6:28 2K

[whp4]

Even though I am seven years older, I am quite a bit _better_ now than I was in 2003

Just so long as nobody asks those pesky questions about why you are so much slower if you are quite a bit better!

[ranger]

Even though I am seven years older, I am quite a bit _better_ now than I was in 2003

Just so long as nobody asks those pesky questions about why you are so much slower if you are quite a bit better!

Over the last five years, I haven't been training to race, I have been training to get better.

It is a demonstrated fact:

Male WR-holders, 40-70, who train to race, slow down by about two seconds per year over 2K.

That's a lot.

From 50-60, that's 20 seconds.

I have been training to get better, not worse.

Maybe it's just me, but I find that preferable.

If I pull a lwt 6:16 2K when I am 60, I will have gained 16 seconds over 2K from when I was 50.

When I was 50, my standard 2K time, which I have did about six times, was 6:32.

I think I will now do 6:28 on the basis of just foundational rowing (and perhaps some hard distance rowing) alone, as I did in 2006.

Then I will add distance trials and hard sharpening.

I get about a dozen seconds over 2K from distance trials hard sharpening (i.e., anaerobic training).

The prediction is that if I followed traditional training plans and rowed 6:32 at 50, I should row around 6:52 at 60.

No thanks.

ranger

[whp4]

Even though I am seven years older, I am quite a bit _better_ now than I was in 2003

Just so long as nobody asks those pesky questions about why you are so much slower if you are quite a bit better!

Over the last five years, I haven't been training to race, I have been training to get better.

It is a demonstrated fact:

The only facts you've demonstrated are that you are slower, and can't reliably prepare for, get to, start, or finish a race. You have only your coach to blame for the misguided training, and the idiot who chose him.

[ranger]

The only facts you've demonstrated are that you are slower, and can't reliably prepare for, get to, start, or finish a race.

True.

Over the last five years, I didn't prepare to race.

That's why I had the best 2K in my division last year by only 3 seconds.

I have just been doing foundational rowing (i.e., rowing at low rates and high stroking powers).

That foundational rowing is now complete.

So, this year I am adding race preparation--pre-sharpening and sharpening.

I get about a dozen seconds over 2K from each.

So this year I should now pull a 2K that is 27 seconds beyond my competition, perhaps as much as 30 seconds.

By and large, my major competitors skip foundational rowing entirely and just do pre-sharpening and sharpening.

So, unless they return to foundational rowing, they have no way to improve.

They will just get worse (by about two seconds per year).

The prediction is that Rocket Roy, if he is still erging at all, will pull 6:46 next year, two seconds slower than the 6:44 he did last year.

ranger

[hjs]

The only facts you've demonstrated are that you are slower, and can't reliably prepare for, get to, start, or finish a race.

True.

I will just get worse (by about two seconds per year).

The prediction is that I, if I manage to race and get to lightweight, will pull 6:43 next year, two seconds slower than the 6:41 I did last year.

ranger

Indeed you will

[ranger]

If we are older rowers and follow traditional training plans, which overvalue aerobic capacity, when it is inevitably declining, slowly but inevitable we get slower

Indeed we do, as Mike C., Rocket Roy, Dennis Hastings, Paul Siebach, and Mike VB's 2K times, among many others, demonstrate.

ranger

[hjs]

If we are older rowers and follow traditional training plans, which overvalue aerobic capacity, when it is inevitably declining, slowly but inevitable we get slower

Indeed we do, as Mike C., Rocket Roy, Dennis Hastings, Paul Siebach, and Mike VB's, mine and yours 2K times, among many others, demonstrate.

ranger

yep you are right

[ranger]

My last race in 2003, fully trained, was 6:32.

In 2006, I pulled 6:29.7 just on the basis of foundational training.

I am much better than that now.

ranger

[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 ?

still no answer ..........

[ranger]

still no answer ..........

True.

The answer is my racing when I am fully trained.

So words are irrelevant, especially to cynics, skeptics, and nay-sayers--like you.

It takes some faith and hope to train well.

Those of little faith and no hope fail/lose before they begin.

Good luck with it.

ranger

[rjw]

True.

The answer is my racing when I am fully trained.

But by definition, ranger will not be fully trained until he reaches his goal of 6:16. So as long as he thinks it can happen it is a possibility. At what point does he say - "well, I gave it my best shot"? Not until he is fully trained!

So in my estimate this will/has become a circular discussion. Sure goals don't have to be timed bound but there is usually something to base a goal on. And by his own admission, each year you wait, after 50, adds another 1.3 seconds.

40's lightweight WR 6:18.3. 60's lightweight WR 6:16. I don't think so as I don't believe a goal of 6:16 is reasonable for a lightweight close to 60 year old regardless of positive thinking, new training (which really isn't new), prayer, time or anything else I can think of to throw at it.

What is the difference between nay saying and being realistic?

[ranger]

But by definition, ranger will not be fully trained until he reaches his goal of 6:16

No, I will be fully trained with I have done distance trials and a couple of months of hard sharpening--whatever the result of that might be.

I can fail to achieve my goals, just like anyone else.

And with any goals as ambitious as the ones I have see for myself, failure is indeed more likely that success, although this doesn't at mean that I will necessarily fail.

As far as I can tell, I still have a good chance of succeeding, however slim that chance might be.

A great deal will have to go right if I am going to reach my goals, and it is hard to dictate circumstances, especially those that are out of your control.

ranger

[ranger]

And by his own admission, each year you wait, after 50, adds another 1.3 seconds.

No, scientists have now determined that the minimal decline with age in rowing performance due to the inevitable decline with age in aerobic capacity is .3 seconds a year over 2K.

As I have stressed, though, and have diligently pursued, there are many ways to improve a 2K score.

Developing your aerobic capacity with training is only one of these ways.

For instance, improving your technique has nothing to do with aerobic capacity, but all else equal, those who row well go much faster over 2K than those who don't.

For many, improving race tactics can also improve a 2K score.

For heavy lightweights such as myself, weight management is an important part of performing well in a race.

How a rower handles rest (tapering before a race, etc.) can affect a 2K score.

How a rower handles travel to a race venue (jet lag, etc.) can affect a 2K score

For some rowers, improving full body strength (or flexibility, or quickness, etc.) can improve a 2K score.

Controlling various kinds of anxiety related to training, race preparation, and racing itself can improve a 2K score.

Racing experience can help a 2K score. Racing well often involves knowing how to deal smoothly and effectively with problems that arise during racing--poor conditions, an unfamiliar machine, unexpected physical breakdown of various sorts, etc.

Technical effectiveness and efficiency (and many other matters unrelated to aerobic capacity) are _very_ important in rowing performance.

It is a large mistake to think that they are not.

ranger

[ranger]

What is the difference between nay saying and being realistic?

The former is social, directed at another; the latter is personal, and therefore not directed at another, but used for your own good/bad purposes.

Because violent and asocial, the former is unnecessary and lamentable--especially given that in the end, it is often unjustified/mistaken.

The latter isn't necessary, but it sure saves you a lot of grief, so it is certainly advantageous to attend to it.



ranger

[hjs]

What is the difference between nay saying and being realistic?

Raoul naysaying is what the nutty prof does, every sane argument and all proof simply put aside.

Being realistic is looking at facts and from that looking further what could be possible. If the facts change the goals can change also if not ................