Ranger's training thread

[Citroen]

There's no excuse for being unsportsmanlike when the medal you've won isn't the gold.

I agree with your point of view but can you give one example of ranger being "sportsman-like"? I would be more likely to see a workout by ranger posted here.

JimR

I don't think he's ever been a good sportsman, but he's plumbed new depths today.

[JimR]

There's no excuse for being unsportsmanlike when the medal you've won isn't the gold.

I agree with your point of view but can you give one example of ranger being "sportsman-like"? I would be more likely to see a workout by ranger posted here.

JimR

I don't think he's ever been a good sportsman, but he's plumbed new depths today.

He always has to out-do everyone!

JimR

[ThatMoos3Guy]

Any reason why the UK site isn't working?

[jliddil]

Any reason why the UK site isn't working?

http://www.c2forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=10908

[JimR]

So ranger's attempt to set his mark as the greatest erger ever by pulling the best 2K at BIRC 2010 has so many people flocking to the UK site that it can't keep up?! Someone should have seen that coming and ramped up the bandwidth.

Was the BBC doing interviews and such with ranger yesterday? Maybe all the attention tired him out?

What is the weather/season like in Birmingham ... he didn't go out and rake leaves with the locals did he ... trying to polish his image?

JimR

[PaulH]

He also deserves perfect silence the next time he ventures to post anything.

Good idea, let him spout his crap (including some wishy washy excuses for 7:02 (with breaks) at BIRC) on here and have NOBODY reply (that means you MvB and you HJS).

That was done on his UK blog. That was the trigger for his move back to this forum (when the attention from the naysayers dried up over there).

There's no excuse for being unsportsmanlike when the medal you've won isn't the gold. If I were C2UK I'd ban him from my competition for life.

Sounds good to me - I can't promise not to read though, as the excuse is the bit I've been waiting for all this time!

[Micromonkey]

Hi Rich

Not posted for a couple of years, wanted to see if finally you were going to get anywhere near your goals...

Saw you row on Sunday and sadly it appears you are still nowhere near! In fact still rowing with breaks as you were at least two years ago and indeed the same as you were when you got trounced into 4th place in Amsterdam 2007?

Also your stroke, looks exactly the same hauling stroke that you used to have before you learnt to row, especially so when you started to fade after about 500 meters or so.
Whats happened? Came all the way to Birc to see you row too, feel cheated!

VERY disrepectful not to congratulate those who beat you into third place and stand on the lower rostrum with them don't you think?
Maybe you just couldn't bring yourself to, after all it would be like admitting that their training is more succesful than yours.
True to character I guess, oh well...

Until the next race then, I wait with anticipation the long sought after 6:16, I suggest you change your training methods, the present don't seem to be working, be interesting to work out precisely what your SPI was on Sunday, somehow I don't think it's going to work out quite as high as you claim you "work with" at training.

[hjs]

He also deserves perfect silence the next time he ventures to post anything.

Good idea, let him spout his crap (including some wishy washy excuses for 7:02 (with breaks) at BIRC) on here and have NOBODY reply (that means you MvB and you HJS).

That was done on his UK blog. That was the trigger for his move back to this forum (when the attention from the naysayers dried up over there).

There's no excuse for being unsportsmanlike when the medal you've won isn't the gold. If I were C2UK I'd ban him from my competition for life.

Sounds good to me - I can't promise not to read though, as the excuse is the bit I've been waiting for all this time!

He simply should be banned ..................

He started to tell lies about me and I think does lies should be removed if he does, if you don,t that doug I do respond. I don't want to be called a liar.

[Citroen]

He simply should be banned ..................

He started to tell lies about me and I think does lies should be removed if he does, if you don,t that doug I do respond. I don't want to be called a liar.

Flag the posts you want removed and give a valid explanation why they are wrong and they can be deleted. I agree his bitchy, unpleasant, untrue and ad hominem attacks against you, MikeVB, Rocket and others need to stop. He can spout his "smooth as butta" BS all he wants as we all know to ignore it.

He craves attention, if we all refrain from giving that attention that will annoy him, no matter whether he posts here, on his UK blog or anywhere else. It's those of us that reply (including me) that feed our favourite anti-hero troll.

[hjs]

He simply should be banned ..................

He started to tell lies about me and I think does lies should be removed if he does, if you don,t that doug I do respond. I don't want to be called a liar.

Flag the posts you want removed and give a valid explanation why they are wrong and they can be deleted. I agree his bitchy, unpleasant, untrue and ad hominem attacks against you, MikeVB, Rocket and others need to stop. He can spout his "smooth as butta" BS all he wants as we all know to ignore it.

He craves attention, if we all refrain from giving that attention that will annoy him, no matter whether he posts here, on his UK blog or anywhere else. It's those of us that reply (including me) that feed our favourite anti-hero troll.

I do agree he may post , I do flag posts every now and then, but he posts so much it's almost un do able to keep track.

About ignoring, it simply does not work, and the reason is this. If we don,t replay he get more and more abusive, people like Pete M , NavHaz, Roy, Mike C, Mike v, Me etc get all sort of bullshit trown at us.
Those posts should be stopped right away, simply let him talk about himslef, without naming others. If he does ban him.

[Flipper21]

It goes without saying that even in defeat regardless of how you prepare for your competition, others have done exactly the same and on the day and the victor will stand proud and true. For Rich to do as he has done shows disrespect for himself as a competitor. He ought to be embarrassed with himself for his behaviour.

On reflection I hope he learns that there are better ergers out there than he thinks there is. A Bronze is still an achievement after all and he should still have been proud of it. It should have said to him that he needs to try harder next time, simple as.

As for some of the comments in other posts I agree to disagree on some and agree on others. I for one will no longer post/reply until things change (if ever they do).

Goddbye for now Rich.


ps. remember the man in the mirror and find that respect and humility for others and in turn for your self as well.

[hjs]

I can't resist and am just stating the facts.

The expected "6.20, 13 spi" ate age "60"

http://concept2.co.uk/birc/result_analy ... c_id=37858

702.3 rate 29 10.5 av spi

500 140.5/30 11.5 spi
1000 142.9/29 11.1 spi
1500 150.0/28 9.4 spi
2000 148.9/28 9.7 spi

In totale 13 breaks, 4 bigger ones above 2.10 pace, 9 smaller ones at least 5 seconds above average pace.
From the start on he can't hold rate, that keeps bounching around 27/34 roughly.

[NavigationHazard]

The stroke/pace data is graphed against polling, not by distance or time or stroke number. The low pace was at polls 11 & 12: 1:35 pace r33 (12.4 spi). Poll numbers 159-160 are 1:56 pace r14 (16.0 spi) and presumably represent the first large troughs reflected in the pace and also rate graphs. Poll numbers 206-07 are 1:54 pace r28 (8.4 spi) and apparently the second large trough in the pace graph. Poll numbers 249-51 are 2:18 pace r21 (6.3 spi). The next break looks to have been two strokes: poll numbers 270-72 are 2:30 pace r20 (5.2 spi) and 273-74 are 2:34 pace r23 (4.2 spi). So too poll numbers 302-04: 2:15 pace r21 (6.8 spi) and 305-06 2:19 pace r25 (5.2 spi). There's a similar two-stroke break at poll numbers 335-39, pace falling off to 2:07.

The wheels really come off at poll numbers 350-39: 350-52 are 1:58 r28, 353-54 a whopping 2:35 r20, 355-57 2:34 r24 (3.9 spi), and 358-59 1:54 r28.

Poll numbers 379-83 are all roughly 2:07-09 pace r24-26; poll numbers 400-01 are a stroke at 2:00 r27; 411-12 are a stroke at 1:55 r26; 436-37 are 1:57 r29 (7.5 spi).

Six major rate breaks; five major pace breaks.

[jliddil]

The stroke/pace data is graphed against polling, not by distance or time or stroke number. The low pace was at polls 11 & 12: 1:35 pace r33 (12.4 spi). Poll numbers 159-160 are 1:56 pace r14 (16.0 spi) and presumably represent the first large troughs reflected in the pace and also rate graphs. Poll numbers 206-07 are 1:54 pace r28 (8.4 spi) and apparently the second large trough in the pace graph. Poll numbers 249-51 are 2:18 pace r21 (6.3 spi). The next break looks to have been two strokes: poll numbers 270-72 are 2:30 pace r20 (5.2 spi) and 273-74 are 2:34 pace r23 (4.2 spi). So too poll numbers 302-04: 2:15 pace r21 (6.8 spi) and 305-06 2:19 pace r25 (5.2 spi). There's a similar two-stroke break at poll numbers 335-39, pace falling off to 2:07.

The wheels really come off at poll numbers 350-39: 350-52 are 1:58 r28, 353-54 a whopping 2:35 r20, 355-57 2:34 r24 (3.9 spi), and 358-59 1:54 r28.

Poll numbers 379-83 are all roughly 2:07-09 pace r24-26; poll numbers 400-01 are a stroke at 2:00 r27; 411-12 are a stroke at 1:55 r26; 436-37 are 1:57 r29 (7.5 spi).

Six major rate breaks; five major pace breaks.

Can you explain polls? I thought the x-axis was seconds? Or is this ~450 data points taken over the total 2000 meters/race time

[NavigationHazard]

Data points, evidently, collected at something less than 1 second intervals. There are 455 of them; he was 7:03 (425 seconds).