Ranger's training thread

[PaulH]

Thanks for that, Byron - I'd just dug up the same quote!

So, ranger, when you said "bar none" you actually meant "bar many", is that what you're trying to say?

[ranger]

Thanks for that, Byron - I'd just dug up the same quote!

So, ranger, when you said "bar none" you actually meant "bar many", is that what you're trying to say?

No, "bar none," for my age and weight, on the erg.

At least up through the 60s, the WRs occur in regular order, and therefore, handicapping for age and weight, can be compared.

Given this regular order (a decline with age of about a second over 2K per year after 20), it is pretty clear when there is a "soft" WR, one that can be easily beaten, or a "hard" WR, one that will probably stand for a long time, if not forever.

For that age and weight class, a lwt 6:16 at 60 would be _wildly_ out of sync with this regular historical order among the WRs--in terms of decline with age, by over 50%.

A lwt 6:16 at 60 would be only 18 seconds slower than the Open lwt 2K WR, even though the 60s age class is advanced by 40 years beyond the Open age class.

Relative to age and weight, then, and on the erg, a lwt 6:16 2K at 60 would be _wildly_ unprecedented.

In fact, it would redefine standards in the older age groups, demonstrating, I think, that, at the limit, physiological and skeletal-motor decline with age in rowing is really only about half of what we thought it was, more like .5 seconds over 2K per year after 20 rather than 1 second per year over 2K after 20.

The rest of the decline has been due to other issues--regularity and intensity of training, technique, lifestyle, coaching, misguided information, etc.--in essence, just historical, social, and cultural accident, which can be easily countered/resisted by the resourceful individual.

No need to do what others do, especially if it isn't productive/beneficial/healthy/wise/etc.!

ranger

[ranger]

What puzzles me no end is what in the world other 60s lwts, those who row 2:03 @ 21 spm at UT2 (and the like), pulling 9 SPI, attend to technically when they are training.

They are only taking 2/3 of a stroke!

They are missing 1/3 of what goes into rowing well!

They are willfully rowing like shit, destroying forever, on each stroke, their chances of ever being any good at the sport!

How is that possible?

Would some other 60s lwt who pulls 2:03 @ 21 spm (9 SPI) post a video of your rowing at this rate and pace so that we can see what you are doing so drastically wrong?

Are you short-sliding?

Are you failing to sequence and time your levers?

Are you failing to use your legs?

Or your back?

Or your arms?

Are you firing off at the catch from your heels?

Are you losing contact with the footplate at the finish, remaining on your heels?

What?

What?

Has someone given you some wildly misconceived conception of the rowing stroke?

If so, who?

For a lightweight, rowing well is 1:48 @ 21 spm (13 SPI), fifteen seconds per 500m faster at the same rate.

That's almost 100 watts!

ranger

[ranger]

As Mike C. tells us clearly, to pull a 6:16 2K, you need to be able to row an easy 1:48 @ 21 spm for, say, 10K.

Or 20K.

Or even a FM, 42K.

Or, heck, for as long as you want.

1:48 @ 21 spm (13 SPI) is the Level 4 rate and pace combination in the WP for a 6:16 2K.

I now pull 1:48 @ 21 spm (13 SPI) just naturally, no problem.

ranger

[PaulH]

Thanks for that, Byron - I'd just dug up the same quote!

So, ranger, when you said "bar none" you actually meant "bar many", is that what you're trying to say?

No, "bar none," for my age and weight, on the erg.

That's quite a distinction, isn't it? Instead of being one of the best of thousands of rowers, you'll be one of the best out of a group of a few dozen. Doesn't seem nearly as impressive, really. But I guess better to claim that that's what you were saying, rather than what you were clearly actually saying.

Going back to the quote, "by the end of this indoor rowing season (2011), it will be clear that I am one of the best ergers in the history of the sport, if not the best, bar none"

Do you feel it's now clear, given that you only recorded one time in the whole of the season, and it was for a 7+ minute 2k?

[ranger]

Instead of being one of the best of thousands of rowers, you'll be one of the best out of a group of a few dozen.

Nope.

The number of participants in any age group is irrelevant.

At the moment, _all_ of the WRs occur in a regular order, despite _massive_ differences in numbers of participants.

A 6:16 2K at 60 would be so wildly out of sync with this natural order that it would redefine standards in the sport.

It would be 26 seconds under to 60s lwt WR.

It would break the 55s lwt WR by 22 seconds.

It would break the 50s lwt WR by 9 seconds.

It would break the 40s lwt WR by 2 seconds.

It would be faster than _both_ the 60s and 55s heavyweight WRs.

Yes, it would be as fast as this guy, now 38, the best rower of our time, both OTErg and OTW, who is now looking for his fourth Olympic gold (his fifth Olympic medal overall).



If Eskild E. pulls 6:16 at 38, the prediction, given historical trends, is that, even if he remains active in rowing and tries as hard as he can, the best he will do at 60 will be a lwt 6:38, and even so, only if he can still make weight.

ranger

[PaulH]

That's the bit that puzzles me - you're saying that your performance (should it ever happen) will be better than the equivalent performance of the rower you claim is the best of all time, allowing for the natural decline with age. Hence you are claiming not that you're the best for your age/weight, but that you're (amongst) the best of all time.

Now, do you feel it's clear as you said it would be that you're in that elite club, given the results of the 2011 season?

[ranger]

That's quite a distinction, isn't it? Instead of being one of the best of thousands of rowers, you'll be one of the best out of a group of a few dozen.

6:16 is under the lightweight qualifying standard for US National team.

I don't think that involves a few dozen people.

There are, what, 300 million people in the US?

ranger

[ranger]

Now, do you feel it's clear as you said it would be that you're in that elite club, given the results of the 2011 season?

Since 2003, I haven't been training to race.

I have been learning to row.

Different matter entirely.

At the moment, I am doing Level 5 training.

To be fully prepared for a 2K, I also need to do training at levels IV, III, II, and I.

Then I will be ready to row my best 2K.

Nonetheless, what you do when you train at level V is fully predictive of what you will achieve over 2K.

So when I pull a FM @ 1:48 this summer, these things will be entirely clear.

The rest of my training, including the 6:16 2K I am training for, will be entirely predictable, an anti-climax, in the bag.

You are only as good over 2K as you are over a FM.

You are only as good at TR as you are at UT2.

ranger

[Citroen]

A 6:16 2K at 60 would be so wildly out of sync with this natural order that it would redefine standards in the sport.

Whereas an anchor hauling 7:02.3 with breaks (NOT A PADDLE) puts you in at least third place in your age group. Lets not forget your abysmal performance at BIRC and the dismal and un-sportmanlike behaviour when you didn't bother collecting your bronze medal. I guess you were too ashamed to stand next to the two guys who beat you.

If you're the "best erger in the history of the sport" then I'm ordering a C2 seat pad for my tasty dinner tomorrow.

You're a failure, a total loser and a lying braggard.

Time to lock this thread, your experimental "training" program has completely failed. You won't ever get a 6:16. You struggled to get just over 7:00.

[PaulH]

Now, do you feel it's clear as you said it would be that you're in that elite club, given the results of the 2011 season?

Since 2003, I haven't been training to race.

...

So when I pull a FM @ 1:48 this summer, these things will be entirely clear.

But the single thing you've demonstrated beyond all other is that you aren't able to predict, to within even the nearest half decade, when you'll do a FM @ anything. You say you're training to go faster, but in 5+ years you haven't managed to go faster. You say you're reporting your training, but you only ever report *that* you've trained, and as it hasn't led to any improvement in any time it's not clear that it's actually training. You've picked drags high and low, rates from 20-40, said that they were all you needed to row at for millions of meters, and you've never stuck with any of them. you've said that you just need to work up to 20k on and off the water each day for half a decade, and in that time you've consistently (claimed to have done) 10-12k of each at most.

In short, you say absolutely anything, follow through with the persistence of a ritalin-deprived mayfly, and achieve nothing above what your natural talent already won. So what's the point of the thread?

[ranger]

So what's the point of the thread?

Nothing, if you are not interested in how to train for rowing.

To each his own, I guess.

You seem to have a spectator, rather than participant, attitude.

Sure, in that case, training is a bore.

Training is an opportunity to get better.

It is not a performance.

ranger

[PaulH]

So what's the point of the thread?

Nothing, if you are not interested in how to train for rowing.

To each his own, I guess.

ranger

But you've made that clear, measured by your own standards, over and over now. So what's the point in the thread continuing?

[snowleopard]

There are, what, 300 million people in the US?

Yeah, and they are all going to try out for the national rowing team

One of your more stupid posts. And there have been quite a few.

[ben990]

Blah, blah, blah, lie, lie, lie.

Below is exactly how I picture you, if you took off your hat, except that this guy probably is a little stronger.



Old age has caught up to you. I predict you will never post the results of any distant attempt, as it will be sooooooo much slower than the times you constantly throw out.

ranger, proud member of the sub-7:10 club since 2010...