Ranger's training thread

[ranger]

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.

Sure, I don't disagree that the "metric" of good training is racing fast.

Of course.

But I am not interested in the "metric" of good training.

I am interested in what leads to a high score, given that "metric."

Once you go fast, your training is complete.

You have already done it.

But the question is: What did you do--and why?

In rowing, you don't go fast in racing by going fast in training.

That's a disaster.

You go fast in racing by training yourself to row well, by getting _very_ good at rowing.

And then the central question for training becomes: how do you do that?

ranger

[PaulH]

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.

Another great example of your careful parsing of words. I suspect there have been few if any rowers in the history of the sport who *haven't* made improvements after starting to work on technique. If someone stops just pulling the handle and pays attention to how they do it (and of course puts in the effort) they're close to guaranteed to improve. The point is that *your* training is supposedly something that has never been done in the history of the sport (at least for senior/veteran rowing), and yet the only improvements you've ever made are those anyone would expect you might make. *Your* training, based on this SPI thing, has never shown any improvement in the outright speed of any rower ever, including you.

But prove me wrong. Post *anything* from your monitor that shows you've improved. Hey, just post an image of your history. You could have done that 10 times over in the time you've taken just today trying to demonstrate that you've got better when the public record shows that you've gotten worse.

[ranger]

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

Sure, that's what spectators are interested in, the drama of the race and the pageantry of the trophy ceremony.

To each his own.

Doesn't have anything to do with training, though.

ranger

[NavigationHazard]

Actually, it's not a "fast time" that gets the trophy. OTW all you have to do is put the bow ball over the finish line faster than any of the competition in your event does. OTE all you have to do is complete 2000m before anyone else in your event does. If it takes you six minutes to do so or six hours or six days, from a racing point of view so what. You'll win the event despite what anyone else might have done in some other event.

It follows that the only metric OTW that counts is how fast you were relative to the rower(s) you were racing. OTE, it is true, you can thrash alone in your battcave, and rank pieces provided you actually do any of them. However you can't win a major competition that way. Additionally, there are no solo competitions OTW.

[ranger]

It doesn't matter how elegant your stroke curve was

Elegant?

The issues are effectiveness and efficiency.

ranger

[ranger]

I suspect there have been few if any rowers in the history of the sport who *haven't* made improvements after starting to work on technique. If someone stops just pulling the handle and pays attention to how they do it (and of course puts in the effort) they're close to guaranteed to improve.

Yes, I think you say this very clearly.

This is _exactly_ the assumption in training for rowing.

Technique will take care of itself.

The evidence against this, at least for veteran erging, is overwhelming, and seemingly, without exception.

No one much beyond 40 years old has ever erged well.

In veteran erging, technique _emphatically_ does not at all "take care of itself."

If it did, the lightweights would pull 13 SPI; the heavyweights, 16 SPI.

Doesn't happen--by a country mile.

60s veterans miss it by 4 SPI, 40 kgF of peak force, seven seconds per 500m, a mile over 60min, etc.

ranger

[ranger]

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

No other 55s/60s lwt can come any near doing these things.

They miss them by seven seconds per 500m.

For instance, in the year before I did 1Kr24 @ 1:38, Rocket Roy did 1Kr24 @ 1:44.5 for the CTC.

That's a nice 13 SPI, but it isn't 15.5 SPI.

I suspect that any lightweight who can pull things like 500r30 @ 1:30 (16 SPI) can pull sub-6:20 for 2K, once they are fully trained up for it.

For a lightweight, 16 SPI is pretty effective stroking.

ranger

[PaulH]

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

Sure, that's what spectators are interested in, the drama of the race and the pageantry of the trophy ceremony.

To each his own.

Doesn't have anything to do with training, though.

ranger

It has *everything* to do with training. If your training doesn't propel you faster than the opposition (as Nav rightly points out) then, however satisfying it may have been, your training has failed.

[PaulH]

I suspect there have been few if any rowers in the history of the sport who *haven't* made improvements after starting to work on technique. If someone stops just pulling the handle and pays attention to how they do it (and of course puts in the effort) they're close to guaranteed to improve.

Yes, I think you say this very clearly.

This is _exactly_ the assumption in training for rowing.

Technique will take care of itself.

I've trained with dozens of rowers, and without exception all of them have paid attention to technique. They just haven't paid attention to the integer value you invented, which isn't technique.

[ranger]

If your training doesn't propel you faster than the opposition (as Nav rightly points out) then, however satisfying it may have been, your training has failed.

Sure, agreed.

But this has nothing to do with successful training--what to do in order to get fast.

Training makes you fast.

If you are already fast, your training is done.

There is nothing left to do.

Training is necessarily prospective.

It is about strategies for getting better.

Going fast in a race is not a training strategy.

It is not a strategy for getting better.

No one ever got significantly better by racing.

Racing is the worst imaginable training strategy.

There is overwhelming evidence for this:

Those who use their training time just to prepare to race get worse and worse.

And worse.

ranger

[PaulH]

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

No other 55s/60s lwt can come any near doing these things.

Why say other? You can't do this either. But please, prove me wrong.

[PaulH]

If your training doesn't propel you faster than the opposition (as Nav rightly points out) then, however satisfying it may have been, your training has failed.

Sure, agreed.

But this has nothing to do with successful training--what to do in order to get fast.

ranger

Wrong again. If your training doesn't make you faster then it's not successful training. Whatever your *hopes* may be, your training has not made you faster, hence it's not successful. But please, prove me wrong.

[ranger]

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

No other 55s/60s lwt can come any near doing these things.

Why say other? You can't do this either. But please, prove me wrong.

Been there, done that.

I posted the screen shots on this forum.

Other 55s/60s lwts haven't--and can't.

And they don't miss it by a little bit.

They miss it by seven seconds per 500m.

ranger

[Brunsie]

t will help me see exactly what I need to do to get to 7:02.3.

Or six veteran rows under 6:30, take your pick.

Hey, or even 6:16 at 60.

ranger

So does this mean you have done the 6:16 at 60, as the discussion is about what you have done. If you have done it show us the proof and if you have not then don't talk as if you have done it. It matters not if you "think" you can do it or if you even "know" you can do it, until you actually do it you don't get credit and only a cheat tries to take credit for doing something they have not done.

[Brunsie]

No veteran my size has ever pulled sub-6:25, much less sub-6:20, much less 6:16.

ranger

True, why do we spend so much time talking about what has not been done, it would be much more interesting to talk about what has been done, certainly nothing getting done on this thread.