6:28 2K

chgoss · Post by **chgoss** » January 14th, 2010, 5:30 pm

mikvan52 wrote:
chgoss wrote:
mikvan52 wrote: To win this challenge you have to win by 8 sec per 500m. The distance is 500m.
8 sec!!!
to much, you're 500m is in the low 1:30's mike?
My signature at the bottom of this post is not a fabrication
That's from 12/30/2007
More recently I pulled a 1:30.8.
Both were verified by C2
...

I didnt mean I was questioning your 500m time, I just didnt know what it was.... for some reason your signature isnt displayed in my browser...

1:22.7 would tie Nav's 500m

KevJGK · Post by **KevJGK** » January 14th, 2010, 5:31 pm

Rich. JFDI & don't be such a pussy.

p.s. Mine is 01:34.5 so you won't be last.

ranger · Post by **ranger** » January 14th, 2010, 5:32 pm

mikvan52 wrote:Cureton will either be (with reason: because of work) unable to respond to this challenge or will have some smart-ass thing to say: totally inconsistent with the ease of sitting down on the erg and cranking out 60-70 strokes at max.

Well, I could probably sit down and do 1:26 or so right now, but what is the use of a slow 500m such as that?

It will just reflect that I have not been doing sprints yet and so am not ready for a 500m trial.

It takes a while to get your anaerobic pathways tuned up.

I am not there yet.

I already know that (and so do you).

So, doing the trial tells me nothing at all--or you.

When I am fully trained and ready for it, I think I'll do 1:23.

It takes a while to get your anaerobic pathways tuned up.

I am not there yet.

But I soon will be.

ranger

chgoss · Post by **chgoss** » January 14th, 2010, 5:33 pm

ranger wrote:
mikvan52 wrote:
'I am _substantially_ butter' wrote: ...
The difference is eight seconds per 500m.
..
...
I challenge you to an IND_V contest at "max" today.
According to the table above you claim to have 8 sec/500m on me...
I'll get in a 500m trial over the next six weeks, but not immediately.

Good call, #3.. it avoids addressing the obvious absurdity of you pulling a 500m at the same time as Nav..

Code: Select all

Possible answer options for Ranger when asked to report results: 

1 it has been reported (2003 WR, since then he as raced more than anyone else, since then he has only been getting better, he has reported his 4 years of training to get to a 13 SPI, no one has ever gotten better) 

2 it shouldnt be reported ("Work on general fitness, technique, stroking power, and endurance doesn't have much to do with the monitor (keeping track of distance covered over time) at all") 

3 it will be reported (he just finished distance rowing, he is now in the sharpening phase and will be posting screen shots of his sessions starting next Monday) 

4 ignored

mikvan52 · Post by **mikvan52** » January 14th, 2010, 5:35 pm

Oh, no you don't!

You said 1:23 is your max training band and mine is 1:31.

That is most specifically TODAY.

It can't be read any other way.

Show your training band at max HR.
You pick the distance or time 1 to 60 strokes... You have to beat me (on pace) by 8 seconds per 500

You're a flat out liar.

ranger · Post by **ranger** » January 14th, 2010, 5:44 pm

mikvan52 wrote:I predict he will qualify his claim by saying 'when we're both fully trained'

Good grief!

That's indeed what I am saying.

Only idiots do random races outside the natural progression and flow of their training.

Kevin thinks that only idiots are not pussies.

Oh well.

To each his own.

ranger

ranger · Post by **ranger** » January 14th, 2010, 5:49 pm

mikvan52 wrote:Oh, no you don't!

You said 1:23 is your max training band and mine is 1:31.

That is most specifically TODAY.

It can't be read any other way.

Show your training band at max HR.
You pick the distance or time 1 to 60 strokes... You have to beat me (on pace) by 8 seconds per 500

You're a flat out liar.

Say what?

Training bands are what you work through to get fully trained.

You build them up.

For instance, I might do my first batch of 500s five or six seconds per 500m slower than I do a month later, when my anaerobic capacities are fully developed.

Where is the top of the training band?

Not where I started, but where I ended up a month later.

Top of an aerobic band can have even a larger spread and therefore take even longer to build up in a training cycle.

I am working through the bands sequentially, not working them simultaneously.

The times that get rowed this season will show how right I am about the relation between our training bands.

We'll have to wait and see how these turn out.

ranger

mikvan52 · Post by **mikvan52** » January 14th, 2010, 5:53 pm

{{post removed by author because of pointlessness of even discussing this any more}}

Any taker on a bet that ranger will never row a lwt 6:28 2k from here to his dieing day? I'll give odds.

mikvan52 · Post by **mikvan52** » January 14th, 2010, 5:55 pm

{original post removed: redundant and boring}
any reasoning mind would conclude that
The C2 ranking database will speak itself at the end of the season.

the only records that are accepted are RACE and IND_V

For a lark I tested a couple of 200m pieces this evening:

#1: 200m - 34.3 seconds - 1:25.7 pace (no heart rate data taken)
(2-3 min later: waited for dead fan)
#2: 200m - :34.4 seconds - 1:26.0 pace - HR= 110 bpm

by ranger's estimation very low end UT

I feel a whole lot better.

NavigationHazard · Post by **NavigationHazard** » January 14th, 2010, 5:56 pm

chgoss wrote: (snip)
Good call, #3.. it avoids addressing the obvious absurdity of you pulling a 500m at the same time as Nav.

I'm way faster than 1:23. Although the throwaway 1:22.7 I did back on 6/17/09 is still the fastest reported time for 50+ MHWs.

rjw · Post by **rjw** » January 14th, 2010, 7:34 pm

ranger wrote:
mikvan52 wrote:I predict he will qualify his claim by saying 'when we're both fully trained'

Good grief!
That's indeed what I am saying.

Only idiots do random races outside the natural progression and flow of their training.

Kevin thinks that only idiots are not pussies.

Oh well.

To each his own.

ranger

Ranger - just because it is timed doesn't make it a race. Back off a second or two on the 500. Shouldn't be a problem for you.

But then again I digress.

Problem is, when you run off at the mouth and get called on it, you do the usual back step.

kini62 · Post by **kini62** » January 14th, 2010, 8:08 pm

I smell fish or ''Good day mam'' said blind man as he walked past the fish market.

TomR · Post by **TomR** » January 14th, 2010, 10:10 pm

mikvan52 wrote:"
You remain a fake.

Mike,

Didn't he say he's going to row a 6.28 in a couple of weeks at one of the satellites?

You and I and all sane men and women it won't happen then or ever.

So who gives a rat's ass about this 500 nonsense. Ignore it and let his 2010 races do his talking.

In the meantime, put the moves on your woman. That will be a diversion worth the effort. Unlike this.

Tom

mikvan52 · Post by **mikvan52** » January 14th, 2010, 10:26 pm

TomR wrote:
Didn't he say he's going to row a 6.28 in a couple of weeks at one of the satellites?

You and I and all sane men and women it won't happen then or ever.

So who gives a rat's ass about this 500 nonsense. Ignore it and let his 2010 races do his talking.

You've got excellent sense Tom!

I'll do my best to follow your advice.

regards, Mike

chgoss · Post by **chgoss** » January 14th, 2010, 11:10 pm

ranger wrote:Well, I could probably sit down and do 1:26 or so right now, but what is the use of a slow 500m such as that?

It tells you how fast you can do a 500m piece today. Thats an extremely useful piece of information.

or, not