The Two Types of Training

ranger · Post by **ranger** » February 10th, 2010, 5:10 pm

AT, TR, and AN work add nothing at all to your potential as a rower.

Sure, you have to do them in order to row your best 2K.

But your potential in 2K is fixed by your UT1 pace, what you can pull at 10 MPS for 60min.

UT2 work concentrates on effectiveness.

UT1 work concentrates on efficiency.

In your maximal UT1 performance, you show how effective and efficient you are.

There really isn't anything left in rowing to make you better.

Once you are maximally effective and efficient, you just need to bring up your anaerobic capacities and push it to the max.

Eveyone does that in pretty much the same way with pretty much the same benefit.

It doesn't augment your potential as a rower at all.

Sharpening is irrelevant to 2K performance.

ranger

NavigationHazard · Post by **NavigationHazard** » February 10th, 2010, 5:17 pm

Sharpening is irrelevant to 2K performance.

Total balderdash. You yourself bleat on ad nauseum about how you and everyone else in the rowing world get 12 seconds from "sharpening" (whatever you actually mean by that).

As for my training, how is that possibly relevant to your avoidance of your own oft-avowed principles?

Is it because they're cockamamie? Or is it because you're such a contrarian you refuse to accept even your own advice? The two are not mutually exclusive possibilities, mind you....

snowleopard · Post by **snowleopard** » February 10th, 2010, 5:19 pm

ranger wrote:There really isn't anything left in rowing to make you better.

In your case, correct. You're a busted flush.

ranger · Post by **ranger** » February 10th, 2010, 5:20 pm

BrianStaff wrote:While you're on the line ranger...tell us what your goals are for your two races this coming Sunday in Boston.

I didn't qualify, Brian.

So I am not going.

I scratched my entries.

I can't afford to drop $1000 on an erg race.

The CRASH-Bs aren't my major interest, anyway, as you can read about here.

There is no reason that I should have _your_ interests.

Eh?

Or do you think that's a requirement of "good" behavior?

If I get in good racing shape, I might indeed be interested in some of the smaller regattas nearby Ann Arbor (Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, etc.) over the next month.

Ergs are all the same.

Winning races is of no importance whatsoever.

What is important is how fast you are.

How fast you are on an erg is recorded exactly.

So races are superfluous.

I am happy to have Mike VB win a hammer in Boston pulling 6:45 if I can pull 6:20 in Chicago at the end of the month.

The differences in our achievements will be represented exactly in the rankings, as they were last year, when I wasn't even preparing to race.

RANKING RESULTS 2009

Indoor Rower | Individual and Race Results | 2000m | Men's | Lightweight | Custom Age Range (55–59) | 2009 Season

You are number 1 of 95

1 Rich Cureton 58 Ann Arbor MI USA 6:41.0 RACE
2 Rocketroy Brook 57 GBR 6:43.8 RACE
3 John Busk 55 Slangerup GBR 6:47.5 RACE
4 Mike Van Beuren 56 Annapolis MD USA 6:50.0 RACE
5 Brian Leonard Phipps 59 Rongotea Manawatu NZL 6:56.9 RACE

ranger

ranger · Post by **ranger** » February 10th, 2010, 5:31 pm

NavigationHazard wrote:
Sharpening is irrelevant to 2K performance.
Total balderdash. You yourself bleat on ad nauseum about how you and everyone else in the rowing world get 12 seconds from "sharpening" (whatever you actually mean by that).

As for my training, how is that possibly relevant to your avoidance of your own oft-avowed principles?

Is it because they're cockamamie? Or is it because you're such a contrarian you refuse to accept even your own advice? The two are not mutually exclusive possibilities, mind you....

I didn't say that sharpening wasn't necessary in order to row a quality 2K.

Lord, look at what happened to me over the weekend.

I said that everyone sharpens in the same way with the same benefit.

Therefore, sharpening is irrelevant in distinguishing a good 2K performance from a bad one.

Someone who rows 7:30 for 2K might well still get 12 seconds over 2K from sharpening.

So might someone who rows 7:00, 6:30, or 6:00.

What differentiates the four rowers is what they pull at 10 MPS for 60min, not what they did in sharpening.

And to row your best for 60min you don't have to sharpen at all.

What distinguishes rowers, good from bad, is how effective and efficient they are.

This has nothing to do with sharpening.

It has to do with UT rowing, both UT2 (effectiveness) and UT1 (efficiency).

ranger

NavigationHazard · Post by **NavigationHazard** » February 10th, 2010, 5:39 pm

Sorry to restrict you to the text rather than authorial intent. But I quoted you accurately:

Sharpening is irrelevant to 2K performance.

That sweeping assertion is balderdash.

ranger · Post by **ranger** » February 10th, 2010, 5:42 pm

For instance, Zrower did 1:42 @ 27 spm for 60min.

Nice one!

That predicts a 6:04 2K, right about what he does, as I remember.

ranger

ranger · Post by **ranger** » February 10th, 2010, 5:44 pm

NavigationHazard wrote:Sorry to restrict you to the text rather than authorial intent. But I quoted you accurately:

Sharpening is irrelevant to 2K performance.
That sweeping assertion is balderdash.

No, in the context of what I as saying, and given my explanation of this context, it is true--in spades.

Or don't you think so?

In order to improve your 2K significantly, do you think that the best thing you could do would be to bust your ass harder in sharpening?

If so, you're an idiot and don't know your ass from your elbow.

ranger

snowleopard · Post by **snowleopard** » February 10th, 2010, 5:45 pm

ranger wrote:I am happy to have Mike VB win a hammer in Boston pulling 6:45 if I can pull 6:20 in Chicago at the end of the month.

You just pulled 7:11. What mode of sharpening would see you improve by 51 -- yes, 51 -- seconds in two weeks?

Actually, scratch that, because you don't have two weeks. There is next to nothing you can do to improve your 2K time from now to 14 days hence.

Mike will win a hammer in WR time. Can't get any better than that. And for sure you won't.

ranger · Post by **ranger** » February 10th, 2010, 5:46 pm

snowleopard wrote:
ranger wrote:I am happy to have Mike VB win a hammer in Boston pulling 6:45 if I can pull 6:20 in Chicago at the end of the month.
You just pulled 7:11. What mode of sharpening would see you improve by 51 -- yes, 51 -- seconds?

Mike will win a hammer in WR time. Can't get any better than that. And for sure you won't.

Sure I can, if I pull 6:20 in Chicago.

Remember the Alamo:

RANKING RESULTS 2009

Indoor Rower | Individual and Race Results | 2000m | Men's | Lightweight | Custom Age Range (55–59) | 2009 Season

You are number 1 of 95

1 Rich Cureton 58 Ann Arbor MI USA 6:41.0 RACE
2 Rocketroy Brook 57 GBR 6:43.8 RACE
3 John Busk 55 Slangerup GBR 6:47.5 RACE
4 Mike Van Beuren 56 Annapolis MD USA 6:50.0 RACE
5 Brian Leonard Phipps 59 Rongotea Manawatu NZL 6:56.9 RACE

BTW, I don't think there is anything in Mike's training that predicts a WR, but perhaps he will surprise us.

I certainly wish him well.

To pull 6:38/1:39.5 for 2K, I think you need to pull 1:45 for 5K--at least.

Mike isn't anywhere near that.

Mike seems to avoid all 2K predictor sessisons (5K, 8 x 500m (3:30 rest), 4 x 1K, 4 x 2K, etc.).

Good reason, probably.

It would be hard on his goals and confidence to face facts.

ranger

NavigationHazard · Post by **NavigationHazard** » February 10th, 2010, 5:51 pm

The funny thing about printed words is that they have to stand for themselves. If you write

Sharpening is irrelevant to 2K performance.

that statement has built-in temporality. You can't expect present readers to anticipate future spin. As a sweeping assertion, which is how you originally presented it, it is balderdash.

ranger · Post by **ranger** » February 10th, 2010, 5:52 pm

NavigationHazard wrote:The funny thing about printed words is that they have to stand for themselves. If you write

Sharpening is irrelevant to 2K performance.
that statement has built-in temporality. You can't expect present readers to anticipate future spin. As a sweeping assertion, which is how you originally presented it, it is balderdash.

And after I explained myself?

Was it still balderdash?

Don't think so.

ranger

ranger · Post by **ranger** » February 10th, 2010, 5:53 pm

ranger wrote:AT, TR, and AN work add nothing at all to your potential as a rower.

Sure, you have to do them in order to row your best 2K.

But your potential in 2K is fixed by your UT1 pace, what you can pull at 10 MPS for 60min.

UT2 work concentrates on effectiveness.

UT1 work concentrates on efficiency.

In your maximal UT1 performance, you show how effective and efficient you are.

There really isn't anything left in rowing to make you better.

Once you are maximally effective and efficient, you just need to bring up your anaerobic capacities and push it to the max.

Eveyone does that in pretty much the same way with pretty much the same benefit.

It doesn't augment your potential as a rower at all.

Sharpening is irrelevant to 2K performance.

ranger

I don't know, Nav.

Isn't this clear as a bell?

Didn't I give enough context originally?

And then subsequently?

And then ad nauseum?

ranger

snowleopard · Post by **snowleopard** » February 10th, 2010, 5:55 pm

ranger wrote:
snowleopard wrote:
ranger wrote:I am happy to have Mike VB win a hammer in Boston pulling 6:45 if I can pull 6:20 in Chicago at the end of the month.
You just pulled 7:11. What mode of sharpening would see you improve by 51 -- yes, 51 -- seconds?

Mike will win a hammer in WR time. Can't get any better than that. And for sure you won't.
Sure I can, if I pull 6:20 in Chicago.

When did 6:16 become 6:20?

drip .. drip .. drip

Empty barrels make most noise.

ranger wrote:Seems to avoid all 2K predictor sessisons (5K, 8 x 500m (3:30 rest), 4 x 1K, 4 x 2K, etc.).

Good reason, probably.

It would be hard on his goals and confidence to face facts.

Read it and weep, pussy.

NavigationHazard · Post by **NavigationHazard** » February 10th, 2010, 5:55 pm