Ranger's training thread

[ben990]

Technical improvement does not necessarily lead to a linear improvement in 2K scores, all along the line.

I totally agree with this. It does, however, lead to *some* improvement, which yours has failed to do.

You are right, all true.

My first work on technique in the spring and summer of 2003 got me two seconds over 2K.

7:16 at 60 will be a good row.

My 6:28 in 2002 is three seconds slower than the 50s lwt WR and 20 seconds slower than the 50s heavyweight WR.

My 7:02.3 was a lot slower than the 55 lwt WR and really slower than the 55 heavyweight WR.

A 7:16 in 2012 would be a lot slower than the 60s lwt WR and really slower than the 60s heavyweight WR.

ranger

Corrected. You're welcome.

[PaulH]

Technical improvement does not necessarily lead to a linear improvement in 2K scores, all along the line.

I totally agree with this. It does, however, lead to *some* improvement, which yours has failed to do.

Not at all true.

My first work on technique in the spring and summer of 2003 got me two seconds over 2K.

Except most people would expect you to have improved anyway, given how new you were to the sport

And as I mentioned, I suspect that the 2006 row, done without preparing for it, was in the range of 15 seconds better than anything I had done previously.

Except that what you suspect isn't what actually happened, is it?

6:16 at 60 will be in the range of 30 seconds better.

You've got your conditionality wrong - 6:16 at 60 *would* be better, if it happened. But that's a hypothetical, so demonstrates nothing about the improvement you claim to have already achieved.

Once again, you've *demonstrated* no improvement at all as a result of your work on technique. In fact you've got slower at least as quickly as would be expected for a man of your age. That's nothing to be ashamed of, so there's no reason to be annoyed when people point out this fact.

Once again, though, I invite you to post *anything* that proves us wrong. Even something as simple as a screenshot showing 20k of erging from yesterday - feel free to obscure the time spent if that makes you feel better.

[ranger]

Once again, you've *demonstrated* no improvement at all as a result of your work on technique.

Nope.

My technical progress has been steady and is now complete.

With better length, quickness/drag, timing, sequencing, recoveries, slide control, balance, preparation, footwork, angles of leverage, etc., I have increased my natural stroking power 3 SPI.

I now row well (13 SPI) at low drag (120 df.).

The rower with the best stroke wins.

Historically, no one much past 40 years old has ever rowed well.

ranger

[ranger]

Once again, though, I invite you to post *anything* that proves us wrong

I have posted a constant stream of video and race results that prove you wrong already, before the real proof even arrives.

Second and third WR rows, 500r30 @ 1:30, 1Kr24 @ 1:38, sub-6:30 @ 12 SPI without preparing for it, etc.

I will continue to post these things, as they come along.

The next race result will be a FM, 1:48 @ 23 spm (12 SPI), 120 df.

There are quite a few things that go into rowing well, especially for a veteran.

The full collection of these things takes quite a while to learn, consolidate, and make habitual.

No one much over 40 has ever rowed well.

ranger

[ranger]

The issue is how to (1) row well (2) easily (consistently, habitually, etc.).

This issue doesn't have much at all to do with physical capacity, I think.

This issue is technical.

And then, of course, a matter of training.

IMO, in order to learn to row well, you need to row well--a lot.

This seems like a no-brainer, but as it turns out, all of the standard approaches to training for rowing concentrate on fitness, and even so, race preparation--increasing aerobic capacity, anaerobic capacity, etc.

Fitness doesn't have much at all to do with rowing well.

Those who can't row well can't even get very fit by rowing, and they certainly can't learn to row well by continuing to row badly.

ranger

[PaulH]

The rower with the best stroke wins.

No, the rower who covers the entire distance in the shortest time wins. That is the only metric.

I have posted a constant stream of video and race results that prove you wrong already, before the real proof even arrives.

Second and third WR rows, r500r30 @ 1:30, 1Kr24 @ 1:38, sub-6:30 @ 12 SPI without preparing for it, etc.

No, because all of those things were done before your work on technique got seriously underway. And you didn't provide comparison figures for most of those things from before you started your technique work. And your definition of 'preparing for it' lacks rigor. And every video you've ever posted has been immediately followed by the disclaimer "I'm much better than that now", despite no improvement being apparent from video to video. And your constant stream of race results in the last few years shows that your training has made no difference to the decline we'd expect given your age, even assuming that your latest BIRC result was an aberration.

I know you really don't want this to be true, but the fact remains that the only "evidence" that you're better appears to be trapped on your monitor, and for some reason you won't show anything from it except a curve.

[mikvan52]

* Daily update (subj. ranger blather digest)

This morning amid endless regurgitating in multiple posts. ranger has erged (he says) another 10k (no time mentioned)

If crossed with denials, his reply is the most convincing "Nope"

He has said he will scull some warm-up regattas this fall, in anticipation of his "win" as a novice at the HOCR against scullers who were once on Olympic and National teams (!)

ranger:

Here's a link for you to find local regattas... I doubt you'll show up at any of them.

https://www.regattacentral.com:443/regattas/

remember your old Chestnut " racing is redundant " & "no one ever got any faster by racing"

[ranger]

The rower with the best stroke wins.

No, the rower who covers the entire distance in the shortest time wins. That is the only metric.

That's an effect, not a cause.

This issue in training is to effect a cause, not to cause an effect.

ranger

[ranger]

No, because all of those things were done before your work on technique got seriously underway.

Absolutely not.

These things were done three and four _years_ after I started to work on technique.

In 2003, I couldn't have pulled 500r30 @ 1:30, a 2K @ 12 SPI, etc., if my life depended on it.

My early work on technique was on effectivenss, taking strong strokes.

This involved issues of quickness, timing, sequencing, leveraging, balance, etc.

My recent work on technique has been efficiency, rowing well _easily_.

This has involved issues of length, drag, recoveries, slide control, preparation, relaxation, posture, angles of leverage, etc.

ranger

[mikvan52]

The rower with the best stroke wins.

No, the rower who covers the entire distance in the shortest time wins. That is the only metric.

That's an effect, not a cause.

This issue in training is to effect a cause, not to cause an effect.

ranger

I imagine (IN TRACK AND FIELD) that ranger would criticize the atlete who throws himself at the finish line... => for taking a "bad stride" The runner with the best stride wins


In rowing: THe boat that sprints with reckless abandon often wins...
Go ahead, Rich:
Spout some erudite "cause/effect" BS... Then get on a starting line....

I can see you at the HOCR: You'll say: "It's raining and foggy... can't row. I'm virtually the best anyhow because I row 7 to 14 strokes in a row at 13 spi on gym equipment"

[mikvan52]

The rower with the best stroke wins.

Rich:
Do you have a spare 10 minutes to watch a youtube from the vantage point of your hideaway high above it all on a bluff above a non-scullers lake?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cym4_teegyM

Put it up "full screen"
Analyse the technique.
Who has the real pretty stroke?
Who wins?

The French 2- wins.... at a higher stroke rate...
They have the lower spi. According to you they should lose...

It's up to you now to explain your way out of this quandry: How does a boat with lower spi (inferior, in your play-book) win?

Perhaps you should experience a few races before carrying endlessly about stroking power and all these false markers you've snatched out of thin air?
Sort of like the behavior of the "monster" in my favorite movie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkyLV3ToNGU

SPI is ranger's "Transylvanian Lullaby"
"I'm not afraid. I know what he likes!"

[ranger]

I imagine (IN TRACK AND FIELD) that ranger would criticize the atlete who throws himself at the finish line... => for taking a "bad stride" The runner with the best stride wins

I don't see any parallel at all, really, between rowing and running.

A _huge_ part of rowing is technical.

It is about a certain sort of effective and efficient delivery of dynamic, full body power.

The closer parallel in track is to the field events--shot put, discus, high jump, pole vault, broad jump, etc.

In other sports, the closer parallel is to a golf swing, a tennis serve, batting, pitching, etc.

ranger

[ranger]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cym4_teegyM

Put it up "full screen"
Analyse the technique.
Who has the real pretty stroke?
Who wins?

The French 2- wins.... at a higher stroke rate...
They have the lower spi. According to you they should lose...

It's up to you now to explain your way out of this quandry: How does a boat with lower spi (inferior, in your play-book) win?

The rowing in the video doesn't have anything to do with veteran erging.

Technically, it's great--all of it.

Rowing well doesn't have anything to do with rating low in a race.

As I mentioned, when all is said and done, OTW, I think I'll pull 8 SPI and rate 38 spm in a 1K.

I'll pull 13 SPI and rate 38 spm for 1K OTErg.

OTErg, the best 60s lwts so far, I would guess, have pulled 11 SPI and rated 35 spm.

The difference is over 100 watts.

Back in 2003, for 1K OTErg, I rated 42 spm but only pulled 10.5 SPI.

Now that I pull 13 SPI, that 42 spm @ 10.5 SPI is 65 watts less than I will do now for 1K at 4 spm less.

ranger

[PaulH]

The rower with the best stroke wins.

No, the rower who covers the entire distance in the shortest time wins. That is the only metric.

That's an effect, not a cause.

No, it's the cause. Somebody gets the fastest time, and that causes the organizers to give them the trophy.

Now the fast time *is* an effect of good training. And the only metric of that good training (and we're talking from a competitive point of view here, rather than the many other ways it's possible to find rewards from rowing) is how fast you went. It doesn't matter how elegant your stroke curve was or how close to an integer some invented index was any more than it matters how well your blades matched your jersey.

[Bob S.]

any more than it matters how well your blades matched your jersey.

Hey! That sounds like a crucial item to me!