6:28 2K

[Steve G]

Rich
Did I miss the daily screenshot of your Tanita scales, alongside your daily 16K+ for the hour which you promised?

Steve

[ranger]

Therefore given your pb last year was 6'40 something, minus the twelve seconds you will/might get from sharpening you are right back where you started at around 6.28. Of course to get a dozen seconds each from distance rowing and hard sharpening puts you around, lets see 6.27 minus 24 =6.03. Mate with a little bit of effort you will go under 6. What a legend!!

No, from 6:41, which I did last year without distance rowing or sharpening, just as an AT row, an additional 12 seconds ech from distance rowing and sharpening is 6:17, right around my 2K target/

For someone my age and weight, 6:41 is WR pace.

I will be 59 next week.

The 60s lwt WR is 6:42.

ranger

[stroke]

Therefore given your pb last year was 6'40 something, minus the twelve seconds you will/might get from sharpening you are right back where you started at around 6.28. Of course to get a dozen seconds each from distance rowing and hard sharpening puts you around, lets see 6.27 minus 24 =6.03. Mate with a little bit of effort you will go under 6. What a legend!!

No, from 6:41, which I did last year without distance rowing or sharpening, just as an AT row, an additional 12 seconds ech from distance rowing and sharpening is 6:17, right around my 2K target/

For someone my age and weight, 6:41 is WR pace.

I will be 59 next week.

The 60s lwt WR is 6:42.

ranger

Ah yes but as you frequently state, in fact ad nauseum "you are much better (faster)than that now" Therefore if you are much better than the 6.27 pb, plus the sharpening twelve seconds, go for 6. 6.16 is for wimps. You cant have it both ways either you are much better now or you do not get twelve seconds from sharpening and distance rowing, you choose

[stroke]

Therefore given your pb last year was 6'40 something, minus the twelve seconds you will/might get from sharpening you are right back where you started at around 6.28. Of course to get a dozen seconds each from distance rowing and hard sharpening puts you around, lets see 6.27 minus 24 =6.03. Mate with a little bit of effort you will go under 6. What a legend!!

No, from 6:41, which I did last year without distance rowing or sharpening, just as an AT row, an additional 12 seconds ech from distance rowing and sharpening is 6:17, right around my 2K target/

For someone my age and weight, 6:41 is WR pace.

I will be 59 next week.

The 60s lwt WR is 6:42.

ranger

Sorry Captain the 55-59 World record is 6.38.1 a certain Roy Brook remember. Let me refresh your memory 59 is not 60.
Still never mind 6.41 is not too shabby

[ranger]

Rich
Did I miss the daily screenshot of your Tanita scales, alongside your daily 16K+ for the hour which you promised?

Steve

Uh.

Well.

Weight?

Just a second, I'll see what it is.

ranger

[ranger]

Yikes.

Fatty today.

This is after breakfast, though, three eggs, toast, and coffee.



I include a shot of my %fat this time: 13.1%.

As I have been saying, that gives me 144 lbs. of non-fat body mass.

It would be nice to lose about six pounds before the end of season.

This might indeed happen, just from the amount of work I will do, especially if I keep a strict diet.

About a pound a week.

That would take me down to 9% body fat.

According to _Rowing Faster_, a young elite rower, on the average, is 9% body fat.

ranger

[leadville]

I defer to the consensus of the group (removed by author)

[ranger]

If you thought we were confused/frustrated by Ranger, read a few comments by the professor's students.

His overall ratings are pretty abysmal; on a 1-5 scale with 5 at the top: clarity - 1.8 (shocking!), quality - 2.1, helpfulness - 2.3 (not much time to actually teach and help students when you're stepping and riding and erging for six hours a day and posting for a couple more...). Alas, all that working out is not helping his hotness rating, which is a 0.

http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRat ... tid=421932

Here are a few telling excerpts:

"Worst professor I have ever had. While he is passionate about poetry, he only expresses his own opinions and theories that are incomprehensible to anyone but himself. He can hardly explain his theory to others, as it changes almost constantly. Absolutely horrible- take ANY other prof. He actually made me decide not to become an English teacher."

"Professor Cureton is completely horrible. His theory is insane and in the papers thats all he wants you to talk about. If you can finally get what he wants though, the class is easy, basically use the coursepack and all the analysis he does for you beforehand. I /rarely/ came to class. He just drivels on about nothing. And he's kinda creepy. Avoid."

"Just avoid him... I'm sure he knows his stuff, but he's boring as can be. Don't even bother going to class. And, for his papers, he hates certain words more than concepts. Basically, his class is worthless and it will not make you enjoy poetry or even look at it in a new way. In office hours, he'll just ramble on, so dont' even bother."

"He only references himself, and suggests that you do the same in your papers."

Ranger isn't the only autodidact in his classes; unfortunately his students have no other choice.

Students are always free to use whatever theory of poetic organization they would like in order to write their papers in my poetry course, if the theory accounts for the poem in an inclusive way and is generalizable across poems.

But no, students can't just say whatever they would like, responding arbitrarily to local contexts and in ways that are not inclusive, cannot apply generally, and therefore are not available to others.

Oh, I don't know, but I would say that about 80% of my students master my theory of poetry perfectly and get an 'A' in the course, so the concepts described are certainly clear, although, because of their difficulty, it is indeed true that not everyone masters them and so some students do indeed go away frustrated.

Thus, the comments you cite (undoubtedly from some of these students).

As the course is arranged now, after we learn the poetics in the first half of the course, the students themselves research and present the poems we study in the second half of the course.

So if the students find the course boring and don't come to class, because they don't find it useful, it is not my fault.

You get out of education what you put into it.

Sure, if you put little into it, you get little out of it.

In the first half of the semester, entirely beyond the call of duty, I meet with each student outside of class three times over three ungraded papers to give them personal attention with difficulties they are having, both with concepts and with writing, before they do graded papers that are officially evaluated.

In all, these conferences, in each class, take about 50 hours of my time, given that the class is usually 30-35 students.

I usually teach my introduction to poetry three times a year.

I teach other things, too.

No, my theory of poetry doesn't change constantly.

It has been the same since I put it together about 20 years ago.

It is published in 20 articles or so; I have presented it all over the world for two decades; and it will soon be out in book form.

This summer I have been invited to be a visiting professor in China and will be presenting my theory there.

My students have a 600-page coursepack that contains materials explaining and applying my theory of poetry, in all of its dimensions.

Descriptively, the theory contains a treatment of poetic rhythm, poetic language, poetic rhetoric, and poetic symbolism, as well as an explicit theory of how they interrelate.

In terms of interpretation, the theory treats poetic modes, genres, textures, and styles.

ranger

[ranger]

Sorry Captain the 55-59 World record is 6.38.1 a certain Roy Brook

Roy who?

Is he still racing on the erg, or is his rocket lost in space?

Will he be at WIRC this year to defend his WR?

What did he pull last year for 2K?

ranger

[ranger]

not much time to actually teach and help students when you're stepping and riding and erging for six hours a day

I do all of my rowing, stepping, and riding before breakfast and then just have a normal work day.

I only sleep five hours.

I usually go to bed early (9-10 p.m.) and get up early (2-3 p.m.).

That usually leaves plenty of time to do what I want to do with my rowing and cross-training before I need to be over on campus (about 9 a.m.).

Lately, I have been spending 3-4 hours on my rowing and cross-training, not six.

If I do as much as six hours a day, I do it on the weekends.

ranger

[ranger]

Rich
Did I miss the daily screenshot of your Tanita scales, alongside your daily 16K+ for the hour which you promised?

Steve

I'll get some screenshots of hour rows, too, but not today.

This distance rowing is going _very_ well.

ranger

[Den-J]

If you thought we were confused/frustrated by Ranger, read a few comments by the professor's students.

This is a rowing forum and while it's ok to tear rangers training apart I think attacking his work is just plain wrong what are you going to do next find some neighbours who dislike him? lets just keep it about rowing ok

[ranger]

If you thought we were confused/frustrated by Ranger, read a few comments by the professor's students.

This is a rowing forum and while it's ok to tear rangers training apart I think attacking his work is just plain wrong what are you going to do next find some neighbours who dislike him? lets just keep it about rowing ok

Citing comments by disgruntled students is not attacking my work.

I would be happy to have leadville attack my work.

That's what academic work is all about, proposals and refutations, hopefully based on evidence and argument.

I would especially be delighted to hear about a poetics that is more inclusive and adequate than mine.

I don't hear any of that from leadville.

I don't know whether he knows my work at all.

He gives no evidence or arguments against my work.

Innuendo is not criticism.

Student bitching and moaning is often indulgent self-obsession, not substantial criticism.

Citing student comments as evidence against scholarly work is wildly oblique to any substantial intellectual critique.

Adolescents have all sorts of problems, many of which they are personally responsible for but take out on others, usually authority figures.

Anyone who has raised children to adulthood (I have raised three) knows this intimately.

ranger

[ranger]

it's ok to tear rangers training apart

Sure, but any critique of my training would be very odd, I think, given that no one my age and weight at the moment can outrow me.

If things work out well this year, I might be as much as 20 seconds under the 55s lwt WR.

And my training is poor?

Go figure.

ranger

[Rocket Roy]

What did he pull last year for 2K?

ranger

Enough to win the WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP'S. No need to go any faster.

I won't be there this year as I'm concentrating on the Cycling Time Trial WC's. But I'll be back when I'm 60...