6:28 2K

[ranger]

The pattern is slowing down

Yes.

ranger

last year you pulled 6.41 at max, so this year you agree you will be slower again.
Again some sense

Well, your "max" in a race depends on what you do in training.

Last year, I did no AT, TR, and AN training, just UT stuff.

So, yes, in an AT 2K, I will be .3 seconds slower this year.

But in a max 2K, with full distance training and sharpening, I will be 23.7 seconds faster.

My training will be completely different this year.

I will add hard distance work and full sharpening.

ranger

[hjs]

Yes.

ranger

last year you pulled 6.41 at max, so this year you agree you will be slower again.
Again some sense

Well, you "max" depends on what you do in training.
Last year, I did not AT, TR, and AN training, just UT stuff.
So, yes, in an AT 2K, I will be .3 seconds slower.
But in a max 2K, with full distance training and sharpening, I will be 23.7 seconds faster.
My training will be completely different this year.
I will add hard distance work and full sharpening.

ranger

AT pace is around 5 k pace, strangly enough you had to slow down almost every race you did last year

If I am not mis taken is 2k only 40% of 5k So you again are just telling lies.


Ps If your 6.41 was "only AT" al you had to do was do a little sprint in the last 100 me to dip below that mark, strangly enough you begged me "to have pitty, with a poor old man" AT hahahahahahah

[ranger]

strangly enough you had to slow down almost every race you did last year

Yes, from 1:38 or so to 1:40.

No, 1:38 is not my 5K pace at the moment.

If 1:40 is, I would be delighted.

We'll soon see.

Even preparation for a quality 5K demands quite a bit of AT work.

Last year, I didn't do this work.

This year is different.

I am not only doing the AT work (e.g., repeat 5/6Ks; hard 30min, 10K, 60min, and HM rows; and things like 4 x 2K), I am going on to do work at TR and AN.

I haven't done hard distance rowing and full sharpening since 2003.

ranger

[philrow]

In terms of stroking power, this is just what Stephansen does.

"Danish Lightweight Racing Stroke"

The only difference is that he rates 43 spm for 2K rather than 36 spm.

He's younger!

Yea, a little bit younger -- around a third of your age.

[hjs]

strangly enough you had to slow down almost every race you did last year

Yes, from 1:38 or so to 1:40.

ranger

hmmm 1.38 and 1.40 if that was your pace why did race around 6.50 on average last season. That's 1.42.5

Is this again a lie or are you that poor with with math

[ranger]

strangly enough you had to slow down almost every race you did last year

Yes, from 1:38 or so to 1:40.

ranger

hmmm 1.38 and 1.40 if that was your pace why did race around 6.50 on average last season. That's 1.42.5

Is this again a lie or are you that poor with with math

6:41 is 1:40.3 pace.

That's where I ended up.

A pretty respectable pace, I would say, given no distance rowing or sharpening.

1:39.5 is WR pace--for a 55-year-old.

I was 58.

The average decline in 2K times with age among veterans is 1.7 seconds a year.

So, my 6:41 at 58 last year is equivalent to 6:36 for a 55-year-old, two seconds under the 55s lwt WR.

My 6:41 was the best time of the season in the 55s lwts by three seconds, even though I didn't prepare for it.

I pulled the 6:41 just on the basis of foundational (low rate, high stroking power, middling distances) rowing, like level 4 rowing in the Wolverine Plan.

ranger

[DUThomas]

The average decline in 2K times with age among veterans is 1.7 seconds a year.

So, my 6:41 at 58 last year is equivalent to 6:36 for a 55-year-old, two seconds under the 55s lwt WR.

ranger

But you say you lose only 0.3 seconds a year on a 2K, so your 6:41 at 58 is equivalent to ... 6:40 at 55, which is two seconds over the 55s lwt WR. You'll really have to do better if you want that hypothetical WR.

[hjs]

Yes, from 1:38 or so to 1:40.

ranger

hmmm 1.38 and 1.40 if that was your pace why did race around 6.50 on average last season. That's 1.42.5

Is this again a lie or are you that poor with with math

6:41 is 1:40.3 pace.

That's where I ended up.

ranger

Your average race time was a lot slower.............

[ranger]

The average decline in 2K times with age among veterans is 1.7 seconds a year.

So, my 6:41 at 58 last year is equivalent to 6:36 for a 55-year-old, two seconds under the 55s lwt WR.

ranger

But you say you lose only 0.3 seconds a year on a 2K, so your 6:41 at 58 is equivalent to ... 6:40 at 55, which is two seconds over the 55s lwt WR. You'll really have to do better if you want that hypothetical WR.

I am not losing any time at all over 2K; I am gaining time.

Why?

I am just learning to row.

So I am gaining time by improving my technical competence.

This year, I think I will be 12 seconds better than I was in 2002, seven years ago.

The 1.7 second average loss in time over 2K per year has to do with others, not me.

The loss of .3 seconds per year is just loss due to the decline in aerobic capacity.

It is possible to lose or gain time in other ways.

For instance, many older rowers just don't put in as many meters, or as many sessions.

This can lead to a steeper than necessary decline in their times.

If the lwt 50s WR is 6:25 and the lwt 60s WR 6:42, the lwt 55s WR should be 6:33.5, not 6:38.

I think I'll be well under that 6:33.5 very soon now, even without hard sharpening.

Then I can spend the rest of this season sharpening up my anaerobic capacities (and challenging my aerobic capacities with distance rowing).

I no longer row at low rates at all.

My minimal rate in training is now 27 spm.

ranger

[Rocket Roy]

I've not looked in here for a while, so how did the beating the WR by 10 seconds go last week-end?

[ranger]

I've not looked in here for a while, so how did the beating the WR by 10 seconds go last week-end?

No 2K trial yet.

I am still doing distance rowing, which is coming along great.

A bit of a change of plan.

I will probably do some distance trials before a 2K trial.

No set schedule on this.

I am rating 28+ spm in all my rowing now.

No more low rate work.

I'm racing my training now, preparing to race.

ranger

[chgoss]

I've not looked in here for a while, so how did the beating the WR by 10 seconds go last week-end?

No 2K trial yet.

I am still doing distance rowing, which is coming along great.

<snip>

I'm racing my training now, preparing to race.

ranger

no! you cant race your training until you have completed the foundational work!
Dont make that mistake again

You cant race your training until you are within 12 seconds of you 2k goal

Last year, I had the best 2K in my age and weight division by three seconds, without even doing hard distance rowing ("pre-sharpening) and hard sharpening to prepare for it, just on the basis of foundational training

I'm assuming that by 'year' ranger really means season, though I'm happy to be corrected on that. With that in mind, here's a collection of quotes collected by Byron (I believe) from ranger's deleted blog:

January 20, 2009: I am just starting to sharpen.
January 22, 2009: I have only been sharpening for three days.
January 29, 2009: I am also just beginning to sharpen.
February 2, 2009: Haven't really done any sharpening yet.
February 5, 2009: Sharpening is coming along perfectly.
February 8, 2009: I have just started to sharpen.
February 8, 2009: I haven't sharpened yet.

Not sure how that might supplement your 'guide to ranger training', chgoss.

Just shows my attempts to start sharpening, which never really materialized.

I certainly never got to organized sharpening routines--8 x 500m, 4 x 1K, etc.

Why?

Pretty serious reasons.

I hadn't even gotten to solid distance rowing, certainly not at up to 30 spm, which is what I think you need to do before you start to sharpen.

So, sharpening was really jumping the gun, given my training.

[bloomp]

So, according to Rich's logic, you cannot train to race by racing your training. Where is the sense in that?

Your race should only be an extension of your training, and it is an extension because you are already knowledgeable of how far you can push yourself (by training to race, properly) and you finally, psychologically, can break any boundaries that you have set up during training. These bounds are broken because of adrenaline, the idea of a team, the impending competition, or the boat you are trying to pass. Without racing within the training (impossible for any real team rower to NOT race their training), you never have any clue as to where you really are.

My proof is this. While attending a Vespoli coaching seminar in Philadelphia last year, the Wisconsin men's coach spoke to us. He has a lightweight (145 pound) rower who for an hour can pull at a 1:45 or so. But across a 2k, he can't really go lower than 1:41. But had he been training as Rich suggests, he would have assumed that he COULD go faster and died out early on in a shorter distance piece. Ergo, with the body type Mr. Cureton has, sure his training may work - but without proof of his times (ACTUAL times, not your GOALS that you never test) - we will never know if he's telling the truth about anything.

Also, Rich, you seem to waver back and forth between "Sharpening" and "distance rowing". You have been claiming to have started sharpening at least a week ago, yet you've reported nothing. Make up your mind as to what you're doing already!

[chgoss]

So, according to Rich's logic, you cannot train to race by racing your training. Where is the sense in that?

Your race should only be an extension of your training, and it is an extension because you are already knowledgeable of how far you can push yourself (by training to race, properly) and you finally, psychologically, can break any boundaries that you have set up during training. These bounds are broken because of adrenaline, the idea of a team, the impending competition, or the boat you are trying to pass. Without racing within the training (impossible for any real team rower to NOT race their training), you never have any clue as to where you really are.

My proof is this. While attending a Vespoli coaching seminar in Philadelphia last year, the Wisconsin men's coach spoke to us. He has a lightweight (145 pound) rower who for an hour can pull at a 1:45 or so. But across a 2k, he can't really go lower than 1:41. But had he been training as Rich suggests, he would have assumed that he COULD go faster and died out early on in a shorter distance piece. Ergo, with the body type Mr. Cureton has, sure his training may work - but without proof of his times (ACTUAL times, not your GOALS that you never test) - we will never know if he's telling the truth about anything.

Also, Rich, you seem to waver back and forth between "Sharpening" and "distance rowing". You have been claiming to have started sharpening at least a week ago, yet you've reported nothing. Make up your mind as to what you're doing already!

Well, you have to understand Rich's definition of "racing your training", which is this: "recording the time it took to cover any distance, at any effort level". Rich, as you know, does not report the time it took to cover a distance until the final stage "heavy sharpening".
The folks that report the distances/times in their daily training, are racing their training.

Your definition of "racing your training" is a different one. Your definition is "going 100% full out, for a distance (that distance varies, depending on the goal of the session), and recording the time it took for future data collection purposes".

The key difference is recording/reporting the time/distance. Ranger views this as detremental to training.

Said another way, the very act of recording the time taken to cover a distance (any distance, any effort), transforms that training effort from whatever it was before you wrote it down (for example, an easy recovery row) to "racing your training".

I'm not exactly clear on how this act, completed after the fact, has such an impact on the training piece.. suspect it has something to do with quantum physics...

[Rocket Roy]

I've not looked in here for a while, so how did the beating the WR by 10 seconds go last week-end?

No 2K trial yet.

I am still doing distance rowing, which is coming along great.

A bit of a change of plan.


ranger

Why not just admit it? You can't make weight and you can't beat the time?

Might as well wait until you are 60 then attack the 60 record, but then again you'd still need to make weight. There's always something isn't there?