6:28 2K

snowleopard · Post by **snowleopard** » November 6th, 2009, 7:31 am

ranger wrote:You can cobble through if you're gutsy, as I am.

Oh yeah ya big sissy, that really showed through in your head races this year

ranger wrote:This last year, I cobbled through at WR pace for my age and weight, without even training or it.

Hello, hello, earth calling ranger earth calling ranger -- you are not a world record holder, I repeat, you are _not_ a world record holder. And besides, you have been in training for years.

ranger · Post by **ranger** » November 6th, 2009, 7:51 am

When 50s lwts row at normal rates over long distances, why do they row at 9 SPI rather than 12 SPI?

I know _I_ did--for several years.

I don't do this now, though.

Happy about that.

ranger

ranger · Post by **ranger** » November 6th, 2009, 7:54 am

snowleopard wrote:you are not a world record holder

Been there, done that.

I have no interest in rowing 6:42 when I am 60.

I just pulled 6:41 without even training for it.

My target is 6:16.

Yes, it takes several years of training to get to 26 seconds under the WR for your age and weight.

You need to row to the limits of your potential.

You can't settle for what you can do by sharpening for a few weeks and then racing.

In rowing, you improve by getting better at foundational and distance rowing.

Sharpening and racing are irrelevant.

I am delighted with how patient I have been with my training.

My foundational rowing is now significantly better.

We'll soon see whether my distance rowing is significantly better, too.

Not long to go now before I am fully trained.

This winter, I think.

ranger

snowleopard · Post by **snowleopard** » November 6th, 2009, 8:02 am

ranger wrote:
snowleopard wrote:you are not a world record holder
Been there, done that.

I know. So don't lie:

ranger wrote:This last year, I cobbled through at WR pace for my age and weight, without even training or it.

You did not threaten the WR last year.

ranger · Post by **ranger** » November 6th, 2009, 8:45 am

snowleopard wrote:You did not threaten the WR last year.

Given the normal decline with age, WRs are usually set when a rower just enters an age category.

This is true of all of the present male WRs in the 40s-60s (Mike C., Rocket Roy, Dick Cashin, Andy Ripley, Paul Hendershott, Brian Bailey, Big Bird, etc.).

6:41 at 58, which I did last year without even training for it, is the equivalent of 6:36 at 55.

50s lwts decline at an average of 1.7 seconds per year.

When he was 55, Rocket Roy pulled 6:38.

Last year, three years later, he pulled 6:44.

Unless he does something different with his training, the prediction is that, this year, he'll pull 6:46.

ranger

hjs · Post by **hjs** » November 6th, 2009, 8:53 am

snowleopard wrote:
ranger wrote:
snowleopard wrote:you are not a world record holder
Been there, done that.
I know. So don't lie:

ranger wrote:This last year, I cobbled through at WR pace for my age and weight, without even training or it.
You did not threaten the WR last year.

The first 500 meter was on pace, after that his AT capacity tumbled for some strange reason

snowleopard · Post by **snowleopard** » November 6th, 2009, 9:09 am

ranger wrote:6:41 at 58, which I did last year without even training for it, is the equivalent of 6:36 at 55.

It's not. 6:36 is 6:36 is 6:36. People do not age in the same way so some absolute formula for age related performance degredation is baseless.

However desperate you might be to justify your mediocre results to yourself you did not trouble the WR last year.

ranger · Post by **ranger** » November 6th, 2009, 10:20 am

snowleopard wrote:People do not age in the same way

Well, there have been no exceptions so far.

In an uncertain world, based on probabilities, that's a pretty good basis for a generalizaton.

_All_ of the 8 male WRs in the 40s through the 60s have been set when the rower just entered the age category.

None of the presents WR-holders in the 40s-60s has ever improved after they set their WRs.

Their 2K times have steadily declined with age.

The spreads between the two 50s and 60s 2K WRs, hwt and lwt, are exactly the same, 17 seconds.

The spreads between the two 40s and 50s 2K WRs, hwt and lwt, are almost exactly the same, 10-12 seconds.

And so forth.

ranger

hjs · Post by **hjs** » November 6th, 2009, 10:26 am

ranger wrote:
snowleopard wrote:People do not age in the same way
Well, there have been no exceptions so far.

In an uncertain world, based on probabilities, that's a pretty good basis for a generalizaton.

_All_ of the 8 male WRs in the 40s through the 60s have been set when the rower just entered the age category.

None of the presents WR-holders in the 40s-60s has ever improved after they set their WRs.

They have steadily gotten worse.

ranger

yes

think 1 step further now

hint, look in the mirror

ranger · Post by **ranger** » November 6th, 2009, 10:30 am

hjs wrote:yes Laughing think 1 step further now: hint, look in the mirror

Been there, done that.

About seven years ago.

That's why I gave up racing and trying to improve my fitness and started working exclusively on improving my technique.

Physiological decline is inevitable and about the same for everyone (who puts in a similar amount of time and effort).

So the only way to counter, or slow down, this decline is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of your technique.

Rowing is not just about fitness.

It is also significantly technical.

ranger

ranger · Post by **ranger** » November 6th, 2009, 10:39 am

snowleopard wrote:6:36 is 6:36 is 6:36.

No, rowing has age categories.

For good reason.

In the sport, a lwt 6:36 for a 20-year old is not a lwt 6:36 for a 60-year-old.

The former is 38 seconds off the the WR for that age and weight; the latter is six seconds under the WR for that age and weight.

The difference between the two age categories is 44 seconds.

ranger

hjs · Post by **hjs** » November 6th, 2009, 10:46 am

ranger wrote:
snowleopard wrote:6:36 is 6:36 is 6:36.
No, rowing has age categories.

For good reason.

In the sport, a lwt 6:36 for a 20-year old is not a lwt 6:36 for a 60-year-old.

The former is 38 seconds off the the WR for that age and weight; the latter is six seconds under the WR for that age and weight.

The difference between the two age categories is 44 seconds.

ranger

hahahah so here we have it. Dangy boy will row 6.16 at the age of 60 give or take 1 or 2 that 6.16 would have been a trrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

attention please ................ stand up

...........................

5.32 if he was 20 hahahahahahahahahahahahah

KevJGK · Post by **KevJGK** » November 6th, 2009, 11:00 am

There is no shame in failure if you gave it your best shot.

ranger; PM me your address and I will send you one of these for your desk.

snowleopard · Post by **snowleopard** » November 6th, 2009, 11:07 am

ranger wrote:
snowleopard wrote:6:36 is 6:36 is 6:36.
No, rowing has age categories.

For good reason.

In the sport, a lwt 6:36 for a 20-year old is not a lwt 6:36 for a 60-year-old.

The former is 38 seconds off the the WR for that age and weight; the latter is six seconds under the WR for that age and weight.

The difference between the two age categories is 44 seconds.

ranger

Precisely. Thank you for making my point so well and demonstrating why your claims are entirely bogus.

In your AGE CATEGORY which exists for good reason, i.e., there is no need for age related adjustment, you did not trouble the WR last year. So you are _lying_ when you say you did.

Steve G · Post by **Steve G** » November 6th, 2009, 1:51 pm

From your blog almost 3 months ago, you obviously meant BIRC 2010?!!

"16K on the erg: warm up and then race pace intervals (1:34).

Goal on these race pace intervals by BIRC: 20 x 500m, 4 x 1K, 1 x 2K (

).

To stay completely relaxed on these race pace intervals, I seem to prefer 34 spm to 32 spm."

Steve