Legs

[ranger]

You're not in the same league as any of these athletes.

No one is making general athletic comparisons.

Just erging going on here, in my case, among a bunch of old farts.

If I had been 50, my lwt 6:28 in 2003 would have been exactly comparable to Cashin's hwt 6:11 at 50.

I was a couple of months shy of 53.

We'll see what I can do with the 55s lwt WR this winter, when I am fully trained.

Cashin's hwt 6:18 at 55 is exactly comparable to a lwt 6:41 at 58.

This is just what I pulled last year, without even preparing for it.

ranger

[rsieminski]

All this talk is what you plan on doing?? Do you have any documented times, that have already happened?

HJS,
That video is insane. Thanks!

[whp4]

claiming one is going to break the world record, and then lower that record for another 6 races in the following couple of months?

Yep.

Sounds good to me.

If I am fully trained up for races this winter, this should be a cinch.

As I showed last year, if I get in a good race from week to week, I get a couple of seconds better in each race.

So, across six races, from the end of January to early March, I get about a dozen seconds better.

The goal this year will be to start at pb levels (6:28) and then move down a dozen seconds from there.

In 2003, I started at 6:40 and moved down to 6:28.

And last year, after all your races, you didn't even get to where you started in 2003, despite all your claims about being much better now!

[ranger]

And last year, after all your races, you didn't even get to where you started in 2003

In 2003, I did only hard distance rowing and sharpening in December, January, and February, to prepare for WIRC.

Last year, I did _no_ hard distance rowing and sharpening in December, January, and February, to prepare for WIRC

I just did foundational training.

You need to compare apples to apples.

This year, I am just doing hard distance rowing and sharpening in December, January, and February, to prepare for WIRC, as I did in 2003.

So, let's see how things turn out.

Then, we can compare.

ranger

[ranger]

All this talk is what you plan on doing?? Do you have any documented times, that have already happened?
s!

A lwt 6:28 when I was a couple months shy of 53 years old.

Three WR 50s lwt rows (6:30, 6:29, 6:28).

Golds in all the major championships, twice at BIRC (both championship records).

Goal for WIRC 2010 (after six years of preparation): 6:16

ranger

P.S. The Open lwt gold at BIRC 2009 was Stu Bizzarri's 6:34.4

[rsieminski]

A lwt 6:28 when I was a couple months shy of 53 years old.

Three WR 50s lwt rows (6:30, 6:29, 6:28).

So these are documented WR's? Can you post a link? I think it would give you some credibility.

[eliotsmith]

There are lots of rowing styles.

The "truth" is what works.

If they are rowing to the limits of their potential, WR-holders are never wrong.

If I row well, I think the limits of my potential are a dozen seconds better than what I pulled in 2003.

My force curve is now perfect.

No problems with my technique.

If your force curve looks like the first one, you need to do a lot of foundational training at low rates and high stroking powers to improve the effectiveness of your legs.

Let's do a good 'ol ranger review so as to all get confused and befuddled; since nobody will ever beat ranger in a race, at least "potentially", our responses to his posts might get us close to his number of posts. On the other hand, who would want to have a posting conversation with himself?

First, the above quotes are out of order. The last one is the first chronologically. It stands as the reminder, always necessary when reading ranger, of what he first said. We must always keep this in mind so that we don't get too involved in the later ramblings, only to have him pull one over on us. This is what he does when confronted by Kangaroo. In his earliest post on this topic of legs, he seems to be directing others how they should row. This is apparent from his use of "you" and "your" rather than "in my opinion" or "I". He says explicitly, "you need to do". This sounds inevitable and like it is informed by an actual idea of rowing perfection. Then, as we see, the "truth" becomes relative; recall "the truth is what works". This is subjective. It is the relativists master attack. It allows the attacker to effectively deny previous statement that sounded absolute. An example would be a political discussion where one person says, "I think we must pull out of this war in Afghanistan." Then another person starts to point out the difficulties/complexities with that position as stated. So the original person might end the discussion with "Well, to each his own," or "There is no right answer to such a complex problem." This allows the person to never stand behind their original statement as absolutely true, thus allowing them the ability to always be "right" and never "wrong".

I won't bore y'all right now with anything further on this but consider for a moment his use of the word potential. Potential here is rather meaningless because it has no real meaning until you see the actual time at a race. If you don't meet your presumed potential at the race, then it wasn't really your potential, was it? A lot of talk about potential fools people into reading that as something 'real'. [/quote]

[slwiser]

An interesting subject is potential.

Something that I am beginning to do is compare by best efforts to date in a projection spreadsheet which gives me a potential for all of the 9 events that I have performed. Then I actually take a percentage comparison of what I have actually performed at this time against the projection. This tells me how much of my potential that I am at any particular time. This I think lets me know how my training is coming progressing in a somewhat different manner than a traditional view.

No I don't say I can do what I have not done but the projection allows me to compare what I have done to a potential person using my best efforts in my latest best efforts across all of the possible events. Over time I would expect somewhat of an asymptotic relationship from potential to actual to develop. It also may be another way to look at a long term failure to fully recover if the relationship starts diverging.

[ranger]

Potential here is rather meaningless because it has no real meaning until you see the actual time at a race. If you don't meet your presumed potential at the race, then it wasn't really your potential, was it?

I think there are lots of ways to estimate your potential.

I have pulled sub-6:30 without hard distance rowing and sharpening to prepare for it, just on the basis of foundational rowing.

I have rated 36 spm in a 2K.

I now pull 12 SPI.

12 SPI @ 35 spm is 1:34/6:16.

etc.

ranger

[KevJGK]

An interesting subject is potential.

A young boy asked his father, "Dad, what is the difference between potentially and realistically?"

The father thought for a moment, then answered, "Go ask your mother if she would sleep with Robert Redford for a million dollars. Then ask your sister if she would sleep with Brad Pitt for a million dollars, and then, ask your brother if he'd sleep with Tom Cruise for a million dollars. Come back and tell me what you learn from that."

So the boy asked his mother, "Would you sleep with Robert Redford for a million dollars?" The mother replied, "Of course I would!"

The boy asked his sister, "Would you sleep with Brad Pitt for a million dollars?" The girl replied, "Oh my God! I LOVE Brad Pitt! I would sleep with him in a heartbeat, are you nuts?!?!?"

The boy then asked his brother, "Would you sleep with Tom Cruise for a million dollars?" "Of course," the brother replied. "Do you know how much a million could buy?"

The boy pondered the answers, then went back to his dad. His father asked him, "Did you find out the difference between potentially and realistically?"

The boy replied, "Yes, Sir. Potentially, you and I are sitting on three million dollars. But, realistically, we're living with two sluts and a queer.

[eliotsmith]

to KevJGK

slwiser, yours sounds like a "realistic" approach to training. However, whenever mapping progress like this, in a scientific manner, we are forced to say, "this is what seems true for these specific variables, all other things being equal." But all other things are never equal. You are able to compare the two variables of "you now" versus "you at the best you have done", but these variables can become so complicated with their relationship to other complex variables like diet, technique adjustments (perceived or otherwise), current life stress level from other activities, etc.

[hjs]

All this talk is what you plan on doing?? Do you have any documented times, that have already happened?

HJS,
That video is insane. Thanks!

yeah really nice eh but for some strange reason I can,t find a FM result from this guy, accourding to the nutty pro, the fastest sprinter also has the fastest fm

[rsieminski]

Kev,
Too funny. I'm still chuckling.


So did ranger really break the 2k WR 3 times, or is this his potential projected extrapolated WR? Since this question has been avoided, I'm guessing that it's all BS!


Who trains for 6 yrs, and never tests in the event, to evaluate their progress, or to change the direction of their training? Is this guy for real? Is he serous? I can't tell. Does his elevator go all the way to the top floor?

[hjs]

Kev,
Too funny. I'm still chuckling.


So did ranger really break the 2k WR 3 times, or is this his potential projected extrapolated WR? Since this question has been avoided, I'm guessing that it's all BS!


Who trains for 6 yrs, and never tests in the event, to evaluate their progress, or to change the direction of their training? Is this guy for real? Is he serous? I can't tell. Does his elevator go all the way to the top floor?

yes he did, in his first racing year, as a matter of fact his first 2k race ever is still his alltime pb, after he that tried and succeded in becomming a lightweight, but his heavyweight time never got broken, so from te first moment on he only got slower.

In 2006 he again had a good race 6.29.x but this was again a heavyweight time, he ws above 85 kg then, the rest of the season he tried to lower his weight but that did not work, after 2006 he mostly dnf, dns or rowed above 6.50, his 6.30 years are long gone buy. lot's of times above 7.00

[ranger]

A lwt 6:28 when I was a couple months shy of 53 years old.

Three WR 50s lwt rows (6:30, 6:29, 6:28).

So these are documented WR's? Can you post a link? I think it would give you some credibility.

Credibility?

For WR rows?

I'm not sure what you mean.

Of course WR rows are credible.

They have to be done in public, preferably at the major championships.

I pulled a WR 6:30 at WIRC 2003, a WR 6:29 in a public USIRT trial in the fall of 2003, and a WR 6:28 at BIRC 2003.

Since then, I have been doing foundational rowing, working on my weaknesses, trying to get better.

Besides me, no WR-holder, 40-70 years old, has ever better.

They have all just gotten worse.

This winter, I am going to try to reverse this trend.

ranger