Ranger's training thread

[mikvan52]

If so, he would have to have the ability to pull a 1:25 500

Sure.

I think I can do 1:25 for 500m--easily.

No reason to, though.

No reason to because 'thinking is everything'?
I know you cannot because there is no way that a 1:25 500m man would row a 7:00+ 2k as you do these days.

[MRapp]

I think his 7:02 "paddle" warrants additional comment. First of all, somebody that is going to paddle a 7:02 starts out at 1:45-46 pace and paddles their way through it. The pace probably never deviates from 1:45-46 for more than a couple strokes. Going off at sub 1:40 for a couple hundred meters and then almost stopping completely, and repeating several times before you come gasping in to the finish line is not exactly what I'd call a "paddle". Second, why in the world would somebody fly a couple thousand miles to "paddle" a 2k much slower than they normally do for hours at a time in training?

Rich, you really need to be more careful about your lies.

By the way, you still haven't answered the question about why you wont show a screenshot of your daily session. We're not looking to see your distance trials, or racing sessions, simply a daily shot of what your Riding Cowboy looks like. I don't want to hear about how good you'll be someday, just looking for an entertaining lie about why you wont show that data.

[ranger]

I know you cannot because there is no way that a 1:25 500m man would row a 7:00+ 2k as you do these days.

My 2K times the last two years--at max drag, unprepared, still struggling with technique--have been 6:41.

So that is a certain sort of baseline.

My problems with technique are now behind me.

I now row well (13 SPI) at low drag (119 df.).

And I am now preparing to race.

Everyone gets a dozen seconds over 2K from a month or two of race preparation.

I am now sure what rowing well at low drag is worth, but I would suppose something comparable.

So, I think my prospects this year are wonderful.

I am now in the 60s age divisions--heavyweight and lightweight.

Honestly, I think I will end the year with the best 2K in _both_ weight divisions.

ranger

[ranger]

First of all, somebody that is going to paddle a 7:02 starts out at 1:45-46 pace and paddles their way through it.

No one paddles an entire race.

No, when I say I paddled BIRC 2010, I am saying that I paddled in the last 1K, perhaps more.

I just didn't have any gas that day.

So it goes.

Given my stroking power now, when I just row through a 2K at 30 spm, I'll pull sub-6:30.

If I can rate 34 spm, as I think I can at some point this racing season, I'll pull sub-6:20.

My time at BIRC 2010 has no relevance to anything, other than the astonishing fact that, just paddling in the last 1K, entirely out of gas, I was faster than the 60s lwt hammer at WIRC 2010.

And won a bronze.

ranger

[ranger]

No reason to because 'thinking is everything'?

No, no reason to because a 500m trial is useless as a training piece.

As I said, 8 x 500m is much more productive; 20 x 500m perhaps more productive yet.

But a 500m trial just wastes a day of training.

Why do that?

As I mentioned, I have five sub-6:30 rows, a dozen sub-6:40 rows, three WR rows, etc., but I have never done a 500m trial.

It isn't smart to waste your time and energy when you train.

Did you injure yourself doing a 500m trial?

If the answer is yes, I wouldn't be surprised.

ranger

[ranger]

I know you cannot because there is no way that a 1:25 500m man would row a 7:00+ 2k

An engine out of gas goes nowhere.

It has nothing to do with the engine.

It has to do with the gas.

I did exactly the same 7:00+ 2K at WIRC 2006, for exactly the same reason, a week after pulling 6:29.7.

I was also out of gas in my WR attempt at Elkhart in October of 2002; so I just regrouped and broke the WR at WIRC 2003 if February, a few months later.

ranger

[leadville]

I know you cannot because there is no way that a 1:25 500m man would row a 7:00+ 2k

An engine out of gas goes nowhere.

It has nothing to do with the engine.

It has to do with the gas.

I did exactly the same 7:00+ 2K at WIRC 2006, for exactly the same reason, a week after pulling 6:29.7.

ranger

which proves you've learned nothing in the intervening five years.

is this the fault of the coach, or the athlete...

[mikvan52]

But a 500m trial just wastes a day of training.

Try as you might, you can't wiggle your way out of what I've pointed out.

If, as you "think", you can do a 1:25 500m all-out then a 1:30 500 isn't even a time trial for a man of your supposed skills. Your refusal to post an "easy" 500 shows what an faker you are.

No one here is interested in what you did 5+ years ago. We know you were a former WR holder before Paul Siebach and others came along and buried your time. It's sort of obscure to mention your times w/o pointing out how much faster the time is these days for the 50-54 lwt best, don't you think?

Back to the topic: Show us what you've got for an easy 500 now.
It won't waste a day's training...

Do you have to be such a wimp?

[ranger]

a 1:30 500 isn't even a time trial for a man of your supposed skills.

True.

I think I'll do 8 x 500m at _very_ close to 1:30, if not right on the button.

Given my stroking power now, to pull 1:30, just stroking naturally, I only have to rate 37 spm.

ranger

[ranger]

No one here is interested in what you did 5+ years ago.

Then you don't have a clue how to get better.

Especially for veterans, getting better takes a lot of work on your weaknesses, not just a parading of your strengths.

This is difficult--and takes time.

Most don't bother.

ranger

[Gus]

If, as you "think", you can do a 1:25 500m all-out then a 1:30 500 isn't even a time trial for a man of your supposed skills. Your refusal to post an "easy" 500 shows what an faker you are.

Funny that ranger originally wrote he could "easily do a 1:25 500m." He's since edited that post and removed the word "easily." Does this mean ranger edits his comments when caught exaggerating his capabilities? Shouldn't he be editing all the rest of them too?

[ranger]

If, as you "think", you can do a 1:25 500m all-out then a 1:30 500 isn't even a time trial for a man of your supposed skills. Your refusal to post an "easy" 500 shows what an faker you are.

Funny that ranger originally wrote he could "easily do a 1:25 500m." He's since edited that post and removed the word "easily." Does this mean ranger edits his comments when caught exaggerating his capabilities? Shouldn't he be editing all the rest of them too?

Yes, I took out the "easily."

That was a misnomer.

No, it wouldn't be easy.

I meant to say that I wouldn't be surprised if I did quite a bit better.

1:23?

ranger

[ranger]

We know you were a former WR holder before Paul Siebach and others came along and buried your time.

I wasn't even rowing when I was 50.

I didn't race until I was 51.

I didn't race as a lightweight until I was 52.

I didn't row my best race as a lighweight (6:28) until I was a couple months shy of 53.

No, Paul hasn't, and won't, row 6:28 when he is just shy of 53.

He'll miss it by five seconds--maybe more.

ranger

[ranger]

All the chat about old records, old rows, etc., won't matter as I go forward, now that I row well (13 SPI) at low drag (119 df.) and am again back preparing to race.

When I pull a lwt 6:16 at 60, I won't care that someone ten years younger was nine seconds slower.

ranger

[ranger]

It's sort of obscure to mention your times w/o pointing out how much faster the time is these days for the 50-54 lwt best, don't you think?

Not until someone just shy of 53 pulls a lwt 6:28.

But if that happens, sure.

It hasn't happened yet, and the clock is ticking.

It has been ticking for eight years.

Paul can take a shot at it in a couple more years.

But I suspect he will have a hard time with 6:35 by then.

ranger