Ranger's training thread

[whp4]

But the guy with the best stroke wins.

...which is why you won precisely nothing last season!

[mikvan52]

"The time is irrelevant" ~ Von MannBatt



This is why his 7:00+ 2k erg is "rowing well", according to TSO...

i wonder what happens to spi training if you remove any reference to time...?

[ranger]

Perhaps I can venture this:

As Mike C. suggests, too, with his Level 4 rowing, if you have a beautifully natural and easy cadence, 1:48 @ 21 spm, say, done with a low UT1 HR, steady state, you can pull 6:16 for 2K.

Those who row 2:03 @ 21 spm (9 SPI) at low UT1, steady state, never pull even one stroke, 1:48 @ 21 spm (13 SPI), and therefore, when push comes to shove, pull 7:16 for 2K.

The difference is 15 seconds per 500m, both in low rate rowing at 21 spm, and in high rate rowing, e.g., when racing a 2K at 34 spm.

You can't learn to row well by rowing rowing badly.

Duh.

You can only learn to row well by rowing well.

ranger

[ranger]

But the guy with the best stroke wins.

...which is why you won precisely nothing last season!

Last season, I didn't get sufficiently ready to race, and even so, only raced once.

Seasons come and seasons go.

You don't necessarily race well every season.

Things come up.

You have other agendas.

Over the last nine years, I have a couple of dozen quality 2Ks as a 50s lwt (or fat hwt).

These speak volumes.

6:27.5, 6:28, 6:28.5, 6:29, 6:29.7, 6:30, 6:32, 6:32, 6:32, 6:32, 6:32, 6:33, 6:36, 6:37, 6:40, 6:41, 6:41, 6:42, etc.

No other 50s veteran my size, rowing over the last 10 years, has anything that remotely resembles the quality of these 2Ks.

ranger

[ben990]

Your 7:02.3 speaks volumes. Congrats on that. Great stuff.

[JohnBove]

These speak volumes.

6:27.5, 6:28, 6:28.5, 6:29, 6:29.7, 6:30, 6:32, 6:32, 6:32, 6:32, 6:32, 6:33, 6:36, 6:37, 6:40, 6:41, 6:41, 6:42, etc.

No other 50s veteran my size, rowing over the last 10 years, has anything that remotely resembles the quality of these 2Ks.

ranger

Your steady decline aside (and "etc." = "7:02"), two people have achieved greater "quality'" if that 's the term you prefer. Paul Siebach, who topped every row you made between 50 and 55, and the Rocket, who was faster 55-60.

Plus you're an asshole and a head case and they aren't.

[Rocket Roy]

These speak volumes.

6:27.5, 6:28, 6:28.5, 6:29, 6:29.7, 6:30, 6:32, 6:32, 6:32, 6:32, 6:32, 6:33, 6:36, 6:37, 6:40, 6:41, 6:41, 6:42, etc.

No other 50s veteran my size, rowing over the last 10 years, has anything that remotely resembles the quality of these 2Ks.

ranger

Your steady decline aside (and "etc." = "7:02"), two people have achieved greater "quality'" if that 's the term you prefer. Paul Siebach, who topped every row you made between 50 and 55, and the Rocket, who was faster 55-60.

Plus you're an asshole and a head case and they aren't.

That's very kind of you to say that John

[ausrwr]

probably closer to 1hr 15mins.

The time is irrelevant.

That's just work on fitness.

If you are trying to row well, as I am, what is important in training is the effectiveness, efficiency, and consistency of your technique.

Lots of guys are fit.

But the guy with the best stroke wins.

If you are fit and just rowing normally, no matter who you are or how fast you are going, when you get fully used to it, you can do 21 spm for hours and hours with close to a UT2 HR.

At 21 spm, I am in a 5-to-1 ratio.

In rowing, the central question is not: How hard you can work?

The central question is: How well can you row?

Rowing well is a matter of how much work you do--naturally, automatically, normally, easily--in each stroke cycle.

How far you move the boat, how many times you spin the wheel.

Your natural stroking power.

For lightweights, rowing well in 13 SPI.

For heavyweights, rowing well is 16 SPI.

ranger

Once again, you prove yourself an idiot.

Rowing well is about how you move a boat.

Have a look at this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAcbwSBQNx0

My crew is right at the end, in the red, and yellow, losing the final. That's rowingadequately. The guys who beat us wre rowing well. And you know what, they weren't worried about their SPI.

[Byron Drachman]

--snip--
Have a look at this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAcbwSBQNx0

My crew is right at the end, in the red, and yellow, losing the final. That's rowing adequately. The guys who beat us wre rowing well. And you know what, they weren't worried about their SPI.

There is some beautiful sculling in that video. I'd love to scull that well some day. Thanks for posting it.

[ranger]

two people have achieved greater "quality'" if that 's the term you prefer. Paul Siebach, who topped every row you made between 50 and 55, and the Rocket, who was faster 55-60.

I wasn't even racing when I was 50. I didn't race until I was 51.

No, Paul hasn't yet outdone my lwt 6:28 at 52. This last year, at 52, Paul pulled 6:34.

No, Roy wasn't faster than I was 55-60, especially in competition. I pulled 6:29.7, without even preparing for it. The best Roy pulled was 6:38.

That's not at all the whole story, though.

I haven't prepared to race since 2003.

I have been working on getting better at rowing.

When they row, Paul and Roy do nothing of the sort.

They just prepare to race.

Neither are rowers.

They have never rowed OTW.

Even gets about a dozen seconds over 2K from race preparation.

I am also much better than I was five years ago.

I now row well (13 SPI) at low drag (120 df.), something that I have never done.

Five years ago, I only pulled 12 SPI, and even so, at high drag.

I suspect that rowing well (13 SPI) at low drag (120 df.) is also worth about a dozen seconds over 2K.

If you pull 13 SPI, you only have to rate 32 spm to pull 1:34/6:16 for 2K.

ranger

[ranger]

Rowing well is about how you move a boat

Sure.

OTErg, SPI is what corresponds to moving the boat OTW.

How far you spin the wheel on each stroke, how much work you get done per stroke, just rowing normally.

Distance per stroke at various rates.

ranger

[PaulH]

I haven't prepared to race since 2003.

On September 25th, 2010, at 3:43 pm, you said "I'm now sharpening". Clearly, then, you're a liar - I'm just curious whether you're lying now, or then?

[ranger]

I haven't prepared to race since 2003.

On September 25th, 2010, at 3:43 pm, you said "I'm now sharpening". Clearly, then, you're a liar - I'm just curious whether you're lying now, or then?

Sure, I started to sharpen many times during the last few years, but I never got it done.

Clearly.

I haven't done _any_ distance trials.

I haven't completed _any_ standard 2K predictors (8 x 500m, 4 x 1K, 4 x 2K, etc.).

The best sharpening workout I did over the last eight years, I think, was 5 x 2K at low rates (21, 22, 23, 24, 25) and a high stroking power (13 SPI: 1:48, 1:46, 1:45, 1:44, 1:43) right before I pulled the 6:29.7 at Baltimore in 2006.

But, really, that isn't much of a sharpening workout at all.

It is just some work at AT.

ranger

[PaulH]

Sure, I started to sharpen many times during the last few years, but I never got it done.

Interesting - so we've now established that while everybody *else* sharpens in about the same way, with about the same effect, you don't. Hence we can conclude that there's no reason to think you'll get the 'standard' 12 seconds from sharpening that everybody else does; you may get more or less, or even coincidentally 12 seconds, but not because you're sharpening in about the same was as everybody else with about the same effect.

Given that, the only indicator we have that you're going to go faster than your natural decline with age would suggest is what you feel, based on a sample size of 0.

[whp4]

I haven't prepared to race since 2003.

On September 25th, 2010, at 3:43 pm, you said "I'm now sharpening". Clearly, then, you're a liar - I'm just curious whether you're lying now, or then?

Sure, I started to sharpen many times during the last few years, but I never got it done.

Clearly.

I haven't done _any_ distance trials.

Again, you are caught in a lie. Or have you forgotten the 5k trial you did for the USIRTDS? You know, the one you insisted you did, but the results were for the coaches' eyes only?

So, were you lying then, now, or both?