The Two Types of Training

[ranger]

I don't need to produce any facts

Yep.

For blowhards, nay-doers, and nay-sayers, facts are irrelevant.

ranger

[snowleopard]

I don't need to produce any facts

Yep.

For blowhards, nay-doers, and nay-sayers, facts are irrelevant.

No, I didn't say that. I said that you will produce the facts to support my claim. Quite different.

You're the flake ranger. You're the unsubstantiated hypothesis. There is not a single shred of evidence from you in seven years, not one, to back up any of your grandiose claims on this forum.

You're all just piss and wind.

[ranger]

Whether you pull a 6:28 or 7:28 on Saturday doesn't change the information content of the previous 104 pages one iota.

Your theory of reading is blinkered--in the extreme.

Are you an oyster?

Information is not autonomous, acontextual.

If I pull 6:28 on Saturday, _before_ I start sharpening, contexts of interpretation shift pretty radically.

No?

If I pull 6:16 at the end of April, the "information" in this thread is transformed.

ranger

[ranger]

I said that you will produce

No question of that.

I have been producing continuously.

The issue is that you don't.

Get it?

ranger

[snowleopard]

No question of that.

I have been producing continuously.

Yes, lies. Your stock in trade. Dis[information].

[Nosmo]

If I pull 6:16 at the end of April, the "information" in this thread is transformed.

Except there is almost no information in this thread, just vague and very often contradictory statements that lack context and use non-standard definitions of words.
However if you do a 6:16 it would certainly transform our opinion of your athletic abilities, (but not of your integrity).

[DUThomas]

It's obvious that an Associate Professor of Poetics in Ann Arbor, MI, knows more about training, conditioning and rowing than the best rowing coaches in the world.

Not that it matters, but I didn't write that.

Sure, if I pull 6:16 for 2K at the end of April, I might indeed want to say that I know more about training, conditioning, and rowing--taken together--than the best rowing coaches in the world.

And if you don't, do you re-evaluate your approach? Or do you double down on it? Do you ever have the intellectual integrity and courage to come back to the forum and say that a given time (within a margin of a second or two) is really about the best you honestly (look it up) think you can do; that you gave it a good shot, but your training approach just didn't work; or that your 6:16 2K will occur on 6/16 of two thousand and never?

So far, based on actual and verifiable numbers you've reported, there is really nothing to suggest that your approach of the past seven years has yielded any better results than you might have achieved otherwise (and actually achieved in 2003). Indeed, the decline in your lightweight times since 2003 has matched or exceeded what you have cited as the "normal decline" per year for older rowers.

[ranger]

If I pull 6:16 at the end of April, the "information" in this thread is transformed.

Except there is almost no information in this thread, just vague and very often contradictory statements that lack context and use non-standard definitions of words.
However if you do a 6:16 it would certainly transform our opinion of your athletic abilities, (but not of your integrity).

Strange.

_Very_ strange.

You have questioned my judgments about training and my results.

Because of this, you have questioned my integrity, ethics, etc.

But you are saying that if my judgments about training turn out to be solid and my results excellent, if not unprecedented, my integrity and ethics are still questionable?

Wow.

Sorry.

But this needs some explanation.

ranger

[ranger]

Sorry, dude, but if you are going to say things like this, you're just an idiot and are wasting everyone's time, trying everyone's patience, and embarrassing yourself, all in one.

ranger

[lancs]

BTW, I pulled 6:29.7 in 2006

As a hwt..

[Steve G]

Rich
Are you 60 yet?
One minute it's in a few days time, the next it is next summer, am I confused or you?
BTW if you pull a 6.16 I will eat your bobble hat

[JohnBove]

But this needs some explanation.

There isn't a soul on this thread who will have trouble understanding or agreeing with what he said.

Including you.

[lancs]

This week, I'll post 8 x 500m @ 1:34, 4 x 1K @ 1:37, and 4 x 2K @ 1:41.

Then, on Saturday, I'll pull a lwt 6:28 2K in Detroit.

If you post any single one of these I'll post a photo of me stood butt naked on the steps of Manchester Town Hall..

O.K.
But remember you said that.
I'll try the 500s tomorrow.
Then the 2Ks.
Then the 1Ks.
Later in the week.
ranger

Just thought it only fair to remind you of our conversation earlier in the week. How you doing with any of these pieces? Any of them? Any at all?

Cold weather forecast here in Manchester so ideal for naked Town Hall steps photographs I'd have thought..

[JohnBove]

However if you do a 6:16 it would certainly transform our opinion of your athletic abilities, (but not of your integrity).

Why do you address this as if it's a possibility? He's never going to pull 6:16. He's never going to pull 6:28 -- he might as well be predicting a four-minute mile -- and it's very unlikely he will break 6:40 or Roy's record. If he does, good for him, but all it will mean is that he is a few seconds faster than the other top rowers in a weight- and age-limited event. 20,000 posts of braying self-aggrandizement for that.

Finally, he's a joke -- a needy, pathetic fool who will say anything to attract attention. I'm not sure which is worse, his shamelessness or our pleasure in poking this village idiot with a stick.

[jliddil]

I don't need any help with erging (my stroke is perfect), although I indeed want to be a coach, when I retire from teaching linguistics and poetics at UM in a couple of years.

Main Entry: 1per·fect
Pronunciation: \ˈpər-fikt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English parfit, from Anglo-French, from Latin perfectus, from past participle of perficere to carry out, perfect, from per- thoroughly + facere to make, do — more at do
Date: 14th century

1 a : being entirely without fault or defect : flawless <a perfect diamond> b : satisfying all requirements : accurate c : corresponding to an ideal standard or abstract concept <a perfect gentleman> d : faithfully reproducing the original; specifically : letter-perfect e : legally valid
2 : expert, proficient <practice makes perfect>
3 a : pure, total b : lacking in no essential detail : complete c obsolete : sane d : absolute, unequivocal <enjoys perfect happiness> e : of an extreme kind : unmitigated <a perfect brat> <an act of perfect foolishness>
4 obsolete : mature
5 : of, relating to, or constituting a verb form or verbal that expresses an action or state completed at the time of speaking or at a time spoken of
6 obsolete a : certain, sure b : contented, satisfied
7 of a musical interval : belonging to the consonances unison, fourth, fifth, and octave which retain their character when inverted and when raised or lowered by a half step become augmented or diminished
8 a : sexually mature and fully differentiated <a perfect insect> b : having both stamens and pistils in the same flower <a perfect flower>

— per·fect·ness \-fik(t)-nəs\ noun
synonyms perfect, whole, entire, intact mean not lacking or faulty in any particular. perfect implies the soundness and the excellence of every part, element, or quality of a thing frequently as an unattainable or theoretical state <a perfect set of teeth>. whole suggests a completeness or perfection that can be sought, gained, or regained <felt like a whole person again after vacation>. entire implies perfection deriving from integrity, soundness, or completeness of a thing <the entire Beethoven corpus>. intact implies retention of perfection of a thing in its natural or original state <the boat survived the storm intact>.