6:28 2K

[ranger]

no proof equals no reason for us to show care

If you believe this more generally, you have no ideals, no imagination, no religious feeling, no soul, no potential for passionate engagement, no feelings of mystical connectedness to certain things, and therefore not much future as a person.

Sad affair.

You might becone a good scientist, though.

Good with a scalpel--and such.

ranger

[ranger]

And wouldn't it be convenient if you got 'sick' the week before CIRC, WIRC, etc. Hell, I'm imagining a post with something like "my daughter got really sick, almost died, can't make it, but my 6:16 would have been the most epic accomplishment even though I still haven't made it happen."

Oh he's been there and done that already. UK forumites were treated to the famous broken finger episode. And I believe there was some complicated dental work and simultaneous melanoma treatment that led to his retirement from erging for that season.

The so-called retirement lasted almost a week before he was back on the forum spouting the same old guff.

And no, I'm not making it up.

The finger was injured taking down a big ash tree with a little chain saw.

And yes, teeth can be a problem at my age. I still have these problems. I will get a couple of implants this year. Old metal fillings, dating back to the early 1950s, expanded over time and split a couple of my teeth.

True, I had cancer, too (on my face).

Recently, my wife has also had cancer (thyroid).

ranger

[ranger]

You missed out flying to the UK in 2004 for the British Indoor Rowing Champs, warming up and deciding his stroke wasn't ready. he watched the race from the stands!

True.

I wasn't ready to race.

So I didn't.

Entirely my decision.

And as it turn out, it was a good one.

ranger

[ranger]

you've posted zero distance trials

Indeed, I haven't.

Racing comes _after_ training, not before.

I'll do distance trials around New Years.

Then I'll sharpen.

My first public race will be January 30th in Indianapolis.

If things go well, I should break the 55s lwt WR by 10-15 seconds in that first race.

Then I will have another month or so of sharpening and reacing to push my 2K time down from there.

ranger

[KevJGK]

I'll do distance trials around New Years.

Of course you will & you will post the results on here in an open and honest manner.

And you will row a 06:16 when you are 60.

And if by some miracle you fail to reach your targets you will pay hjs the money you already owe him.

[ranger]

no proof equals no reason for us to show care

Paul--

Evidence?

Pshaw.

Everyone has all the evidence they need for how bad they are.

Such as this:

Dio you do routine UT1 rowing from day to day?

You know.

Just relaxed, efficient rowing?

In and around 10 MPS?

30K?

HR 160-170 bpm, working hard but steady state, below your anaerobic threshold?

Whatever?

No need to time pieces, etc.

Just row.

What does the monitor say most of the time as you are going along?

That's how bad you are.

Take that number and subtract 11 or so and you have your 2K score.

Today, I have been looking at 1:45 @ 28 spm, sometimes 1:43 @ 29 spm.

Not great, but a _hell_ of a lot better than I used to be.

Now that I know how to row, I am much more effective and efficient in my relaxed, day-to-day rowing.

I used to do something more like 1:52, or even 1:55, when I was just rowing along at 10 MPS.

Quite an improvement!

There's that seven seconds per 500m again!

If I do a HM at 1:45, it will be about 10 seconds per 500m better than any 60s lwt has ever done it.

Wish me luck!

I'll do a HM trial, amiid and amongst other distance trials, near the end of the month and into the first week in January.

ranger

P.S. If I do a lwt 6:16 2K at 60, it will be about seven seconds per 500m better than anyone has ever done before.

There's that seven seconds per 500m again!

[ranger]

I'll do distance trials around New Years.

Of course you will & you will post the results on here in an open and honest manner.

And you will row a 06:16 when you are 60.

And if by some miracle you fail to reach your targets you will pay hjs the money you already owe him.

Yes!

Yes!

Yes!

$2000 will come in handy this winter.

I can't wait to collect.

ranger

[eliotsmith]

It’s worth remembering that when we respond to ranger we are dealing with a troll.

This may be true; probably is. However, ranger's trolling has a great way of bringing out the ugliness in other's arguments. Ranger's quote of bloomp's ideas about proof show that ranger is quite a bit more mature and experienced. I would concur completely with ranger's response. Your comments, bloomp, show your naivete. I'm only 31 so am closer to your age than ranger's, but I think your rash and unconsidered comments are only fuel for ranger's fire. This rashness is best represented in the following:

I'm sure the deceased would understand you going to Boston instead of their funeral

Do you really mean that? Am I missing your sarcasm?

[ranger]

Paul--

In your day-to-day distance rowing, say for 20K, if the PM3/4 says 2:12 @ 19 spm (8 SPI) most of the time rather than 1:45 @ 28 spm (11 SPI), you're not doing quite the same thing as I am.

You are only rowing about half as hard.

The difference is 125 watts and 27 seconds per 500m.

If you want to be a quality lightweight, you need to get an easy 110-120 kgs. of peak pressure from your legs.

Do you get this?

If not, I would work on it--immediately.

Don't establish a bunch of bad habits that you will need to lose later in order to succeed.

ranger

[ranger]

At WIRC 2009, no 60s lwt pulled 1:45 for 2K.

A HM is done at 2K + 11.

ranger

[snowleopard]

you need to get an easy 110-120 kgs. of peak pressure from your legs.

The kg is a unit of mass, not pressure.

Peak pressure [sic] is irrelevant. What matters is the total area under the curve.

[ranger]

This morning (and yesterday morning) : 70min erg; 70min bike (25 MPH)

ranger

[ranger]

you need to get an easy 110-120 kgs. of peak pressure from your legs.

The kg is a unit of mass, not pressure.

Peak pressure [sic] is irrelevant. What matters is the total area under the curve.

Paul needs to get 110-120 kgs. of peak pressure.

If he doesn't, he just systematically ruins his opportunity to be an elite lightweight as the years go by.

He needs to do it--or he'll lose it.

ranger

[Citroen]

you need to get an easy 110-120 kgs. of peak pressure from your legs.

The kg is a unit of mass, not pressure.

Peak pressure [sic] is irrelevant. What matters is the total area under the curve.

You forget that in Ranger's universe the gravitational constant is variable, Einsteinian space/time has a diiferent meaning and normal Euclidean geometry doesn't apply.

In our Universe we measure force in Newtons, but don't try telling Ranger that, he'll ignore you and continue with his own maths/physics model of his universe. Science was clearly never his strong subject at school.

[snowleopard]

you need to get an easy 110-120 kgs. of peak pressure from your legs.

The kg is a unit of mass, not pressure.

Peak pressure [sic] is irrelevant. What matters is the total area under the curve.

Paul needs to get 110-120 kgs. of peak pressure.

If he doesn't, he just systematically ruins his opportunity to be an elite lightweight as the years go by.

He needs to do it--or he'll lose it.

ranger

No, he doean't. He could achieve a high peak pressure [sic] and still row badly. And in boat moving terms it would indicate jumping at the catch so technically poor rowing as well.