Ranger's training thread

[mikvan52]

I wonder about some of these ranger info-mercials

Rocket Roy's 55s lwt 2K WR is only _one_ second per 500m from Brian Bailey's 60s lwt 2K WR, but over _three_ seconds per 500m from Paul Siebach's 50s lwt 2K WR and _five_ seconds per 500m from Caviston's 40s lwt 2K WR.

6:16 is _a half_ second per 500m under Caviston's 40s lwt 2K WR.

ranger

you forgot:

The distance of the moon from the earth is:
about 384,403 kilometers or 238,857 miles.

And the likelihood of 59 year old ranger eclipsing Roy Brook's 55-59 lwt WR is .... (drum roll) zero.

Thus, after nearly 5 years study, ends any speculation that ranger's "excellent and unprecedented" RWB training is superior to Roy's... Unless we concede that Roy is merely superior to ranger in raw skill...

Rich: Have you got any more factoids for us

Or, are we moving on to "new" ground...?
If so:
"Let the distance training (games) begin!" ..... again

[Bob S.]

I know you have the "Right of free speech" thing in the USA but this is getting rediculous. This forum should only contain substantiated and accurate information of benefit to those reading it or it gets DELETED.

The concept of free speech in the U.S. is in reference to governmental censorship only. Private media are not constrained by this.

As far as this forum is concerned, it appears that the topic of concern has been limited to one thread. That thread is adequately labelled, so that anyone who is upset by it can avoid it completely. In regard to newcomers, I don't think that there is a problem there. They can soon figure it out for themselves.

There maybe a problem for C2's image, but that is up to C2 to decide. The forum members are not the ones to do it. It anyone really thinks that it should be cut off, he should contact C2 directly and not just whine to his fellow forum members. Those messages are just dumping more garbage into the thread.

Bob S.

[ranger]

Race Preparation and Actually Racing are two completely different things

No, they aren't.

Have you ever prepared thoroughly for a 2K, I mean, with things like 1' on 1' off, 8 x 500m, 4 x 1K, 4 x 2K, 5K/6K/30min/10K/60min trials, 5K-4K-3K-2K-1K, etc.?

These sharpening routines are all just races themselves.

HR is pushed to the max.

All thought of improvement is put aside and subordinated to performance.

ranger

[ranger]

And the likelihood of 59 year old ranger eclipsing Roy Brook's 55-59 lwt WR is .... (drum roll) zero.

On the contrary.

I think the likelihood is %100.

The requirement is minimal.

To break Roy's record, I don't even have to be as good as I was, relative to my age, in 2003, when I was just shy of 53.

Roy's 55s lwt WR is only one second per 500m below Brian Bailey's 60s lwt WR.

In 2003, when I was just shy of 53, I lowered the 50s lwt WR by just around four seconds, rowing at max drag, short-sliding, pulling 10 SPI, hauling with my back and arms, not even know how to row.

ranger

[ranger]

My stroke is now 12 SPI.

When I am fully sharpened, if I can rate a steady 36 spm in a 2K, and I think I can, I'll now pull 6:12 for 2K.

ranger

[ranger]

And the likelihood of 59 year old ranger eclipsing Roy Brook's 55-59 lwt WR is .... (drum roll) zero.

Since 2003, I have done almost no training above my anaerobic threshold.

I have just done hard foundational rowing and moderate distance rowing, workng on technique, building a base, albeit putting in about 20K a day, day after day, rarely missing a day.

During this time, I have been racing in and around t 6:40, below WR pace for my age and weight, without sharpening or distance trials, and without full completion of my work on technique.

My work on technique is now complete.

Over the next month and a half, I will do distance trails.

Then I will sharpen hard for three months in September, October, and November.

ranger

[ranger]

anyone who keeps spouting rubbish without backing it up with verified distance/times to the C2 ranking system should be canned.

Who isn't backing it up with verified distance/times?

Without even preparing for it, I am rowing WR pace and racing more than anyone else.

Last year, no one my age and weight came within 20 seconds of my 2K time.

When I prepare to race, I will be quite a bit faster over 2K, in the range of 20 seconds faster, I would presume.

If I am, no one my age and weight will come within 40 seconds of the 2K I will pull at BIRC 2010.

10 seconds per 500m.

You just don't get in, Carl.

After a very short while (a year? two years?), your ability to improve is _inversely_ related to the amount of race preparation and racing that you do.

You improve by overcoming your weaknesses.

Racing is just a performance.

It has nothing to do with overcoming weaknesses.

It is all about parading strengths.

ranger

[Rockin Roland]

My work on technique is now complete.

ranger

No it's not.
But in your case it doesn't matter because on a crappy static C2 erg you can get away with almost anything.

I'm sure you can reach that 6.16 time for 2000m that you keep on talking about. All you need to do is the following.

Here is a Rowpro extract of a 6:15.9 time that I once did when my technique was as bad as yours, showing my 500m splits:

1) 1:34.1-----8.9 DPS-----419.8 W-----36 SPM-----165 HR
2) 1:33.8-----9.7 DPS-----424.8 W-----33 SPM-----177 HR
3) 1:34.1-----9.7 DPS-----420.7 W-----33 SPM-----177 HR
4) 1:34.0-----8.9 DPS-----421.9 W-----36 SPM-----179 HR

See, nothing fancy, just steady state splits for the whole 2K. Even my heart rate didn't vary by more than 14 bpm. No need for frantic stroke ratings or negative spliting. Just jerk that chain and dump that finish and 6:16 is yours to brag about forever. Simple.

[ranger]

Yes I agree, anyone who keeps spouting rubbish without backing it up with verified distance/times to the C2 ranking system should be canned.

Over the last decade, it is impossible for my verified rowing to be more distinguished.

This last year (2010), even though I was in my last year in my age and weight divison, I had the best verified, race venue, 2K time by six seconds, even though I didn't even prepare for it.

I had the best time in my age and weight division last year (2009), too, and again, without preparing for it.

I had the best time in my age and weight division in 2003, too (6:30), in WR time.

I had the best time in my age and weight division in 2004, too (6:28), in WR time.

In 2007, I had the best time in my age and weight division, too.

In 2006, I rowed as a heavyweight and pulled 6:29.7.

In 2002, I rowed as a heavyweight and pulled 6:27.5.

In any given year, among all of the masters and veteran rowers, 30-59, I presume several thousand, there are only seven other rowers who can have the best 2K time in their age and weight divisions.

This last year, none of them were British.

Two were American (Steve Krum and Paul Seibach).

Siebach is a WR-holder; Krum rowed right on WR pace.

Given the steam of distractions in any normal life, and given my project of learning how to row with a good OTW stroke, and therefore my commitment to foundational, low rate rowing, and work on technique, nonetheless, over the last ten years, I had the best time in my age and weight division as a lightweight in 2003, 2004, 2007, 2009, and 2010, and pulled sub-6:30 in 2002 and 2006, as a heavyweight.

I _suppose_ could have done better, but, yikes, how so?

Well...

6:16 at 60 might be a start...



ranger

[ranger]

I'm sure you can reach that 6.16 time for 2000m that you keep on talking about. All you need to do is the following.

Here is a Rowpro extract of a 6:15.9 time that I once did when my technique was as bad as yours, showing my 500m splits:

1) 1:34.1-----8.9 DPS-----419.8 W-----36 SPM-----165 HR
2) 1:33.8-----9.7 DPS-----424.8 W-----33 SPM-----177 HR
3) 1:34.1-----9.7 DPS-----420.7 W-----33 SPM-----177 HR
4) 1:34.0-----8.9 DPS-----421.9 W-----36 SPM-----179 HR

See, nothing fancy, just steady state splits for the whole 2K. Even my heart rate didn't vary by more than 14 bpm. No need for frantic stroke ratings or negative spliting. Just jerk that chain and dump that finish and 6:16 is yours to brag about forever. Simple.

Just my plan, especially the bragging about it forever.



Sure, my OTW technique is still crap.

But, heck, if everything were perfect, where would the fun be?

The excitement in this sport, as I see it, is working on what you _can't_ do, not what you can.

Yep.

12 SPI @ 34 spm, with a fast start and a strong kick at the end, is 6:16.

BTW, what was your age and weight when you pulled that 6:16, rowing like shit, just "jerk[in'] the chain and dump[in'] the finish"?

And what was the WR in your age and weight division at the time?

If I pull a lwt 6:16 at WIRC 2011, it will be 26 seconds under the 60s lwt WR.

When you pulled your 6:16, I presume that you didn't come within 16 seconds of the WR in your age and weight division.

Competitively, then, the difference, is 42 seconds over 2K, over 10 seconds per 500m.

ranger

[lancs]

I'll now pull 6:12 for 2K.

Congrats on knocking 4 seconds off your virtual pb!! Impressive! How did you manage it?!

And for the record, you'll never row under 6:40 again as a genuine lwt.

[ranger]

I'll now pull 6:12 for 2K.

Congrats on knocking 4 seconds off your virtual pb!! Impressive! How did you manage it?!

And for the record, you'll never row under 6:40 again as a genuine lwt.

So you say.

But I think I'll pull 6:28 as a lightweight on September 1st, before I even start to sharpen, just on the basis of distance trials.

Then, as I sharpen hard for three months, the sky's the limit from there.

ranger

[ranger]

In 2011, there is a good chance, I think, that I will have the best 2K time, officially, in _four_ age and weight divisions, the 55s and 60s, lightweights and heavyweights.

If I pull 6:16 at 60, by implication, I will also have the best time in the 40s and 50s lightweights, and perhaps in the 50s heavyweights.

ranger

[lancs]

If....

At some point I'm guessing that even an arrogant, narcissistic, compulsive liar like you will have to stop relying on 'ifs'...

[hjs]

Look who's the "member of the day"