The comparisons that I am making between lwts and hwts and presenting to NH are the achievements at the _top_ of the various divisions, the WRs, because these are the levels that NH and I are competing at. Even at these levels, there can indeed be soft WRs and radical discrepencies, but even at this early point in the sport these now tend to be few and quickly dwindling. WRs between lwts and hwts tend to line up pretty predictably now, as do the WRs among age and gender divisions. The distribution of the various WRs can almost be reduced to formulas, showing that, given the training methods at the moment, the WRs are moving together, representing some sort of physiological and mental limit.<br /><br />ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 21st, 2005, 3:53 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(onethirtyfive @ Dec 20 2005, 06:18 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 20 2005, 08:57 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>It makes me feel like a 20-year-old (and train row like one, too).<br /><br />ranger<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />2k record for this is 6:02.* <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Yes. I have just learned to row. I am just a novice. Learning a sport when you are 55 severely limits your level of achievement. Given my experience, I do indeed row like a 20-year-old. For a novice 20-year-old lwt to row 6:28 without even knowing how to row is entirely respectable.<br /><br />The top six finishers in the Open lwts in WIRC 2005 were 6:08, 6:10, 6:12, 6:14, 6:17, 6:18.<br /><br />We'll see how things go now that I have mastered proper technique and am rowing at a reasonable drag. Could be interesting.<br /><br />ranger<br />

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 21st, 2005, 4:13 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(onethirtyfive @ Dec 20 2005, 06:18 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 20 2005, 08:57 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>It makes me feel like a 20-year-old (and train row like one, too).<br /><br />ranger<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />2k record for this is 6:02.* <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />The significant decline with age of things like max HR will always significantly limit the performance of a 55-year-old relative to a 20-year-old. Many other things don't necessarily decline at all, though: full body power, endurance, agility, quickness, durability, rhythmicity, relaxation, mental concentration, efficiency, etc. It is these that my cross-training maintains, I think.<br /><br />ranger<br />

[old] onethirtyfive · Post by **[old] onethirtyfive** » December 21st, 2005, 5:06 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 21 2005, 06:13 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(onethirtyfive @ Dec 20 2005, 06:18 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 20 2005, 08:57 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>It makes me feel like a 20-year-old (and train row like one, too).<br /><br />ranger<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />2k record for this is 6:02.* <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><b>The significant decline with age of things like max HR will always significantly limit the performance of a 55-year-old relative to a 20-year-old.</b> Many other things don't necessarily decline at all, though: full body power, endurance, agility, quickness, durability, rhythmicity, relaxation, mental concentration, efficiency, etc. It is these that my cross-training maintains, I think.<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />I dont understand sorry, but trying to <br /><br /> In a post (couple back) you call yourself a 55 year old novice (yet your still 54 so i know your just generalising) at the same time as posting on a regular basis that you have set 'x' number of WR and your the fastest for your age and weight etc, so that hardly makes you a novice in any way shape or form.<br /><br />Now you talk about the limiting factor of Max HR for 55 year olds yet you have stated your Max HR is around or even above 200 which is the same as most 20year olds. So no way can you be measured against the 55 year old 'norm' you would I think based on your stated physiology be aiming to compete against much younger athletes. You have the power, the endurance, the stroke, the HR (based on reported training) to compete against 40 years olds at least???<br /><br />Not sure which way you are trying to cut the cake but it seems to me you want it both ways.<br /><br />You are an exceptional athlete but you seem to keep trying to make excuses for less than expected performances before they even happen. Given the levels of training you do and report you dont need to make any excuses and anything less that your previous WR I would think would be a disappointment for you.<br /><br />cheers

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

<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'> Max HR is around or even above 200 which is the same as most 20year olds. </td></tr></table><br /><br />I suspect my max heart rate is around 190-195 bpm. Many 20-year-olds get to 220 bpm. The best probably all do. I suspect my max HR was 220 was when I was 20. I don't know what other things inevitably decline over 35 years, but I suspect a few other things do, too.<br /><br />If I am to be held to the standard of the Open Lwt WR, then I would have to compare myself at 20 with myself at 55, not myself at 55 vs. most others at 20. Many things are still in place between myself at 20 and myself at 55, but certainly not all, despite all efforts to the contrary.<br /><br />A good example of things that are still in place might be what I am now achieving with my low spm rowing. I am now approaching continuous rowing over long distances at 1:52 @ 18 spm (14 SPI) and I think I can advance this next year to 1:50 @ 18 spm (14.7 SPI). This type of rowing is not a matter of maximum heart rates, etc., but strength, agility, relaxation, rhythmicity, endurace, quickness, leverage, timing, concentration, determination, etc., things that my cross-training, I think, is maintaining. It will interesting to see how far I can push this rowing. I want to take it to marathon and even utra-marathon distances. What effect this might have on my 2K will be I don't know, but I suspect it will be unprecedented. This sort of rowing is exactly low spm rowing for a 6:02 2K, etc., the lwt open WR. For my age and weight, even WR level low spm rowing over long distances is something like 2:01 @ 18 spm, and even so, only for distances in the range of 10K.<br /><br />ranger

Concept2 Forum

Ranger - News To Shock

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions