Ranger's training thread

[ranger]

Chump.

I would also accept a video from you of your PM4 doing 500m, 1:43 @ 29 spm (11 SPI, 10 MPS) with perfectly consistent stroking.

Keep the screen on the force curve so we can see the consistency of your drives.

And include HR so that we can see the level of your effort.

So no need for language, especially abusive language like this.

Just a need for action.

Honestly, I don't think that anyone rows that way when they just relax into it and row naturally, but I am happy to find out that I am wrong.

Perhaps people _are_ motors, and I just think erroneously that they aren't.

Go figure.

Dang.

I should check my tires, spark plugs, and pistons.

Maybe I can get some new ones.



ranger

[KevJGK]

I just said I would also accept a video .....that makes your point about the efficiency of absolutely consistent stroking.....

Let me try to help.

1. I am nowhere near as fast as you.
2. Your last 2K was 07:02.x
3. My last 2K was 06:59.5

Have a look at these stroke charts and guess which was yours and which was mine.

[snowleopard]

Have a look at these stroke charts and guess which was yours and which was mine.

I just love the idea that a dysfunctional, lying, drunk, fat, geriatric, 7:02 erger thinks that his video is some kind of bargaining chip

I just said I would also accept a video

[ranger]

So, you folks are really saying that, say, in a 2K, a race that you rowed exactly even splits but your individual strokes varied two spm and two seconds per 500m over and under your target would be _very_ inefficient rowing, even if the strokes that varied were usually exactly the same stroking power?

Wow.

So, if I rowed a 2K with exactly flat splits at an average of 1:38 @ 31 spm (12 SPI), but a lot of my strokes were 1:37 @ 32 spm, or 1:38 @ 33 spm, or 1:38 @ 30 spm, or 1:39 @ 30 spm, or 1:38 @ 32 spm, or 1:37 @ 33 spm, or whatever, I would really be rowing badly?

Wow.

I didn't know that.

Someone post a video doing a race pace 500m at 10 MPS and show me the alternative.

ranger

[hjs]

now hjs also has to post a video before ranger posts the one he supposedly has sitting in his camera

No, not at all.

I just said I would also accept a video from hjs that makes your point about the efficiency of absolutely consistent stroking, and once the point is made, I would post my pathetically ragged counterpart.

ranger

So to show your pitty poor video I have to drag my camera to the gym, do some training I don't see any point in doing, have someone film me, take that home put it on youtube and post it to you.

So I have to do all sorts of work and get about less then zero in return. So why on earth would I do that?

[Byron Drachman]

I've got the video of my 500, 1:34 @ 32 spm (13 SPI, 10 MPS). So, now I am just waiting on macroth's. After he posts his video and we have time to examine it closely and discuss it thoroughly, as he likes to do, I'll post mine.

I believe that. That's wonderful news. It proves that your training has been a huge success. Inspired by your example, I just ran a sub four minute mile. It was with a steady heart rate of 155. I'll show the video of my mile run as soon as you post your video of your 500m row.

[ranger]

Let me try to help.

The only way to help is by posting a video of your monitor while you are doing a race pace 500m at 10 MPS.

As with Mike VB, for you, I would also accept 1:43 @ 29 spm (11 SPI, 10 MPS), which is the nearest point to your 2K pace on the 10 MPS ladder.

Keep the PM4 screen on the force curve so that we can see the consistency of your stroking.

Include HR so that we can see the level of your effort.

If you can row right on the split for 50 strokes, without varying a couple of strokes per minute and a couple of seconds per 500m on each side of the target, even though you are pulling flat splits, I'll post the video of my pathetically undisciplined counterpart, 1:34 @ 32 spm.

ranger

[MRapp]

I'm confused. Is ranger denying the mathematical fact that the least number of watts to complete a piece is with perfectly even pacing? Or is he simply being a difficult troll in order to draw attention to himself? And KeV is right, save your worthless video. I'd much rather see a screenshot of something that is even somewhat difficult to achieve.

[macroth]

Keep trying, old man. I can almost hear those gears grinding and see the fumes coming out of your ears.

Another few strawmen and you should have figured it out.

[JimR]

Well played ranger ... this is an interesting new gambit on how to avoid showing anything that would provide details about what you are actually doing (or capable of doing).

The only thing we know for certain from the last 8 years is you are better at not providing details. That and not paying your debts.

JimR

[ranger]

Is ranger denying the mathematical fact that the least number of watts to complete a piece is with perfectly even pacing?

No, perfectly even _stroking_.

Sure, perfectly even pacing (e.g., over each 500m of a 2K, or even over each 100m of a 500m is probably the most efficient way to row, but no one stays on exactly the same pace and rate from stroke to stroke.

Variation is natural and therefore inevitable, if you are relaxing completely.

It also serves various functions I suspect--the use of slightly different muscles, the exertion of slightly more or less energy, which provides either excitement or relief, etc.

The body is not a motor; neither is the mind.

ranger

[JimR]

I'm confused. Is ranger denying the mathematical fact that the least number of watts to complete a piece is with perfectly even pacing? Or is he simply being a difficult troll in order to draw attention to himself? And KeV is right, save your worthless video. I'd much rather see a screenshot of something that is even somewhat difficult to achieve.

Keep trying, old man. I can almost hear those gears grinding and see the fumes coming out of your ears.

I think you both are forgetting that sports are arts ... there is no math or logic involved.

JimR

[macroth]

I'm confused. Is ranger denying the mathematical fact that the least number of watts to complete a piece is with perfectly even pacing? Or is he simply being a difficult troll in order to draw attention to himself? And KeV is right, save your worthless video. I'd much rather see a screenshot of something that is even somewhat difficult to achieve.

Keep trying, old man. I can almost hear those gears grinding and see the fumes coming out of your ears.

I think you both are forgetting that sports are arts ... there is no math or logic involved.

JimR

Right, the art of SPI. Carry on, then.

Here's a nice work of art:

[ranger]

BTW, in my distance rowing, I now like to do what I call "sweep-stroking," to keep long.

In this "sweep-stroking," I take the catch first to the left, then to the right, then to the left, then to the right, etc., even though, I am not entirely balanced, left to right, and so this leads to slight variations in stroking power and therefore pace and rate.

The effect of the rowing overall, though, is _enormously_ effective and efficient.

Paddlers have used these technique forever.

Row on the right for twenty strokes; then row on the left; etc.

Each time you switch sides, the relief is enormous--and therefore energizing.

For the erg, sweep-stroking has other advantages, because it is much easier to get maximal length if you rotate your body as you descend into the catch, as you do in a sweep stroke.

When you pull, it is also easier (and relieving) to leverage the stroke at the footplate if you alternate the legs and feet that generate the majority of the force.

Sure, you can't do this when you are sculling, but then again, the erg is not a 1x.

In fact, I would guess that the vast majority of folks who train on the erg are sweep-rowers, not scullers.

ranger

[PaulH]

So, you folks are really saying that, say, in a 2K, a race that you rowed exactly even splits but your individual strokes varied two spm and two seconds per 500m over and under your target would be _very_ inefficient rowing, even if the strokes that varied were usually exactly the same stroking power?

No, and I challenge you to find the quote where anybody said that. We're saying that it's _less_ efficient than rowing even splits with even pace. Being less efficient is not the same as being "_very_ inefficient", as someone with your qualifications in English should be able to grasp.

But yes, it is less efficient. This isn't a matter of opinion, but physics. The less even your pace is for a given speed, the more energy you must produce overall. As someone with a much better grasp of such things than you once said, "In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics".