The Two Types of Training

[ranger]

As I mentioned above, lots of people are doing it.

There are lots of males in and around this forum who are pulling WR pace for 2K?

Well, then, let's hear from them.

What are their intentions, and how are they doing with them?

ranger

[lancs]

Are there any other males here on this forum, let's say under 80 years old, who are pullling WR pace for their age and weight, much less without even preparing for it?

Slightly *slower* than WR pace remember. You've been unable to get within 3 seconds of Roy's WR ever since he set it. The 60's WR isn't of your concern until your birthday next year, by which time your 2k times will have continued their decline from your terrific 6:28 in 2003.

A shame you've been unable to post *any* distance trials, as you said you would. I was hoping to see where you are in terms of the hour in particular. Ah well, not to worry; keep up the RWB routine..

[ranger]

Slightly *slower* than WR pace remember.

No, not at all, given that I am 59.

I am right about on WR pace.

The 60s lwt WR is 6:42.

I pulled 6:41.

I will be 60 in nine months.

I get about a dozen seconds over 2K from hard sharpening.

Hard distance rowing and distance trials are also important preparation for a 2K.

I pulled the 6:41 this year without either.

So, I think my future racing prospects are excellent.

Training is coming along great.

ranger

[ausrwr]

How do we explain this?

Let me try: you are NOT 60 years old. Thus, the WR you need to chase is Roy's 'soft' WR. As you are unable to break it, you are giving up and moving on to the next age group. Never mind that Roy did a 6:35 previously but as it wasn't in a race...

You are NOT eligible for the 60-64 age group. What part of this do you fail to understand?

And until you do it at a major championship (BIRC/Crash-B) no-one is going to believe you managed to make weight at WR/FISA guidelines.

You'll struggle to row better than 6:42 next year.

[ranger]

Thus, the WR you need to chase is Roy's 'soft' WR.

Sure.

That's exactly what I am doing, completing my training--hard distance rowing, distance trials, and sharpening.

If I complete my training, I should best Roy's 55s lwt 2K WR easily at BIRC 2010, when I am 59.9 years old.



By 15 seconds?

20?

Then I'll just train through to WIRC 2011 and set the 60s lwt WR down to a similar level.

Competitively, though, any 2K time pulled at 59.9 is about two seconds per 500m better than the same time pulled at 55, four seconds per 500m better than the same time pulled at 50.

Time takes its toll.

Historically, at least, even a 6:28 at 60 is like 6:12 at 50.

6:16 at 60...well, uh, mmmm...is off the charts.

That would be like 6:00 at 50.

It's 26 seconds under the 60s lwt WR.

ranger

[nysaag]

RANGER= Total failure to complete ANY promised or projected timed pieces.

RANGER= Total failure to pay his debts.

And we actually read his crap. Shame on us.

[chgoss]

All of this shrill talk about [reporting training times] is misplaced here.
This is a training forum.
Good training doesn't have anything to do with [maintaining a training log].
It has to do with overcoming your weaknesses, learning how to get better.
Those who [maintain a training log] only get worse.
They parade their strengths and ignore their weaknesses, which they don't have the courage or determination to confront.
ranger

Rich, I think that even you can see that when your post is modified to clearly indicate what you are really saying, it doenst make sense..

I am not sure [A good training log] has much at all to do with [recording] times pulled for various "pieces," total meters rowed, etc.

log: a record of performance, events, or day-to-day activities.

Seems like you have a different definition of "log" than Webster...

[ranger]

log: a record of performance, events, or day-to-day activities.

I have documented _that_ in great detail, both on these C2 fora and in my blog.

Everyone knows exactly what I have done with my training over the last seven years.

I don't think there is any uncertainty about that at all.

What everyone wants to know is how this training has affected my racing.

Sure enough.

So do I.

We'll know soon.

The only thing we know about my racing so far is that I am pulling WR 2K pace without preparing for it.

ranger

[PaulH]

It's interesting that in your list of "intentions" I didn't recognize anything that you'd posted about in advance. The "intentions" that you share publicly are things like setting 6 consecutive WR in the 2K last year, or setting PBs in all distances by the end of this month.

Can I conclude from this that the act of sharing an "intention" is a signal that you're not going to achieve it, and that in fact you have no "intention" of doing so?

PS check the rankings - loads of people there rowing at or near WR pace, for all sorts of ages and weights.

[Nosmo]

How do we explain this?

Hey, man, you don't talk to the ranger. You listen
to him.

[ranger]

check the rankings - loads of people there rowing at or near WR pace, for all sorts of ages and weights.

My reference isn't to the rankings.

My reference is to the people posting here.

ranger

[ranger]

It's interesting that in your list of "intentions" I didn't recognize anything that you'd posted about in advance.

Wrong again.

All of the intentions I listed were posted about--long in advance, and long in the process.

In _thousands_ of posts.

I have been erging for a decade and posting daily.

ranger

[PaulH]

All of the intentions I listed were posted about--long in advance, and long in the process.

In _thousands_ of posts.

The only one I recognize was the increased SPI. And of course that was a sufficiently nebulous goal - sorry, "intention" - that its achievement was a given. In fact I could go and achieve that in just as quantifiable a way this afternoon, should I choose. Fortunately I don't choose, because it's time to cycle home.

[snowleopard]

How do we explain this?

ranger, compounding his stupidity, believes that a wholly imaginary "WR pace" can be determined at any age point within an age group. Thus within the 55-59 age group there is, on Planet Ranger, a 55, 55.5, 56, 56.25, 57, 58 and 59.75 yo "WR pace". He determines this by some wacko averaging of the current and subsequent age group WRs.

Why anyone would be so pathetic and needy as to do this is beyond me. The age group WR is the only thing that matters and it doesn't belong to ranger.

I do recall that our hero intended to put the age group WR "out of reach" of mere mortals but since beating 6:40 has proved impossible this now seems unlikely. As unlikely as a tenured english professor not knowing the difference between prediction and intention

[PaulH]

Actually that's it - the only quantifiable goal (doh! I meant "intention") on that list is from 2003, and your world records. Since then any "intention" that has been quantifiable has been missed (e.g. setting the WR at numerous points between 2003 and now), and any "intention" that has been achieved (e.g. rowing at a certain SPI for your "distance stroke") has been sufficiently nebulous that you could declare victory whenever you chose.

So, you've answered my question, suitably qualified: The last time ranger achieved a quantifiable "intention" was in 2003.