Ranger's training thread

[Citroen]

What will Roy do to overcome the prediction that, given the standard decline with age among those who just prepare to race, working on their fitness, he is now only capable of 6:46.5?

This is a classic example of Rangerillogic.

We'll assume "standard decline with age" applies to everyone. Ranger couldn't beat 6:38 but he claims he can beat it now with a 6:16. Roy beat Ranger with his WORLD RECORD 6:38 but for Ranger's prediction he can only do a 6:46 now.

Why doesn't "standard decline with age" apply to Ranger if it applies to Roy? What's different about the silly old lying prat? Does Ranger wear his knickers on the outside and have a big S in a diamond on his shirt? Or is Ranger just 100% delusional?

[whp4]

What will Roy do to overcome the prediction that, given the standard decline with age among those who just prepare to race, working on their fitness, he is now only capable of 6:46.5?

This is a classic example of Rangerillogic.

We'll assume "standard decline with age" applies to everyone. Ranger couldn't beat 6:38 but he claims he can beat it now with a 6:16. Roy beat Ranger with his WORLD RECORD 6:38 but for Ranger's prediction he can only do a 6:46 now.

Why doesn't "standard decline with age" apply to Ranger if it applies to Roy? What's different about the silly old lying prat? Does Ranger wear his knickers on the outside and have a big S in a diamond on his shirt? Or is Ranger just 100% delusional?

Well, it makes a certain amount of sense, if you're willing to take the ridiculous step of believing that no one but ranger has ever thought to try to improve their technique, strategy, equipment, etc. Typically, a coach would be working on most of those factors, and ranger doesn't know anything about the concept of a coach beyond possibly knowing how the word is spelled, so he doesn't get that most coaches out there earn their keep not from just telling you to pull harder and giving you a photocopy of a one-size-fits-all plan as ranger seems to think. Of course, ranger is unable to convincingly demonstrate in any quantitative fashion that his own work on technique has had any benefit, and it is pointless to try to get him to understand the difference between statistics as they apply to individuals and populations, so the bloviation continues.

[ranger]

This is a classic example of Rangerillogic.

We'll assume "standard decline with age" applies to everyone. Ranger couldn't beat 6:38 but he claims he can beat it now with a 6:16. Roy beat Ranger with his WORLD RECORD 6:38 but for Ranger's prediction he can only do a 6:46 now.

Why doesn't "standard decline with age" apply to Ranger if it applies to Roy? What's different about the silly old lying prat? Does Ranger wear his knickers on the outside and have a big S in a diamond on his shirt? Or is Ranger just 100% delusional?

You are not listening, Dougie.

I didn't say that standard decline with age applies to everyone. I said that standard decline with age applies to everyone who just prepares to race, working on their fitness, instead of improving their rowing.

I have spent eight years improving my rowing.

Roy could do the same, if he chose to.

But as I said, too, I think that, to improve his rowing, rather than just his fitness, Roy probably needs to row OTW for a decade or so, as I have done, and it appears that he has no interest in this.

ranger

[Citroen]

You are not listening, Dougie.

I didn't say that standard decline with age applies to everyone. I said that standard decline with age applies to everyone who just prepares to race, working on their fitness, instead of improving their rowing.

Clearly your definition of the word "standard" is somewhat diametrically opposite to mine. You have never demonstrated anything outside the standard. If recent results are anything to go by your decline from 6:27 to 7:02 has been more marked and more rapid than the "standard" decline of your peers.

[ranger]

Of course, ranger is unable to convincingly demonstrate in any quantitative fashion that his own work on technique has had any benefit

A 6:29.7 2K @ 12 spm, without even preparing for it, when I was 55.

500r30 @ 1:30, 1Kr24 @ 1:38, and 2Kr20 @ 1:46 when I was 56.

The next demonstration will be a FM @ 1:48 (or faster).

24 spm

120 df.

ranger

[Citroen]

The next demonstration will be a FM @ 1:48 (or faster).

But since you can't do 5000m @ 1:48 then how will you get to 42,195m at a pace you can't sustain?

[ranger]

The next demonstration will be a FM @ 1:48 (or faster).

But since you can't do 5000m @ 1:48 then how will you get to 42,195m at a pace you can't sustain?

Dougie--

I do 1:44-1:48 @ 24 spm with a HR of 155 bpm.

AT for me is 180 bpm.

A 5K is AT.

ranger

[nharrigan]

Ranger- What kind of on the water training are you doing?
Is that lake long enough to row for 30 minutes without turning?

[NavigationHazard]

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=europe+la ... 2&t=h&z=14

It might be 1200m across the longest reach, depending on bottom conditions and weeds. So yes, he can row for 30 minutes without turning. That's three strokes at 1:45 pace r whatever, flip, get back in, three strokes at 1:45, flip, get back in....

[rjw]

I do 1:44-1:48 @ 24 spm with a HR of 155 bpm.

Simply not true as all your training does not support this claim!

AT for me is 180 bpm.

You have made numerous assertions that your AT is 172. Now it has gone to 180. So what has changed?

[Citroen]

I do 1:44-1:48 @ 24 spm with a HR of 155 bpm.

Is that for 100m from a standing start or for ten strokes in the middle of a session as part of your rowing with breaks?

You can't do that for the steady EIGHTEEN minutes needed to get to 5k. You can't do that for 2hrs 31min 54.1secs needed to reach 42,195.

You're not convincing anyone are you? You just need to post that 17:59.9 5K on the C2 ranking system with IND_v and we'll all go away and leave you alone.

[Bob S.]

If recent results are anything to go by your decline from 6:27 to 7:02 has been more marked and more rapid than the "standard" decline of your peers.

He has peers? Who would have thought it?

Bob S.

[Citroen]

If recent results are anything to go by your decline from 6:27 to 7:02 has been more marked and more rapid than the "standard" decline of your peers.

He has peers? Who would have thought it?

Sorry, I meant other rowers in his age group. Nobody would want to be associated with the nutty prof, he's a liability.

[Bob S.]

You're not convincing anyone are you? You just need to post that 17:59.9 5K on the C2 ranking system with IND_v and we'll all go away and leave you alone.

Wouldn't that be counterproductive? The point of the thread is to get attention. With 1014 pages and counting, it seems to have been successful.

Bob S.

[Fred]

The next demonstration will be a FM @ 1:48 (or faster).

But since you can't do 5000m @ 1:48 then how will you get to 42,195m at a pace you can't sustain?

Look, if you want to stump rich, you need to phrase your statements differently. Never say "you can't do 5000m @ 1:48", because in his mind, a 20:00 5k where he sees 1:48 some times is the same as an 18:00 5k because he's got such an awesome unique physical fitness background that he will "eventually" be able to stop taking breaks and row it thru.


If you want to stump rich, always phrase it as "you can't (currently, at this moment in time, not hypothetically some point in the future) do an 18:00 5000m (1:48 average pace)". He acknowledges that as true.

part of the challenge/fun dealing with rich, is being able to phrase statements so that he is forced to acknowledge the truth of them