Catch And Resistance

[old] Sir Pirate · Post by **[old] Sir Pirate** » October 1st, 2004, 3:34 pm

Sir Pirate

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » October 1st, 2004, 3:56 pm

I think the problem for me is getting my head around the 10mps part. Last night I spreadsheeted pace from 2:00 thru to 1:35, the corresponding watts, and the stroke rate to achieve the 10mps ... and came up with a 'race rate' of about 31/32 which is right for me. But where I have a problem is that at all paces under the race pace I am training at a lower SPI (obviously) than what I will need to achieve to attain my goal. It is easier for me mentally to erg harder at lower rates knowing I am applying the same SPI as I will need to to go 6:20, (aware that at the lower rates I have more rest/recovery), then as I get fitter /stronger and pick up the rate the rest periods wil get shorter (each stroke a mini interval as Ranger says) and naturally the length of the sessions will as well (less steady state more longer interavals) till on a given day I will be able to hold it for 6:19.59 at that SPI (about12.7) ... and if I trade a bit of rate for pace it will only get easier (realatively ) (SPI @ 34 = 12) - George ps To state the obvious what I do see is the the differential in SPI between methods decreases as the pace increases (gets closer to race pace) ... so that as I built endurance and strength and rowed my steady state at quicker paces the s10mps would become more demanding to achieve.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » October 1st, 2004, 4:20 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (PaulS @ Sep 30 2004, 02:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>There is no accurate way to determine ratio from watching a video, so you are mistaken that their ratios are the same.  </td></tr></table> Paul, I measured Ebbesen's and Shurmei's ratios in frame by frame stop action in 100's of a second on my computer. Both Ebbesen's and Shurmei's ratios were the same, i.e. the drive was 43.5% of the stroke. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>EE is using a very short drive and low ratio  </td></tr></table> To the contrary, Ebbesen has a long full drive, and his ratio is the same as Shurmei's, i.e. the drive was 43.5% of the stroke. Here is a video of Eskild Ebbesen: <a href='http://look-at-it.com/ee-worldrecord-uk.asp' target='_blank'>http://look-at-it.com/ee-worldrecord-uk ... r> Also, the drive to stroke ratio of 43.5% is much "higher", not lower, than your recommended 33.3%.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » October 1st, 2004, 4:32 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (PaulS @ Oct 1 2004, 08:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Less meters per stroke = Less ratio = Easier for a given pace. (until you run out of rate to trade, then you are stuck) = Poor training principle  </td></tr></table> First of all, the 43.5 ratio as used by Ebbesen AND Shurmei is "higher" than your recommended 33.3%. This is with Ebbesen rowing at 8 meters per stroke and Shurmei rowing at 9.7 mps. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>This is exactly how you have been cheating yourself out of good training for a long time.  </td></tr></table> To the contrary, I disagree with you that Ebbesen has poor training principles and I prefer to go by his guidelines and not yours. If anyone is cheating, it is you cheating others out of reaching their potential. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Once again, you show how silly and wrong you are.  </td></tr></table> Well coming from you I consider that to be a high compliment. Thank you.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » October 1st, 2004, 4:52 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (John Rupp @ Oct 1 2004, 08:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Here is a video of Eskild Ebbesen: <a href='http://look-at-it.com/ee-worldrecord-uk.asp' target='_blank'>http://look-at-it.com/ee-worldrecord-uk ... r> Also, the drive to stroke ratio of 43.5% is much "higher", not lower, than your recommended 33.3%.  </td></tr></table> I know the video well, EE starts out quite well, albeit low ratio, but at about the halfway point he is no longer getting good leg compression and is lunging at the catch (shoulders are the last thing to move toward the flywheel before the drive) which is an early signal to fatigue onset and the end of good technique. Let me compliment you a bit more then: You are showing your ignorance with regard to ratio. The drive is considered the 1 and the recovery which is longer is relative to the drive, i.e. 1:3 or just 3 are describing the same ratio. A 0.5 (your incorrect math) would be a 1:1 or "1". Last time I checked, 1 was smaller than 3. If 43.5% of the stroke is Drive, then 66.5% would be recovery, and that would be a ratio of 1:1.5 (or 1.5). Now you do not have to remain ignorant regarding ratio. (notwithstanding a Bizzaro World interpretation.) Unfortuantely you are also determining Drive and recovery by observing the direction of the handle, which is not accurate as there are periods at both ends of the stroke where there is no pressure on the handle which you errantly include in the drive. Leave the evaluation to the folks who know what they are talking about or continue to look foolish. - Paul Smith

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » October 1st, 2004, 5:08 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (John Rupp @ Oct 1 2004, 08:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> To the contrary, I disagree with you that Ebbesen has poor training principles and I prefer to go by his guidelines and not yours. If anyone is cheating, it is you cheating others out of reaching their potential.  </td></tr></table> Well, you agreeing with me would make you correct and that would probably throw the universe into some strange imbalance that would end life as we know it. I never said EE has poor training principles, obviously they work well for him, I'm quite certain that you have no idea what his training principles are, due to your unique way of misunderstanding everything that is presented to you, no matter how many times, or how many ways. If anyone is being, or has been, Cheated out of reaching their potential by engaging in ANY activity that I have EVER suggested, please come forward now and say so. (Telling John to go play in the street, wasn't me.) (I doubt there are many that could stand up to scrutiny like that, but I'm willing to take my chances.) Oh, and where is your endless list of folks that you have helped? - Paul Smith

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » October 1st, 2004, 7:34 pm

Paul, The 43.5 ratio as used by Ebbesen AND Shurmei is "higher" than your recommended 33.3%. This is with Ebbesen rowing at 8 meters per stroke and Shurmei rowing at 9.7 mps. I am repeating this for your benefit, since you didn't understand it the first 5 times. So far you've not given objective demonstration of even one person you have "helped". On the other hand you badgered and belittled Ranger till he started following your program this past year and what now? He has lost his world record and is not able to row the same times for Zatopek intervals OR the 2k that he was rowing when he first started out as a lightweight. That is very sad, Paul. I wonder why you continue pushing your program but maybe you really do believe in it and don't see any other way. In any case I don't care what you do even though you don't row much at all and keep getting slower but good luck.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » October 2nd, 2004, 3:03 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>He has lost his world record and is not able to row the same times for Zatopek intervals OR the 2k that he was rowing when he first started out as a lightweight. </td></tr></table> John-- The choice to follow Paul's advice for the last couple of years was mine. I wasn't badgered into anything. I am a pretty independent character in such things, if you haven't noticed. Following Paul's advice in my training for one off season (February-August 2003), I broke my 50s lwt world record twice last fall and improved two seconds (even while getting a year older), although it is importantt to say that I made this improvement using my old stroke, not an on-water stroke, such as Paul would recommend. The jury is still out on what I might be able to row using on-water technique and 110 df. Changing your stroke takes time. I am still working at it. My commitment to my new stroke is not only motivated by my desire to go faster on the erg (if that is possible); it is motivated by my desire to row effectively in my 1x on the water. My other stroke is useless in a 1x. If I use it, I fall right out of the boat. My achievement with my old stroke came after three years or so of rowing with it. In form, this stroke also drew heavily upon my experience as a canoeist (e.g., in focussing on the use of my core muscles and back, rather than my legs and arms). I have only just now mastered a proper on-water stroke. I suspect that I will steadily improve with it for at least two or three years, as I did using my old stroke. If and when this improvement comes, it will be hard won, though. I do not have a background (in my youth and early adulthood) as an oarsman, and I am no longer a youngster. Losing my world record did not result from my getting slower. It resulted from someone else rowing faster. This can always happen, and indeed, in and around sport, almost always does. Hats off the Graham Watt. I will need to get better to catch him. ranger

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » October 2nd, 2004, 5:02 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (ranger @ Oct 2 2004, 07:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Losing my world record did not result from my getting slower. It resulted from someone else rowing faster. This can always happen, and indeed, in and around sport, almost always does. Hats off the Graham Watt. I will need to get better to catch him. ranger </td></tr></table> Well said Ranger ... in my books that one statement you have made makes you a champion in my books. It saddens me that what was turning into an interesting discussion and one I was following with much interest and hoped to learn from thru discussion has degenerated into a waste of time slagging match. So many people I would think come to this site to learn, share, and be inspired ... but obviously not all. Sad - George

[old] Prufrock · Post by **[old] Prufrock** » October 2nd, 2004, 8:31 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (GeorgeD @ Oct 2 2004, 04:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> It saddens me that what was turning into an interesting discussion and one I was following with much interest and hoped to learn from thru discussion has degenerated into a waste of time slagging match. So many people I would think come to this site to learn, share, and be inspired ... but obviously not all. Sad  </td></tr></table> And well said George. Prufrock

[old] JimR · Post by **[old] JimR** » October 3rd, 2004, 11:21 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Prufrock @ Oct 2 2004, 08:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (GeorgeD @ Oct 2 2004, 04:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> It saddens me that what was turning into an interesting discussion and one I was following with much interest and hoped to learn from thru discussion has degenerated into a waste of time slagging match. So many people I would think come to this site to learn, share, and be inspired ... but obviously not all. Sad  </td></tr></table> And well said George. Prufrock  </td></tr></table> One positive benefit of John's constant replies is that PaulS does share a lot of very useful details on why things are the way they are. While this is good for me I do feel bad that PaulS has to be the target of what often seems like nonsense. Other very knowledgeable posters have fallen away becuase of this behavior. I hope PaulS (and others) don't fall by the wayside. If they do we will be left with John presiding over a rather worthless forum! JimR

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » October 3rd, 2004, 2:10 pm

...And not "sideing" with anyone on this I also must say that I think also John should keep posting his ideas and thoughts on training. Though many will disagree with him in much, he has had interesting posts like the PAT idea for example. Discussion and different views, no matter how strange, also can help to clarify things and deepen the understanding. The occurance of this one on one sluggfest however really doesn't qualify for the (quote George D) "learn, share, and be inspired " that should be the focus of the forum. I plead to John and Paul to stop this erroneous use of the forum, perhaps you could mail to each other? I don't think many people read the posts anymore any way.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » October 3rd, 2004, 4:35 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (JimR @ Oct 3 2004, 03:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> One positive benefit of John's constant replies is that PaulS does share a lot of very useful details on why things are the way they are. While this is good for me I do feel bad that PaulS has to be the target of what often seems like nonsense. JimR  </td></tr></table> Thanks Jim, It seems as if there are a few that can't seem to tell the difference between PS and BS, and have no idea of the particularly rich history that causes me to respond occassionaly to the ridiculousness. PT Barnum was right. Ciao - Paul Smith

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » October 3rd, 2004, 5:48 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (PaulS @ Oct 4 2004, 08:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> and have no idea of the particularly rich history that causes me to respond occassionaly to the ridiculousness. PT Barnum was right. Ciao - Paul Smith </td></tr></table> Some of us do have an idea of the 'rich' history as you choose to call it that caused many a post on the last forum to degenerate in a shambles at times... and many a person to lose interest in posting. I thought we were going particularly well on this board to date that it had not followed suit, but then ... I have no problem with the bickering it is all very humourous and quite creative at times ... I do have a problem when it hijacks a thread so that people who post with 'genuine' comments are lost in the crap. - George

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » October 3rd, 2004, 5:55 pm

PaulS, While there very well may be a sucker born every minute, there is a least one less than you imply and probably more. I've learnt alot from your postings on this forum and the old one and know the diffrence from PS and BS. And just because I don't think suckers are plenty amongst rowers and readers of this forum I think you might as well continue this specific "discussion" in private with John if you so wish and thereby once again do the forum members a favour.

Concept2 Forum

Catch And Resistance

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training