6:28 2K

[Steve G]

Who knows?

I don't have to.

Racing isn't good training.

Right now, I am training.

I will race in February.

We'll find out what I can do for 2K then.

Last year my first race was a 7.30, on a good day I must be able to do that again

ranger

So, 6:41 a month later was a pretty good improvement, no?

Nice AT 2K, given that I did no hard distance rowing or sharpening to prepare for it.

Just foundational rowing.

6:42 is the 60s lwt WR.

Next year I will be 60.

I get about a dozen seconds each from hard distance rowing and sharpening.

I am doing hard distance rowing now.

I will sharpen and race in January and February.

I have been at weight since September.

ranger

Rich
You are 58, how come you are 60 next year?
I can emphatically state I am 60 next year!!
You still have avoided my question, are you at weight pre workout?

[Nosmo]

o, 6:41 a month later was a pretty good improvement, no?

No it wasn't. the 7:30 was atrocious. If you raced intelligently you would have turned in something like a high 6:40 or low 6:50 but you paced your self like a total novice and blew it. Of all the races you did last year you did one OK and one well. Don't pretend that the a 49 second improvement indicates anything but abandoning your foolish attempt to break the world record and for once rowing within your ability.

[ranger]

o, 6:41 a month later was a pretty good improvement, no?

Of all the races you did last year you did one OK and one well. Don't pretend that the a 49 second improvement indicates anything

No, I wasn't suggesting that the 49 second improvement means anything.

I wasn't even suggesting that the 6:41 means anything.

I was being facetious, given that the forum believes this, without any evidence to do so.

Your pretentious, avuncular talk is a case in point.

I did the 6:41 without any hard distance rowing or sharpening.

Have you ever tried to row at WR pace for 2K without even preparing for it?

That takes some guts.

My 6:41 2K at St. Catharines was a solid AT 2K, nothing more, and even so, it was not what I would have liked.

1:40 is AT for a 6:24 2K.

My 2K goal is 6:16.

To reach my goals this year, during sharpening, long before I race, I will have to do 4 x 2K at 1:38.

1:38 @ 32 spm is what I tried to do in my races last year, but clearly, I wasn't sufficiently prepared.

I couldn't quite row them straight through at that.

My irregular racing had nothing to do with racing like a novice, though.

It wasn't really racing at all, given that I did no anaerobic work to prepare for it.

Heck, I didn't even do any AT work to prepare for it.

Just UT1 stuff.

Hopefully, things will go better this year, when I am fully trained.

This year, I will do these training-level 2Ks at home during sharpening, as I did in 2002-2003, and I will do the faster, anaerobic rowing that I need to do to race to my full potential at the winter venues.

In the fall of 2003, I did isolated 2Ks at home at 1:38 during sharpening.

This year, I will need to repeat them.

ranger

[ranger]

o, 6:41 a month later was a pretty good improvement, no?

No it wasn't. the 7:30 was atrocious. If you raced intelligently you would have turned in something like a high 6:40 or low 6:50 but you paced your self like a total novice and blew it. Of all the races you did last year you did one OK and one well. Don't pretend that the a 49 second improvement indicates anything but abandoning your foolish attempt to break the world record and for once rowing within your ability.

So, what is WR pace for you?

And what is your 2K goal this year?

ranger

[ranger]

And yet despite not being able to( in your mind) row well Roy is a world champion! Whoda thunk it eh?!

For whoever comes along to pick it off, the 55s lwt WR is still quite a bit out of whack with its adjoining records, above and below.

6:33.5 splits the difference between the 50s lwt WR and the 60s lwt WR, not 6:38.

And there is a tendency for decline to accelerate with age, so probably the 55s lwt WR should be in and around 6:30, five seconds slower that the 50s lwt WR not four seconds faster than the 60s lwt WR.

I assume that Paul Siebach will pull 6:30 pretty easily when he is 55 in four years or so.

ranger

Roy's challenge, I think, if he wants to make a splash, challenge the records above and below his 55s lwt standard, and protect his standing as a WR-holder is to join the ranks of the sub-6:30 veteran lightweight rowers--Graham Watt, Paul Siebach, and I.

For this, from his pb rows, he will need to climb a notch on the 10 MPS ladder in his distance rowing, from 1:51 @ 27 spm to 1:47 @ 28 spm.

In terms of rate and stroking power, this improvement is one SPM and .7 SPI.

Can he do it?

We'll see, I guess.

It will be interesting for him to try to figure out how to train to get this done.

He can't get it done by continuing to train as he has.

No male WR-holder, 40-70, has ever gotten substantially better, largely, I think, because they have just continuied to train as they always have.

From where he was last year, four seconds per 500m would be a substantial improvement for him.

He would have to do 8 x 500m at 1:33 rather than 1:37.

He would have to get to 1:34 for 1K, rather than 1:38.

And he would have to do 1:27 for 500m, rather than 1:31.

Good luck to him.

ranger

[KevJGK]

Have you ever tried to row at WR pace for 2K without even preparing for it?

That takes some guts.

Not the word I was thinking of.

[ranger]

BTW, if you do your homework in your foundational rowing, as I have, given that distance rowing should start at 26 spm (for a FM) and push up to 32 spm (for 5K), as the distance shortens, if you can do distance rowing at all, the game is won, no strain needed.

I now get 110 kgs. of peak pressure, just rowing easily.

If you get 110 kgs. of peak pressure and rate 26 spm, you go 1:44 pace.



12 SPI

This is _very_ good distance rowing for a 60s lwt.

The 60s lwt FM WR is 1:59.3 pace, 15 seconds per 500m slower.

At 26 spm, 1:59.3 pace is 8 SPI.

12 SPI is a full 50% more than 8 SPI.



_Rowing Faster_ claims that, on the average, 60s rowers lose half their youthful, full-body strength.

Guess so.

If you don't use it, you lose it.

I haven't lost any strength at all.

I am just as strong as I was when I was 20.

And I am much more experienced inow in power and endurance sports.

Bectween 20 and 50, I was a marathon runner.

Between 50 and 60, I have been a rower.

40 years more experienced.

ranger

[eliotsmith]

For a pragmatist, one thing is just as good as another if it works and gives us what we (personally) want and need.

A pragmatist, by your definition, is then only a deluded idealist. For him the ideal is "if it works" rather than something like whether the thing is true or beautiful.

[ranger]

For a pragmatist, one thing is just as good as another if it works and gives us what we (personally) want and need.

A pragmatist, by your definition, is then only a deluded idealist. For him the ideal is "if it works" rather than something like whether the thing is true or beautiful.

("True," "beautiful") Or good.

Pragmatists are obsessed with history, reality, cause-and-effect connections, mechanical outcomes, inductive thinking, practical intelligence, will, facts, plot, politics, rhetoric, science, work, evolution, consciousness, social planning, engineering, power relations, professionalization, specialization, assembly-line porduction, capitalism, imperialism, legislative compromise, majority rule, statistics, prose narrative, "the syntax of things," etc.

"Justice"

Interesting to say this on a British forum.

Historically, in Western Civilization, at least, pragmatism, as it develops, full blown, is the great contribution of the English/British to world history (as it has played out so far).

The British were preceded by the Romans, but I think, did them at least one, if not quite a few, better.

ranger

[ranger]

For a pragmatist, one thing is just as good as another if it works and gives us what we (personally) want and need.

A pragmatist, by your definition, is then only a deluded idealist.

Pragmatism and idealism are complementary, not mutually exclusive.

There are also relativists/aesthetes and metaphysicians/mystics.

Pragmatists are obsessed with the probable; idealists, with the obligatory; relativists with the possible; mystics/metaphysicians, with the necessary.

Idealists are religious.

They like to keep the faith.

Of course, since some things are necessary; some, obligatory; some, probable; and some, possible; we need to have all of these philosophical perspectives to get the whole picture.

Unfortunately, we usually don't.

ranger

[ranger]

Foundational rowing is necessary in order to generate more potential/possibility in your racing.

Sharpening increases your probability of success.

Distance rowing is obligatory, mediating between the two.

If you do not distance rowing you betray the potential you have generated in your foundational rowing.

If you do no sharpening, you undermine your probability of success.

If you do no foundational rowing, you avoid what is necessary to participate fully in sport.

You never even learn how to row.

ranger

[bloomp]

A 2k at world record pace without training for it requires stupidity. And it was not at world record pace, even looking only at your age/weight. You were over 3s/500m away from your own PR.

I quote a previous student of the professor:

"His theory is insane... He just drivels on about nothing. And he's kinda creepy. Avoid."

Seems to me that real people have the same aversion to your demagogy that everyone here does.

[Byron Drachman]

Pragmatism and idealism are complementary, not mutually exclusive.
There are also relativists/aesthetes and metaphysicians/mystics.
Pragmatists are obsessed with the probable; idealists, with the obligatory; relativists with the possible; mystics/metaphysicians, with the necessary.
Idealists are religious.
They like to keep the faith.
Of course, since some things are necessary; some, obligatory; some, probable; and some, possible; we need to have all of these philosophical perspectives to get the whole picture.
Unfortunately, we usually don't.

If anybody wants more stuff like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxtN0xxzfsw

[snowleopard]

If you do no foundational rowing, you avoid what is necessary to participate fully in sport.

ranger,

Would you say that ducking five head races in one month is participating fully in the sport?

[bellboy]

Byron.As ever your stilleto blade hits the spot!