Ranger's training thread

[ranger]

Rowing well is 13 SPI for lightweights; 16 SPI for heavyweights.

There is no evidence for this statement.

I repeat, there is no evidence for your statement.

I just gave it to you.

It couldn't be clearer.

ranger

[ranger]

Jon Bone rows poorly (12 SPI at high drag, 145 df.), and to try to compensate, pumps the rate up to 32 spm.

So he misses Cashin's standard by almost 10 seconds, even though Cashin only rates 27 spm.

As he ages, because he will still row poorly, Bone's times will fall off, precipitously, at a rate of about 1.7 seconds per year.

When he is 60, Jon will have a hard time pulling 6:35.

If he learned to row well, and then rowed well in all of his training and racing, Jon might catch Cashin pretty easily, given Jon's size and work ethic.

Learning to row well is a big project, though, especially for a veteran who never has.

So, it is unlikely that Jon will try.

ranger

[PaulH]

I repeat, there is no evidence for your statement.

I just gave it to you.

It couldn't be clearer.

ranger

On the contrary, from the entire history of the sport you gave me the names of two people who 'row well'. While they are/were athletes to be admired greatly, neither holds the world record for any distance (though Andy Ripley has an age group record, and all credit to him for that). So why should their performance be considered some sort of ideal, and why would that ideal be labeled 'rowing well'?

[ranger]

I repeat, there is no evidence for your statement.

I just gave it to you.

It couldn't be clearer.

ranger

On the contrary, from the entire history of the sport you gave me the names of two people who 'row well'. While they are/were athletes to be admired greatly, neither holds the world record for any distance (though Andy Ripley has an age group record, and all credit to him for that). So why should their performance be considered some sort of ideal, and why would that ideal be labeled 'rowing well'?

Insincere cynics like you are a dime a dozen.

Good luck with it.

No, nothing compels you to recognize evidence.

No, nothing compels you to learn--from experience, others, or otherwise.

No, nothing compels you get get better, or even to try.

Etc.

To each his own, I guess.

ranger

[PaulH]

No, nothing compels you to recognize evidence.

This isn't a failure to recognize evidence. I agree that all the rowers you mentioned are great athletes, and there are many more. But the fact that one or two of them coincidentally applied an arbitrary integer amount of pressure (or whatever SPI measures) during a race is not what made them great athletes, and it does not define 'rowing well'.

[ranger]

No, nothing compels you to recognize evidence.

This isn't a failure to recognize evidence. I agree that all the rowers you mentioned are great athletes, and there are many more. But the fact that one or two of them coincidentally applied an arbitrary integer amount of pressure (or whatever SPI measures) during a race is not what made them great athletes, and it does not define 'rowing well'.

The standards I suggest for rowing well are just norms, ideals--but important ones.

Accomplished rowers pull in and around those norms/ideals.

Those who are less accomplished don't.

Many great athletes can't row a lick.

Many great rowers can't run a lick, swim a lick, etc.

You are missing my claim.

I am not saying that if you row well you will be fast over 2K.

Sure, even if you row well, you also have to have certain physiological capacities to be fast over 2K.

I am saying that, given your physiological capacities, whatever they might be, you will be faster over 2K, _much_ faster, if you take the time to learn to row well.

There is no benefit to rowing poorly, only loss.

It is better to be long rather than short, quick rather than slow, to have a high ratio rather than a low, to have good timing rather than bad, to have good sequencing rather than bad, to have good leverage rather than bad, to have balanced leverage rather than imbalanced, to pull against low resistance with quick leverage rather than high resistance with slow leverage, to have good posture rather than bad, to have good preparation at the catch rather than bad, to have good slide control rather than bad, to have properly sequenced leveraging rather than poorly sequenced leveraging, to have a rhythmically integrated stroke cycle rather than an arhythmic one, and so forth.

In my experiece, rowing well vs. rowing poorly is worth as much as 70 watts.

In everyday UT1 rowing, that can be as much as ten seconds per 500m.

In a 2K, that can be as much as six seconds per 500m.

ranger

[ranger]

it does not define 'rowing well'.

Then what does?

ranger

[PaulH]

it does not define 'rowing well'.

Then what does?

ranger

I don't know. 'Well' is a subjective term, and you're trying to define it objectively by the baseless attribution of an invented integer value.

[JimR]

it does not define 'rowing well'.

Then what does?

ranger

I don't know. 'Well' is a subjective term, and you're trying to define it objectively by the baseless attribution of an invented integer value.

Maybe if the SPI were calculated for every rower of every race for the last 10 years ... and the trend of SPI vs finish position were analyzed ... and SPI turned out to be the best predictor of finish position (i.e. higher SPI always wins) ... then maybe as case could be made.

Although what stuck me as odd on this line of reasoning from ranger was the stark contrast between all those other names and ranger ... all those other people could hold the SPI for a 2K, ranger can't.

I might suggest that the first rule of "rowing well" might be ... don't stop rowing. Odd, it didn't take me 10 years to figure that out.

JimR

[mikvan52]

Subject: ranger's examination of "rowing well"

Before reading this post, read my signature
What does it mean?
I am a repeat world champion on the erg and a repeat national Champion masters sculler.
On the water I row as a lwt and beat all comers who are hwt. IOW: I might know something about rowing well both on the erg and on the water.

What ranger is talking about here is either intended to incite volumes of replies with its insincere idiocy or is simply ignorant.
R. Cureton once "rowed well" on the erg (2003) and modestly well (many seconds off Roy Brook's record) in 2010. He does not row well on the water.
In my opinion this is because of his lack of form, lovingly referred to as "anchor hauling" here on this thread.

SPI does not win races on the water. IT CAN HELP ON THE ERG where there is no movement of a floating craft over a certain number of meters.
The last time I looked, ergs do not "cover 2k" or go "over 2k"! They remain still. All we do when we erg is spin a cog with a chain.

At this time in the evolution of indoor rowers, all major manufacturers of ergs are attempting to eliminate the static characteristics of their models which they view as limiting to their use for those who choose to row well on the water.

Personally: I prefer to row on slides as it is the least expensive option for me and my wife at this time wherein we both benefit our OTW training.

ranger (OTOH), continues to anchor haul and, as a result, his mind is caught in the sprocket of SPI, which is only suited for the erg. This is know as being a one trick pony. Just as well: As a man who may have erged 100 million + meters with inferior OTW form, who rigidly defends his technique, who is getting old, there is next to no chance of his ever excelling on the water. Witness his outings to date culminating in one race where his was unable to steer. Furthermore: A trained eye sees many things wrong with ranger OTW rowing that go well beyond steering. (pun intended)

Any OTW coach knows: raw power by itself does not win races OTW. If you think I don't know what I'm talking about go ask one of your own choosing.
My coaching has come (primarily) the programs led by:
Charles Platt
Bill Stowe
Ted Nash
Tom Bohrer
& Buzz Congram

Their results through the decades should give some indication in estimating and producing racing success.

Will I seriously entertain anything ranger say about rowing well without seeing winning results at a major indoor and OTW regattas?.........(hmmm).... But, anyway, I really doubt we examine these pages for information on training.

For my own part, in a few days I will drive down to Crash-B in the early hours before the race to volunteer as a cox... I will not be there with any hopes of seeing ranger. That would be of such small consequence. In the end, someone with such a myopic view of the sport can only have modestly good results. I have always congratulated him for those marks.

[claus hansen]

Regarding SPI: for the fun of it I calculated SPI for the 7 fastest rowers in the Danish Open LW championship 10 days ago. Among them are some of the fastest lightweights in the world right now. I had to use average strokerate pr. 500 meters which is not fully accurate but allmost. SPI ranged from 10.6 (nr. 2) to 11.8 (nr.3). Strokerates ranged from 37-42.75, times from 6.02.6 to 6.14.8 (nr. 7 - Eskild Ebbesen).

Off cause this was just the championship of a small nation - - not a big competetion. At the Crash B they might raise their SPI rahter than strokerate,

Here are the full results:

504-Herre åben Letvægt 2000m

Henrik Stephansen SPI 11.1
1:29.7
(1:29.7 - T45)
3:00.5
(1:30.8 - T39)
4:31.4
(1:30.9 - T41)
6:02.6(1:31.2 - T44)

2 Steffen Bonde SPI 10.6
1:31.2
(1:31.2 - T44)
3:04.3
(1:33.1 - T40)
4:36.9
(1:32.6 - T41)
6:07.0(1:30.1 - T46)

3 Mads Rasmussen SPI 11.8
1:30.6
(1:30.6 - T40)
3:03.9
(1:33.3 - T36)
4:37.9
(1:34.0 - T35)
6:08.8
(1:30.9 - T40)

4 Jacob Søgaard Larsen SPI 11.6
1:32.5
(1:32.5 - T38)
3:07.1
(1:34.6 - T36)
4:41.5
(1:34.4 - T36)
6:13.5
(1:32.0 - T38)

5 Christian Place Pedersen SPI 11.1
1:32.1
(1:32.1 - T41)
3:07.3
(1:35.2 - T37)
4:42.4
(1:35.1 - T36)
6:13.8
(1:31.4 - T41)

6 Morten Jørgensen SPI 10.6
1:32.9
(1:32.9 - T42)
3:07.9
(1:35.0 - T38)
4:43.7
(1:35.8 - T38)
6:14.4(1:30.7 - T43)

7 Eskild Ebbesen SPI 11.05
1:32.3
(1:32.3 - T40)
3:07.4
(1:35.1 - T36)
4:42.8
(1:35.4 - T36)
6:14.8(1:32.0 - T42)

[ginster]

Regarding SPI: for the fun of it I calculated SPI for the 7 fastest rowers in the Danish Open LW championship 10 days ago. Among them are some of the fastest lightweights in the world right now. I had to use average strokerate pr. 500 meters which is not fully accurate but allmost. SPI ranged from 10.6 (nr. 2) to 11.8 (nr.3). Strokerates ranged from 37-42.75, times from 6.02.6 to 6.14.8 (nr. 7 - Eskild Ebbesen).

Off cause this was just the championship of a small nation - - not a big competetion. At the Crash B they might raise their SPI rahter than strokerate,

Here are the full results:

504-Herre åben Letvægt 2000m

Henrik Stephansen SPI 11.1
1:29.7
(1:29.7 - T45)
3:00.5
(1:30.8 - T39)
4:31.4
(1:30.9 - T41)
6:02.6(1:31.2 - T44)

2 Steffen Bonde SPI 10.6
1:31.2
(1:31.2 - T44)
3:04.3
(1:33.1 - T40)
4:36.9
(1:32.6 - T41)
6:07.0(1:30.1 - T46)

3 Mads Rasmussen SPI 11.8
1:30.6
(1:30.6 - T40)
3:03.9
(1:33.3 - T36)
4:37.9
(1:34.0 - T35)
6:08.8
(1:30.9 - T40)

4 Jacob Søgaard Larsen SPI 11.6
1:32.5
(1:32.5 - T38)
3:07.1
(1:34.6 - T36)
4:41.5
(1:34.4 - T36)
6:13.5
(1:32.0 - T38)

5 Christian Place Pedersen SPI 11.1
1:32.1
(1:32.1 - T41)
3:07.3
(1:35.2 - T37)
4:42.4
(1:35.1 - T36)
6:13.8
(1:31.4 - T41)

6 Morten Jørgensen SPI 10.6
1:32.9
(1:32.9 - T42)
3:07.9
(1:35.0 - T38)
4:43.7
(1:35.8 - T38)
6:14.4(1:30.7 - T43)

7 Eskild Ebbesen SPI 11.05
1:32.3
(1:32.3 - T40)
3:07.4
(1:35.1 - T36)
4:42.8
(1:35.4 - T36)
6:14.8(1:32.0 - T42)

Don't go cluttering up this thread with FACTS.... this thread is for

if, maybe, in the fall, I think...

[hjs]

Regarding SPI: for the fun of it I calculated SPI for the 7 fastest rowers in the Danish Open LW championship 10 days ago. Among them are some of the fastest lightweights in the world right now. I had to use average strokerate pr. 500 meters which is not fully accurate but allmost. SPI ranged from 10.6 (nr. 2) to 11.8 (nr.3). Strokerates ranged from 37-42.75, times from 6.02.6 to 6.14.8 (nr. 7 - Eskild Ebbesen).

Off cause this was just the championship of a small nation - - not a big competetion. At the Crash B they might raise their SPI rahter than strokerate,

Here are the full results:

504-Herre åben Letvægt 2000m

Henrik Stephansen SPI 11.1
1:29.7
(1:29.7 - T45)
3:00.5
(1:30.8 - T39)
4:31.4
(1:30.9 - T41)
6:02.6(1:31.2 - T44)

2 Steffen Bonde SPI 10.6
1:31.2
(1:31.2 - T44)
3:04.3
(1:33.1 - T40)
4:36.9
(1:32.6 - T41)
6:07.0(1:30.1 - T46)

3 Mads Rasmussen SPI 11.8
1:30.6
(1:30.6 - T40)
3:03.9
(1:33.3 - T36)
4:37.9
(1:34.0 - T35)
6:08.8
(1:30.9 - T40)

4 Jacob Søgaard Larsen SPI 11.6
1:32.5
(1:32.5 - T38)
3:07.1
(1:34.6 - T36)
4:41.5
(1:34.4 - T36)
6:13.5
(1:32.0 - T38)

5 Christian Place Pedersen SPI 11.1
1:32.1
(1:32.1 - T41)
3:07.3
(1:35.2 - T37)
4:42.4
(1:35.1 - T36)
6:13.8
(1:31.4 - T41)

6 Morten Jørgensen SPI 10.6
1:32.9
(1:32.9 - T42)
3:07.9
(1:35.0 - T38)
4:43.7
(1:35.8 - T38)
6:14.4(1:30.7 - T43)

7 Eskild Ebbesen SPI 11.05
1:32.3
(1:32.3 - T40)
3:07.4
(1:35.1 - T36)
4:42.8
(1:35.4 - T36)
6:14.8(1:32.0 - T42)

What should they be able of when they really learn to row well !

[ranger]

Maybe if the SPI were calculated for every rower of every race for the last 10 years ... and the trend of SPI vs finish position were analyzed ... and SPI turned out to be the best predictor of finish position (i.e. higher SPI always wins) ... then maybe as case could be made.

So, facts and individual performances are a better guide to training than ideals?

Yes, I know you folks think that.

How wrong it is.

How wrong it is.

For everything you prepare for in life, not just rowing.

ranger

[PaulH]

So, facts and individual performances are a better guide to training than ideals?

Yes, on two levels. Trivially, ideals aren't necessarily suited to the vagaries of the individual. More importantly, you're not actually working to an ideal, you're working to an invented metric with an arbitrarily assigned integer value.