Ranger's training thread

General discussion on Training. How to get better on your erg, how to use your erg to get better at another sport, or anything else about improving your abilities.
User avatar
mikvan52
Half Marathon Poster
Posts: 2648
Joined: March 9th, 2007, 3:49 pm
Location: Vermont

Re: Ranger's training thread

Post by mikvan52 » March 29th, 2011, 5:58 pm

Leaving aside the FM claims for a moment, the most amazing thing about ranger is the dearth of timed pieces.

Just look at the 55-59 column in this table.
He claimed a 500m piece. He rowed numerous 2k pieces but that is all.
ranger has no record for any distance or time above 2k.
I think it will remain that way.
Why?
Weight... It's to much of a struggle to get to lwt for him more than a handful of moments a year... He won't report a hwt effort unless it's a 2k... which gets reported only because they are in a public arena..

Image

ranger
Marathon Poster
Posts: 11629
Joined: March 27th, 2006, 3:27 pm

Re: Ranger's training thread

Post by ranger » March 30th, 2011, 4:56 am

mikvan52 wrote:Leaving aside the FM claims for a moment, the most amazing thing about ranger is the dearth of timed pieces
Race when you feel you are ready, that is, when you are done with your training.

When I first took up rowing, I did 60min rows, usually once a day, and on vacations, twice a day, without timing anything.

In fact, back then, I didn't know that anyone timed themselves at all when pulling a handle on an erg.

I was interested in weight control and general fitness, and being a lifelong paddler, I just got on the erg and paddled, with the monitor on the calorie counter, as I would on any other piece of exercise equipment.

After doing this for a couple of years, when I was 51, I sharpened for a couple of months and pulled 6:27.5 for 2K, four seconds under the 50s lwt WR at the time, in my first 2K race.

Good training doesn't have anything to do with timing.

To train well, you just need to work hard, and as you get more sophisticated with it, row well.

A clock doesn't improve either your level of effort or the quality of your rowing.

A clock is irrelevant for working on your fitness, and as I have explained many times, for certain other purposes (e.g., working on your technique), a clock can be seriously detrimental.

When you are working on technique, the goal is to row well.

How fast you are going doesn't have anything to do with how well you are rowing.

A clock doesn't critique and correct your technique.

On the contrary, when you are racing against the clock, the temptation is to do any old thing technicially as long as it makes you go fast, right then.

Racing in this way is oriented toward the present, going fast, right now.

Training a technique is oriented toward the future.

It is oriented toward mastering certain gestures, correcting certain bad habits, shoring up certain inconsistencies or weaknesses, honing certain sequencings, correcting certain postures, relaxing with certain things that are uncomfortable for you, etc.

Working on technique is like lip/tongue/bow/pick/foot/hand/finger exercises and scales in playing a musical instrument.

These exercises and scales are very different from playing the piece itself.

They just enable that playing.

They are a prelude--skill-building.

Done well, rowing, like all sports, is an art.

Rowing well requires certain sorts of aptitudes and abilities applied to mastering certain skills.

Pull an erg handle for five years at 13 SPI if you are a lightweight and 16 SPI if you are a heavyweight--as I did.

You'll find out why.

Most people don't confront the issue of how well they are rowing at all.

They just row badly; and that's the end of it--especially if they are older or new to the sport.

No veteran has ever rowed well.

ranger
Rich Cureton M 72 5'11" 165 lbs. 2K pbs: 6:27.5 (hwt), 6:28 (lwt)

macroth
5k Poster
Posts: 514
Joined: February 4th, 2008, 5:14 pm
Location: Geneva, CH

Re: Ranger's training thread

Post by macroth » March 30th, 2011, 5:24 am

ranger wrote:
How fast you are going doesn't have anything to do with how well you are rowing.
Then why do you keep measuring "rowing well" in terms of SPI?
43/m/183cm/HW
All time PBs: 100m 14.0 | 500m 1:18.1 | 1k 2:55.7 | 2k 6:15.4 | 5k 16:59.3 | 6k 20:46.5 | 10k 35:46.0
40+ PBs: 100m 14.7 | 500m 1:20.5 | 1k 2:59.6 | 2k 6:21.9 | 5k 17:29.6 | HM 1:19:33.1| FM 2:51:58.5 | 100k 7:35:09 | 24h 250,706m

User avatar
NavigationHazard
10k Poster
Posts: 1789
Joined: March 16th, 2006, 1:11 pm
Location: Wroclaw, Poland

Re: Ranger's training thread

Post by NavigationHazard » March 30th, 2011, 5:47 am

The low-drag "experiment" is older than you think. This post supposedly was towards a HM at 1:48 "by the fall" of 2004:
feckandclueless, on the UK Forum on Mon Apr 12, 2004 11:53 am wrote:An hour of skipping and 15K (strapless) again this morning.

Dropped the drag to 100 (and will leave it there permanently, if I can).

Did unsystematic bouts of slow spm rowing at WP powers, mostly 22 spm and 1:48, resting as I needed to.

Felt surprisingly good.

Big back needed to get to this power at 100 drag and strapless, but this was good practice. Being strapless, the power had to be generated at the catch and through the first part of the drive.

Got a nice rocking motion going with the back. I need to search this feeling out each time; it feels like what ought to occur but hasn't been, probably because of bad timing (arms too early, legs too late, lean too large).

Progress on technique continues. At this time last year, at 100 drag, strapless, and 22 spm, I worked at 1:56!

ranger
http://concept2.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.p ... 288#p56288

Note the reference to rowing at 100 DF in the spring of 2003. Moreover I >think< the first "distance row in a month or so" at low drag post is this one, also from 2004 on the UK Forum: http://concept2.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.p ... 568#p58568

The DF didn't stay there. I can't be bothered to find the posts, but sometime that September it went back up again for "race-pace preparation." For a BIRC at which he failed to produce a result, IIRC. In subsequent years it's gone up and down more than creamed spinach in a two-year-old.
67 MH 6' 6"

ranger
Marathon Poster
Posts: 11629
Joined: March 27th, 2006, 3:27 pm

Re: Ranger's training thread

Post by ranger » March 30th, 2011, 6:36 am

Once you have learned to row well at low drag (100 df.), and therefore have learned to be effective with your drives (13 SPI for lightweights, 16 SPI for heavyweights), work on efficiency (rhythmicity, relaxation, recoveries, preparation, smoothness, consistency, etc.) can also be done independent of the clock by focussing on ratios.

A 4-to-1 ratios is long distance rowing (FM, HM).

AT 3-to-1 ratio ratio is middle distance rowing (5K, 6K, 30min, 10K, 60min).

A 2-to-1 ratio is racing.

A 1-to-1 ratio is sprinting.

The discipline involved with ratios is multi-dimenisonal, like rowing itself.

If you loaf on your drives, weakening your stroke, but keep everything else the same, your ratios drop.

If you loaf on your drives, weakening your stroke, but shorten your recoveries and raise the rate to make up a difference in pace, you cut your ratio.

If you don't keep these ratios at all, you just row poorly.

If you raise the drag to try to overcome your lack of quickness, you slow down your dirve and cut your ratio.

And so forth.

Rowing by ratio rather than by the clock is great technical discipline.

ranger

P.S. 10 MPS rowing is 3-to-1, middle distance rowing.
Last edited by ranger on March 30th, 2011, 6:53 am, edited 2 times in total.
Rich Cureton M 72 5'11" 165 lbs. 2K pbs: 6:27.5 (hwt), 6:28 (lwt)

User avatar
Citroen
SpamTeam
Posts: 8010
Joined: March 16th, 2006, 3:28 pm
Location: A small cave in deepest darkest Basingstoke, UK

Re: Ranger's training thread

Post by Citroen » March 30th, 2011, 6:38 am

BINGO!

I think I've got a FULL HOUSE on RANGR bingo.

4 to 1, 3 to 1, 2 to 1 and 1 to 1 completed my grid.

snowleopard
6k Poster
Posts: 936
Joined: September 23rd, 2009, 4:16 am

Re: Ranger's training thread

Post by snowleopard » March 30th, 2011, 6:45 am

ranger wrote:Rowing by ratio rather than by the clock is great technical discipline.
Since the ratio relates time spent on the drive to time spent on the recovery you may find that a clock is required :idea:

ranger
Marathon Poster
Posts: 11629
Joined: March 27th, 2006, 3:27 pm

Re: Ranger's training thread

Post by ranger » March 30th, 2011, 6:55 am

snowleopard wrote:
ranger wrote:Rowing by ratio rather than by the clock is great technical discipline.
Since the ratio relates time spent on the drive to time spent on the recovery you may find that a clock is required :idea:
Sure, but the clock is called a metronome.

http://www.metronomeonline.com

ranger
Rich Cureton M 72 5'11" 165 lbs. 2K pbs: 6:27.5 (hwt), 6:28 (lwt)

ranger
Marathon Poster
Posts: 11629
Joined: March 27th, 2006, 3:27 pm

Re: Ranger's training thread

Post by ranger » March 30th, 2011, 7:16 am

macroth wrote:
ranger wrote:
How fast you are going doesn't have anything to do with how well you are rowing.
Then why do you keep measuring "rowing well" in terms of SPI?
You can row well at all sorts of different rates and paces, and over all sorts of different distances.

What tells you how well you are rowing is how much work you get done on each stroke.

ranger
Rich Cureton M 72 5'11" 165 lbs. 2K pbs: 6:27.5 (hwt), 6:28 (lwt)

macroth
5k Poster
Posts: 514
Joined: February 4th, 2008, 5:14 pm
Location: Geneva, CH

Re: Ranger's training thread

Post by macroth » March 30th, 2011, 7:18 am

Yes, god forbid you take a look at what happens when you try to string those individual strokes together - if you're able to. :lol:
43/m/183cm/HW
All time PBs: 100m 14.0 | 500m 1:18.1 | 1k 2:55.7 | 2k 6:15.4 | 5k 16:59.3 | 6k 20:46.5 | 10k 35:46.0
40+ PBs: 100m 14.7 | 500m 1:20.5 | 1k 2:59.6 | 2k 6:21.9 | 5k 17:29.6 | HM 1:19:33.1| FM 2:51:58.5 | 100k 7:35:09 | 24h 250,706m

User avatar
mikvan52
Half Marathon Poster
Posts: 2648
Joined: March 9th, 2007, 3:49 pm
Location: Vermont

Re: Ranger's training thread

Post by mikvan52 » March 30th, 2011, 7:18 am

ranger wrote:Once you have learned to row well at low drag (100 df.), and therefore have learned to be effective with your drives (13 SPI for lightweights, 16 SPI for heavyweights), work on efficiency (rhythmicity, relaxation, recoveries, preparation, smoothness, consistency, etc.) can also be done independent of the clock by focussing on ratios.

A 4-to-1 ratios is long distance rowing (FM, HM).

AT 3-to-1 ratio ratio is middle distance rowing (5K, 6K, 30min, 10K, 60min).

A 2-to-1 ratio is racing.

A 1-to-1 ratio is sprinting.

The discipline involved with ratios is multi-dimenisonal, like rowing itself.

If you loaf on your drives, weakening your stroke, but keep everything else the same, your ratios drop.

If you loaf on your drives, weakening your stroke, but shorten your recoveries and raise the rate to make up a difference in pace, you cut your ratio.

If you don't keep these ratios at all, you just row poorly.

If you raise the drag to try to overcome your lack of quickness, you slow down your dirve and cut your ratio.

And so forth.

Rowing by ratio rather than by the clock is great technical discipline.

ranger

P.S. 10 MPS rowing is 3-to-1, middle distance rowing.
Can anyone imagine being a young athlete and listening to such drivel? It's worse than hearing late night religious radio:
"The discipline involved with ratios is multi-dimenisonal, like rowing itself."
There's even the feature of the occasional fractured word pronunciation such as "dimenisonal".. It's eerie!
....Forgive us our father, for we have rowed poorly! We have stroked in a way that ought not to have been stroked; and there is no health in us"

Then there's the weird and baseless numerology centered on the cabalistic # 13. :o
I wonder if there's a set of Tarot-like cards that he has to aid with interpretation of ranger revelations?

In sum, it all has the same effect as speaking in tongues.

Any way: Back to the real world.

Rich?
Since your FM was to be done in about a month yesterday, does that mean it will be in 29 days from today?

snowleopard
6k Poster
Posts: 936
Joined: September 23rd, 2009, 4:16 am

Re: Ranger's training thread

Post by snowleopard » March 30th, 2011, 7:33 am

ranger wrote:
snowleopard wrote:
ranger wrote:Rowing by ratio rather than by the clock is great technical discipline.
Since the ratio relates time spent on the drive to time spent on the recovery you may find that a clock is required :idea:
Sure, but the clock is called a metronome.
Sure, everything you do is a strategy for avoiding rowing a time or distance down to zero.

User avatar
mikvan52
Half Marathon Poster
Posts: 2648
Joined: March 9th, 2007, 3:49 pm
Location: Vermont

Re: Ranger's training thread

Post by mikvan52 » March 30th, 2011, 8:01 am

NavigationHazard wrote:
feckandclueless, on the UK Forum on Mon Apr 12, 2004 11:53 am wrote: Felt surprisingly good.

Big back needed...
Got a nice rocking motion going with the back. I need to search this feeling out each time....
Progress on technique continues....
Thanks for the trip down memory lane, boulevard 4 da mindless..

Why do we need the present on this thread? We have plenty already with ranger past!
ranger in 2004 wrote:An hour of skipping and 15K (strapless, 10MPS, 110 drag, with breaks).

Stroke is really grooving now. Technique problems all solved. I'm building all kinds of new muscles and levers. For me, this is a _very_ different way of rowing, but it seems nice, too. Did most of the rowing at 1:48-1:50 today.

ranger

breaks!
rogue-stroke groovin' on its own!
technique problems solved!
building new levers one stroke at a time!
"seem"ingly "nice"!
pace static at 1:48-1:50 for 7 years now! ("mostly")

I wonder if ranger has given names to these heretofore unseen muscles?
I envision he must now be a freak of nature with all those extra joints (levers) and muscles.
Last edited by mikvan52 on March 30th, 2011, 8:58 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
mikvan52
Half Marathon Poster
Posts: 2648
Joined: March 9th, 2007, 3:49 pm
Location: Vermont

Re: Ranger's training thread

Post by mikvan52 » March 30th, 2011, 8:51 am

Rich:
Now that you are reportedly immersed in simply rowing longer and longer distances each day, I am reluctant to undermine the intent of your training program... but, what the heck... :P

http://cs.nyu.edu/~lindy/hagerman.rowing.training.pdf

go to the section highlighted in yellow between pages 6 and 7...

.. sort of shoots a gaping hole in the "all rowers should start at the FM distance and then move down the distances" theory doesn't it?

"We have convincing data, including muscle biopsy histochemical and biochemincal
indicators, which support that rowing continuously at a low steady state intensity for 60
minutes or longer for any calibre of rower, is not more effective in maintaining aerobic
capacity than 30 minutes of rowing at the same work intensity."
3 Crash-B hammers
American 60's Lwt. 2k record (6:49) •• set WRs for 60' & FM •• ~ now surpassed
repeat combined Masters Lwt & Hwt 1x National Champion E & F class
62 yrs, 160 lbs, 6' ...

ranger
Marathon Poster
Posts: 11629
Joined: March 27th, 2006, 3:27 pm

Re: Ranger's training thread

Post by ranger » March 30th, 2011, 9:29 am

mikvan52 wrote:"We have convincing data, including muscle biopsy histochemical and biochemincal
indicators, which support that rowing continuously at a low steady state intensity for 60
minutes or longer for any calibre of rower, is not more effective in maintaining aerobic
capacity than 30 minutes of rowing at the same work intensity."
Well...

I think the difference is that I am not really doing my FM rowing at what Hagerman would call a "low steady state intensity," especially given that I am 60s lwt.

I am going to row the 42K, 1:48 @ 25 spm, and I am training quite a bit at 27-30 spm, pushing the pace to 1:40.

1:40 is below WR 2K pace for a 60ss lwt.

1:48 is just about as fast as any 60s lwt right now can row 5K.

I am not doing my FM training at 2:08.

I am doing it at 1:48.

1:48 for a FM predicts a 6:16 2K.

1:48 for a FM is just a tad off of the Open lwt FM WR.

No 60s lwt has ever rowed 1:52/16K for 60min.

The 60s lwt FM WR is 2:00 pace.

ranger
Rich Cureton M 72 5'11" 165 lbs. 2K pbs: 6:27.5 (hwt), 6:28 (lwt)

Locked