The Equalizer

[ranger]

The age at which you started erging and when you got in the boat are not of relevance.

Not sure about that.

You also omit the other fact about age.

How old you are.

It is entirely unclear to me that 20-year-olds and 60-year-olds can, or even should, train in the same way.

For a 60-year-old, personal history gets very long.

Old injuries persist and have to be compensated for

Certain habits of mind and body, both bad and good, have been deeply set.

Certain physiological and skeletal-muscular capacities are radically different than they were forty years earlier.

And so forth.

ranger

[ranger]

the main contributions to your energy systems when you do a 2k are from the aerobic system. Up to 80%, in fact. The limiting factor in rowing is not strength.

According to _Rowing Faster_, the average 50s rower has lost half of their youthful full-body strength.

I haven't lost any strength at all, but many 60-year-olds have.

For me, strength has not been the issue, though.

Technique has been the issue.

Different matter.

I have plenty of strength and aerobic capacity.

I don't have to work on them.

I have cultivated them for half a century.

But I needed to learn to row.

I rowed like shit.

No longer.

I now row well.

ranger

[ranger]

. Your focus on a misguided idea of "technique" and "not rowing like shit" is misguided. Rowing technique is not that complicated. Ergo technique is even less so.

Really?

Well, perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree--and see what happens.

My work on technique is done.

So the point is now moot.

I am no longer doing foundational rowing.

I am racing my training, preparing to race.

My technique is now entirely different from what it was in 2003.

Perhaps this will have an effect on my 2K times, perhaps not.

You say not.

I think you will be surprised.

The prediction is that, had I continued to row as I used to, I would have slowed down 1.7 seconds per year over the six years from 2003-2009.

My last race in 2003 (and most of my races in 2003) were done in 6:32.

So the prediction is that I should now pull 6:42 (the 60s lwt WR).

I pulled 6:41 last year, with no distance rowing or sharpening, just on the basis of foundational rowing.

We'll see what that becomes when I add distance rowing and sharpening.

I usually get a dozen seconds from hard sharpening.

Who knows know much I get from hard distance rowing.

I am an endurance athlete.

Distance rowing is my major strength.

I suspect that I get another dozen seconds over 2K from hard distance rowing.

This year, I will be doing hard distance rowing and sharpening all fall and winter.

I won't do any foundational rowing at low rates at all.

For weight control and UT2 work, I will cross-train on my bike 3 hours a day.

My daily rowing will be UT1, AT, TR, and AN.

ranger

[chgoss]

I dont understand, with these 2 statements of yours, you are completely violating your previously stated training principles and are now rowing at less than 13SPI on a regular basis.

You've said more times than I can record, "only good strokes are to be taken in training"

The purpose of foundational training is to learn to row well. That's stage 1.

The purpose of pre-sharpening is to learn to row efficiently. That's stage 2.

The purpose of sharpening is to learn to row fast. That's stage 3.

Then race. That's stage 4.

Yes, in foundational training, you should row well. That's the point.

I am no longer doing foundational training.

I am doing pre-sharpening.
ranger

Ah, good, you just got the stage numbers wrong..
- you are currently in "not heavy sharpening" stage (stage 5)
- Racing is stage 6 (not 4 as your post indicates)
- stage 3 is hard distance rowing.. (not sharpening as your post indicates)

Here's the list you put together for your future reference, I updated it to reflect your view that you no longer have to "row well" in stage 4, 5 and 6.

Code: Select all

Ranger's stages of training 
(1) Row effectively (at low rates). 
(2) Row efficiently (at 30 spm). 
(3) Hard distance rowing (pre-sharpening) 
(4) Not Heavy Sharpening (aerobic: race pace 500's, generous rest in between, do not have to row well)
(5) Heavy Sharpening: (anerobic: 2 month's max, do not have to row well)
(6) Race:  do not have to row well. 

Notes: 
- #1 and #2 constitute "Foundational Rowing" 
- A person can only start #5 when they are within 12 seconds of their target race goal. 
- It isnt clear to me yet, at what stage in the training it is acceptable to report the time it took to row a certain distance.. certainly not 1, 2 or 3.. not sure about 4..
- "rowing well" means you are rowing at 13SPI for LW, 16SPI for HW.

[ranger]

But I don't think you'll pull 6:16 at 60.

Think what you would like.

There is no mystery to it.

Training times are all tightly correlated.

If I can do a FM @ 1:48, a HM at 1:45, 10K @ 1:42, and 5K @ 1:39, I will pull 6:16 for 2K.

At 11.5 SPI, which I now pull very naturally and easily, this means rating 26 spm for a FM, 28 spm for a HM, 30 spm for 10K, and 32 spm for 5K.

Wish me luck!

My foundational rowing is done.

I now row with an effectiveness and efficiency that was nowhere in evidence in 2003.

So I am now moving on to the task of doing this distance rowing.

Distance rowing is my major strength.

I have spent the last six years overcoming my major weakness (technique and stroking power).

ranger

[ranger]

- stage 3 is hard distance rowing.. (not sharpening as your post indicates)

Well...

What you can do in a 2K, when you race, is determined long before you are fully ready to race a 2K.

True.

I am now doing distance rowing, pre-sharpening, not sharpening or racing.

But if your rowing is balanced (i.e., if you row well), the times you can achieve on distance rows correlate tightly with times you can achieve in a 2K.

80% of a 2K is aerobic, and the last 20%, which is anaerobic, is not as variable.

In fact, if you just do hard sharpening, anaerobic capacity is not much of a variable at all.

Everyone gets about a dozen seconds over 2K from hard sharpening.

So, your 2K is determined pretty early on in your training by your distance scores.

When I am doing distance trials, am I racing 2Ks?

No.

Am I racing?

Well...

I now pull 11.5 SPI, very naturally and easily.

The goal is to rate 26 spm for a FM, 28 spm for a HM, 30 spm for 10K, and 32 spm for 5K, holding my technique firm.

If I can do this, after a couple of months of hard sharpening, I'll pull 1:34/6:16 for 2K and reach my goals.

Wish me luck!

ranger

[ausrwr]

Rich, I do wish you luck. But all the luck in the world will not change reality.

[ranger]

[removed]

[ranger]

Rich, I do wish you luck. But all the luck in the world will not change reality.

But reality is independent of what you think--or what I think.

So, it's a verbal standoff at the moment, which your actions are irrelevant to, but not mine.

Perhaps it's just my odd point of view, but I like my position in this conversation better than I like yours.

Nay-sayers are fools.

ranger

[ranger]

[removed]

[ranger]

Rich, I do wish you luck. But all the luck in the world will not change reality.

You don't think I can pull a FM at 26 spm?

I don't see why not.

I've done it before, and so have my peers (e.g., Rocket Roy).

I was just ineffective and inefficient when I did it before, as Roy was, too.

No longer.

I now row well.

Roy could also learn to row well, but he can't be arsed.

To each his own.

Roy pulls 9.5 SPI when he races.

I'll now pull 11.5 SPI (at the same rate).

ranger

[snowleopard]

I now row well.

Roy could also learn to row well, but he can't be arsed.

To each his own.

Roy pulls 9.5 SPI when he races.

I'll now pull 11.5 SPI (at the same rate).

Roy is the WR holder. You aren't.

You are a non-achieving blowhard. Roy isn't.

See the difference?

[KevJGK]

I now row well.

Roy could also learn to row well, but he can't be arsed.

To each his own.

Roy pulls 9.5 SPI when he races.

I'll now pull 11.5 SPI (at the same rate).

Remind us all how you got on against Roy at WIRC earlier this year.

[ausrwr]

Rich, I do wish you luck. But all the luck in the world will not change reality.

But reality is independent of what you think--or what I think.

So, it's a verbal standoff at the moment, which your actions are irrelevant to, but not mine.

Perhaps it's just my odd point of view, but I like my position in this conversation better than I like yours.

Nay-sayers are fools.

ranger

It's casting pearls before swine for both of us. Of course we're at a verbal impasse. You will talk about how you can achieve your potential until you do it. I can talk about how you've significantly over-estimated your potential, and how I believe your training methodology is wrong until judgement day.

I will be convinced when you pull the times. I'll be convinced that you're one of the best athletes the world has ever seen. I'll be convinced that you've achieved in spite of, rather than because of, your training.

You will never be convinced if I am right. You will find reasons that I'm wrong until I get bored. You won't.

You don't need to take ten years to learn how to row. A friend of mine started rowing and within a year won a world championship medal.

Feel free to call me a fool and a nay-sayer. It's free speech. And compared to what I've called you in the past, it's nothing.

But perhaps consider: if you are a nay-doer, who is really the fool? If your potential is an honest 6:16, and the best time you've pulled in years is 6:42, there's something wrong. My supposed potential is low 5:50s. If I couldn't pull 26 seconds worse than that on base training for hours a day, I might have cause to re-evaluate what that potential actually was.

Let's just wait this one out. You pull out the performance you're "capable" of, and I'll take my hat off to you.

[ausrwr]

Rich, I do wish you luck. But all the luck in the world will not change reality.

But reality is independent of what you think--or what I think.

So, it's a verbal standoff at the moment, which your actions are irrelevant to, but not mine.

Perhaps it's just my odd point of view, but I like my position in this conversation better than I like yours.

Nay-sayers are fools.

ranger

It's casting pearls before swine for both of us. Of course we're at a verbal impasse. You will talk about how you can achieve your potential until you do it. I can talk about how you've significantly over-estimated your potential, and how I believe your training methodology is wrong until judgement day.

I will be convinced when you pull the times. I'll be convinced that you're one of the best athletes the world has ever seen. I'll be convinced that you've achieved in spite of, rather than because of, your training.

You will never be convinced if I am right. You will find reasons that I'm wrong until I get bored. You won't.

You don't need to take ten years to learn how to row. A friend of mine started rowing and within a year won a world championship medal.

Feel free to call me a fool and a nay-sayer. It's free speech. And compared to what I've called you in the past, it's nothing.

But perhaps consider: if you are a nay-doer, who is really the fool? If your potential is an honest 6:16, and the best time you've pulled in years is 6:42, there's something wrong. My supposed potential is low 5:50s. If I couldn't pull 26 seconds worse than that on base training for hours a day, I might have cause to re-evaluate what that potential actually was.

Let's just wait this one out. You pull out the performance you're "capable" of, and I'll take my hat off to you.