The Two Types of Training

[detlefchef]

In this case, _very_ big mouth, but not much action to back it up.

Pretty big disappointment.

His training turned out to be a complete dud.

ranger

Oh the irony.

Nope, no irony at all.

Check the rankings at the end of the year.

You'll see why.

ranger

7:11

Seriously, that pretty much sums it up.

By the time I came into this conversation, it appeared that you were well into whatever program you seem to be doing. Far enough, it would appear, that any guy with realistic aspirations of hitting the numbers you say you're going to hit would have to have the flu or something to be bad enough off to row.

What do I base that on? Because I'm nowhere near strong enough to go 6:30, not even close and I can knock out a 7:10-7:15 at a moment's notice, after a hard workout, whenever you want.

I can tell you one thing; if I spent as much time as you do on a message board making all the claims you have, and then I rolled a 7:11 the first time anyone had a chance to actually check me on my work? I would shut up and shut up quickly.

[ranger]

I can tell you one thing; if I spent as much time as you do on a message board making all the claims you have, and then I rolled a 7:11 the first time anyone had a chance to actually check me on my work? I would shut up and shut up quickly.

So, now my 2K is 6:48.

On Wednesday, it will be 6:40--and an American record.

On Friday, it will be 6:32--and a world record.

All of your fear of social rubbernecking and the like is unfounded--and crippling.

Why not just chin up and be positive?

So it goes, I guess.

Nay-sayers are idiots.

Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

If I get three more WR rows this year, I'll have six.

The collection is growing.

Nice!

ranger

[detlefchef]

I can tell you one thing; if I spent as much time as you do on a message board making all the claims you have, and then I rolled a 7:11 the first time anyone had a chance to actually check me on my work? I would shut up and shut up quickly.

So, now it is 6:48.

On Wednesday, it will be 6:40--and an American record.

On Friday, it will be 6:32--and a world record.

All of your fear is unfounded--and crippling.

Why not just chin up and be positive?

So it goes, I guess.

Nay-sayers are idiots.

Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

If I get three more WR rows this year, I'll have six.

The collection is growing.

ranger

To be completely honest, I do hope you hit all those numbers. I'm not predisposed to rooting against people doing well.

It's just that it seems like you're completely full of crap and, like others will believe it when I see it. "It" being you rolling the numbers you speak of witnessed.

[ranger]

It's just that it seems like you're completely full of crap

Ah.

But if I am not, then it is not my fault that you think I am.

You are just following the crowd, which tends to be (entirely!) full of crap.

Not good.

Distorts your judgment.

Traditional ways of training just make you worse, not to mention sick, injured, and stale.

That's discouraging, no?

I'm not sure why anyone would want to follow them.

I'll let you in on a secret:

Seems to me that they're full of crap.



ranger

[detlefchef]

It's just that it seems like you're completely full of crap

Ah.

But if I am not, then it is not my fault that you think I am.

You are just following the crowd, which tends to be (entirely!) full of crap.

Not good.

Distorts your judgment.

Traditional ways of training just make you worse, not to mention sick, injured, and stale.

That's discouraging, no?

I'm not sure why anyone would want to follow them.

I'll let you in on a secret:

Seems to me that they're full of crap.



ranger

I'm not following the crowd. My theory that you are full of crap has more to do with the fact that you keep making grand predictions and then, when challenged use other predictions to substantiate them. See, that doesn't count.

"I'm going to run faster than Usain Bolt."
"Really? I don't believe you. Prove it."
"Because I'm going to run a 400 in 30 seconds and if I can do that, I can surely run faster than Bolt."
"But how can you prove that?"
"Easy, because I'm going to run 12 50 meter dashes, right after one another, in 4 seconds each."
...and so on

Then the first chance you had to show what was up, you rolled a time that proved that you had no business at all making these claims. But instead of backing off, you made an excuse (one that doesn't come near explaining why you sucked so bad in that 2K) and then just go right back to explaining why you're going to achieve your goal not using examples of what you're already capable of doing but using examples of other things that you haven't shown you can do.

That pretty much just means you're full of crap. Honestly, put yourself in anyone's shoes but yours. Ask why anyone would believe you when you've offered up essentially nothing tangible to back up your claims?

Now, if you're on to some training plan that cause an experienced rower to drop 40 seconds off his 2K time in, what 6 weeks? Then I really think you are on to something. If I had to guess though, the data seems to show that you're just on something.

[BrianStaff]

So, now my 2K is 6:48.

On Wednesday, it will be 6:40--and an American record.

On Friday, it will be 6:32--and a world record.

On what basis can you knock 8 seconds off in two days and then another 8 seconds off two days after that.

That's pure fantasy....get real, man.

[SirWired]

Why does anybody even bother to continue to reply to ranger's posts?

The way I see it, there are one of two possibilities:

1) He's a very good, very old-fashioned (if not very subtle), forum troll. It takes real talent to keep a thread going for over 3100 posts while saying absolutely nothing. And not even once did he even have to kick in Godwin's Law (Google if you don't know what that is.) I'm in awe if this is the case.
2) He's a very odd person with a particular obsession with "ambitious" indoor rowing goals (backed up with inflated accomplishments that conveniently never happen to show up in a race) that he feels compelled to post here and defend. Most rational people would be well into the "my results will be my final answer" stage as of months ago and no longer posting.

You cannot have a productive conversation with either. It's completely impossible.

Really, my money is on 1. He is a linguistics professor after all. (Maybe we are all unwitting subjects in some kind of odd study? If he was a psychology professor, this theory would almost be a sure bet.) All this back-and-forth is entertaining, if nothing else. Or maybe, as somebody else posited, this could be a joint project with the CompSci dept. for a Turing bot.

None of this says that he won't actually produce a decent time at WIRC (all evidence to the contrary), but it does say that talking with him (it?) about it ahead of time is futile.

Can anyone think of other options?

SirWired

[ranger]

So, now my 2K is 6:48.

On Wednesday, it will be 6:40--and an American record.

On Friday, it will be 6:32--and a world record.

On what basis can you knock 8 seconds off in two days and then another 8 seconds off two days after that.

That's pure fantasy....get real, man.

Depends on how you train.

The 2K today was just a workout 2K, with a UT1 heart rate.

No trial.

No reason to do trials until your heart rate is fully responsive and up to max.

I am just bringing up my heart rate.

Everything else is in place.

A couple of 8 x 500m sessions, 1:34 @ 36 spm, will force my heart rate up to max.

Then I will be able to do an AT 2K, rather than just UT1.

This can be done very quickly.

Perhaps in just a week or so.

AT for me now is 1:38.

Most people train so that their heart rate is entirely up but nothing else is in place.



Not good.

Sure, then you can't knock any seconds off your 2K--ever.

In fact, the more you train, the worse you get.

Sharpening brings out your base.

If you have no base to bring out, why even bother?

And if you don't build a big base, one that is bigger than you have ever had, and then sharpen it up, to bring it out, how can you improve?

Good question.

Answer?

You can't.

ranger

[ranger]

Ask why anyone would believe you when you've offered up essentially nothing tangible to back up your claims?

Well.

Sit back and watch the show.

I just rowed faster than the hammer row in my age and weight division at WIRC 2010, with little specific preparation for it, just on a UT1 effort.

I would call that "tangible."

If I break the American record for 2K on Wednesday, best the World Record for 2K on Friday, and lower the World Record by 10 seconds on Sunday, simply because I am now able to get my heart rate to AT, will there be a few more "tangible" things to consider?

These rows will be done with almost no hard sharpening and no distance trials.

Therefore, they will be only AT efforts at best, not TR.

After Sunday, I will still have two more weeks in this racing season to do what remains to be done--a lot of TR and AN work--to bring up my heart rate and anaerobic capacities to max.

Your anaerobic capacities are 20% of a 2K, about 8 seconds per 500m.

And even if I run out of time to get what needs to be done this season, I can just proceed smoothly into next year, continuing what I am doing now, sharpening hard with AT, TR, and AN work, until I bring out all of the potential of my base.

There is always plenty of time to get better.

You just have to do what it takes to get the job done.

I no longer have to do any foundational rowing.

I now row well.

So, all of my rowing from now on can be at 26-30 spm and above.

The gap between an AT effort and a TR effort is five seconds per 500m.

How much of that will I be able to bring out in two weeks?

I suppose we'll soon see.

I can sharpen every day.

My base is huge.

About 60 million meters of foundational rowing.

If I do what I think I am going to do this week, by Monday morning next week, this year, I will have outrowed Mike Caviston, Tore Foss, Jon Bone, and Paul Siebach.

Then I will still have two weeks to bring down my 2K time from there.

I would say that this is something "tangible" for a 59-year-old lightweight.

Tore Foss is two years younger than I am and has rowed under six minutes for 2K when he was in his late 40s, 6:11 when he was in his 50s.

Mike Caviston is ten years younger than I am and holds the 40s lwt WR.

Jon Bone is six years younger than I am and holds the 50s hwt 1K WR.

And Paul Siebach is 8 years younger than I am and holds the 50s lwt WR.

All are hammers or multiple hammers.

Both Tore Foss and Jon Bone are huge heavyweights, 6'6" tall.

ranger

[ranger]

All this back-and-forth is entertaining, if nothing else.

And revealing.

Of what?

Nay-sayers are idiots.

Dolts and douche-bags.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... =douchebag

ranger

[jliddil]

Why does anybody even bother to continue to reply to ranger's posts?

The way I see it, there are one of two possibilities:

1) He's a very good, very old-fashioned (if not very subtle), forum troll. It takes real talent to keep a thread going for over 3100 posts while saying absolutely nothing. And not even once did he even have to kick in Godwin's Law (Google if you don't know what that is.) I'm in awe if this is the case.
2) He's a very odd person with a particular obsession with "ambitious" indoor rowing goals (backed up with inflated accomplishments that conveniently never happen to show up in a race) that he feels compelled to post here and defend. Most rational people would be well into the "my results will be my final answer" stage as of months ago and no longer posting.

You cannot have a productive conversation with either. It's completely impossible.

Really, my money is on 1. He is a linguistics professor after all. (Maybe we are all unwitting subjects in some kind of odd study? If he was a psychology professor, this theory would almost be a sure bet.) All this back-and-forth is entertaining, if nothing else. Or maybe, as somebody else posited, this could be a joint project with the CompSci dept. for a Turing bot.

None of this says that he won't actually produce a decent time at WIRC (all evidence to the contrary), but it does say that talking with him (it?) about it ahead of time is futile.

Can anyone think of other options?

SirWired

I agree with 1.

Here is some insight into how his mind works and why he posts in the style he does
http://books.google.com/books?id=OaNztU ... q=&f=false

[leadville]

-snip-
Nay-sayers are idiots.

Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

If I get three more WR rows this year, I'll have six.

The collection is growing.

Nice!

ranger

-snip-

Ah, classic RangerSpeak, from the mouth of the Cowardly Lyin'.

I particulary like 'Nay-sayers are idiots.'; if that's the case, what are lying cowards who insult their betters and make unsubstantiated claims while giving up eight times in their only witnessed row this year?

And note the use of 'if' and the transition immediately to how many WRs he'll have; WRs in his mind, as they don't qualify in the world wherein the rest of us reside.

Why wasn't the Cowardly Lyin' in Boston?

That's simple; he's been lying about his training, lying about his results, and lying about his weight for months, and actually having to show up, make weight 2 hours before an event, and race against his betters would shatter the house of cards he's built to protect his monumental ego.

Let's see where Cowardly Lyin ranks this year in his real category.

His 7:11 (the only result we can use as we can't believe anything else he says) puts him at 6th in the 55-59 LTWT.

He has weighed in as a LTWT, so we'll have to accept that ranking.

Congratulations, ranger, out here in the real world you're 6th.

[Citroen]

And not even once did he even have to kick in Godwin's Law (Google if you don't know what that is.) I'm in awe if this is the case.

Does refering to me as "a little hitler" count as a violation of Godwin's Law? http://c2forum.com/viewtopic.php?p=1176 ... ler#117631

[jliddil]

As I turn to close, I sense that my readers' guffawing might be loud indeed. What I have suggested here is both immense in scope and speculative in content, and while these qualities often co-occur, in the scholarly world, this co-occurrence alone is often grounds for dismissal. On the other hand, I would claim that it is just such large and speculative thinking that our field of study most desperately needs. The relative peripheralization of verse study in the scholarly world has not resulted primarily from the energy of our activities, the care of our observations, or the clarity of our descriptions (although we have certainly had some difficulties in these areas as well). This peripheralization has resulted exactly from the larger issues that I have taken up here. In my opinion, verse study does not need more results, if these results are couched in the same terms and directed to the same ends as the results that it has accumulated to this point. Rather, our field of study needs some larger and more inspiring vision of its basic rationale, its basic theoretical and practical aims. It is to this more fundamental need that I offer this appeal.

[Byron Drachman]

And not even once did he even have to kick in Godwin's Law (Google if you don't know what that is.) I'm in awe if this is the case.

Does refering to me as "a little hitler" count as a violation of Godwin's Law? http://c2forum.com/viewtopic.php?p=1176 ... ler#117631

From the Wikepedia discussion of Goodwin's Law:

I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust," Godwin has written.

That posting by Ranger was the most repulsive I have seen by him. I had a short response to it in that thread.