6:28 2K

[ranger]

You forgot to put the SPM in, Rich believes that if you take 5 strokes at 24SPM - 1:44/500m, rest, take 5 more, etc.. that is "rowing well" and is the only way to train.. see #1 below..

Well, minimally.

But you might also want to row _perfectly_ rather than just well, especially if the rate is low.

That would be 15 SPI, 1:45 @ 20 spm.

Over the last six years, I've pulled a _ton_ of 15 SPI.

I got so that I could do 1K, 1:38 @ 24 spm and 500m, 1:30 @ 30 spm.

The former is 15.5 SPI; the latter, 16 SPI.

ranger

[mrfit]

Ranger,

How far do you row at 20spm 1:45?

[DUThomas]

That's a complicated question!

Just to clarify, I think mrfit is looking for an answer expressed in, say, meters. Oh, and he's probably not asking how far you think you can row at that rate.

[bloomp]

Rich,

You still fail to address the fact that you have only trained in this manner for five years. That's the same amount of time I've been rowing. Your first 2k was what, 6:32? My first 2k was an 8:16. Now I've PR'd at 6:58. You are trying to knock 16 seconds off, yet my training has brought almost 80 seconds off my PR.

This proves my point on two things. First, your training can work because you had incredible fitness coming into rowing. You can deliver the pressure that you speak of, even if it is discontinuous (if you EVER came to any high school or college team, you'd be labeled a pussy for suggesting such a thing), but not everyone can. Your fitness level is what let you pull a 6:32 off the bat, but you are STRUGGLING to get a 6:16. Five years for 16 seconds? That is pathetic. This spring I will bring another 10 seconds off my time, that's 2.5 seconds off my pace/500m. So in one year, I've been able to increase my fitness far more drastically than you. I also had NO fitness background before beginning crew 5 years ago.

Second, even if you can deliver your 6:12 2k, what in the world makes you think you can keep up such a high level of training? You've only rowed for five years, but I guarantee you that anyone who's rowed for 10+ years would realize that they could not have handled such a regimen for all ten years. You WILL burn out, you will need to find a middle ground of training. Five years of such methodology for a well trained athlete like yourself is easy, but ten? Impossible.

And I was not complimenting your 'genetics', I was making a point that for YOUR training to work for someone else (remember, you haven't proved that it works for you yet, we have seen no times, no verified rankings, no races) they would have to be built in a similar manner to you.

Paul

[ranger]

You still fail to address the fact that you have only trained in this manner for five years. That's the same amount of time I've been rowing. Your first 2k was what, 6:32? My first 2k was an 8:16. Now I've PR'd at 6:58. You are trying to knock 16 seconds off, yet my training has brought almost 80 seconds off my PR.

Yes, I am trying to knock 12 seconds off my pb, but against a pretty different background of achievement.

When I started training for effectiveness and efficiency back in 2003, I was a 52-year-old lwt and had just pulled three straight WR rows: 6:30, 6:29, 6:28.

No male WR-holder, 40 to 70, has ever improved at all; so this goal of getting better by three seconds per 500m in the 2K is ambitious.

Yes, I agree entirely that you should try to be in good physical shape in you want to do well in rowing.

You don't have to row to do this, though.

There are many ways of getting great physiological and full-body conditioning; so this consideration has no direct link to training for rowing, rather than training for some other power and endurance sport (e.g., swimming or cross-country skiing).

As I mentioned, when I first took up rowing, I jumped rope for an hour and then did 1000 sit ups _before_ I erged.

In the summers, I ran 10 miles rather than jumping rope.

I also like pull ups and did a couple of hundred of them a day--usually in sets of 20-30.

I have had a chinning bar on the door into my house/room since I was 10 years old or so.

I do a set of chins when I go in and out.

I did this for five years or so.

As you know, I also cross-train extensively, even now.

Makes you feel great.

ranger

[ranger]

Second, even if you can deliver your 6:12 2k, what in the world makes you think you can keep up such a high level of training? You've only rowed for five years, but I guarantee you that anyone who's rowed for 10+ years would realize that they could not have handled such a regimen for all ten years. You WILL burn out, you will need to find a middle ground of training. Five years of such methodology for a well trained athlete like yourself is easy, but ten? Impossible.

The controversial issue is the foundational rowing I am suggesting.

Maybe I am wrong about this, but once you row well, I think you don't have to do this rowing at all anymore.

As I mentioned once, I think that foundational rowing is just "learning to row," and once you learn, that's it.

Then just row at 10 MPS.

If you know how to row well, you will have the stroking power/effectiveness to move up the 10 MPS rate ladder.

In fact, if you row well, you should be able to row 10 MPS at your natural stroking power (and above), whatever that rate might be, in a pretty sustained way, albeit not perhaps by preference for 2K, if you want to go as fast as you can go.

BTW, I no longer do any foundational rowing and won't ever again.

I'll just row at 10 MPS from now on.

Why?

I now row well.

You need to develop a considerable amount of endurance with power if you want to row in and around 10 MPS for all purposes.

But once you develop that power, you'll always have it.

Rowing at 10 MPS is fine for _maintaining_ that power, after you develop it.

Just lift the rate, maintain the ratio, and there it is--like jet engines.

ranger

[ranger]

you haven't proved that it works for you yet, we have seen no times, no verified rankings, no races

Yikes.

Short memory.

Look again.

I had the best 2K time in my age and weight division last year--by three seconds, without even preparing for it (i.e., with no distance rowing or hard sharpening, just on the basis of foundational training).

And I get about a dozen seconds each from distance rowing and hard sharpening, as most people do, I would think.

If that is "no proof that it works," I am not sure what is.

You can't be any better than the best.

ranger

[JohnBove]

I had the best 2K time in my age and weight division last year--by three seconds, without even preparing for it (i.e., with no distance rowing or hard sharpening, just on the basis of foundational training).

And I get about a dozen seconds each from distance rowing and hard sharpening, as most people do, I would think.

If that is "no proof that it works," I am not sure what is.

ranger

You were slightly better than Roy in a minor event, having crapped out of facing him in Boston, knowing, head-to-head, you can't beat him. (Eight months of training geared toward the event, but a poetry seminar came first. Wasn't that your excuse?)

And your "proof" is that you can project that you'd be 12 seconds faster based on sharpening you claim never to have done (although you did sharpen, or lied, saying it was part of your plan.)? Nice "proof."

[ranger]

I had the best 2K time in my age and weight division last year--by three seconds, without even preparing for it (i.e., with no distance rowing or hard sharpening, just on the basis of foundational training).

And I get about a dozen seconds each from distance rowing and hard sharpening, as most people do, I would think.

If that is "no proof that it works," I am not sure what is.

ranger

You were slightly better than Roy in a minor event, having crapped out of facing him in Boston, knowing, head-to-head, you can't beat him. (Eight months of training geared toward the event, but a poetry seminar came first. Wasn't that your excuse?)

And your "proof" is that you can project that you'd be 12 seconds faster based on sharpening you claim never to have done (although you did sharpen, or lied, saying it was part of your plan.)? Nice "proof."

You seem to be a pretty bitter person, John.

My rowing is fine.

Sorry yours is a frustration.

It is great luxury to be able to continue training as you need to in order to improve, at a foundational level--but to still have the best 2K time of year anyway.

I am glad to leave foundational rowing behind.

It is certainly more fun to race, and now I can again prepare to race.

I'll be preparing to race all year.

Distance rowing and sharpening will just bring out (and therefore let me realize) in my racing the gains I have made with my foundational rowing.

Those who don't do a lot of foundational rowing don't have anything to realize when they do distance rowing and sharpening.

As they age, they just get worse.

If they are young, they just stay the same.

ranger

[bloomp]

you haven't proved that it works for you yet, we have seen no times, no verified rankings, no races

Yikes.

Short memory.

Look again.

I had the best 2K time in my age and weight division last year--by three seconds, without even preparing for it (i.e., with no distance rowing or hard sharpening, just on the basis of foundational training).

And I get about a dozen seconds each from distance rowing and hard sharpening, as most people do, I would think.

If that is "no proof that it works," I am not sure what is.

You can't be any better than the best.

ranger

you are not the best, and never will be.

You refer to times of a year ago that aren't at your 6:16. So you haven't proved a damn thing yet.

As for no more foundational rowing, I will not hold my breath. You will crap out and pull a mediocre 2k, blame it on 'bad' rowing and sharpening too early. And go back to your little circle of failure, denying your weaknesses and failures.

Paul

[hjs]

Rowing like you suggest is an easy path to burning out, getting frustrated and not actually getting faster. Rowing per your definition of 'good' is an excellent way to isolate yourself from the practical methods that actually work.

At the moment, the average decline in times among senior and veteran rowers is two seconds per year over 2K.

That's success, getting faster, doing something that works?
Odd use of words.
With that rate of decline, if you pull 6:18 (like Mike C.) at 40, you pull 6:58 at 60.

ranger

?

?

what did you pull last year?

what is your pb.

how much did you slow down ?

[ranger]

You refer to times of a year ago

No, half a year--March 2009.

ranger

[ranger]

As for no more foundational rowing, I will not hold my breath.

I don't understand this.

It is just a fact.

I am no longer doing any foundational rowing--right now.

I am rowing at 10 MPS.

Rowing at 10 MPS is much _easier_ than rowing all of your meters at 13-15 SPI and low rates.

I am happy to get relief from that!

No reason to go back to it, either.

At full slide, I now row well.

For distance rowing and racing, you just cut the slide, making each stroke easier, to maximize efficiency.

If I keep my finishes quick and long, I row 1:45 @ 28 spm (10.7 SPI) at half slide.

At full slide I pull 13 SPI (rowing well for a lightweight).

I have just done five years of foundational rowing.

I have paid my dues.

The trouble with your rowing is: you haven't.

Give or take a bit, 1:45 @ 28 spm is your 2K pace.

ranger

[hjs]

You refer to times of a year ago that aren't at your 6:16. So you haven't proved a damn thing yet.

As for no more foundational rowing, I will not hold my breath. You will crap out and pull a mediocre 2k, blame it on 'bad' rowing and sharpening too early. And go back to your little circle of failure, denying your weaknesses and failures.

Paul

here you are wrong Paul

he did prove something, he is slowing down just like everybody else of his age. Remember the 6.40 he desparately tried to crack, in the end he fell to pieces and couldn,t do wirc anymore

[ranger]

you are not the best, and never will be.

Been there, done that, Paul.

Fait accompli.

On three straight WR 2Ks, winning all of the major championships.

Before I even knew how to row.

For the last five years, I have been preparing to be there again, but this time quite a bit more impressively and permanently.

Even though I am seven years older, I am quite a bit _better_ now than I was in 2003, even though the 60s lwt 2K WR is 17 seconds slower than the 50s lwt 2K WR.

I now row well.

ranger