6:28 2K

ranger · Post by **ranger** » November 11th, 2009, 6:39 am

hjs wrote:ou mean that race that almost killed you

Hardly.

I just got off the erg after the race and chatted with the audience.

I pulled the last 300m, 1:34 @ 34 spm.

Great finish.

I beat the _heavyweight_ qualifying time for WIRC by over two seconds.

ranger

hjs · Post by **hjs** » November 11th, 2009, 7:06 am

ranger wrote:
hjs wrote:ou mean that race that almost killed you
Hardly.

I just got off the erg after the race and chatted with the audience.

I pulled the last 300m, 1:34 @ 34 spm.

Great finish.

I beat the _heavyweight_ qualifying time for WIRC by over two seconds.

ranger

The fact's :

You fell of the erg.

It took you minutes to sit up let alone stand

You are also never mention your weight there hahaha, in those days you weight 85 kg plus, mister naturall

And after this race your season was over, you had to dig as deep as you could

enough laughs and lies for today.

KevJGK · Post by **KevJGK** » November 11th, 2009, 7:08 am

ranger wrote: I just got off the erg after the race and chatted with the audience.

That's normal for an athlete who knows his limits.

It doesn't mean you could of gone any faster.

ranger · Post by **ranger** » November 11th, 2009, 7:39 am

hjs wrote:You fell off the erg.

Yes, in 2002, at WIRC (6:28.5). Hurt my back, too, given my bad technique.

Yes, in 2003, at BIRC (6:28).

No, not in 2006, at Baltimore (6:29.7).

In Baltimore, I just stopped and stood up to chat with my cox and the audience, etc.

Then I got in the car (at 1 p.m.) and drove 600 miles back to Ann Arbor, through the mountains, chased by a severe winter storm.

Ironically, several rowers at Baltimore that year were interested in having me give them lessons in technique.

So, for good or bad, I took some time to explain to them how I did what I did.

ranger

ranger · Post by **ranger** » November 11th, 2009, 7:46 am

KevJGK wrote:
ranger wrote: I just got off the erg after the race and chatted with the audience.
That's normal for an athlete who knows his limits.

It doesn't mean you could of gone any faster.

No, I couldn't have gone faster, given my training.

What it indicates is that the 2K I pulled was not very anaerobic.

Naturally, given that I hadn't done much sharpening.

My 2Ks in 2002-2003 were _very_ different.

Yes, at the end of them, I fell off the erg and couldn't get up for a while.

After my race at my first WIRC in 2002 (6:28.5), I laid on my back in the infield of the track for a half hour or so before moving around.

I had severe back spasms for a couple of weeks that would knock me off my feet.

ranger

pjc · Post by **pjc** » November 11th, 2009, 2:44 pm

Personally, I find ranger kind of inspirational. I'd hate it if he was banned, but I do wish he'd confine himself a bit more to his own threads so as not to drown out everyone else.

Fact is, this guy appears to be, if not as good as he thinks he is, still crazy good at rowing. He's sitting atop the leader board for 2008 and 2009. Sounds like he doesn't neccesarily pull his best races in the big events, so he's not the official national champ or something, but big deal. He's still really good at his chosen hobby.

He motivates himself with outlandish goals that he's probably never going to achieve. Big deal, lots of people do that. In fact, there's a psychological term for it ... "functional delusional" or something like that. Basically, people who have unrealistic estimations of their own skills, future earnings, etc. often end up enjoying life more and often getting more done. People with a realistic assessment of things are more likely to get bogged down with depression and lethargy.

I agree ranger should tone down the cross chatter in other threads, but I kind of like having a dedicated post of his mad journey.

Ranger, you post an awful lot -- are you willing to confine things to just one thread (and thus keep yourself from getting banned)?

ranger · Post by **ranger** » November 11th, 2009, 4:22 pm

pjc wrote:He motivates himself with outlandish goals

Well, you'll have to take a peek at a little history to justify this one.

My first outlandish goal arose when I claimed that I could beat the 50s lwt WR even though, at the time, I weighed 195 lbs.

Why?

I had just pulled 6:28.5 at WIRC 2002 and the 50s lwt WR was 6:31.7.

Responses to this goal were similar to what you are hearing now.

No! No! No!

Result:

It took me a year, but I lost 30 lbs. and puledl 6:30 at WIRC 2003 and achieved the goal.

Next, I claimed that I could get even better yet.

Why?

I had pulled 6:30 without doing any low rate rowing. If I did some low rate rowing, I thought I could do better.

Responses to this goal were similar to what you are hearing now.

No! No! No!

Result:

6 months later, after rowing at low rates every day, I indeed broke my own WR in a USIRT trial, pulling 6:29, and achieved my goal.

When I wasn't selected for the USIRT, even though I had broken the WR in my trial, I claimed I could get even better yet by just going to BIRC and racing.

Responses to this goal were similar to what you are hearing now.

No! No! No!

Result: At BIRC 2003, I broke my own WR again, pulling 6:28, and achieved my goal again.

My latest goal is just the feeling that if I learned to row well, both OTW and off, improving my stroking power to the limits of my ability, I would gain about a dozen seconds over 2K, three seconds per 500m, from there.

You have heard the responses to this goal:

No! No! No!

Result?

I bought a 1x and, working hard on technique for five years, I have now learned to row well, both OTW and off, and, indeed, have increased my stroking power from 10.5 SPI to 11.7 SPI, just what I need to improve 12 seconds over 2K at the same rate I pulled 2Ks in 2003.

You get about a second over 2K for each .1 SPI.

We'll soon see how this bears on my distance trials, sharpening, and racing.

Yes! Yes! Yes!

ranger

ranger · Post by **ranger** » November 11th, 2009, 4:25 pm

pjc wrote:Ranger, you post an awful lot -- are you willing to confine things to just one thread (and thus keep yourself from getting banned)?

Am I for censorship?

No.

Are you?

ranger

Steve G · Post by **Steve G** » November 11th, 2009, 7:20 pm

Rich
You state you now row well both OTW and off, you have had 5 years OTW training, you promised numerous races in October and did none, will you race OTW this year?
Simple answer now yes or no!

Cheers

JohnBove · Post by **JohnBove** » November 11th, 2009, 8:53 pm

ranger wrote:Yes, truth is associated with the body.

The mind is associated with the opposite.

The truth and its opposite are mental constructs, you fatuous dolt.

ranger · Post by **ranger** » November 12th, 2009, 3:39 am

JohnBove wrote:
ranger wrote:Yes, truth is associated with the body.

The mind is associated with the opposite.
The truth and its opposite are mental constructs, you fatuous dolt.

No, they're not.

Truth is unconscious, natural, and therefore not a cognitive ccnstruct/representation at all.

Western philosophers have never gotten anywhere near it.

Truth is rhythmic/temporal.

Western philosophy has been distracted by space.

Scientific "fact" is what we can do, manipulating and predicting our consciousness of space.

Truth is what we (and the world) are.

It doesn't involve doing anything at all.

No need to represent it.

Just get in tune with it.

Go with the flow.

Then you are it, too.

Ain't that the truth!

ranger

ranger · Post by **ranger** » November 12th, 2009, 3:49 am

Much has to precede, but the crux in rowing comes around in UT1 efforts.

UT1 rowing is just quality, but comfortable, training, like going out for a long 20-mile run, if you are a marathon runner, or have ever been one.

In your foundational rowing, you fashion a stroke at low rates, learning to row well.

Then in your UT1/distance rowing you just lighten up an SPI or so, raise the rate to 26 spm, and row.

Do this until you can row comfortably for two hours without taking a break.

If you are really ambitious, push that two hours to a FM, whatever that might come out to be in terms of time.

Take good strokes.

One after another.

Relax.

Enjoy!

The pace I now gravitate toward when I rate 26 spm in a relaxed way is 1:45.

Delighted with that.

For me, 1:45 is pretty close to WR 5K pace for someone my age and weight.

11.6 SPI

The project is just to do this kind of rowing every day until you feel that you can give an all-out effort over 30K, or even a FM.

Then race it.

See what you can get in terms of time over the distance.

Do a distance trial.

Ideally, this is just the sort of rowing I will aim at doing OTW next year.

Put it on 26 spm and row for a couple of hours.

Take good strokes.

Relax.

Enjoy!

ranger

ranger · Post by **ranger** » November 12th, 2009, 3:58 am

Steve G wrote:Rich
You state you now row well both OTW and off, you have had 5 years OTW training, you promised numerous races in October and did none, will you race OTW this year?
Simple answer now yes or no!

Cheers

As it turns out, no.

ranger

hjs · Post by **hjs** » November 12th, 2009, 4:16 am

pjc wrote:He motivates himself with outlandish goals

No everything he says is pointed at 6.16, that is not to motivate himself but to put down the 6.18 Mike Caveston HAS ROWED.

last season he mised that by "only" 25 seconds

what will it ne this year 27 ? Or would it be better to wait another year ?

ranger · Post by **ranger** » November 12th, 2009, 4:45 am

hjs wrote:
pjc wrote:He motivates himself with outlandish goals
No everything he says is pointed at 6.16, that is not to motivate himself but to put down the 6.18 Mike Caveston HAS ROWED.

last season he mised that by "only" 25 seconds what will it ne this year 27 ? Or would it be better to wait another year ?

Just distance rowing at the moment, Henry.

But idistance rowing is predictive, pretty precisely so.

So we'll know how things stand very soon.

HM @1:45 would do it, no?

In 2003, I did 9K at 1:45.

But that was pulling 10 SPI.

I now pull 11.7 SPI.

So I am quite a bit better.

It makes quite a bit difference to have an effective and efficient stroke.

My fitness is pretty much the same.

range