Ranger - News To Shock

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 16th, 2005, 5:24 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(NavigationHazard @ Dec 16 2005, 11:45 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>To refresh your memory as to what you actually wrote, as opposed to what you think you might have written, it was: </td></tr></table><br /><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 15 2005, 02:26 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Name one runner in the modern era who has held World Records for both in their lifetime. </td></tr></table><br /><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(NavigationHazard @ Dec 16 2005, 11:45 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>You said nothing whatsoever about holding records in both simultaneously. If you intended to say "Name one runner in the modern era who simultaneously has held World Records for both in their [sic] lifetime" you should have written that sentence. If you intended to say "Name one runner who simultaneously holds the standing world records for both," as you now contend, you should have written that sentence. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Blah, Blah, Bhah... you still haven't named one. <br /><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(NavigationHazard @ Dec 16 2005, 11:45 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I also admit the greatness of past athletes. So what if Paavo Nurmi's best time in a mile was slower than Alan Webb's as a high schooler. [right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />Alan Webb ran 3:53 in high school. Paavo Nurmi's fastest time was 4:10.4.<br /><br />Gerry Lindgren ran a 4:12 mile in high school on a dirt track in a blizzard with snow blowing across the track.<br /><br />The WR for the 10000 meters is now at a pace of 4:13.8 for the mile.<br /><br />Nurmi's time was not in the modern era at all. I stand by my question.<br /><br />Name one runner in the modern era who has held World Records for both the 1500 and 10000 meters in their lifetime. Modern to my way of thinking means "current" but I'll tell you what let's go back 50 years. If you can name one then I am waiting to hear who it is.<br />

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 16th, 2005, 5:28 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 16 2005, 11:54 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Long Legs and Arms, with a short torso is no particular disadvantage in rowing </td></tr></table><br /><br />I didn't say that it was.<br /><br />What I said, again, is that those with longer torsos and arms will have a longer stroke length which gives a higher drive:stroke ratio at low ratings.<br /><br />Thus the long torsoed/armed rowers will be able to row comparatively faster at lower ratings than at free ones.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 16th, 2005, 5:29 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 16 2005, 12:50 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>In rowing, it helps your 2K to do marathon training and it helps your marathon to do 2K training.[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />Why haven't you done it then. <br />

[old] FrancoisA · Post by **[old] FrancoisA** » December 16th, 2005, 5:29 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 16 2005, 08:50 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>The argument about running vs. rowing is fine but really off the point for this thread. O.K. There might be a couple of runners in the history of the sport who have been the best at both the mile and the marathon. It is certainly not the norm, though.<br /><br />In rowing, it is the norm.<br /><br />That's the crucial difference. <br /><br />In rowing, it helps your 2K to do marathon training and it helps your marathon to do 2K training.<br /><br />They are the same thing!<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Now that you admit that it is possible for runners to be best at the mile and the marathon, your argument about non weight bearing doesn't hold anymore! <br /><br />Now, the reason it is not the norm in running is because running is several order of magnitude more competitive than erging on a Concept2 machine, therefore athletes have to tailor their training to those specific events. This is a consequence of the principle of specificity.<br /><br />In erging there is only one real event: the 2k. If person A is faster than person B at the 2k, and since both have trained to optimize their 2k performances, then, due to the endurance component of the 2k, it is very likely that A will also be faster than B at the longer distances.<br /><br />Ranger, I am getting tired of this endless discussion. <br />I am off to a nice hour of L4 training <br /><br />Cheers!<br /><br />Francois

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 16th, 2005, 5:31 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 16 2005, 12:45 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>If you assume the opposite, _my_ take on he issue under discussion, i.e., that the best at the 2K will also be the best at the marathon, then training for the 2K is also training for the marathon.<br /><br />I have given other evidence and argument for my position, though. You (folks) haven't.[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />Show me one rower who has a PATT percentage of 100% in both events then.<br />

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » December 16th, 2005, 5:40 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 16 2005, 01:28 PM)</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 @ Dec 16 2005, 11:54 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Long Legs and Arms, with a short torso is no particular disadvantage in rowing </td></tr></table><br /><br />I didn't say that it was.<br /><br />What I said, again, is that those with longer torsos and arms will have a longer stroke length which gives a higher drive:stroke ratio at low ratings.<br /><br />Thus the long torsoed/armed rowers will be able to row comparatively faster at lower ratings than at free ones. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Your logic is failing:<br /><br />Any stroke length will produce a higher ratio as the rate is decreased and the Pace is held constant. (So your first statement is clearly wrong.)<br /><br />There can be no "Thus", from an incorrect premise.<br /><br />Let's take away the "thus" and you still are left with an incomprehensible statement of "Comparatively faster at low rates than free ones." What does that mean? It almost sounds as if you are saying that the long rowers will be faster at low ratings than high ratings, but that is also clearly wrong.<br /><br />Dare we journey into the depths of Bizzarro World, once again?

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 16th, 2005, 5:46 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 16 2005, 01:40 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Your logic is failing: </td></tr></table><br /><br />Yes, I thought by giving a reasonable response that you would be able to comprehend it. <br />

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 16th, 2005, 5:54 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 16 2005, 01:40 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Any stroke length will produce a higher ratio as the rate is decreased and the Pace is held constant. (So your first statement is clearly wrong.)[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />No, Paul.<br /><br />That is not correct. You are wrong again.<br /><br />#1- I defined ratio as being drive:stroke. The ratios of world class rowers in competitions are around 46 to 48%, approaching a 1:1 ratio between drive and recovery.<br /><br />#2- As the stroke rate goes down, this drive:stroke ratio also goes lower. For example if the drive takes the same length of time but the recovery is doubled, then this ratio will become 33% instead of 47%.<br /><br />#3- I define the drive as all movement in the drive direction, and the recovery as all movement in the recovery direction. <br /><br />I do not call movement that is still in the drive direction to be recovery, as you do, so our definitions are not the same. <br /><br />

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » December 16th, 2005, 6:16 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 16 2005, 01:54 PM)</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 @ Dec 16 2005, 01:40 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Any stroke length will produce a higher ratio as the rate is decreased and the Pace is held constant. (So your first statement is clearly wrong.)[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />No, Paul.<br /><br />That is not correct. You are wrong again.<br /><br />#1- I defined ratio as being drive:stroke. The ratios of world class rowers in competitions are around 46 to 48%, approaching a 1:1 ratio between drive and recovery.<br /><br />#2- As the stroke rate goes down, this drive:stroke ratio also goes lower. For example if the drive takes the same length of time but the recovery is doubled, then this ratio will become 33% instead of 47%.<br /><br />#3- I define the drive as all movement in the drive direction, and the recovery as all movement in the recovery direction. <br /><br />I do not call movement that is still in the drive direction to be recovery, as you do, so our definitions are not the same. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Well John, If you want to speak the language of rowing get on the same page with the definitions of the terms being used. In Rowing "Stroke ratio" is Drive:Recovery, Drive is always 1 and Recovery is some multiple of that. Simple.<br /><br />There is no common usage of Drive:Stroke ratio, and no need to make it up. Though since you have, yes making drive a lower percentage of the stroke is increasing the Ratio, as would be expected when lowering the rate and maintaining pace.<br /><br />#3 - Movement of what? By my not very complicated calculations, "movement in the drive direction" = "movement in the recovery direction", so that would be 1:1 always.<br /><br />Now if you use TIME of "movement in the Drive direction" and TIME of "movement in the recovery direction" you would be a little closer. But to be most precise, the Drive TIME would include all the time when energy is being added to the system (Flywheel) and the Recovery would be everything else. I'm sure you can imagine a case in which no pressure is generated on the handle, yet you could move in the "drive direction", just under the speed of the decellerating flywheel. No Force = No Drive, in fact the PM would consider that part of the recovery.<br />

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 16th, 2005, 6:36 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 16 2005, 02:16 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>There is no common usage of Drive:Stroke ratio </td></tr></table><br />There is now.<br /><br /><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'>Though since you have, yes making drive a lower percentage of the stroke is increasing the Ratio, as would be expected when lowering the rate and maintaining pace. </td></tr></table><br />Agreed.<br /><br /><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'>"movement in the drive direction" = "movement in the recovery direction", so that would be 1:1 always. </td></tr></table><br />No, the time difference and thus ratio can vary considerably, as stated before.<br /><br /><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'>Now if you use TIME of "movement in the Drive direction" and TIME of "movement in the recovery direction" you would be a little closer. </td></tr></table><br />The ratio "is" by time.<br /><br /><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'>But to be most precise, the Drive TIME would include all the time when energy is being added to the system (Flywheel) </td></tr></table><br />Which, then, means all movement in the direction of the drive.<br /><br /><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'>and the Recovery would be everything else. </td></tr></table><br />Which means all movement in the direction of recovery. <br /><br />Right.<br /><br /><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'>I'm sure you can imagine a case in which no pressure is generated on the handle, yet you could move in the "drive direction", just under the speed of the decellerating flywheel. </td></tr></table><br />I'd rather imagine the movement moving the flywheel. <br /><br /><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'>No Force = No Drive, in fact the PM would consider that part of the recovery.[right] </td></tr></table><br />The pm makes no distinction nor definition of terms.<br /><br />If you look at a pitcher tossing a baseball, there is considerable movement before the baseball is released, which is in the direction of toss, and considerable movement after release in the follow through, also in the direction of toss and would not be called "recovery", as all are part of the movement of throwing the baseball.

[old] NavigationHazard · Post by **[old] NavigationHazard** » December 16th, 2005, 6:36 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 16 2005, 04:24 PM)</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(NavigationHazard @ Dec 16 2005, 11:45 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>To refresh your memory as to what you actually wrote, as opposed to what you think you might have written, it was: </td></tr></table><br /><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 15 2005, 02:26 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Name one runner in the modern era who has held World Records for both in their lifetime. </td></tr></table><br /><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(NavigationHazard @ Dec 16 2005, 11:45 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>You said nothing whatsoever about holding records in both simultaneously. If you intended to say "Name one runner in the modern era who simultaneously has held World Records for both in their [sic] lifetime" you should have written that sentence. If you intended to say "Name one runner who simultaneously holds the standing world records for both," as you now contend, you should have written that sentence. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Blah, Blah, Bhah... you still haven't named one. <br /><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(NavigationHazard @ Dec 16 2005, 11:45 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I also admit the greatness of past athletes. So what if Paavo Nurmi's best time in a mile was slower than Alan Webb's as a high schooler. [right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />Alan Webb ran 3:53 in high school. Paavo Nurmi's fastest time was 4:10.4.<br /><br />Gerry Lindgren ran a 4:12 mile in high school on a dirt track in a blizzard with snow blowing across the track.<br /><br />The WR for the 10000 meters is now at a pace of 4:13.8 for the mile.<br /><br />Nurmi's time was not in the modern era at all. I stand by my question.<br /><br />Name one runner in the modern era who has held World Records for both the 1500 and 10000 meters in their lifetime. Modern to my way of thinking means "current" but I'll tell you what let's go back 50 years. If you can name one then I am waiting to hear who it is. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />On 1 June 1998, Haile Gebrselaisse set a 10k record that was so good it stood for about 6 years.<br /><br />8 months earlier, in Stuttgart on 2 Feb 1997, Gebrselaisse had broken the existing world record in the indoor 1500. Unfortunately for my case, he finished second in that race to Hicham El Guerrouj, whose still-standing record is about 1 second faster. <br /><br />Given his inability to excel in the 1500, at least by your highly exclusive and idiosyncratic standard, it's a wonder he was able to take the track again and set the record in the 10k. A lesser man might have retired altogether after the ignomy of such a public failure.<br /><br />To my mind the documented accomplishments of people like Aouita and Viren and Gebrselaisse prove FrancoisA's point. I reiterate, you are free to insist contrariwise that the Earth is actually flat, that the sun revolves around us, that distance running and erging are easier at altitude, and that it's impossible to excel in track at both a 1500m/mile and the 10k. I surrender to your abtruseness.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 16th, 2005, 6:39 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'>Now, the reason it is not the norm in running is because running is several order of magnitude more competitive than erging on a Concept2 machine, therefore athletes have to tailor their training to those specific events. This is a consequence of the principle of specificity. </td></tr></table><br /><br />What is being debated is the principle of specificity; therefore, to proceed with the debate you have to argue for it, where rowing is concerned.<br /><br />You don't. You assume the consequent<br /><br />So there is no debate.<br /><br />The question is: Why do you assume that there is a principle of distance specificity in rowing?<br /><br />I'm listening.<br /><br />The only thing I have heard is arguments involving fast twitch and slow twitch muscles. But as I understand these things, this argument doesn't apply to rowing. Rowing favors slow-twitch muscles, no matter what the distance.<br /><br />ranger

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » December 16th, 2005, 6:46 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 16 2005, 02:36 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><br /><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'>No Force = No Drive, in fact the PM would consider that part of the recovery.[right] </td></tr></table><br />The pm makes no distinction nor definition of terms.<br /><br />If you look at a pitcher tossing a baseball, there is considerable movement before the baseball is released, which is in the direction of toss, and considerable movement after release in the follow through, also in the direction of toss and would not be called "recovery", as all are part of the movement of throwing the baseball. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />The PM updates the stats for the stroke after Drive completion, so though you can not see an explicit indicator of a drive being taken, it is happening. Have faith!<br /><br />You're straying again, get back on topic. Have you ever actually tossed a baseball? <br /><br />It's a good thing we're not playing baseball.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 16th, 2005, 6:46 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(NavigationHazard @ Dec 16 2005, 02:36 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>On 1 June 1998, Haile Gebrselaisse set a 10k record that was so good it stood for about 6 years.<br /><br />8 months earlier, in Stuttgart on 2 Feb 1997, Gebrselaisse had broken the existing world record in the indoor 1500. Unfortunately for my case, he finished second in that race to Hicham El Guerrouj, whose still-standing record is about 1 second faster. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Even if Geb had been first it still wouldn't have been a WR for the 1500 meters.<br /><br />An indoor record, yes.<br /><br />However, EL G's outdoor record is 3:26.0, and Geb's time indoors was 3:31.1, more than 5 seconds slower.<br />

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 16th, 2005, 7:06 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 16 2005, 02:46 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>The PM updates the stats for the stroke after Drive completion, so though you can not see an explicit indicator of a drive being taken, it is happening. Have faith! </td></tr></table><br />I see where the pm2 measures the flywheel movement, but not the movements of the body.<br /><br />Can you tell me where the pm2 shows this display?<br /><br /><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're straying again </td></tr></table><br />Gosh I'm straying by keeping on topic. No wonder this is confusing for you. <br /><br /><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'>Have you ever actually tossed a baseball? </td></tr></table><br /><br />Yes, I pitched, lead the team in batting average left and right handed, and lead the league in stolen bases, but then decided I didn't like baseball and still don't.<br />

Concept2 Forum

Ranger - News To Shock

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions