Ranger - News To Shock

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think (and know) that the only foult you were making in you old stroke was not using the full slide. Cause No way in h*** it is possible to rate high and use a full stroke and just row 6.30 (lightweight/haveweight doesn,t matter) So the only thing you had to learn was using the hole slide. </td></tr></table><br /><br />If things go well at the races this winer, and I think they will, come spring, I will be the only 55-year-old lwt who has ever rowed below 6:40, much less 6:30.<br /><br />You are indeed right that it helps the power in your stroke enormously to use the full slide and this is one of the main reasons my stroke is now stronger. All sorts of other things were wrong with my stroke, too, though. I didn't finish fully with my arms. I pulled and pushed simultaneously at the catch with my legs and back without sequencing these levers. I pushed and pulled simultaneously at the finish with my legs and arms without sequencing these levers. And so forth. <br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->An other point , about your planning to erg the 8 x 500. You are planning to row that any way possible, just the pace is important. This would be wrong I think. You have to row the 500 meters in the same rate as you are planning to race your 2000. If you rate the 500 m very high the training is just your old way of erging. </td></tr></table><br /><br />I'll row the 8 x 500m workout at 12.5 SPI, just the stroke that I will use to race. If I can get to 38 spm for these 500s, and I think I might, I will row them in 1:30.<br /><br />My point is: There is no reason to set my heels and row 13.3 SPI. The loss in energy efficiency is enormous. <br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin-hjs+Jan 8 2006, 06:27 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(hjs @ Jan 8 2006, 06:27 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am curiuos about your running? what is your Pb on the full marathon. That will tell me a lot I think. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />2:50<br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To me the hole way of training you do is very high volume and enough pace and only that is helping you. All the talk about technik and drag and whatever is not important. To me it,s all volume, volume, volume. </td></tr></table><br /><br />We'll see. I have always done the high volume. I have never worked on stroking power and technique. So if (relative to my competition and former self) I improve significantly when I race this year, it will be exclusively the result of my work on stroking power and technique.<br /><br />So the test is on.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] hjs]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Jan 8 2006, 01:07 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Jan 8 2006, 01:07 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-hjs+Jan 8 2006, 06:27 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(hjs @ Jan 8 2006, 06:27 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am curiuos about your running? what is your Pb on the full marathon. That will tell me a lot I think. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />2:50<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />mwa Ok. but not at the level of your erging. At what weight? <br /><br />ps I 'll be off the rest of the day. Good luck. <br /><br />I will row twice this season. the last 2 weekens of jan. A 6 k and a 2 k. I am aming at 1.44 and 1.37. That's al a got at the moment. just started in okt 2005 again.<br />maybe I can do more next season.<br /><br /><br />

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Again you sound like JR  . yes you do have now. Great ! but 3/4 years ago you had not. that's what was lacking than. </td></tr></table><br /><br />I have always had an enormously strong back. I have _always_ been able to do 30 pull ups, since I was 16 years old. This hasn't changed a wit by taking up rowing. My upper body strength is one of the main reasons I am so naturally good at rowing. I went four seconds under the 50s lwt WR in my first race, without any coaching or rowing experience whatsoever. I had never even rowed on the water.<br /><br />I repeat: I wasn't just a runner. I was an accomplished swimmer and canoeist. Both of these sports put a premium on upper body strength. <br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->mwa Ok. but not at the level of your erging. At what weight? </td></tr></table><br /><br />Just what I weigh now (with just the same muscle bulk and composition and therefore upper body strength): 165 lbs.<br /><br />165 lbs. is just a good lean weight for me, whether running or rowing.<br /><br />I was a marathoner as an adult, but I was a half miler in track in high school and college. I was a sprinter in swimming (50 and 100 freestyle). I was a bowman when I did tandem racing in canoeing. None of these things are done well, or even competently, with a slight body build. <br /><br />ranger

[[old] NavigationHazard]

Actually, Rich, I <i>don't</i> automatically assume the worst when it comes to communication about performance on this or any other Forum.<br /><br />I'm quite sure there are plenty of things others can do athletically that I can't/won't. Just as the converse is true. Probably there are also some things we all can do. <br /><br />In fact I'd like to see you live up to your lofty expectations as much as anyone.<br /><br />Where I [and many others] get frustrated is in trying to figure out where you are in your training vis-a-vis your goals. For years you have been going on about your workouts and your stroking in ways that obviously make sense to you. Unfortunately they often don't make sense to me or (judging from reader responses) a whole lot of others. Perhaps the fault is ours. OTOH perhaps you might find some way of rephrasing some of your mantras so as to address our incomprehension. If two Forum communities by and large aren't getting it, repeating the same phraseology over and over probably isn't going to help us. The problem might well be with the messages. <br /><br />From my point of view, a little more clarity would go a long way towards cutting through the Munchausen-like quality and dogmatism that attend too many of your posts. And believe it or not, the entire indoor rowing community is not lined up against you in some vast nullifying conspiracy.

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I will row twice this season. the last 2 weekens of jan. A 6 k and a 2 k. I am aming at 1.44 and 1.37. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Good luck with the racing. The targets you cite are exaclty my pbs for 6K and 2K. I rowed them when I was 52, in 2003. I didn't start rowing until I was 50. <br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually, Rich, I don't automatically assume the worst when it comes to communication about performance on this or any other Forum. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Good to hear.<br /><br />Nonetheless, IMHO, in my case, the repeated demand for proof, etc., to back up what I am reporting about my training is odd in the extreme. I have raced a lot. I was a former world record holder. If things go well, I will almost certainly be a world record holder again in a few weeks. I still hold two of the major championship records. And so forth. I am not some blogger who doesn't race, or worse, doesn't even row. There are only a couple of handfuls of world record holders in their whole sport, and you are not one of them.<br /><br />IMHO, all of the suspicion about my workouts is _entirely_ unnecessary.<br /><br />So if you say that this suspicion is not "automatic" for you, I guess I can still believe you. But I still am left wondering. <br /><br />I have explained many times. I think that the two fora share this automatic suspiciousness because they share (questionable) attitudes toward tradition, accomplishment, and innovation. Say it ain't so, but I have never experienced anything here that makes me think otherwise. <br /><br />In sports, as in all of the arts, almost anything can happen, out of the blue, suddenly, and when and where you, and everyone else, might least expect it. Since this is just a fact, I think it is best to just accept it and get used to it. You (personally) or even some insular community are just not the measure of all things.<br /><br />ranger<br /><br />P.S. Even when I sent in a picture of my force curve, the claim by some on the British forum was that I had fabricated it, too! That's ridiculous.

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is another major advantage of rowing on your toes, especially for sharpening. Without a firm heel plant, just using your toes and the peripheral levers in your legs, this high power, high rate work is not destructive at all. You recover quickly from it, so much so that you can do it every day. This lets someone rowing on their toes get in much more sharpening during a sharpening period than is possible for someone who rows on their heels--and with little cost, just 2 seconds, and much gain, an elevation of rate as much as 7 spm, which is worth over five seconds per 500. Net gain: about 15 seconds. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Sorry about this. <br /><br />"with little cost, just 2 seconds" might be clearer if phrased "with little cost, just 2 seconds per 500"<br /><br />"Net gain: about 15 seocnds" might be clearer if phrased "Net gain: about 15 seconds in a 2K"<br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For years you have been going on about your workouts and your stroking in ways that obviously make sense to you. Unfortunately they often don't make sense to me or (judging from reader responses) a whole lot of others. Perhaps the fault is ours. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Nav--<br /><br />I have explained what I am doing with my "rowing with breaks" _exactly_, so that anyone can do it, if they would like.<br /><br />Let's get real. O.K.? What everyone finds incomprehsible, or perhaps even laughable, is not my description of what I am doing. What I am doing is perfectly clear. It is that what I am doing is not standard practice in the rowing community. No one else does it. I am not sure about this, but perhaps no one else _can_ do it. I am rowing along at enormously high stroking power, relative to my age and weight, throwing down the handle--repeatedly and randomly--when the stress is too great. Then I am picking it up as soon as possible and proceeding on. This is just not how people around here train. <br /><br />The "dissonance," the endless back-and-forth about my workouts has nothing to do with language. It has to do with traditional modes of training for rowing and what people think about alternatives to these traditions. <br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

Nav--<br /><br />A case in point. As I have mentioned many times, given that our PATT scores are some 8 seconds per 500 apart, my "rowing with breaks" for 15-30K at 1:46 @ 20 spm would be something like you doing the same thing at 1:38 @ 20 spm. It is perfectly clear what that would entail, but it is not at all the traditional thing to do to train for rowing and it doesn't seem to appeal to you (or others). If so, enough said! Then just don't do it. Why say that what I am doing is confused, vague, or obscure in some way? It is clear as a bell, and if you want to know what it is like, just do it! Then it should be even clearer.<br /><br />As it turns out, for the last year or so, this is pretty much the _only_ thing I have been doing. I will continue this for another year. Why? The effects of this training are wonderful!<br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

Nav--<br /><br />1:38 @ 20 spm is 18.6 SPI. My experience has been that if you develop excellent technique and can weather this kind of daily training for several years, you can learn to row in a 2K with a stroke that is 2-2.5 SPI below this stroking power. In your case, this would be about 16 SPI. <br /><br />This stroking power is world class heavyweight power, even in the open division. This is just what I am shooting for, and am very close to having, it seems, but in the open lightweight division.<br /><br />Now, your stroking power is certainly not everything. But as all of the training plan indicate, it is the _foundation_ of everything; and to have the best foundation for something is always the best way to go. IMHO, almost everything, like training for rowing, that involves progressive development just realizes in the end what is already implicit in its foundation in the beginning.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] NavigationHazard]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Jan 8 2006, 08:36 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Jan 8 2006, 08:36 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nav--<br /><br />A case in point. As I have mentioned many times, given that our PATT scores are some 8 seconds per 500 apart, my "rowing with breaks" for 15-30K at 1:46 @ 20 spm would be something like you doing the same thing at 1:38 @ 20 spm. It is perfectly clear what that would entail, but it is not at all the traditional thing to do to train for rowing and it doesn't seem to appeal to you (or others). If so, enough said! Then just don't do it. Why say that what I am doing is confused, vague, or obscure in some way? It is clear as a bell, and if you want to know what it is like, just do it! Then it should be even clearer.<br /><br />As it turns out, for the last year or so, this is pretty much the _only_ thing I have been doing. I will continue this for another year. Why? The effects of this training are wonderful!<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Diary entry, 12/20/05. 16k, with regular rather than intermittent breaks. Admittedly not all 1:38 and not all r20. <br /><br /><br /><span style='color:red'><b>WORKOUT</b></span><br /><br />64 x 250m 1' rest this morning:<br /><br /><span style='color:red'><b>RESULTS</b></span><br /><br /><u>(Interval Elapsed Split Rating Watts SPI HR Range)</u><ol type='1'><li> 52.0 1:44.0 21 311 14.8 088-129</li><li> 52.0 1:44.0 21 311 14.8 092-133</li><li> 51.9 1:43.8 21 313 14.9 095-134</li><li> 51.8 1:43.6 21 315 15.0 097-135</li><li> 51.9 1:43.8 21 313 14.9 100-137</li><li> 51.9 1:43.8 20 313 15.7 101-136</li><li> 51.9 1:43.8 20 313 15.7 099-137</li><li> 51.9 1:43.8 20 313 15.7 100-137</li><li> 52.1 1:44.2 20 308 15.4 104-137</li><li> 51.4 1:42.8 20 322 16.1 105-136<br /></li><li> 52.2 1:44.4 20 308 15.4 104-137</li><li> 51.7 1:43.4 20 317 15.9 097-137</li><li> 51.7 1:43.4 20 317 15.9 103-136</li><li> 51.8 1:43.6 20 315 15.8 100-138</li><li> 52.1 1:44.2 20 309 15.5 103-137</li><li> 51.8 1:43.6 20 315 15.8 104-137</li><li> 51.8 1:43.6 20 315 15.8 106-137</li><li> 52.0 1:44.0 20 311 15.6 108-133</li><li> 52.1 1:44.2 20 309 15.5 107-137</li><li> 51.3 1:42.6 20 324 16.2 099-136<br /></li><li> 51.7 1:43.4 20 317 15.9 104-135</li><li> 51.8 1:43.6 20 315 15.8 105-136</li><li> 52.2 1:44.4 20 308 15.4 103-137</li><li> 51.8 1:43.6 20 315 15.8 103-136</li><li> 52.0 1:44.0 20 311 15.6 099-134</li><li> 51.3 1:42.6 20 324 16.2 103-132</li><li> 51.9 1:43.8 20 313 15.7 101-135</li><li> 51.9 1:43.8 20 313 15.7 104-131</li><li> 51.3 1:42.6 20 324 16.2 103-134</li><li> 51.8 1:43.6 20 315 15.8 107-136<br /></li><li> 51.5 1:43.0 20 321 16.1 101-130</li><li> 51.3 1:42.6 20 324 16.2 099-137</li><li> 51.3 1:42.6 20 324 16.2 107-135</li><li> 51.3 1:42.6 20 324 16.2 107-138</li><li> 51.5 1:43.0 20 320 16.0 109-139</li><li> 51.7 1:43.4 20 317 15.9 101-137</li><li> 51.6 1:43.2 20 318 15.9 103-137</li><li> 51.7 1:43.4 20 317 15.9 106-136</li><li> 51.7 1:43.4 20 317 15.9 107-134<br /></li><li> 51.5 1:43.0 20 320 16.0 110-137</li><li> 51.7 1:43.4 20 317 15.9 106-???</li><li> 51.5 1:43.0 20 320 16.0 106-???</li><li> 52.0 1:44.0 20 311 15.6 110-???</li><li> 51.1 1:42.2 20 328 16.4 103-131</li><li> 51.1 1:42.2 20 328 16.4 106-???</li><li> 51.4 1:42.8 20 322 16.1 109-135</li><li> 51.3 1:42.6 20 324 16.2 099-138</li><li> 50.7 1:41.4 20 336 16.8 104-135</li><li> 51.3 1:42.6 20 324 16.2 110-138</li><li> 51.6 1:43.2 20 318 15.9 107-134<br /></li><li> 51.1 1:42.2 20 328 16.4 104-137</li><li> 51.0 1:42.0 20 330 16.5 110-138</li><li> 50.8 1:41.6 20 334 16.7 108-140</li><li> 50.6 1:41.6 20 338 16.9 106-142</li><li> 50.0 1:40.0 20 350 17.5 110-141</li><li> 49.9 1:39.8 20 352 17.6 112-140</li><li> 49.7 1:39.4 21 356 17.0 116-143</li><li> 49.9 1:38.8 21 363 17.3 111-139</li><li> 49.3 1:38.6 21 365 17.4 113-137</li><li> 49.5 1:39.0 21 361 17.2 116-140<br /></li><li> 49.1 1:38.2 21 370 17.6 113-140</li><li> 48.7 1:37.4 21 379 18.0 114-144</li><li> 48.4 1:36.8 21 386 18.4 117-144</li><li> 47.4 1:34.8 20 411 20.6 118-147</li></ol><span style='color:blue'><br /><b>Average: 51.2 1:42.4 20 326 16.2</b></span><br /> <br /><span style='color:red'><b>REFLECTIONS</b></span><br /><br />16k @ 16.2 spi isn't too bad; neither is the 20.6 spi on #64. Added 1k w/u, 2k c/d, and 1282 incidental metres recorded by finishing partial strokes in the rest period. 20,282m total.