6:28 2K

[bloomp]

Wrong - two men (I leave out old because mid-late 50s isn't really that old) on the machines is far more accurate and comparable than a singles race. In fact, the whole reason there is no serious 'world record' talk for OTW races is the fact that races will never be comparable. Ever. Even a slight difference in current between lanes, or wind, etc can never be fully duplicated.

Wrong - FISA monitors and verifies 'best times' on the water. Just because environmental factors exist does not mean that rows cannot be compared. There are similar variables on erg performances, as well. For a given ergo, the winner may be sandbagging a bit; for a given row, there may be a bad headwind. That doesn't mean both instances can't end up dealing with record times. Interestingly enough, Drysdale holds the best time for a 1x row set at Worlds in Poznán this year.

Although two people - and two old guys are indeed people, however physically and psychologically declining they may be in their decrepitude - doing an ergo head to head is a pretty good way to settle any dispute, I'd imagine.

And way to at least (not) pretend to try to help out with the 'let's play nice!' mindset, Rich.

Then try explaining how a crew of 19 year old aussies at Melbourne Grammar set the record for an 8+ last year. Currents? Tailwind?

I am not stupid, I know WR for OTW are kept, but people don't run around at race venues talking about a boat possibly breaking a WR. They talk about winning the race. And the time is second to that.

Paul

[ranger]

You talk about how much better you are now, and show no evidence.

I pulled 6:29.7 in 2006 without preparing for it, just on the basis of foundational rowing.

I pulled 1Kr24 @ 1:38

I pulled 500r30 @ 1:30.

Results from distance trials are coming at the end of the month.

Results from sharpening and races will come in January and February.

I haven't done distance rowing or sharpening since 2003.

I have been trying to get better.

You don't get better by distance rowing, sharpening, and racing.

You get better by overcoming your technical and mechanical/skeletal-muscular weaknesses with foundational rowing.

Roy won't get better, either, if he just keeps sharpening and racing, with an occasional distance row, as he usually does, year after year.

He'll just get worse.

At our age, aerobic capacity is declining.

It can't be increased.

I can't even be stabilized so that it doesn't decline.

Given how he trains (with no foundational rowing), the prediction is that Roy will pull about 6:46 this year.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

ranger

[eliotsmith]

Level 3 is NOT UT2

Sure, it is.

It can be even slower than that.

Mike C. pulled 6:18.

85% of 1:34.5 is 1:51.

According to the IP plan, UT2 for a 1:34.5 2K is 1:49.5.

Mike C. didn't use a HR monitor, but back in 2002, I suspect that his HR was at UT2, or just a bit above, when he did 30K at 1:48 for his Level 3 rows.

As he admitted himself, back then, if he had wanted to, he could have done a FM at 1:48.

A FM is done much closer to top-end UT2 than top-end UT1.

ranger

UT2 for a 1:34.5 is in a range no faster than 1:49.5.

85% of 1:34.5 is 1:48.7
90% of 1:34.5 is 1:44.0

You have a great ability to throw in a bunch of irrelevant words to your answers to detract from the statement in question. The beauty here is that math does not allow for vagueness. Either my math is correct or it is not. It can be easily shown if it is wrong or right. Correct me if I am wrong but I think that to find 85% of 1:34.5 I convert the pace to seconds. 1:34.5 = 94.5 secs. To find 85% of 94.5 I take 94.5 * 1.15 and 94.5 * 1.1 for 90%.

It is close, I know, but the fact is that 85-90% falls directly into UT1 NOT UT2.

[ranger]

it's just been a stream of postings from you about how everyone else is rubbish / can't hold a handle to you, and consistent denigration of people around you.

Well, while my lwt 6:41 last year is no great shakes for me, certainly, because I didn't even do any hard distance rowing or sharpening to prepare for it, so it was something like an AT 2K, it was faster than anyone my age and weight has ever rowed.

That's pretty nifty.

Given that I get about a dozen seconds each over 2K from distance rowing and sharpening, that 6:41 is _especially_ nifty, given that it's already the best.

When I add distance rowing and sharpening, as I am doing this year, I could reasonably lower that time to sub-6:20, in the range of 20 seconds under the 55s and 60s lwt WRs. and below the 50s lwt WR, too, perhaps even threatening the 40s lwt WR.

Now, that's _very_ nifty.

It "denigrates" others if you are better than they are--objectively?

Hard to see why _that's_ the case.

All sorts of people are better than I am at all sorts of things that I care about but I don't feel "denigrated" because of it.

I just admire them for their accomplishment and try harder to be like them.

They become role models for me.

Isn't that normal?

Or do you assume that no one is any better than anyone else at anything, or if they are, they shouldn't be, even if they earned it, with hard work, consistency, intelligence, courage, persistence, etc.?

That's a pretty odd attitude.

Given how the world is and how people are, all sorts of people are _waaay_ better than all sort of other people at all sorts of things.

ranger

[ranger]

To find 85% of 94.5 I take 94.5 * 1.15 and 94.5 * 1.1 for 90%

Wouldn't you calculate this way?

.85x = 94.5

x = 94.5/.85

.90x = 94.5

x = 94.5/.90

Sorry if that was wrong.

What I said about Mike C.'s HR, though, is _not_ wrong.

At 35-40 years old, I suspect that his maxHR was still upwards toward 200 bpm, while top end UT1, just under the anaerobic threshold, I suspect, was (like mine) upwards toward 85% HRR.

That makes top-end UT2 152 bpm or so, top-end UT1, 176 bpm, if his resting pulse is 40 bpm, as mine is.

Mike is not able to do a FM at 176 bpm.

152 bpm is much more likely.

If Mike did his long Level 3 rows at 28-30 spm, then he would be doing top-end UT1 rowing, 10 MPS.

But he didn't.

He did them at 24 spm or so.

For a lightweight with short little legs like Mike's, that's a UT2 rate.

ranger

[ausrwr]

Then try explaining how a crew of 19 year old aussies at Melbourne Grammar set the record for an 8+ last year. Currents? Tailwind?

I am not stupid, I know WR for OTW are kept, but people don't run around at race venues talking about a boat possibly breaking a WR. They talk about winning the race. And the time is second to that.

Paul

Paul, to nitpick: the world record is the US8+ from the heat at Athens: 5:19 and change.

MGS didn't go that insanely fast: 5:49 is very rapid for a school crew, but considering the Senior 8s later that same day did 5:30 to win, it's a way from the record, even on that course. Shore did something like 5:40s in 2006 to win at the same venue.

Barrington is very, very subject to wind. I was hungover that day, having not being selected for the state crews, but raced the day before in massive headwinds. The lightweight 8 that won did a 6:59... We raced a 4+ and were lucky to do under 7:20...

[aharmer]

ranger, your calculations are the correct method.

[ranger]

ranger, your calculations are the correct method.

Ah.

So?

ranger

[bloomp]

Then try explaining how a crew of 19 year old aussies at Melbourne Grammar set the record for an 8+ last year. Currents? Tailwind?

I am not stupid, I know WR for OTW are kept, but people don't run around at race venues talking about a boat possibly breaking a WR. They talk about winning the race. And the time is second to that.

Paul

Paul, to nitpick: the world record is the US8+ from the heat at Athens: 5:19 and change.

MGS didn't go that insanely fast: 5:49 is very rapid for a school crew, but considering the Senior 8s later that same day did 5:30 to win, it's a way from the record, even on that course. Shore did something like 5:40s in 2006 to win at the same venue.

Barrington is very, very subject to wind. I was hungover that day, having not being selected for the state crews, but raced the day before in massive headwinds. The lightweight 8 that won did a 6:59... We raced a 4+ and were lucky to do under 7:20...

Ah my mistake, I had been told by a coxswain for Firbank that they set a WR, and took her word for it, it was after all a time that I would never have believed a HS aged crew could set. But you're proving my point that setting a WR on the erg is much different from setting a WR on the water, and breaking said record is much less debatable on the erg.

Paul

[blake_mulder]

Ranger

Will you be posting the results of your upcoming trials here on this forum, regardless of whether you hit your targets?

Good luck with them!

Blake

With all the noise on here Ranger, you may have missed my question, will you be reporting your trials here on this forum?

[rjw]

I don't know about it, it's before my time

Yes, obviously.

So it you who should shut up about it.

As you admit here, you don't know what you are taking about.

It was before your time.

ranger

But it is not before my time Ranger. I think that you are the one who threw many stones and Denis and Mike were very gracious the whole way through.

As I said, let your actions speak for you and let people decide for them selves.

[ranger]

Ranger

Will you be posting the results of your upcoming trials here on this forum, regardless of whether you hit your targets?

Good luck with them!

Blake

With all the noise on here Ranger, you may have missed my question, will you be reporting your trials here on this forum?

Sure, I have been reporting everything that I time.

I just don't usually time training rows.

A trial is timed--by definition.

So, sure, I'll report them as I do them.

I'll also report sharpening workouts (e.g., 8 x 500m, 4 x 1K, 4 x2K, etc.).

ranger

[ranger]

I don't know about it, it's before my time

Yes, obviously.

So it you who should shut up about it.

As you admit here, you don't know what you are taking about.

It was before your time.

ranger

But it is not before my time Ranger. I think that you are the one who threw many stones and Denis and Mike were very gracious the whole way through.

Oh, B.S.

That's why Brody was thrown out on his ear?

I doubt it.

Dennis never got over the fact that I could come along, out of the blue, and beat him.

He said that I had to be cheating, etc.

Crazy stuff.

Mike raved about all sorts of strange stuff that turned out to be wrong.

Nay-sayers are fools.

They are defenders of tight in-groups who stand on precedent and tradition and exclude outsiders by fiat.

Cowardly business.

Rowing has a long tradition of this, historically, if the literature I have read is true and representative.

ranger

[Nosmo]

ranger, your calculations are the correct method.

Ah.

So?

ranger

Agreed rangers method is correct, 85% to 90% pace of 1:34.5/500 is
1:45 to 151. However, probably because it is math it seems to be the the first thing that ranger has gotten correct about the WP. However eliotsmith's point is valid:

the fact is that 85-90% falls directly into UT1 NOT UT2.pint is valid--it is not UT2.

Furthermore you can be certain that if MC was doing a 10 or 15K L3 then it would be done significantly faster then 1:48--or well above UT2.

As MC has pointed out he does not make any equivalence between the WP levels and the IP ranges, simply because it doesn't make much sense in the context of either program.

A general word of advice--Be careful about what any one (except MC) says about the WP especially if they have not followed the plan.

Speculation about MC heart rates are pure speculation and being unverifiable it is useless. MC doesn't use a HR monitor or lactate threshold.

[rjw]

Dennis never got over the fact that I could come along, out of the blue, and beat him.

He said that I had to be cheating, etc.

Crazy stuff.

I read all the post at that time and Dennis never said this. Please show me. Oh yea, those posts are gone!

Mike raved about all sorts of strange stuff that turned out to be wrong.

After reading Mike's post - past or present, he is not someone to "rave". He bases his posts and observations on facts from an extensive scientific knowledge.

I do not know you, Mike or Dennis personally but after 8 years of following and participating in this forum or the UK forum, our recollections are very different.

Again, get over it.