U.s.i.r.t

[old] Rogus · Post by **[old] Rogus** » June 10th, 2004, 9:10 pm

Gulp. 6:16.......

[old] Rocket Roy · Post by **[old] Rocket Roy** » June 11th, 2004, 6:39 am

RobertB, Thanks for your reply, but with respect I don't think that the USIRT will get more Bang for their Bucks by going to meets that are sparsely attended by the top european boys. But I take your point that in the long run by supporting IR around the european circuit will increase usage of the machine in the various countries.

[old] Ericr · Post by **[old] Ericr** » June 11th, 2004, 7:12 am

Roy, The Dutch Open indoor rowing championships are normally already a big event in it self (over 300 entries). So I think this time it will be attended by quite a large contingent of top rowers from Europe. The Dutch Open is renamed Euro Open for this year.

[old] RobertB · Post by **[old] RobertB** » June 11th, 2004, 7:27 am

Roy, I believe "Bang For Your Bucks" was someone else's expression, not mine. I would never be so crassly commercial. While the USIRT is funded by Concept2, it is an independent association and the decision of which races to attend are made by the USIRA management and coaching staff. As I said in an earlier post, we will return to the BIRC, it just won't be this year. RobertB Manager USIRT

[old] Sir Pirate · Post by **[old] Sir Pirate** » June 11th, 2004, 7:41 am

Robert I would have to agree with Roy, BIRC would hold more of a challange for the USIRT, and I look forward to the day you return. However, I will see you all in Amsterdam in Dec 04. along with Mr Adams I hope Sir Pirate

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » June 12th, 2004, 3:44 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Sir Pirate @ Jun 8 2004, 04:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Will we be seeing you at BIRC this year Ranger? I hope so. Sir Pirate </td></tr></table> Yes indeed, Sir Pirate. I'll be there for sure. It's a great show. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » June 12th, 2004, 3:50 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Rogus @ Jun 10 2004, 08:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Gulp. 6:16....... </td></tr></table> Rogus-- Or you could lose 60 lbs. or so. If you were about 130 lbs. and were rowing as you are now, you would be at this level of achievement. 6:30 at 165 lbs., of course, will also qualify to be considered for the team. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » June 12th, 2004, 4:06 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> When top competitors don't show up in Boston, using the CRASH-B results creates some "soft" spots. Among the women, last season thirteen(!) 16-year-olds beat this year's QT, as did six 17-18 year olds. And a total of seven women 30-39 would have qualified in the two weight classes combined. Among the men, nine 19-22 lightweights would have qualified, as would six in the 60-69 group. And eight men 30-39 would have qualified in the two weight classes combined. </td></tr></table> Ralph-- Yes, these standards get pretty uneven when they are based on last year's times at the various championships. I would prefer a % of world record standard. Isn't this the way the Brits pick their team? Folks such as Paul Hendershott and I have to row within 2 seconds of our world records to qualify, about 99.5% of world record time. Pretty hard go, especially as you get older. The categories with an unusual percentrage of qualifiers and potential qualifiers are predicable on this % of world record basis. These standards are all above 10 seconds off the world records in these divisions. For males, the 60s lwt standard is 22 seconds off the world record; 80s hwt, 32; the 80s lwt standard, 27; the 30s hwt 16; the 30s lwt, 11; the 19-22 lwt, 17. ranger

[old] Rogus · Post by **[old] Rogus** » June 12th, 2004, 10:59 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (ranger @ Jun 12 2004, 12:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Or you could lose 60 lbs. or so. If you were about 130 lbs. and were rowing as you are now, you would be at this level of achievement. 6:30 at 165 lbs., of course, will also qualify to be considered for the team. ranger  </td></tr></table> If I lose 60 lbs and row at 130, not considering that most of it would be muscle loss, and was rowing as I am now, I would be just as fast as I am now. Losing weight isn't going to make me faster. On the contrary, it will slow me down. I have no interest in losing weight in order to win a lightweight category. That may be a good goal for some, but I want to compete against the fastest athletes. They aren't in the lightweight category.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » June 13th, 2004, 3:40 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I have no interest in losing weight in order to win a lightweight category. That may be a good goal for some, but I want to compete against the fastest athletes. </td></tr></table> Yes, participating/competing is also a goal, but one that is pretty different from the goal of winning races or making teams. ranger

Concept2 Forum

U.s.i.r.t

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions