Ranger's training thread

[ranger]

Time to start FM trials

Yes, indeed, as I mentioned, too.

I am waiting to recover fully from my injury.

My ribs feel much better today than yesterday.

I think I am turning the corner on this.

I have rowing the last few days, rather than riding my bike, but still with quite a bit of pain.

I don't think it makes sense to do a FM trial until I can row without pain.

ranger

[PaulH]

Any defense, or do you concede the point?

Sure, over the last several years, I have been a position where I _could_ have sharpened and would have improved my 2K _enormously_ if I _had_ sharpened, but as I have already explained, I never got it done.

Ok, for future reference the next time you say "I haven't sharpened since 2003" you should remind yourself that this is a lie, and change it to "I haven't successfully sharpened since 2003". That's quite depressing, given that *everybody* sharpens in about the same way with about the same effect.

When done well, rowing is so repetitive and unconscious that it takes a half million strokes or so to get fully used to even a small change in technique.

That's pretty funny - I couldn't begin to count the number of times you've had a flaw in your technique pointed out, and within 24-48 hours you declare it 'fixed'. I guess we need to bear in mind that any time you say that you can do something, you actually mean that in several million meters you will* be able to do it.

*And for 'will' we should of course read 'might'

[bellboy]

You row OTW, and have made several claims that you'll win HOC easily.

Nonsense.

I never made any such claim.

No one wins the Head of the Charles easily.

ranger

Cue Byron

[JohnBove]

You claim to have friends. I've never been able quite to believe that and you are, after all, a pathological liar and a clinical narcissist. But let's say, for the point of argument, that it's true, that you actually have a friend. Have you ever made your friend aware of this site and your postings? And did that friend not advise you to get help? Or take it upon himself to speak with your family? You're a very sick man.

I note that today (or yesterday) you said you were still "futzing" with your technique. Does it not strike you as insane that someone would futz for eight years with their technique on a piece of gym equipment? Particularly when the result has been steady and uninterrupted decline? Does it not trouble you that everyone with whom you correspond here has not a shred of respect for you, and that most openly loathe you?

[Byron Drachman]

You row OTW, and have made several claims that you'll win HOC easily.

Nonsense.

I never made any such claim.

No one wins the Head of the Charles easily.

ranger

Cue Byron

June 27, 2010: given that I was just out in my Fluid, doing 1:56 @ 31 spm. No one my age is rowing any better, including Dietz and Spousta, who, between them, have won the Head of the Charles a couple of dozen times.

January 12, 2009: If I can hold 32 spm for 3 miles OTW, taking full strokes, at 155 lbs., at the HOTC in a couple of years, when I am 60 years old, I'll win, going away.

[ranger]

Ok, for future reference the next time you say "I haven't sharpened since 2003" you should remind yourself that this is a lie, and change it to "I haven't successfully sharpened since 2003"

Unsuccessful sharpening (e.g., not completing even one 2K predictor) is not sharpening at all. So your distinction is empty.

That's quite depressing, given that *everybody* sharpens in about the same way with about the same effect.

No, it's not depressing at all to try to get better, rather than just getting worse and worse.

No one has ever gotten any better by sharpening and racing.

Historically, no male 2K WR-holder, 40-70, has ever gotten substantially better (e.g., three seconds per 500m) over a substantial period of time (e.g., 10 years)--at all.

So, what I am attempting is exciting indeed.

ranger

[ranger]

I note that today (or yesterday) you said you were still "futzing" with your technique. Does it not strike you as insane that someone would futz for eight years with their technique on a piece of gym equipment?

No, not at all.

Depends on your standards.

My standard is to row well.

OTErg, rowing well is 13 SPI for (big) lightweights; 16 SPI for (big) heavyweights.

No veteran has ever rowed well.

Historically, even the best 60s veterans have missed it by seven seconds per 500m, a mile over 60min, 4 SPI, 40% in terms of peak force, etc.

That's a lot.

If you are missing 30% of what goes into a proper rowing stroke, I would guess that futzing with your technique is best way to improve, especially if, given other things (declining fitness with age), it is the only way.

The erg is used as sport-specific training for rowing OTW.

The improvements in technique I have made OTErg are all in the direction of a proper OTW stroke.

I have been rowing OTW for eight years.

Working on technique hasn't prevented me from racing OTErg.

While working on my technique during my 50s, I have had the best 2K for my age and weight for five out of ten years, with sub-6:30 rows as a heavyweight two other years.

No veteran male rower over the last ten years has a more complete and consistent record of quality racing.

Sure, I work hard on my fitness, too.

Fitness is just not my major focus of concern when I am rowing, either OTErg or OTW.

ranger

[mikvan52]

racing is about facing competitors

Naw.

Erg races are won in training.

more of a troll's syntactical spider web!

a weak retort as usual and as expected...

Let's stick with the the transitive verb to race for this purposes of discussion:
That is:

race; raced; rac·ing
1 a [no obj] : to compete in a race
▪ Eight horses will race for the cup. ▪ That horse will never race again.
b [+ obj] : to compete in a race against (someone)
▪ She's going to race the champion. ▪ They raced each other home. ▪ I'll race you to see who gets there first.

Clearly: Racing in the English language involves competition.
What language do you speak, oh great obfuscator?

anyway:
Rich: Even you agree that training is not a race...

So, onward..
Have you entered the Head of the Charles?
Didn't think so?

Will you send me you wool hat if you don't go to face the music at Crash-B next year?
Didn't think so?

Will you continue to post drivel here on the forum.. indefinitely?
Most assuredly!

[mikvan52]

BTW:
Rich:
Thought I'd let you in on developing news
There's a plan to meet for some fun racing in sculling boats a little over a year from now.

Where: St Catherines, Ontario
When: End of July 2012
What: The Canadian Henley

This gives you over a year to come up with and excuse to not come....

[ranger]

Does it not trouble you that everyone with whom you correspond here has not a shred of respect for you, and that most openly loathe you?

Why you (and others) would loathe a rower who is working on technique rather than fitness is a mystery to me, especially when that rower has three WR rows and therefore has a maximal fitness that _can't_ be improved.

Your choice, I guess, although an odd one, I think.

The evidence is overwhelming:

Veterans who work on fitness, rather than technique, just get worse and worse.

I don't see the point of working hard, just to get worse and worse.

I would prefer to get better and better.

So I am working on technique.

Perhaps you can explain:

Why do you (and others) loathe those who aren't doing what you are doing, even when what you are doing makes no sense at all?

ranger

[ranger]

Racing in the English language involves competition.

Sure.

But the race is won in training.

If you train yourself to pull a 2K at 1:44 and I train myself to pull a 2K at 1:34, when we meet and race, the contest is pre-determined.

If you train yourself to pull a 2K at 1:44, you are not going to race at 1:34, just because you are facing someone who is that fast.

If I train myself to pull a 2K at 1:34, I am not going to race at 1:44 just because I am facing someone who is that slow.

In erging, if you are fully prepared, racing is entirely redundant.

When you race OTErg, you just pull the pace for 2K that you have trained yourself to pull.

No faster, no slower.

ranger

[mikvan52]

Racing in the English language involves competition.

Sure.

But the race is won in training.

If (snip)

If (snip)

If (snip)

all I see in your posts are "Ifs"...

remind us again how your training has "fully prepared" you for any race in the last 5 years...

[
So, onward..
Have you entered the Head of the Charles?
Didn't think so?

If (!) you've entered, you would know how many digits are in a confirmation number...

Dare I ask?
How many, Rich?... How many digits are there in yours?

[ben990]

Racing in the English language involves competition.

Sure.

But the race is won in training.

If you train yourself to pull a 2K at 1:44 and I train myself to pull a 2K at 1:34, when we meet and race, the contest is pre-determined.

If you train yourself to pull a 2K at 1:44, you are not going to race at 1:34, just because you are facing someone who is that fast.

If I train myself to pull a 2K at 1:34, I am not going to race at 1:44 just because I am facing someone who is that slow.

In erging, if you are fully prepared, racing is entirely redundant.

When you race OTErg, you just pull the pace for 2K that you have trained yourself to pull.

No faster, no slower.

ranger

And if you train yourself to pull a 2K at 1:45.5, when we meet and race, the contest is pre-determined. You will pull a 7:02.3.

When you race OTErg, you just pull the pace for 2K that you have trained yourself to pull.

No faster, no slower.

7:02.3.

[whp4]

Why you (and others) would loathe a rower who is working on technique rather than fitness is a mystery to me, especially when that rower has three WR rows and therefore has a maximal fitness that _can't_ be improved.

Why on earth do you jump to the unwarranted conclusion that a WR row means your fitness is maximal and cannot be improved? A WR simply means that you've done it faster than anyone else in your category has done it and had it accepted by the body that keeps the records. It means diddly-squat about your fitness. Actually, that's not entirely true—given the age of your quickly-vanquished WR performances, it means your fitness is considerably less, as you demonstrate with each passing year. Remember, your technique is getting better, and you never prepare, so declining performance means fitness is going rapidly downhill. You've already said you get 12 seconds from sharpening, so you need to be able to row a 6:28 as a lightweight without preparation to hit that 6:16 you keep jawing about, and yet when you see 6:28 on the monitor in recent years, you've got the better part of 100 meters to go!

Roy's going to beat you like a drum

[JohnBove]

Does it not trouble you that everyone with whom you correspond here has not a shred of respect for you, and that most openly loathe you?

Why you (and others) would loathe a rower who is working on technique rather than fitness is a mystery to me, especially when that rower has three WR rows and therefore has a maximal fitness that _can't_ be improved.

Your choice, I guess, although an odd one, I think.

The evidence is overwhelming:

Veterans who work on fitness, rather than technique, just get worse and worse.

I don't see the point of working hard, just to get worse and worse.

I would prefer to get better and better.

So I am working on technique.

Perhaps you can explain:

Why do you (and others) loathe those who aren't doing what you are doing, even when what you are doing makes no sense at all?

ranger

A response more demonstrative of your lunacy I couldn't have asked for.

People loathe you because you're a liar, a welscher, and a world-class narcissist.

Again, you've (supposedly) been working on your technique on a piece of gym equipment for eight years to the result of steady predictable decline. You get worse and worse, yet you continue to bray like a jackass that you're actually getting better because you entertain the idea that you're going to row a 6:16 -- and you might as well entertain the idea that you're learning to fly -- as though you've already done it. fait accompli. You're a grotesque, an appalling human being. One might say that's an unfair conclusion, drawn only, after all, from emails. But no one could be the author of this record and be other than repulsive. Across the board. I can't imagine being in a room with you.