6:28 2K

[hjs]

BTW, my brother is "big" in the study of physical performance, too. He has headed up the kinesiology department at the University of Georgia for the last 30 years. He followed right in my father's footsteps. He is one of the distinguished physical educators of our time.

Ranger is partially correct. Kirk Cureton is the head of the Kinesiology at Ga. However only since 2005. He has been with the Department of Kinesiology since 1976.
In any event I as a new erger am getting a kick out of this thread. I suppose a competition will solve it all. In Ranger's defense, he has held a record or two has he not?? In addition what would you all say if in fact he did what he claims he will do? I have no clue if his goals are at all acheivable but I cannot wait for whatever race he enters.

J

Ehhh after his first year 2003 he did nothing worthwhile....

His best/fatest 2k on the erg is still his debute race , after his claim to erg 6.16 he erged at best 6.41 and tried many many times.


A bit more info about last year : http://www.c2forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=9742&start=0

[KevJGK]

what would you all say if in fact he did what he claims he will do? I

Or, suppose the earth had no moon; or what if David Beckham became England manager and won the World Cup with Brooklyn Beckham scoring the winning goal with Romeo Beckham coming on as substitute; or what if the UK temperature hit 100F on Christmas Day; or what if Arnold Schwarzenegger became US president and introduced compulsory bodybuilding and Austrian lessons in schools?

I don't know what I would say really.

[ranger]

Kirk Cureton is the head of the Kinesiology at Ga. However only since 2005. He has been with the Department of Kinesiology since 1976.

Kirk founded the department in 1976 and has been head during his entire tenure at Georgia.

He hired everyone who works for him!

In the beginning, it was only him.

He started in the basement of a random building on central campus with a treadmill and an underwater weighing tank.

Things have changed since then.

His department in now housed in a whole wing of a fabulous $50 million sports complex donated to the Univ. of Georgia, complete with twin Olympic pools, rimmed by an elevated track, climbing walls, glassed ceilings and walls, and state of the art equipment, both scientific and recreational.

Some of the confusion might be nominal. I think the department has been called several things over its long history. These departments used to be called "Physical Education," but like everything else, they have traditionally housed a variety of very different competing/cooperating groups--recreation, sports, kinesiology, health, safety, etc.--and therefore take on various unified or splintered institutional contours as time goes on.

Kirk is about to retire.

He just took on his last Ph.D. student.

He has directed about 30 Ph.D.'s during his stay at Georgia, a pretty large number for any professor in any field of study.

ranger

[ranger]

This is a training forum for rowing, not facebook.

Yes, most of this forum is about training.

This particular thread however is not concerned with training; it is purely and simply about you.

No, that's what folks like you have made it--ad hominem.

But it is really about training.

Most of this forum is not about training, I think, but about racing, in particular, racing training.

But really, racing training isn't training at all, or if it is, it is bad (and dangerous!) training, done by those who don't have the time, energy, or inclination to do it right.

Racing is social.

Training is less so.

This forum is social.

So, it is almost a requirement, breeched only by those who want to endure screams of diapproval, if the training that is reported on this forum is not racing (times over set distances), that is, social in focus, too.

ranger

[ranger]

after his first year 2003 he did nothing worthwhile

My first year racing was 2002.

My second year racing, I broke the WR three times.

Since that time I have been trying to improve my technique, my major weakness, in order to improve on my 2003 times.

For instance, I bought a 1x and have been learning to row OTW.

Last year, I had the best 2K time for my age and weight without even preparing for it, just on the basis of foundational rowing, without hard distance rowing or sharpening.

This year will be the first year that I will be racing both fully trained and rowing well, that is, with good technique.

I usually get a dozen seconds over 2K each from hard distance rowing and sharpening, so it will indeed be interesting to see how things turn out this year.

My first race is January 30th.

After that, I will race every week for four, five, or even six more weeks, depending on how many accessible races I can find.

Besides me, no male WR-holder, 40-70, has ever gotten any better--at all.

They have all just gotten--quickly and precipitously--worse.

I hope to change that.

I think I am now substnatially better than I was in 2003, perhaps by as much as a 14 seconds over 2K, even though I am now seven years older (59 rather than 52).

The best veteran rowers usually decline at a rate of 1.7 seconds per year over 2K.

So, this seven year span predicts a _decline_ of a dozen seconds over 2K rather than the opposite plus two.

The "swing" in times, if they are achieved, then, would be 26 seconds over 2K, 6.5 seconds per 500m.

A lwt 6:30 in 2003 predicts a lwt 6:42 in 2010.

My goal is to pull 6:16.

ranger

[drjay9051]

Ranger wrote::

Kirk founded the department in 1976 and has been head during his entire tenure at Georgia.


Ranger: Please read this regarding Kirk::


http://www.uga.edu/news/artman/publish/ ... ton_.shtml

[leadville]

BTW, I grew up with the person who pioneered the study of stroke volume (and other aspects of the dynamics of the heart) in physical performance.

He regularly took heartometer readings of my heart.

My heart is healthy and normal, with just the high stroke volume that most athletes, as opposed to more sedentary people, exhibit.

ranger

St-Ranger - 'heartometer'? The heartometer hasn't been used since the late forties, and has never, ever, ever been used to measure stroke volume. IF he used it to measure your heart, it was in your clubhouse as a kid, as the device was obsolete before you were born!

You didn't even know what stroke volume is, much less how to measure it, or how and why it is important. Perhaps you do now, due to the 'learning from others' method that you so blithely disparage. Moreover you have no idea what your stroke volume (SV) is, despite your statements to the contrary. FYI - SV can be ESTIMATED using an echocardiograph; actual precise measurement requires a cardiac cath. Unless you've been on one of the new 3D echo machines, of course...

And yes, you did say HR is the indicator of fitness and one of the reasons why you are so much better/fitter than everyone else, including those who have actually accomplished something in the two sports of rowing and erging. Now that we've caught that error, the word-parsing has begun and disclaimers are flowing!

The more you talk, the deeper you dig. We'll keep handing you the shovel.

[ranger]

he heartometer hasn't been used since the late forties, and has never, ever, ever been used to measure stroke volume

Yes, it's an old machine.

My father developed the scientific uses of it in his lab (and other activities) at the University of Illinois.

One of the principal things my father developed was a way of calculating stroke volume from the heart wave as recorded on the heartometer graph.

The volume under the wave produced on the heartometer graph is proportional to stroke volume, given certain equations and calculations.

My father was a scientific consultant to all of the Olympic Games from the 30's to the 80's.

In the 60s, he was the only scientific member of President John F. Kennedy's Council for Physical Fitness.

He wrote the American Red Cross Life Saving Manual.

He designed the battery of fitness tests that were given in American grade schools, middle schools, and high schools in the 60s.

Early on, he astounded people by predicting winners of swimming races at the games from their heartometer wave.

For his scientific work on swimming, he is in the Swimming Hall of Fame.

Jim Counsilman, the great swimming coach at Indiana (in the 60s and 70s?), who produced so many Olympic swimmers, was dad's student.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Counsilman[url][/url]

ranger

[mikvan52]

Glad Rich has reaffirmed the purpose of the thread: "training"

As he said a quarter year ago, 100 pages ago:

If I continue this training, I think I'll pull an at-home, 6:28 2K by the end of the month.

Well, I guess the train came off the tracks for that one!

I, for one look forward to another racing season in which R. Cureton quests for 6:28 or 6:18 or Roy Brooks 55-59 WR

http://www.concept2.com/us/racing/recor ... ecords.asp

Trouble is that it's only human for us all to slow down with age.

Look at the list above. In how many cases did anyone under age 70 lower a WR by (6:38 - 6:18) 20 seconds?

Naturally there's always a first (sarcasm intended) .... Richard Cureton.

No one else but Rich will ever do it because they don't know the secret of "only taking good strokes".

BUT SERIOUSLY: ranger does have a chance at a WR... I would guess ... perhaps Edwin Alderman's record. The interim should provide lots of amusement in the meantime.

Rich: Would you give us an account of 2003 again and how your so much "better than that now"? A list of ever improving times would be most illustrative.

I'll go get an extra large cup of coffee as there'll be a long wait.

[KevJGK]

This is a training forum for rowing, not facebook.

Yes, most of this forum is about training.

This particular thread however is not concerned with training; it is purely and simply about you.

No, that's what folks like you have made it--ad hominem.

But it is really about training.

Most of this forum is not about training, I think, but about racing, in particular, racing training.

But really, racing training isn't training at all, or if it is, it is bad (and dangerous!) training, done by those who don't have the time, energy, or inclination to do it right.

Racing is social.

Training is less so.

This forum is social.

So, it is almost a requirement, breeched only by those who want to endure screams of diapproval, if the training that is reported on this forum is not racing (times over set distances), that is, social in focus, too.

ranger

You are no different to the majority who train to peak for an event in the current season. The difference with you is that when you fail to achieve your target, which is hardly a crime, rather than simply accepting defeat you change your story so that your previous focused training somehow becomes part of a much greater and longer plan.

The result of your self delusion is that as your training continues indefinitely and you can’t accept that you were beaten when it mattered, you have to fantasise about being better now than your previous competition who may quite reasonably have changed their sporting priorities and moved on.

The fact that you continue to train so bloody hard is fantastic, it’s a testament to your lifetime of physical fitness. It’s a shame you can’t settle for reality, set realistic goals and celebrate achieving them.

[hjs]

after his first year 2003 he did nothing worthwhile

My first year racing was 2002.

My second year racing, I broke the WR three times.

ranger

Sorry my mistake, so you did set your pb in 2002, that was a heavyweight row, the 2003 rows where slower

after 2003 you also haven,t been able to row as a lightweight.

Two reasons, first you started rowing lot's of low rate stuff, that made you to heavy to compete as a lightweight.

Secondly, you haven,t got the discipline to keep your bodyfat % in check. In the summer you get really fat for someone who claims to train that much.
You could learn that from Mike van B, he does that perfectly. But even 7 years of lot's and lot's off trouble on that front hasn,t learned you one thing.

Ps Roy is the same on this, he also starts eating everything in sight during the summer


So it's 8 years now since you rowed your alltime 2k pb, no if s, just a plain fact.
Your first race is still and will always be your best 2k time

[ranger]

You are no different to the majority who train to peak for an event in the current season. The difference with you is that when you fail to achieve your target, which is hardly a crime, rather than simply accepting defeat you change your story so that your previous focused training somehow becomes part of a much greater and longer plan.

The result of your self delusion is that as your training continues indefinitely and you can’t accept that you were beaten when it mattered, you have to fantasise about being better now than your previous competition who may quite reasonably have changed their sporting priorities and moved on.

The fact that you continue to train so bloody hard is fantastic, it’s a testament to your lifetime of physical fitness. It’s a shame you can’t settle for reality, set realistic goals and celebrate achieving them.

I don't know where all of this is coming from--your head, I guess.

This winter will be the first time that I have raced a 2K, fully trained and rowing well.

To prepare for a quality 2K, the most essential things that you need to do are hard distance rowing and sharpening, given some foundational base.

I don't know about you, but I get about a dozen seconds over 2K from each.

Many people _only_ do this sort of training for rowing.

They do no foundational rowing at all.

For instance, the Interactive Plan includes no foundational rowing.

UT rowing is what Caviston calls "Level 3".

This is distance rowing, done with a pretty light stroke, although somewhat heavier than 10 MPS.

Until this year, since 2003, I have only been doing foundational training, working on technique, learning to row well.

This is the first year since 2003 that I have done distance rowing, and this is the first year since 2003 that I will be doing full sharpening.

ranger

[leadville]

he heartometer hasn't been used since the late forties, and has never, ever, ever been used to measure stroke volume

Yes, it's an old machine.

My father developed the scientific uses of it in his lab (and other activities) at the University of Illinois.

One of the principal things my father developed was a way of calculating stroke volume from the heart wave as recorded on the heartometer graph.

The volume under the wave produced on the heartometer graph is proportional to stroke volume, given certain equations and calculations.

ranger

St-ranger - The 'volume under the wave' has at best a tangential relationship with stroke volume. As the device hasn't been used for decades, even if some rough estimation was made in your youth, it was so long ago that it is meaningless. SV can be changed to greater or lesser degree by training load, duration, and frequency over long periods of time (years).

If you've been training for years, your heart may have adapted. That's a big 'IF" and a big 'MAY'.

But the only way to know is via echo or cardiac cath - which you haven't done. So stop bs'ing us with unfounded claims about your superior condition, and stop telling others how to train when you so clearly don't know what you are talking about.

[ranger]

The 'volume under the wave' has at best a tangential relationship with stroke volume.

Do you have a reference for this claim?

ranger

[ranger]

stop telling others how to train when you so clearly don't know what you are talking about.

No need to talk, given that I am doing it, too, and therefore proving it.

I just like to talk, I guess.

It's fun.

I am an English professor.

What are you doing in addition to your talking?

ranger