Ranger's training thread

[ranger]

Mike VB--

If you are really pulling 9 SPI OTErg, 1:58 @ 23 spm and the like, you must be doing a whole bunch of things wretchedly wrong.

You are only taking 2/3 of a stroke.

You are missing rowing well by 4 SPI--at 23 spm, by 13 seconds per 500m.

Post a video of your erging, 1:58 @ 23 spm (9 SPI), let's see what you are doing wrong.

Perhaps my coach can give you some help.

How can your coach be missing these things?

ranger

[ranger]

Your hwt 6:30 in 2006 is now five long years in the past. Nothing remotely like it since.

But that's entirely understandable.

I developed a better stroke, with quicker legs, arms, etc., but kept the drag high, in fact, at max.

I needed to lower the drag, lengthen the slide, and learn to use the quickness I had developed in my arms and legs against a braced, rather than levering, back at the catch and finish.

I have done that now.

Technical improvement does not necessarily lead to a linear improvement in 2K scores, all along the line.

There are about twenty technical issues to master in order to row well, and these many aspects of technique are interdependent.

You can't use fast legs and arms against a high drag.

You can't make full use of your legs and arms unless you brace them against your back.

You can't take full advantage of fast legs unless you use a full slide.

You can't get good slide control and use of a full slide unless you have quick recoveries.

You can't get a full slide unless you sit up straight and use your back as a brace rather than a lever at the catch.

You can't get quick recoveries unless you get quick finishes.

And so on, and so forth.

Tires and batteries are pretty inexpensive parts of a car, but a car doesn't run at all when they are flat/dead.

When I was warming up for races in 2009 and 2010, my erg was hopping all over the place.

I was getting my legs down early, with good strength and quickness, but pushing against max drag, this was exhausting and counterproductive.

To compensate, I tensed up my shoulders and shortened the slide at the catch, not to mention six or eight other wrong things.

Nonetheless, in both 2009 and 2010, I rowed right at WR pace for my age and weight (6:41), without even preparing for it.

This was considerably better than any other 55s lwt, including Rocket Roy, even though I was 58 and then 59 years old.

In fact, it was faster than any other 58 and/or 59-year old lwt had ever rowed in the history of the sport.

ranger

[snowleopard]

Nonetheless, in both 2009 and 2010, I rowed right at WR pace for my age and weight (6:41), without even preparing for it.

Another stupid, tiresome and deliberately misleading conceit.

Did you at any time break the WR for the 55-59 age group at any weight? Answer: no.

What part of age group rowing do you not understand?

[PaulH]

Technical improvement does not necessarily lead to a linear improvement in 2K scores, all along the line.

I totally agree with this. It does, however, lead to *some* improvement, which yours has failed to do.

[JimR]

Technical improvement does not necessarily lead to a linear improvement in 2K scores, all along the line.

I totally agree with this. It does, however, lead to *some* improvement, which yours has failed to do.

Even if we agree with the basic premise that in 2006 the sub 6:30 2K was not rangers full potential we have endless examples (thanks to Byron!) of rangers claim he was/is better than that now ... and a similar number of claims that a 1:48 FM or 6:16 2K were a "lock".

Over this five year period (2006 to 2011) there has never been even a year over year improvement. While I agree with your observation I can't grasp why ranger is theorizing that there are 20 some "things" a rower must do and no gains are possible until all are present.

If (and I mean IF) improvements are being made why are there never results to show this? The only thing "improving" is the rate of claim that things are "better now"!

JimR

[ranger]

10K OTErg before dawn.

Sun is now up, but you can't see it.

Intense fog.

White out.

I guess I'll have to wait a while before I can get out OTW.

ranger

[mikvan52]

Intense fog.

White out.

"White out" ?
"Intense fog"?
More like: Grey out... Senior moment: where you remain in a more than temporary "fog"

"Intense" ?... Dream on.. You're floating.. all things are possible.. you're improving... Eternally... (saying to yourself, over and over) I'm much better than that now

The bridges of the Charles in traffic will tell a tale of just what your "better" means.



Here: 1st-timer, Larry Tait (in red), negotiates the Power House Stretch, the only longish straight part of the course

[ranger]

If (and I mean IF) improvements are being made why are there never results to show this?

I just explained.

My fitness is the same.

My technique has steadily improved.

Great performances are a product of high fitness and accomplished technique.

At certain stages in learning to row, improvements in technique might not show up in 2K scores.

A good rowing stroke is holistic, organic, integrated, etc.

The various components of a good rowing stroke do not function independently and therefore do not make independent contributions to a 2K score.

The 2006 row was somewhat better because, just for the purposes of racing, I reverted back to rowing on my toes, not setting my heels at all, with a weak catch, although I retained some of the other things that I had learned since 2003.

This slower and weaker leg drive, done entirely on my toes, without setting my heels, was more compatible with high drag, even though it is not at all the way to row well.

The push with the hams and glutes off the heels is one of the most important parts of a good rowing stroke, especially in a boat.

In a boat, you can't row well on your toes, without setting your heels. Your center of gravity is too high. You fall right out.

ranger

[ranger]

At the moment, the big lake looks like this.



ranger

[ranger]

At the moment, the big lake looks like this.



ranger

[snowleopard]

organic

Well that's a given, unless you're dead

[ranger]

The bridges of the Charles in traffic will tell a tale of just what your "better" means.

I don't have any problem with bridges. I go under several, repeatedly, every day, when I row at home on the Huron River.

I will certainly have to get some experience rowing in traffic, though.

I haven't done that at all--ever.

Perhaps the head races I enter this fall will help with this.

ranger

[ranger]

organic

Well that's a given, unless you're dead

I am using the word in this sense:

a : forming an integral element of a whole : fundamental <incidental music rather than organic parts of the action — Francis Fergusson>
b : having systematic coordination of parts : organized <an organic whole>

ranger

[PaulH]

At certain stages in learning to row, improvements in technique might not show up in 2K scores.

Again, I totally agree, and again, improvements should show up at some point along the way, and they never have.

[ranger]

Technical improvement does not necessarily lead to a linear improvement in 2K scores, all along the line.

I totally agree with this. It does, however, lead to *some* improvement, which yours has failed to do.

Not at all true.

My first work on technique in the spring and summer of 2003 got me two seconds over 2K.

And as I mentioned, I suspect that the 2006 row, done without preparing for it, was in the range of 15 seconds better than anything I had done previously.

6:16 at 60 will be in the range of 30 seconds better.

My 6:28 in 2002 is three seconds slower than the 50s lwt WR and 20 seconds slower than the 50s heavyweight WR.

A 6:16 in 2012 would be 26 seconds faster than the 60s lwt WR and 8 seconds faster than the 60s heavyweight WR.

ranger