Soranger wrote:
I am not using SPI as a measure of performance.
I am using SPI as a concept for organizing training.
.... It's worth pointing out that C2 in the UK isn't C2 in the US, so you're speaking of two very distinct entities as though they were one. It's also worth pointing out that censoring you here is entirely possible, C2US just choose not to do it. Interestingly, that means that what you just said is a lie. Did you want to retract your lie?ranger wrote:No, C2 prefers censorship to disagreement, if this is possible, as on the UK forum.
- SPI alone does not provide pace and rate, which are the 2 important pieces of information (as the goals for low rate vs high rate work are different). A particular SPI can be achieved with wildly varying rates/paces, each combination having a different goal.ranger wrote:I am not using SPI as a measure of performance.mikvan52 wrote:Don't get caught in the SPI trap:
Do we maintain that when an individual rows on the erg with a higher spi that more effort is involved?
Higher wattage and/or lower spm implies an answer of "YES", categorically.
However, this is not true.
Don't believe me?
Then, strap on the trusty heart rate belt an do your best on two test pieces at 30 spm and 16 spm...
You will find that at 16 spm you can get a higher spi with a lower heart rate than you can at 30 spm.
This shows the fault in regarding spi as an absolute measure of performance.
Nothing wrong with it being a rough measure over the realm of different stroke rates... but it "rewards" lower rates disproportionately.
Nice thread, Rich!
You've got everyone spinning and sputtering.
I am using SPI as a concept for organizing training.
Because those the same size and age usually row a 2K at just about the same rate, in a race, SPI and pace are pretty much equivalent and therefore SPI has nothing to add to the usual talk about pace.
In a 2K, where everyone is going up and down the slide at the same rate, the rower with the highest pace/SPI wins.
As concepts for organizing training, SPI and pace are wildly different, though.
I am advocating using SPI.
The rate and pace combinations in the IP and the WP are implicitly a reference to SPI.
So why not make this explicit?
SPI is pace (in wattage) divided by rate.
ranger
That's a terrible thing to suggest, but.....hang on.....chgoss wrote: Your issue has never been that you advocate the use of SPI per se, your issue is that you advocate the use of a single stroke (or a few number of strokes) to measure "rowing well" as you define it, and you like SPI because it doesnt require revealing a measurement of time/distance.
This is preposterous! Letting logic and facts get in the way of a good story.KevJGK wrote:That's a terrible thing to suggest, but.....hang on.....chgoss wrote: Your issue has never been that you advocate the use of SPI per se, your issue is that you advocate the use of a single stroke (or a few number of strokes) to measure "rowing well" as you define it, and you like SPI because it doesnt require revealing a measurement of time/distance.
By Jove, I think He's Got it!
rjw wrote:This is preposterous! Letting logic and facts get in the way of a good story.KevJGK wrote:That's a terrible thing to suggest, but.....hang on.....chgoss wrote: Your issue has never been that you advocate the use of SPI per se, your issue is that you advocate the use of a single stroke (or a few number of strokes) to measure "rowing well" as you define it, and you like SPI because it doesnt require revealing a measurement of time/distance.
By Jove, I think He's Got it!
I dont know what came over me... Yes, I advocate the use of SPI per se as a definition of rowing well. Rowing well is 13 SPI for lightweights; 16 SPI for heavyweights.chgoss wrote:Your issue has never been that you advocate the use of SPI per se, your issue is that you advocate the use of a single stroke (or a few number of strokes) to measure "rowing well" as you define it, and you like SPI because it doesnt require revealing a measurement of time/distance.
ranger wrote:
Foundational rowing is naturally done at low rates (16-24), but it doesn't matter which ones.
Distance rowing is naturally done at moderate rates (25-33 spm), but it doesn't matter which ones.
Sharpening is naturally done at high rates (34-42 spm), but it doesn't matter which ones.
leadville wrote:Ranger - you seem to be conflating erging with rowing. The two are related but not identical. SPI is most definitely NOT the definition of rowing well; it may - or may not be the definition of erging well.
If you pull great numbers and scull well, you'll go fast in a 1x. If you pull great numbers and scull poorly, you will be slow. And if you pull great numbers and scull only moderately well, you will find yourself behind scullers that row very well and pull lower numbers on the erg.
Please stop conflating the two. It may lead to confusion on the part of newcomers.
I don't know if you have raced on the water; perhaps you could share results if you have or provide insight into your performance in a 1x.
Mike, working on technique:Ranger wrote: April 14, 2009: (To Mike VB)
I don't think there is anything that prevents me from ending up as skilled, or even more skilled, that you are OTW.
April 22, 2009: Most of rowing well is sequencing your levers (being fast with your legs while delaying your back and arms) and then suspending yourself completely on the handle (lifting yourself up off the seat with your legs and remaining there all the way back to prep position).
April 22, 2009: I have been doing dedicated and focused OTW rowing for five years.
]April 27, 2009: I can hold a solid 2:00 @ 30 spm.
Massive improvement from last year: lighter grip on the oars, cleaner catches and finishes, better clearance of my blades on recoveries, more horizontal pull, better timing
with my legs and back, quicker recoveries, etc.
I now know how to row.
I have made steady progress OTW, since I started to row OTW in the summer of 2003.
My technique work on the erg has helped my OTW a lot.
I am now ready to race OTW.
Indeed.mikvan52 wrote:Soranger wrote:
I am not using SPI as a measure of performance.
I am using SPI as a concept for organizing training.
Someone who ergs with an inordinately low spi (in your humble opinion)
is therefore disorganized (rather than weak)...
That is truly an interesting distinction.
