Given The Choice..

[old] jamesg · Post by **[old] jamesg** » January 20th, 2005, 2:12 am

I use 18-22 as well and it's fine for me as UT2 at age 64, 188x90 kg. JR's different. He has very nice times over the whole range, and that 1:40 for the 500 means > 5W/kg, not bad for someone age 58. So whatever he says he's doing something right.

[old] Mel Harbour · Post by **[old] Mel Harbour** » January 20th, 2005, 3:36 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Mel, I am well qualified to lecture you, since you have no class, in particular as a coach.  </td></tr></table> Ah, you've been out and listened/watched me coach then, have you? Just like you've listened to and watched Kurt Jensen coach? How else could you know so much about how either of us coaches? <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> That goes for any other macho controlling men who try to impose some restrictive and hurtful training program on others, rather than "doing what's right".  </td></tr></table> I seriously doubt that anyone who's actually met me would put me down as being 'macho'. Again, you obviously know better despite never having met me. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Yes, I certainly do coach and have coached many people very well.  </td></tr></table> Never said you didn't. If you think I did, please quote the bit where I said you didn't coach. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Perhaps you are jealous -- since you obviously can't.  </td></tr></table> Where's your proof that I 'obviously can't'? Proof in the sense that the world as a whole understands the term would be preferable to the sense understood in the playground, if you can! <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Or do you call prescribing 20 spm to a woman who then can't break her PB for 2 years to be "coaching"???? Or was telling her she had "mental problems" the coaching part?  </td></tr></table> Again, you take lots of different bits of information and put them together in a different order! For the benefit of people who didn't manage to work out what he's talking about, he's refering to an athlete I mentioned I was coaching over the summer. She had mental issues with doing 2k tests, and I posted asking how other people had got over similar issues. Where he's going wrong is pulling the idea that I started coaching her two years ago and that it was from then on that she couldn't manage to break her erg PB. Not quite John, but never mind, you were nearly there. In fact it was more like 3 years since she set her PB. But I was only coaching her a couple of months this year before she broke that PB. She was also learning to scull at the same time. In common with the vast majority of female rowers, she lacked the upper body/arm strength to achieve an efficient sculling stroke, so we did plenty of low rate power strokes with her, working on improving her ability to use the second half of the stroke. Again, within a couple of months of me starting coaching her, this being the first time she'd ever really got in a single scull, she won her first regatta in the single, in the process beating several girls with years more sculling experience who were a lot larger and physically stronger than her. But it's a really good idea of where you can go wrong if you just pick up on one idea that we were using without seeing the whole picture. For example - yes we were using low rate rowing for a specific purpose. But we were also during shorter high rate pieces to work at doing the 2k. In fact the way we approached that was to start with a 100m piece at target 2k pace, then work upwards (200m, 300m etc). Each time she did a short piece, she visualised that it was the first part of the 2k and we looked in detail at any factors that worried her or made her nervous during it. If there were, we addressed them up front and either thought them through to show her that they weren't issues, or put 'tactics' in place to overcome them. By the time we got to about 1050-1150m pieces, her confidence had improved to the point where, without prompting, she just decided to strike out for home and finished up with a new 2k PB. As it happens, when I finished coaching her, her 2k PB was about 12-14 seconds faster than when I started. Not bad for a couple of months. Similarly, we did the low spm rowing partly to improve upper body strength, but that wasn't the only motivation. Don't try and lecture me on it without knowing everything that we're doing! <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Really your "scientific" hogwash is not worth the paper it is written on and certainly doesn't have anything to do with proper training or conditioning.  </td></tr></table> Interesting that my 'scientific' data appears in genuine literature whereas yours only appears in the crap you spout. Mel

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 20th, 2005, 4:35 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (jamesg @ Jan 20 2005, 01:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I use 18-22 as well and it's fine for me as UT2 at age 64, 188x90 kg. JR's different. He has very nice times over the whole range, and that 1:40 for the 500 means > 5W/kg, not bad for someone age 58. So whatever he says he's doing something right. </td></tr></table> ?? jamesg-- I don't understand this comment. Can you explain? Are you being serious? ranger

[old] Rocket Roy · Post by **[old] Rocket Roy** » January 20th, 2005, 6:15 am

Boy-Oh-Boy, you guys really get stuck in over on this site don't you? Compared to the uk site this is like a talk show that is now an opera , can't remember his name. As for Mel, I've been reading his posts since I started erging and thanks to him I have improved. I have always found what he says makes sense and is spot on for technique etc. and I remember that case of the girl with mental problems , well done again there Mel! Who on both forum's doesn't have mental problems with the 2k?????

[old] jamesg · Post by **[old] jamesg** » January 20th, 2005, 6:32 am

Ranger, it was a comment on hwt's note (last on page 3). JR from all his msgs I understand likes high ratings, low drag and low W'/stroke; unsurprising as he's 65 kg and not tall. I don't, maybe because I'm 188*90kg. As far as we can or want to reach absolute measures, I think W/kg is the simplest and nearest. JR's value for the 500 looks not bad, even good, a lot higher than mine anyway. On the online rankings he would be among the most efficient in his age range, taking account of his weight. So could be he's got something right for him. Maybe we're looking at one of the minor C2 miracles: a machine that is everything to every man - just use the length, force, rating you like best. The same machine can apply to everyone, but the same recipe not necessarily. As for what we say, Machiavelli or his duke friend had some interesting comments. It would be quite extraordinary to believe we are reading anything like the truth and at the very least we have to break the code.

[old] Alan Maddocks · Post by **[old] Alan Maddocks** » January 20th, 2005, 7:20 am

Jg, You're much too kind to JR. His musings (they don't deserve to be called 'arguments'!) equate with WMD in Iraq and little green men on mars.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » January 20th, 2005, 12:16 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (NavigationHazard @ Jan 19 2005, 04:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> FWIW, much of the original physiological research behind Jensen's C2-UK piece is summarized usefully on line, in English and in Japanese, at <a href='http://www2.cc22.ne.jp/~ozwrow/ozr/r06t ... en98e.html' target='_blank'>Jensen 1998</a>  </td></tr></table> Thanks NavHaz! It's worth a lot! "Yet, the ultimate way in expressing intensity is to measure the force on the oar handle and the corresponding time for each stroke during training or to calclate the corresponding work and power performed. For practical reasons these applicaions are still not available, in general." - Jensen, 1998 Ah, but it is available, and called ErgMonitor. This sounds a lot like: "Training zones are force levels (Pace based training), NOT HR's." Maybe there is something to this "Old School" stuff...

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 20th, 2005, 4:47 pm

James, Thanks much. Alan, "Observations" would be a better word, though "musings" is closer than "arguments". After all there is no point to arguing reality. It just "is". By the way, I always knew the WMD were a ploy, perhaps to divert attention from malfunctioning voting machines. How do I know this? Yes, the little green men told me so. By the way, my ratings are middle of the road as far as high or low is concerned. Most archaic teachings are low rates but such a method is quite extreme. The standard is set by World Records. Eskild Ebbesen rated a 41.3 average in his. I have not come close to approaching that. Have you?

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » January 20th, 2005, 8:22 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Jan 21 2005, 09:47 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> The standard is set by World Records. Eskild Ebbesen rated a 41.3 average in his. </td></tr></table> John do you know his stroke rate thru the middle 1000 - 1500m, and what are the average stroke rates of the WR's in the other classes - it would be interesting to compare rather than fixate on just one person. George

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 20th, 2005, 8:27 pm

George, Very strange you would ask me a question and then accuse me of something that YOU are doing. After all, it is YOU who asked the question. A spade is a spade. p.s. If you want to look something up, then get off your butt and do it yourself.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » January 20th, 2005, 9:59 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (John Rupp @ Jan 20 2005, 04:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> If you want to look something up, then get off your butt and do it yourself.  </td></tr></table> Wow! Pretty CHEEKY!

[old] Almostflipped · Post by **[old] Almostflipped** » January 21st, 2005, 1:43 am

Now may be a good time to mention that Eskild is not the present world record holder. Elia Luini pulled a 6:02.6 in January of last year. Does anyone know what he was rating? Or how about Leonardo Petinari in 2002 when he pulled a 6:05 at the Crash-b's? I raise these questions in order to compare Rupp's theory of 8 meters per stroke being optimal for lightweights (if I understood correctly) across a couple other superb times. If the number holds up across the board then there will be some further evidence to its validity. If not, it may be interesting to see why it held for some and not others. I would look up the ratings myself, except I don't have a clue where to find such info.

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » January 21st, 2005, 1:45 am

Deleted

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 21st, 2005, 2:31 am

Almost, Good question. I don't have that info about Elia Luini. It would be interesting to know more about him, and his race. In the meantime, it was reported that lwt Graham Watt rated 38/39 in his recent 50's+ World Record. This is also 8 meters per stroke.

[old] Mel Harbour · Post by **[old] Mel Harbour** » January 21st, 2005, 3:41 am

I'll just toss something else into the ring. You're busily quoting the Danes as the example of how the best way to perform is. Yet you overlook the fact that they are not typical. For example, at the Olympics, they adopted a strategy (relative to the other boats in their final) which basically involved a fast first 500 and a slow 3rd 500, whereas the majority of the winners in other events used a faster 2nd half of the race to win. And before you say that this means that it's obviously just a thing for lightweights to do, the LM2x was won with a relatively very fast 3rd 500, and the LW2x with a fast last 500. In their race the Danes also exhibited the highest variation in pace between the 500m segments, which is the least efficient strategy. Contrast that with the LW2x where the winner had the lowest variation.