6:28 2K

[bloomp]

So, according to Rich's logic, you cannot train to race by racing your training. Where is the sense in that?

Your race should only be an extension of your training, and it is an extension because you are already knowledgeable of how far you can push yourself (by training to race, properly) and you finally, psychologically, can break any boundaries that you have set up during training. These bounds are broken because of adrenaline, the idea of a team, the impending competition, or the boat you are trying to pass. Without racing within the training (impossible for any real team rower to NOT race their training), you never have any clue as to where you really are.

My proof is this. While attending a Vespoli coaching seminar in Philadelphia last year, the Wisconsin men's coach spoke to us. He has a lightweight (145 pound) rower who for an hour can pull at a 1:45 or so. But across a 2k, he can't really go lower than 1:41. But had he been training as Rich suggests, he would have assumed that he COULD go faster and died out early on in a shorter distance piece. Ergo, with the body type Mr. Cureton has, sure his training may work - but without proof of his times (ACTUAL times, not your GOALS that you never test) - we will never know if he's telling the truth about anything.

Also, Rich, you seem to waver back and forth between "Sharpening" and "distance rowing". You have been claiming to have started sharpening at least a week ago, yet you've reported nothing. Make up your mind as to what you're doing already!

Well, you have to understand Rich's definition of "racing your training", which is this: "recording the time it took to cover any distance, at any effort level". Rich, as you know, does not report the time it took to cover a distance until the final stage "heavy sharpening".
The folks that report the distances/times in their daily training, are racing their training.

Your definition of "racing your training" is a different one. Your definition is "going 100% full out, for a distance (that distance varies, depending on the goal of the session), and recording the time it took for future data collection purposes".

The key difference is recording/reporting the time/distance. Ranger views this as detremental to training.

Said another way, the very act of recording the time taken to cover a distance (any distance, any effort), transforms that training effort from whatever it was before you wrote it down (for example, an easy recovery row) to "racing your training".

I'm not exactly clear on how this act, completed after the fact, has such an impact on the training piece.. suspect it has something to do with quantum physics...

Then, how does he know if he has rowed 'well'. If he can't complete a piece in a certain amount of time, then there's no proof of continuity. I can hop on the erg and take five strokes at 1:45, wait, take another 5 at 1:45 and keep doing that, and my total time will not matter (according to Rich), because each stroke is good?

Non sequitur. That's not how to build foundational rowing skills.

Without knowing how well you've done, you don't know your ability and you don't know whether you are doing better.

[sheehc]

I can hop on the erg and take five strokes at 1:45, wait, take another 5 at 1:45 and keep doing that, and my total time will not matter (according to Rich), because each stroke is good?

So I'm confused. If you understand what Ranger is saying, why aren't you doing it? That 5:58 U29 world record is just sitting there waiting to be broken. Throw some cut slide work in combined with actually recording your pieces and you'll have it made!!!

[ranger]

So, according to Rich's logic, you cannot train to race by racing your training. Where is the sense in that?

Your race should only be an extension of your training, and it is an extension because you are already knowledgeable of how far you can push yourself (by training to race, properly) and you finally, psychologically, can break any boundaries that you have set up during training. These bounds are broken because of adrenaline, the idea of a team, the impending competition, or the boat you are trying to pass. Without racing within the training (impossible for any real team rower to NOT race their training), you never have any clue as to where you really are.

My proof is this. While attending a Vespoli coaching seminar in Philadelphia last year, the Wisconsin men's coach spoke to us. He has a lightweight (145 pound) rower who for an hour can pull at a 1:45 or so. But across a 2k, he can't really go lower than 1:41. But had he been training as Rich suggests, he would have assumed that he COULD go faster and died out early on in a shorter distance piece. Ergo, with the body type Mr. Cureton has, sure his training may work - but without proof of his times (ACTUAL times, not your GOALS that you never test) - we will never know if he's telling the truth about anything.

Also, Rich, you seem to waver back and forth between "Sharpening" and "distance rowing". You have been claiming to have started sharpening at least a week ago, yet you've reported nothing. Make up your mind as to what you're doing already!

Paul, let's get some perspective.

I pulled a lwt 1:37 2K as a 52-year-old novice who didn't know how to row.

I now know how to row, so I am now much more effective and efficient in my rowing.

I am no longer a novice rower.

My goal is now is to pull a lwt 1:34 2K when I am 60 years old.

Wish me luck.

So far, my training is coming along great.

I am now doing distance rowing, pulling right at my targets.

FM, 1:48 @ 26 spm
HM, 1:45 @ 28 spm
10K, 1:42 @ 30 spm
5K, 1:39 @ 32 spm

ranger

[ranger]

Then, how does he know if he has rowed 'well'.

You are running off at the mouth, but you haven't tried it.

Pull 13-15 SPI for 20K.

Do it every day.

Doesn't matter how you do it.

Pick your rate.

Take as much rest as you'd like.

Do that for two or three years.

You will be rowing well.

Then move on.

When you are done with this foundational training, do distance "pieces" at 10 MPS--FM, HM, 60min, 10K, 6K, 5K.

Race these "pieces."

See what happens.

ranger

[ranger]

Paul--

I did 16.7K for 60min when I was 52 years old, even though I didn't know how to row.

What have you done for 60min?

For those with balanced training, 60min is done at 2K + 10.

Eskild does 18K (1:40).

60min is his favorite training row.

Now that I know how to row, my target for 60min is 1:44.

If I can pull it off, that will break the 50s _heavyweight_ WR by 300m.

I am a lightweight.

I will be 59 years old in a couple of months.

1:44 for 60min predicts a 1:34 2K.

At the moment, you can't row 2K at 1:44.

ranger

[bloomp]

Rich,

You have yet to disprove my entirely correct point that your method of training applies in only these two situations:

a) the athlete is in excellent cardiovascular fitness from years of training for other very demanding sports;

and, b) the athlete has the identical or at least a very similar genetic makeup (and therefore muscular, skeletal and hormonal makep) as you do.

Without both of those conditions holding true, your style of training sets ridiculous standards that are impractical except to those already in excellent shape. You set anyone up for failure that uses your plan without having those two criteria met. And your piss poor attitude and demeaning ways don't help you at all in convincing people you are right.

Listen to the science, if nothing else, you can't begin your training with the ridiculous method you suggest if you actually want fitness and a training regimen that can be followed. Rowing like you suggest is an easy path to burning out, getting frustrated and not actually getting faster. Rowing per your definition of 'good' is an excellent way to isolate yourself from the practical methods that actually work. I realize you are one hell of an antisocial, introverted person who will never actually contribute to a crew, but had you ever rowed for a team, you would realize the idiocy of all you preach.

Paul

[ranger]

You have yet to disprove my entirely correct point that your method of training applies in only these two situations:

a) the athlete is in excellent cardiovascular fitness from years of training for other very demanding sports;

and, b) the athlete has the identical or at least a very similar genetic makeup (and therefore muscular, skeletal and hormonal makep) as you do.

Good to know.

Then I am the only one (of my peers) that can succeed.

As time goes on, I will have no competition.

It is a proven fact that the 2K times of senior and veteran WR-holders who follow traditional training plans (of whatever sort) decline by about 2 seconds a year.

Why?

These plans subordinate issues of technique and skeletal-muscular fitness to a concern with aerobic capacity.

If you are aging, you _can't_ increase your aerobic capacity, once you have developed it to a peak.

So, if that is what you work on, you doom yourself to failure (i.e., a steady decline of two seconds per year over 2K).

Nothing about aging prevents you from learning how to row more efficiently and effectively, though.

You just need to follow a training plan with that emphasis.

If I pull a lwt 6:16 2K this year, as I think I will, I will have _gained_ two seconds a year over 2K from when I pulled a 50s lwt WR of 6:28 at BIRC 2003.

Why?

How?

Over the last six years, my training has not been traditional at all.

In my training over the last six years, I have focussed on effectiveness and efficiency, not aerobic capacity.

ranger

[hjs]

You have yet to disprove my entirely correct point that your method of training applies in only these two situations:

a) the athlete is in excellent cardiovascular fitness from years of training for other very demanding sports;

and, b) the athlete has the identical or at least a very similar genetic makeup (and therefore muscular, skeletal and hormonal makep) as you do.

Good to know.

Then I am the only one that can succeed.

There will be no competition.

It is a proven fact that the 2K times of senior and veteran WR-holders who follow traditional training plans (of whatever sort) decline by about 2 seconds a year.

Why?

ranger

Why ? take a look in the mirror and take a look at your students, I think even you will notice something

[ranger]

Rowing like you suggest is an easy path to burning out, getting frustrated and not actually getting faster. Rowing per your definition of 'good' is an excellent way to isolate yourself from the practical methods that actually work.

At the moment, the average decline in times among senior and veteran rowers who follow traditional training plans is two seconds per year over 2K.

That's success, getting faster, doing something that works?

Odd use of words.

With that rate of decline, if you pull 6:18 (like Mike C.) when you are 40 years old, you pull 6:58 when you are 60.

RANKING RESULTS 2009
Indoor Rower | Individual and Race Results | 2000m | Men's | Lightweight | Ages 60-69 | 2009 Season

Brian Bailey 62 Cheltenham GBR 6:51.8 RACE
Robert Lakin 60 USA 7:00.6 RACE
gregory brock 61 santa cruz ca USA 7:02.2 RACE
Leif Pedersen 63 DNK 7:02.3 RACE
Michael Brownjohn 60 Upminster Essex GBR 7:05.2 IND
Henry Baker 61 Santa Barbara CA USA 7:05.4 RowPro
Rick Bayko 61 Newburyport MA USA 7:06.7 RACE
Alain Mangin 60 FRA 7:09.1 RACE
Bob Lakin 60 Wichita KS USA 7:09.4 IND

No thanks!

I think I'll train for success, not guaranteed failure.

ranger

[chgoss]

Then, how does he know if he has rowed 'well'.

You are running off at the mouth, but you haven't tried it.

Pull 13-15 SPI for 20K.

Do it every day.

Doesn't matter how you do it.

Pick your rate.

Take as much rest as you'd like.

This is interval work, right? Pick one of the paces from the chart below, pull it for 500m, rest, pull it for 500m, rest, and so on..

Nothing ground breaking there? Why does that interval constitute "rowing well"?

20SPM - 1:50/500m
22SPM - 1:47/500m
24SPM - 1:44/500m
26SPM - 1:41/500m
28SPM - 1:38/500m
30SPM - 1:36/500m

[hjs]

Rowing like you suggest is an easy path to burning out, getting frustrated and not actually getting faster. Rowing per your definition of 'good' is an excellent way to isolate yourself from the practical methods that actually work.

At the moment, the average decline in times among senior and veteran rowers is two seconds per year over 2K.

That's success, getting faster, doing something that works?
Odd use of words.
With that rate of decline, if you pull 6:18 (like Mike C.) at 40, you pull 6:58 at 60.

ranger

what did you pull last year?

what is your pb.

how much did you slow down ?

[ranger]

what did you pull last year?

If you can pull 6:41 for 2K, as I did last year, just on the basis of foundational training at low rates, you can pull 6:16 if you add distance rowing (including distance trials) and full sharpening.

You get about a dozen seconds over 2K from each.

(1) Threshold/distance rowing and (2) sharpening are at the heart of 2K race preparation.

Each should be done for at least a couple of months before you race a 2K, if you want to race your best.

Of course, for many, distance rowing and sharpening constitute _all_ of their training.

They don't do any foundational training at low rates at all.

I was 58 last year.

So, my 6:41 last year was the equivalent of 6:35 for a 55-year-old--three seconds _under_ WR pace.

The 55s lwt WR is 6:38.

It will be interesting to see what becomes of that 6:41 when I add distance rowing and full sharpening.

The 60s lwt WR is 6:42.

I will be 59 this year for WIRC 2010.

ranger

[hjs]

Rowing like you suggest is an easy path to burning out, getting frustrated and not actually getting faster. Rowing per your definition of 'good' is an excellent way to isolate yourself from the practical methods that actually work.

At the moment, the average decline in times among senior and veteran rowers is two seconds per year over 2K.

That's success, getting faster, doing something that works?
Odd use of words.
With that rate of decline, if you pull 6:18 (like Mike C.) at 40, you pull 6:58 at 60.

ranger

?

what did you pull last year?

what is your pb.

how much did you slow down ?

[ranger]

I can hop on the erg and take five strokes at 1:45, wait, take another 5 at 1:45 and keep doing that, and my total time will not matter (according to Rich), because each stroke is good?

Indeed you can.

Indeed you should.

But there is no reason to stop stroking unless you have to.

And if you do 5 strokes one day before you need to take a bit of a breather, you might be able to do 10 strokes the next.

And 10 strokes can become 20 strokes, and 20 strokes, 30.

If you are doing 20 spm, then you might even get to 140 strokes before stopping, which is a 2K.

Or 280 strokes--that's 4K.

Or 560 strokes--that's 8K.

or even 600 strokes--that's 30min.

And if you pull 30min, 1:45 @ 20 spm, it predicts that you can pull about a 6:12 2K.



Nice!

In any event, if you row 20K a session, and even if you just do one session a day, you take about 1500 "good" strokes a day, not matter how many continuous strokes you put together in any given interval.

And, hey, that's a heck of lot of good practice on "perfect" technique!

If your problems are quickness, length, leverage, timing, etc., as they usually are, you get to encounter a whole lot of opportunities to get better.

1500 of them each day.

If you row every day, and you do this for, say, five years, as I did, that's almost 3 _million_ strokes, 3 _million_ opportunities to get better--right where it counts the most, in your _foundational_ rowing.

_Invaluable_ stuff.

The best.

ranger

[chgoss]

So, according to Rich's logic, you cannot train to race by racing your training. Where is the sense in that?
<snip>

Well, you have to understand Rich's definition of "racing your training", which is this: "recording the time it took to cover any distance, at any effort level". Rich, as you know, does not report the time it took to cover a distance until the final stage "heavy sharpening".
The folks that report the distances/times in their daily training, are racing their training.

Your definition of "racing your training" is a different one. Your definition is "going 100% full out, for a distance (that distance varies, depending on the goal of the session), and recording the time it took for future data collection purposes".

The key difference is recording/reporting the time/distance. Ranger views this as detremental to training.

Said another way, the very act of recording the time taken to cover a distance (any distance, any effort), transforms that training effort from whatever it was before you wrote it down (for example, an easy recovery row) to "racing your training".

I'm not exactly clear on how this act, completed after the fact, has such an impact on the training piece.. suspect it has something to do with quantum physics...

Then, how does he know if he has rowed 'well'. If he can't complete a piece in a certain amount of time, then there's no proof of continuity. I can hop on the erg and take five strokes at 1:45, wait, take another 5 at 1:45 and keep doing that, and my total time will not matter (according to Rich), because each stroke is good?

You forgot to put the SPM in, Rich believes that if you take 5 strokes at 24SPM - 1:44/500m, rest, take 5 more, etc.. that is "rowing well" and is the only way to train.. see #1 below..

Code: Select all

Rangers belief system: 
1) Focus on indicidual strokes only:
- the best way to train is to focus on individual strokes. This is done by looking at the force curve, and the SPI (information that is derived from rate/pace for that one particular stroke only). 

- Only "good" strokes should be taken in training, a "good" stroke is one pulled with a good force curve, at a certain SPI. Good lightweights pull 13SPI, heavy weights 16SPI.  

Here are the SPM/pace combinations allowed for LW (13SPI) 
20SPM - 1:50/500m 
22SPM - 1:47/500m 
24SPM - 1:44/500m 
26SPM - 1:41/500m 
28SPM - 1:38/500m 
30SPM - 1:36/500m 

2)On reporting what is done in training:
- Recording the time it takes to cover any distance, at any level of effort, is considered "racing your training", aka "sharpening" and is detremental to your training. 

- ranger has "done" something and is free to "report" that thing as "done" in a post on training, when he feels he "can do" that thing. Actually doing the thing (in a quantifiable way) is not neccessary, and may even be detremental as it can interrupt the flow of training. 

3) a person's weight is "at" a certain value, if at some point in the day, that person can weigh him/herself, and it's that value.