6:28 2K

[detlefchef]

OK, so then, you can confirm that you will definately, no doubt about it, 100% sure be doing the following and post a screen shot of same, in one continuous piece, approximately 42 minutes start to finish. .....

As you well know, confirming he will do it and doing it are two entirely different things. Do you really need one more example of this? Don't you have enough already? What possible purpose would one more serve?

good question,, why do we respond to ranger... I'm not really sure why, especially after the way he goes about posting has been so clearly established.

I guess for me, I'm still trying to figure out if he actually believes the stuff he writes or not.

either that, or I'm just bored...

Trust me, it's #2. You're bored. Regardless of the forum, there's always a guy like ranger. Some dude who pulls random crap out of his ass and everyone finds humor in poking holes in it. I'm typically as guilty as the next and would likely join in if I wasn't new here.

An outsider's perspective: This guy has apparently been here for sometime, constantly posting goals that he obviously has no business shooting for and fails to ever illustrate why he has any reason to believe he can attain them. Nobody takes him at all seriously (for good reason) and yet can't help themselves from pretending that they're arguing with a sane person and engages him. Foolishly offering up evidence and facts when it is actually rather pointless. You may as well waste your time explaining to me why I can't grow 4 inches this year.

The fact that he tends to often post 3 times in a row and is always Johnny on the spot when it comes to replying to anyone, regardless of what time of day, means he's obviously far more into continuing this on-line banter than he is in doing what he alleges are his goals.

None the less. If it wasn't entertaining and we had anything better to do at the time, this thread wouldn't be as long as it is.

[Rocket Roy]

I now row as well as I can, too.

No, I can't row sub-6:30.

ranger

Or even sub 6.40....

Now you are telling the truth!

[ausrwr]

Detlefchef, you're wrong on one bit.
Ranger has good business shooting for WRs and suchlike.
Say what you will about that man - and I have, repeatedly, crudely and obnoxiously - he is one hell of an athlete and physical specimen.

His methods for getting there, and his lack of respect for anyone who isn't him or doesn't serve his theories are worthy of sneering at, but his physical achievements are worthy of respect.

[Nosmo]

Trust me, it's #2. You're bored. Regardless of the forum, there's always a guy like ranger. Some dude who pulls random crap out of his ass and everyone finds humor in poking holes in it. I'm typically as guilty as the next and would likely join in if I wasn't new here.

An outsider's perspective: This guy has apparently been here for sometime, constantly posting goals that he obviously has no business shooting for and fails to ever illustrate why he has any reason to believe he can attain them. Nobody takes him at all seriously (for good reason) and yet can't help themselves from pretending that they're arguing with a sane person and engages him.

The difference is that ranger is an extremely fast erger. When he showes up at a race we don't know weather he will crash and burn or win. He never tells us what he is really doing or if he does he leaves so much out that we don't really know. He doesn't seem to really know how fast he can go so he seems to often miss judge and blow. The fact that he is a very poor judge of his abilities is what makes me think he may believe what he writes (or most of what he writes).
So it is extremely interesting when he does race. You have to take ranger seriously when he races, because every so often he will do very very well.
I actually believe he was capable of getting the 50-59 WR, and may get the 60-65 WR, but he usually doesn't race or train well. If he wasn't fast no one would pay attention.

None the less. If it wasn't entertaining and we had anything better to do at the time, this thread wouldn't be as long as it is.

It is entertaining, but because he is fast, and because he insults others very often, and because he has refused to pay his bet with Henry, people have gotten very angry at him. I think that anger is why people respond so much and why he often brings out the worst in others.
I don't think he is worth the anger but he is not my competition (at least not till we meet OTW which doesn't seem likely) and he doesn't owe me $2000.

[snowleopard]

he is one hell of an athlete and physical specimen.

No. He was. He has done nothing significant on the erg in six years. Not even a WR. Don't give more credit than is due.

And all his marks have been beaten.

[Den-J]

Well to be fair he did top his age group rankings by more than 2 seconds last year ..if I did that i would think it was significant

[snowleopard]

Well to be fair he did top his age group rankings by more than 2 seconds last year ..if I did that i would think it was significant

Good point. (Although such achievements are always muted by the man's hubris.)

[chgoss]

I would agree, anyone that is consistently in the top 5 of their age group is pretty darn good.

[eliotsmith]

The fact that he is a very poor judge of his abilities is what makes me think he may believe what he writes (or most of what he writes).

He is only a poor judge of his abilities IF he believes what he writes. Your premise is not a "fact".

[eliotsmith]

I would agree, anyone that is consistently in the top 5 of their age group is pretty darn good.

And this is what makes ranger so incredible. I think a true troll is one who not only says things that are designed to incite anger, etc. but also one who never has any foundation from which to ground his/her B.S. Granted, it is mostly B.S. in ranger's case but his abilities are nothing to scoff at. I could only dream of ever reaching the top 5 in my age/weight class (30's LTW)!

[ranger]

Well to be fair he did top his age group rankings by more than 2 seconds last year ..if I did that i would think it was significant

I wasn't training to race.

I did my 2Ks last year, and for the last several years, just on the basis of foundational training, so probably at AT, which for my age and weight turned out to be right about WR pace.

I did no distance training or sharpening.

I was still working on technique.

I get about a dozen seconds each over 2K from distance rowing and sharpening.

So it should indeed be interesting to see what I might pull for 2K this year when I am fully trained.

I have been doing distance rowing for the last six months.

I will be sharpening for the next six weeks.

ranger

[Nosmo]

The fact that he is a very poor judge of his abilities is what makes me think he may believe what he writes (or most of what he writes).

He is only a poor judge of his abilities IF he believes what he writes. Your premise is not a "fact".

I believe he is a poor judge of his abilities because of all his DNFs and all of his races over 7:00. My comment has nothing to do with what he wrote. He either is flying and dieing or just too weak from making weight, or really both. But you are correct that "fact" was too strong a word.

[Den-J]

The thing with ranger is there is a kernel of good sense in what he says build a good style and a good base then move on to speed work he just seems to take it to extremes ...huge extremes this is the only sport I have ever taken part in that points beginners to plans loaded with intervals. I come from a running background and no-one would say to a beginner "ok start with 3 sets of intervals a week and 4 steady runs"It is very rare to see a beginner told to work on his tecnique build up the distance and row half a million meters then move on to the pete plan or similar, thats why when someone from another sport reads what Ranger suggests it seems reasonable.

[TomR]

I am always amused when the newbies show up and defend ranger. The guy has been prattling endlessly for years--years--about how he is going to row faster. All he does is row slower, fail to pay up on bets he lost, and lie about his training. All these facts have been documented.

Sure, he has on occasion rowed fast for his age. But that's not the 6.16 he has been promising for several years. His fastest times are behind him. He probably will never break 6.40. If he truly sets out to row 6.28, he will handle down at the 1k mark give or take.

[Nosmo]

The thing with ranger is there is a kernel of good sense in what he says build a good style and a good base then move on to speed work he just seems to take it to extremes ...huge extremes this is the only sport I have ever taken part in that points beginners to plans loaded with intervals. I come from a running background and no-one would say to a beginner "ok start with 3 sets of intervals a week and 4 steady runs"It is very rare to see a beginner told to work on his tecnique build up the distance and row half a million meters then move on to the pete plan or similar, thats why when someone from another sport reads what Ranger suggests it seems reasonable.

You bring up a good point. However, newbies are constantly told to work on technique first and what program has 3 interval sessions a week? Pete and WP both have 2. Running is much more abusive then rowing. One needs a lot of time to build miles and speed running. It is not so important in rowing.

But you are right about building distance and technique. It should be emphasized more.