Us Indoor Rowing Team Selection

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » November 21st, 2005, 12:36 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(NavigationHazard @ Nov 20 2005, 02:38 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>In the interests of full disclosure, I'd like to point out that the 2k trial results for this year's Copenhagen squad have all been posted on the C2 site:<br /><br /><a href='http://www.concept2.com/05/training/com ... team05.asp' target='_blank'>2005 US IRT</a><br /><br />Mine was actually a verified/witnessed 6:19.7, not a 6:21.9, but I attribute that to clerical error rather than some alleged grand conspiracy..... <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />NH--<br /><br />Reporting the 2K times of the selected rowers really has no bearing on the selection process, who was selected and who was not. For this, we would need _all_ of the submitted times, both those who were selected and those who were not. Why C2 doesn't make these time rountinely available, I just don't understand.<br /><br />Clearly, not all of the 2K times selected are quality times in their division, e.g., times that will win. So _that_ can't be the point. For instance, a Dane at the CRASH-Bs last year rowed 6:36 in the 50s lwts, which is well beyond what Dennis is now capable of.<br /><br />"Full disclosure"? Come on. I think "full disclosure" of the selection process would involve two things: (1) making available the 2K times rowed by _all_ applicants and (2) providing a short summary of how decisions were made in hard cases where there were comparable rows in different divisions. <br /><br />Of course, as I have said many times, what is also needed is a general statement that, in clear cases, selection will be based on the 2K times submitted. If this is not done, it is impossible to know whether to participate.<br /><br />ranger<br />

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » November 21st, 2005, 12:47 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>The L4 pace @ 26 spm is about the pace I can maintain for a 5K. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Well, not for me, at least not yet. I have been rowing L4 workouts regularly at a 1:36 target for several years, but my current 5K pb is 1:43, not 1:40. <br /><br />If this ratio stays about the same, it might mean that my recent rowing at a 1:33 target will now make it so that, when fully trained up, I can row a 5K at 1:40 (16:40). <br /><br />I wouldn't be surpised if this turns out to be right.<br /><br />ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » November 21st, 2005, 1:15 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>For how long can you maintain that 1:37 pace? </td></tr></table><br /><br />At 26 spm? Don't know. But I can certainly do it. <br /><br />26 spm is pretty peripheral to the WP L4 rowing, anyway, something you just do at the end of the line, not the beginning! I am also not sure that Caviston's handling of these things is the best at the high end of the rate ladder. He pumps up the SPI as you approach 26 spm. I would keep it even. At the 1:33 target, the lower rates go along at 14 SPI. That's more like 1:39 @ 26 spm. 1:37 @ 26 spm is almost 15 SPI, not 14. There is really no reason for little old me to be stroking that hard for any extended distances, especially at 26 spm!<br /><br />Right now, I am back at 18 spm (at 1:52) and 20 spm (at 1:48), and these are _very_ comfortable. I was even doing some nice 1:50 @ 18 spm this morning.<br /><br />Technique is now _very_ solid, entirely different from how I used to row. Timing is now great. Full use of all levers. Very relaxed. The stroke graph on the PM3 is a smooth semi-circle. Each stroke is cut the same.<br /><br />I put the drag back up to 135 df. this morning (from usual 105 df.), just to test the waters for racing, and 1:37 came along at 28 spm, just stroking naturally. Very controlled. This might be a little heavy, but not enormously so, given this higher drag.<br /><br />I suspect that 1:34 @ 32 spm will become a familar combination for me over the next while, with more and more rowing at 135 df. rather than 105 df. I will probably end up racing at 135 df. A bit of extra drag gives you a bit more punch, if you can hold your technique together. Training at 105 df. is still the thing to do, though, at least in the off-season. I think that 6:16 is the limit of my potential for a 2K.<br /><br />1:34 @ 32 spm, 10 MPS, 13.1 SPI, 135 df. <br /><br />I now have a BIG stroke for an old skinny. <br /><br />It has taken me three years to develop it! Lots of sweat. Millions and millions of meters.<br /><br />I guess we'll soon see what I can do with it.<br /><br />ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » November 21st, 2005, 1:24 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Nov 21 2005, 08:56 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Nov 21 2005, 05:18 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Now they reveal the 2K times of the selected rowers but not the times of the others, who were not selected. This still veils the basis for the selection in secrecy. <br /><br />The trails are not a fair and open competition.<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />I agree, we should see all the times.<br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I am glad _someone_ agrees! <br /><br />C2?<br /><br />ranger<br />

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » November 21st, 2005, 1:27 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>What was your 'secret' time? </td></tr></table><br /><br />You don't know already? Why not? I thought C2 was open about these things? <br /><br /> <br /><br />ranger

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » November 21st, 2005, 1:33 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Nov 21 2005, 09:24 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Nov 21 2005, 08:56 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Nov 21 2005, 05:18 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Now they reveal the 2K times of the selected rowers but not the times of the others, who were not selected. This still veils the basis for the selection in secrecy. <br /><br />The trails are not a fair and open competition.<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I agree, we should see all the times. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I am glad _someone_ agrees! <br />C2?<br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />You have just entered into the same standard of "quoting" as John Rupp, Congratulations!<br /><br />It's not C2 that has a problem with being forthcoming, it is you. (Or anyone else who believes that they should have made the USIRT and didn't, though I don't see anyone else whining about it.)<br /><br />Hat's off to Roman, he wasn't listed on the Dev Squad but apparently pulled such a swift time that he was selected. Hmmmm..... I thought that could not happen, according to the noisy minority.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » November 21st, 2005, 1:36 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(michaelb @ Nov 21 2005, 10:42 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I'll 3rd the request: Ranger, what was your 2k qualifying time for 2005? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />What difference does it make if a world record trial isn't sufficient for selection?<br /><br />If C2 will make their selection process a fair and open competition, I would be happy to participate, every year. <br /><br />As is, I have to make an assessment each year about how much I would want to change my training to participate, given that the selection process now is arbitrary, secretive, and unilateral, not dependent on the quality of the rowing.<br /><br />I suppose that everyone else will need to do the same.<br /><br />ranger<br />

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » November 21st, 2005, 1:41 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>he wasn't listed on the Dev Squad </td></tr></table><br /><br />The development squad is irrelevant. I don't understand its function. If selection is based on the verified October 2K trials, the development squad is just more trouble, another distraction. I think it's a bad idea. If I were C2, I would do away with it. <br /><br />ranger

[old] george nz · Post by **[old] george nz** » November 21st, 2005, 1:41 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Nov 22 2005, 06:15 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I put the drag back up to 135 df. this morning (from usual 105 df.), just to test the waters for racing, and 1:37 came along at 28 spm, just stroking naturally. Very controlled. This might be a little heavy, but not enormously so, given this higher drag.<br /><br />I suspect that 1:34 @ 32 spm will become a familar combination for me over the next while, with more and more rowing at 135 df. rather than 105 df. ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Another flip flop from all the post onthe UK forum that you would now row all your training and 'RACING' at 105df and full slide - now 135 is back in the picture and maybe just maybe another 2 years of habituation? Watch this space folks !!!<br /><br />George<br />

[old] george nz · Post by **[old] george nz** » November 21st, 2005, 1:46 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Nov 22 2005, 02:18 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>you made the effort to get selected </td></tr></table><br /><br />Just the problem, George. It isn't clear that making the effort is what gets you selected. It is not even clear that rowing the best 2K trial gets you selected.<br /> ....................<br /><br />The trails are not a fair and open competition.<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />I knew he could not resist, the mean and bitter spirit is just to set now ..... Ranger the trials were completly fair in that all the others knew no more and no less than you .... you just did not have the guts to throw your hat in the ring and see what happened. You could have done a 2k and based on your 'reported' training easily rowed the fastest 2k in your age group (without speed work) but chose not to because then you could not have spent the next weeks and months living in the past, lambasting everyone with the same old crap post after post after post<br /><br />George

[old] george nz · Post by **[old] george nz** » November 21st, 2005, 1:48 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Nov 22 2005, 06:41 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>he wasn't listed on the Dev Squad </td></tr></table><br /><br />The development squad is irrelevant. I don't understand its function. If selection is based on the verified October 2K trials, the development squad is just more trouble, another distraction. I think it's a bad idea. If I were C2, I would do away with it. <br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />So you joined something you felt was irrelevant and you still boast their 'avatar'. By the way this is the 3rd time this has been pointed out and you STILL have not removed it !!!!<br /><br />George

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » November 21st, 2005, 2:17 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Ranger the trials were completly fair in that all the others knew no more and no less than you </td></tr></table><br /><br />Knowing nothing has nothing to do with fairness, George. This is closed door decision-making.<br /><br />Pretty wierd, as far as athletics goes. <br /><br />Unless the selection policies change, I don't want any part of it.<br /><br />I don't think others should, either, but I suppose that's their business.<br /><br />I suppose our ideals are _all_ going by the way. I thought that athletics was a last bastion of fairness, or if not fairness, at least _presumed_ fairness. I spend my days embroiled in academic politics. Messy business. I thought it might be more straightforward to keep rowing, my most recent hobby, from such self-interested, pragmatic manipulation.<br /><br />Guess not. <br /><br />And another one bites the dust...<br /><br />ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » November 21st, 2005, 2:25 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>You could have done a 2k and based on your 'reported' training easily rowed the fastest 2k in your age group (without speed work) </td></tr></table><br /><br />Perhaps it's just me, but doing things I am not prepared for is not my cup of tea, George. I don't think that C2, who seems so worried about how dangerously I train, etc., as ridiculous as that might be, should be putting people in this position, either. <br /><br />All of this could be easily fixed.<br /><br />C2 would only need to do this: (1) state that selection will be based on the relative quality of the 2K trials submitted, (2) reveal the results of the submitted 2K trials, and (3) make a short statement of how hard decisions were made between rows of comparable quality in different divisions.<br /><br />Then the process would no longer be a closed door, arbitrary affair.<br /><br />Doing this is not hard!<br /><br />ranger

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » November 21st, 2005, 2:34 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Nov 21 2005, 10:17 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Ranger the trials were completly fair in that all the others knew no more and no less than you </td></tr></table><br /><br />Knowing nothing has nothing to do with fairness, George. This is closed door decision-making.<br /><br />Pretty wierd, as far as athletics goes. <br /><br />Unless the selection policies change, I don't want any part of it.<br /><br />I don't think others should, either, but I suppose that's their business.<br /><br />I suppose our ideals are _all_ going by the way. I thought that athletics was a last bastion of fairness, or if not fairness, at least _presumed_ fairness. I spend my days embroiled in academic politics. Messy business. I thought it might be more straightforward to keep rowing, my most recent hobby, from such self-interested, pragmatic manipulation.<br /><br />Guess not. <br /><br />And another one bites the dust...<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />He didn't say "knowing nothing". Everyone knew the same amount when going into it. Now if you feel like you "know nothing", I'm inclined to believe you, but that's your own fault.<br /><br />As George continues to point out, you say things like "Unless the selection policies change, I don't want any part of it.", but apparently you do want the USIRDS logo displayed along with your Alias, or has that been foisted on you, and is just another thing that you can do nothing about. Frankly, it doesn't sound as if you were part of the USIRDS, was that a C2 mistake also?<br /><br />Poop, or get off the pot!

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » November 21st, 2005, 3:20 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Another flip flop from all the post onthe UK forum that you would now row all your training and 'RACING' at 105df and full slide - now 135 is back in the picture and maybe just maybe another 2 years of habituation? </td></tr></table><br /><br />Stroke is set, George. Training at low drag and low rate is the key: full slide, fast legs, strong back, full arms. Timing is now perfect. <br /><br />Inching up the drag is now possible. Just adds more juice for racing.<br /><br />Can't get the effect training at high drag, though.<br /><br />Easy to evaluate, George. With your size, you should be pulling 15 SPI as a matter of course. If you aren't, you need work on technique and stroking power.<br /><br />13 SPI is plenty for me at 5'11", 165 lbs and 54 years old.<br /><br />Old skinnies my age generally pull at about 9 SPI.<br /><br />Rowing at the same rate, 4 watts a stroke is worth about 40 seconds in a 2K, 10 seconds for each SPI.<br /><br />ranger

Concept2 Forum

Us Indoor Rowing Team Selection

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions