Legs

ranger · Post by **ranger** » November 20th, 2009, 6:32 pm

snowleopard wrote:
ranger wrote:
mrfit wrote:More on Ranger's flawed jump stroke and why it does not work:

http://home.hia.no/~stephens/ppstroke.htm
Well, it was good enough to do 6:29 when I was 55, without even preparing for it.

Fully trained, it will be good enough to do a lwt 6:16 when I am 60.

No 60s lwt has pulled better than 6:42.

So, I think it's O.K.

ranger
I seem to remember that you reverted to anchor hauling for that one. And besides, you hadn't discovered the jump stroke then. You were only a couple of years into learning to row (with breaks).

No.

I didn't revert to anchor-hauling, although I was not nearly as good as I am now.

I now row well.

ranger

whp4 · Post by **whp4** » November 21st, 2009, 2:12 am

ranger wrote: Well, it was good enough to do 6:29 when I was 55, without even preparing for it.

No, it wasn't. You did 6:29.7, and no one believes your claims about not preparing for that row. And seeing how well you did on your next outing (7:04.3, in case you've forgotten), it's clear you weren't anywhere near being a lwt in Baltimore. Funny how years of foundational rowing, improving your technique, and so on haven't gotten you within 10 seconds of this row that you claim you didn't prepare for!

ranger · Post by **ranger** » November 21st, 2009, 5:29 am

whp4 wrote:no one believes your claims about not preparing for that row

Believe what you want.

I haven't done any hard distancee rowing, distance trials, or standard sharpening routines (4 x 1K, 8 x 500m) since 2003.

That is what explains the low rate I maintained in the Baltimore row.

Before the Baltimore row, I did get to some nice low rate AT workouts, though, 6 x 2K, etc.

That is what probably explains the better time.

I am now doing hard distance rowing.

When I am done iwith that, I will do distance trials.

Then I will do full sharpening.

This year, I will be fully trained for the first time since 2003.

When I am fully trained, I will pull a 2K at 36 spm, finishing at 40 spm.

I won't clunk along at 31 spm.

The anaerobic training is what lets you raise the rate when you race.

ranger

ranger · Post by **ranger** » November 21st, 2009, 5:34 am

snowleopard wrote:you weren't anywhere near being a lwt in Baltimore.

I made weight at 163 lbs. a week later in Boston, so whatever I was in Baltimore, it wasn't a whole lot over 165 lbs.

Yes, I did the Baltimore row without attending to weight, as a heavyweight.

The hwt 55s WIRC qualification time was 6:32.

I rowed comfortably under that and earned a plane ticket to Boston.

The 55s hwt race at WIRC 2006 was won in 6:34.

This sort of thing is unprecedented.

Lightweights don't qualify for WIRC as heavyweights.

It just doesn't happen.

Rocket Roy would have missed it by 15 seconds.

The standard spread between the weight classes is in and around 20 seconds.

If all goes well, at WIRC 2010, at 59, I'll break the 55s heavyweight WR rowing as a lightweight.

Dick Cashin is 6'4", 220 lbs, a 1976 and 1980 Olympian.

ranger

Kangaroo · Post by **Kangaroo** » November 21st, 2009, 12:12 pm

Why didn't you reply to my post? Because it proves that you're wrong?

ranger · Post by **ranger** » November 21st, 2009, 12:47 pm

Kangaroo wrote:Why didn't you reply to my post? Because it proves that you're wrong?

Wrong about what?

There are lots of rowing styles.

The "truth" is what works.

If they are rowing to the limits of their potential, WR-holders are never wrong.

The erg is a truth machine.

My feeling is that I was wrong about my technique back in 2003, even though it was good enough to get me to three straight WR rows.

So I changed my technique.

How wrong was I back in 2003?

If I row well, I think the limits of my potential are a dozen seconds better than what I pulled in 2003.

A lwt 6:16 rather than a lwt 6:28.

We'll soon see.

For the first time since 2003, I am now training to race.

ranger

whp4 · Post by **whp4** » November 21st, 2009, 8:03 pm

ranger wrote:
snowleopard wrote:you weren't anywhere near being a lwt in Baltimore.
Yes, I did the Baltimore row without attending to weight, as a heavyweight.

The hwt 55s WIRC qualification time was 6:32.

I rowed comfortably under that and earned a plane ticket to Boston.

The 55s hwt race at WIRC 2006 was won in 6:34.

This sort of thing is unprecedented.

Lightweights don't qualify for WIRC as heavyweights.

It just doesn't happen.

You know what else is unprecedented? Someone rowing over half a minute slower than their qualification time, despite claiming they were about to win the heavyweight race rowing as a lightweight...

rsieminski · Post by **rsieminski** » November 21st, 2009, 10:09 pm

Is there a link to this WR?

whp4 · Post by **whp4** » November 21st, 2009, 10:50 pm

ranger wrote:This sort of thing is unprecedented.

Lightweights don't qualify for WIRC as heavyweights.

It just doesn't happen.

...except that it does.

You forgot the usual weasel words to eliminate anyone other than yourself. Otherwise, Joan van Blom seems to regularly meet the hwt qualifying time as a lwt, and win the lwt class with a time that would net her a hwt medal. She doesn't seem to have your problems with being ready to row on any given Sunday, either.

ranger · Post by **ranger** » November 22nd, 2009, 3:05 am

whp4 wrote:claiming they were about to win the heavyweight race rowing as a lightweight.

Not an odd claim at all, given that I could make weight and, a week earlier, I had just pulled a 2K four seconds faster than the hammer time in the hwt race.

My chances were pretty good.

So I gave it a shot.

ranger

hjs · Post by **hjs** » November 22nd, 2009, 7:45 am

whp4 wrote:
ranger wrote:
snowleopard wrote:you weren't anywhere near being a lwt in Baltimore.
Yes, I did the Baltimore row without attending to weight, as a heavyweight.

The hwt 55s WIRC qualification time was 6:32.

I rowed comfortably under that and earned a plane ticket to Boston.

The 55s hwt race at WIRC 2006 was won in 6:34.

This sort of thing is unprecedented.

Lightweights don't qualify for WIRC as heavyweights.

It just doesn't happen.
You know what else is unprecedented? Someone rowing over half a minute slower than their qualification time, despite claiming they were about to win the heavyweight race rowing as a lightweight...

ranger · Post by **ranger** » November 22nd, 2009, 9:19 am

whp4 wrote:oan van Blom seems to regularly meet the hwt qualifying time as a lwt

Yes.

But this is unprecedented among males.

Back in 2003, Joan and I had comparable times.

If I pull 6:16, Joan will have to pull 7:07 is keep the pace.

Last year, she pulled 7:43.

For WIRC 2010, Joan will be 57.

I will be 59.

ranger

rjw · Post by **rjw** » November 22nd, 2009, 11:31 am

ranger wrote:
whp4 wrote:oan van Blom seems to regularly meet the hwt qualifying time as a lwt
Yes.

But this is unprecedented among males.

Back in 2003, Joan and I had comparable times.

If I pull 6:16, Joan will have to pull 7:07 is keep the pace.

Last year, she pulled 7:43.

For WIRC 2010, Joan will be 57.

I will be 59.

ranger

Lets see - last year you pulled 6:41 not 6:16 so compare apple to apple not apples to fantasy.

rsieminski · Post by **rsieminski** » November 22nd, 2009, 11:39 am

Where are Ranger's WRs listed?

ranger · Post by **ranger** » November 22nd, 2009, 11:48 am

rjw wrote:compare apple to apple not apples to fantasy

The only apples to apples comparison that we have is back in 2003, when I was fully trained to race, and even that one is not very straight up, given that I was just a novice rower, who didn't know how to row.

The next one we will have is this year, when I will again be fully trained to race. This should be a better comparison. I now row well.

In between these two, I have been learning to row.

When Joan took up indoor rowing in her 50s, she didn't need to learn to row.

She was an Olympic champion in her youth and had been rowing all her life.

I didn't start rowing until I was 50.

You are the one that needs to compare apples to apples.

ranger