Wow! A 1:1 ratio at all rates! You're really hilarious, John! And the idea of a recovery longer than the drive being a "lopsided stroke" - you have really outdid yourself on that one. It conjures up all sorts of wild mental images. This forum is getting to be almost as amusing as it was before a certain banning occurred. I can't wait to see what you can come up with to top that. I am still wondering how far you consider my 5'10''/168# to be from average.
Bob S.
What's Considered good?
Re: What's Considered good?
On the other hand, the C2 version of a slider, i.e. the dynamic, gives even more advantage to the heavyweight ergers. It allows them to rate higher much more easily, since there is much less movement of the body mass. I have never seen an Oartec so I have no idea how they could conceivably "neutralize the advantage of weight." In a boat, more of it is submerged, so there is more drag with a heavier rower. What does the Oartec do to create a similar effect? It would be interesting to find out. Extra friction perhaps?johnlvs2run wrote:
However it's really sad that C2 can't make any slight improvements in their rowing machines to negate the advantages of dead weight vs fitness. Such dead weight is a negative on the water, and fitness obviously comes to the fore - which anyone with a brain should be able to see.
The Oartec Slider, for example, already helps to neutralize the advantage of weight on their erg.
Bob S.
Re: What's Considered good?
It's OK, John. Keep wittering on happily.
You might think you would be good at rowing, but have you ever tried it, or bothered to experiment with your ideas on water? There's a little more to it than whipping up and down the slide. It's not that difficult, but...
But back to erging, since that's what you're really talking about:
You have experimented with every rate, rating, and refinement, but until someone takes your ideas and achieves something with them, you are a sample of one, and have found a training and technique methodology that works for you - good on you.
But your methodology is predicated, I believe, on your body type, and panders to your abilities - aerobically gifted, and not a strength-focused athlete (correct me if I'm wrong). It works for you - good on you.
But in attempting to expand this to rowing (or even more widely to erging), you kind of miss the boat. Unintended, but still an OK joke. Rowing doesn't just reward height and weight, it rewards, as you've noted, fitness. However, as noted above, you've missed the important element of the whole thing: technique. You may be super-fit and strong and light, but if you're a complete spanner, you're going nowhere fast.
Your 1:1 ratio is appropriate for higher rates - take a look at Kleshnev's BioRow website, but at low rates, it's going to encourage a weak, weak drive, and a rushed recovery. You're not going anywhere like that: insufficient power, and rushing the slide. I'm not saying that you CAN'T row like that, more that you most probably shouldn't.
And no, the Danes do not train like that. When they get that sort of ratio, they are going fast and rating high. Again, look at the video of Stephansen with the band around his boat at low rate. Are you going to tell me that that is a 1:1 ratio? Take a look at Ebbesen's video presentation re: his training - how might you get the Danes' ratio and erg training rates from this?
For a more commercial look at the matter: www.rojabo.com - a site run by Bo Vestergaard, who coached Stephansen and is still involved in the Danish team training. Sign up for a program and you get a month of workouts.
There's a few workout samples settling around on this forum - look up Rojabo training. First page brings this - it's not all on one day:
"1x30min SPM: 20
3x(5+5+5)/4 SPM: 20-24-26
15/4+8 SPM: 20/22
2x10/4 SPM: 26
2x15/4 SPM: 20
6min/3+5min/3+3min/3+3min SPM: 24/28/30/32
Only one interval during the next week is scheduled at above a 26, most of the work is lower stroke work for 20-45 minutes"
OK - five pieces of evidence for you to take a look at, plus my anecdotal experience as rowing coach and athlete. At junior and masters' level, I've coached numerous National Championship winning crews. As an athlete, I've gone under 7:00 in a single, won Henley at Club level, finalled at Intermediate, and won a few National championships in Australia.
I've tried a few things here and there as well. If there's a way of stuffing up OTW work, I've found it. That's what I thought until I read your post.
You might think you would be good at rowing, but have you ever tried it, or bothered to experiment with your ideas on water? There's a little more to it than whipping up and down the slide. It's not that difficult, but...
But back to erging, since that's what you're really talking about:
You have experimented with every rate, rating, and refinement, but until someone takes your ideas and achieves something with them, you are a sample of one, and have found a training and technique methodology that works for you - good on you.
But your methodology is predicated, I believe, on your body type, and panders to your abilities - aerobically gifted, and not a strength-focused athlete (correct me if I'm wrong). It works for you - good on you.
But in attempting to expand this to rowing (or even more widely to erging), you kind of miss the boat. Unintended, but still an OK joke. Rowing doesn't just reward height and weight, it rewards, as you've noted, fitness. However, as noted above, you've missed the important element of the whole thing: technique. You may be super-fit and strong and light, but if you're a complete spanner, you're going nowhere fast.
Your 1:1 ratio is appropriate for higher rates - take a look at Kleshnev's BioRow website, but at low rates, it's going to encourage a weak, weak drive, and a rushed recovery. You're not going anywhere like that: insufficient power, and rushing the slide. I'm not saying that you CAN'T row like that, more that you most probably shouldn't.
And no, the Danes do not train like that. When they get that sort of ratio, they are going fast and rating high. Again, look at the video of Stephansen with the band around his boat at low rate. Are you going to tell me that that is a 1:1 ratio? Take a look at Ebbesen's video presentation re: his training - how might you get the Danes' ratio and erg training rates from this?
For a more commercial look at the matter: www.rojabo.com - a site run by Bo Vestergaard, who coached Stephansen and is still involved in the Danish team training. Sign up for a program and you get a month of workouts.
There's a few workout samples settling around on this forum - look up Rojabo training. First page brings this - it's not all on one day:
"1x30min SPM: 20
3x(5+5+5)/4 SPM: 20-24-26
15/4+8 SPM: 20/22
2x10/4 SPM: 26
2x15/4 SPM: 20
6min/3+5min/3+3min/3+3min SPM: 24/28/30/32
Only one interval during the next week is scheduled at above a 26, most of the work is lower stroke work for 20-45 minutes"
OK - five pieces of evidence for you to take a look at, plus my anecdotal experience as rowing coach and athlete. At junior and masters' level, I've coached numerous National Championship winning crews. As an athlete, I've gone under 7:00 in a single, won Henley at Club level, finalled at Intermediate, and won a few National championships in Australia.
I've tried a few things here and there as well. If there's a way of stuffing up OTW work, I've found it. That's what I thought until I read your post.