Fast is fast is fast
5:28.95 for a 2K.
That's fast.
But it was done on an RP3, a dynamic erg and therefore...
I'm waiting for the response on that. As my friend Sam says, and I agree, fast is fast. Dynamic erg, static erg, the results are something that others will argue over but regardless, fast is fast.
I do not know what the standard calculation might be comparing results of a dynamic erg such as the RP3 to the standard C2 Model D. I'm sure there are those out there with their own formulas, and I've seen some debate on the rowing forums over what a calculation might be.
I suppose we can dive into the analytic side of the argument wondering about elevation, humidity, etc. All factors that I would assume, rightly, might figure into what the final erg score might be.
I've had this argument with friends over steroids in other sports. What exactly are we talking about when we link someone to steroids? Now, without getting into the nitty gritty of the steroid debate, I believe we can assume that steroids of any type, any type of drug or supplement designed to improve performance would be considered cheating.
I am not going to disagree with that. It's a competitive edge that was not gained fairly.
Where I get off the train is in the generalization of what steroids are presumed to do for an individual in comparison to what that individual might do without the boost.
I am against performance enhancers though I do not fully buy into the idea that sporting leagues want them to go away. I know there are protocols for those who dope, but color me jaded when I roll my eyes at the idea of any professional league taking a hard stance against doping.
I believe that doping will enhance your abilities, or the ability that exists. However, and this is where I believe 95 percent of the population get things muddled, steroids do not transform you or more specifically, tap into some hidden talent.
Take HGH all you want, you are not going to start clubbing home runs off 95 mph pitches anytime in the near or far future. The ability and skill required to do so must already exist. Steroids might enhance the power or provide longevity, but create that ability? No.
So this argument over static or dynamic ergs is incredibly silly in my eyes. I suppose one might find it "easier" to go harder on a dynamic erg. I'm not certain of all the biomechanics that go into the movement, but I'm sure they exist.
But, the ability to come close to the times posted, the fitness, the mental toughness, that had to be developed. That was trained and honed over time.
Simply sitting down on an RP3 or any dynamic erg will not magically take seconds off your time. You will not move from the standard C2 erg pulling a 7-minute 2K and suddenly discover that you're a minute faster. Not without the training.
Perhaps the dynamic ergs do give your times a boost. Perhaps you would not be as fast on the static C2.
But this idea that simply switching equipment will turn your average or even above average into a world champion, or record holder is laughable at best. Many countries row Empachers and don't win. Plenty of college football programs have palaces for training facilities and don't break double digits in victories.
It's like saying "Mileage makes champions." No, effective training makes it possible for you to compete for a championship.
A switch of equipment or a specific type of equipment might make the endeavor slightly easier, but the work, the time, the training still must exist.
That's fast.
But it was done on an RP3, a dynamic erg and therefore...
I'm waiting for the response on that. As my friend Sam says, and I agree, fast is fast. Dynamic erg, static erg, the results are something that others will argue over but regardless, fast is fast.
I do not know what the standard calculation might be comparing results of a dynamic erg such as the RP3 to the standard C2 Model D. I'm sure there are those out there with their own formulas, and I've seen some debate on the rowing forums over what a calculation might be.
I suppose we can dive into the analytic side of the argument wondering about elevation, humidity, etc. All factors that I would assume, rightly, might figure into what the final erg score might be.
I've had this argument with friends over steroids in other sports. What exactly are we talking about when we link someone to steroids? Now, without getting into the nitty gritty of the steroid debate, I believe we can assume that steroids of any type, any type of drug or supplement designed to improve performance would be considered cheating.
I am not going to disagree with that. It's a competitive edge that was not gained fairly.
Where I get off the train is in the generalization of what steroids are presumed to do for an individual in comparison to what that individual might do without the boost.
I am against performance enhancers though I do not fully buy into the idea that sporting leagues want them to go away. I know there are protocols for those who dope, but color me jaded when I roll my eyes at the idea of any professional league taking a hard stance against doping.
I believe that doping will enhance your abilities, or the ability that exists. However, and this is where I believe 95 percent of the population get things muddled, steroids do not transform you or more specifically, tap into some hidden talent.
Take HGH all you want, you are not going to start clubbing home runs off 95 mph pitches anytime in the near or far future. The ability and skill required to do so must already exist. Steroids might enhance the power or provide longevity, but create that ability? No.
So this argument over static or dynamic ergs is incredibly silly in my eyes. I suppose one might find it "easier" to go harder on a dynamic erg. I'm not certain of all the biomechanics that go into the movement, but I'm sure they exist.
But, the ability to come close to the times posted, the fitness, the mental toughness, that had to be developed. That was trained and honed over time.
Simply sitting down on an RP3 or any dynamic erg will not magically take seconds off your time. You will not move from the standard C2 erg pulling a 7-minute 2K and suddenly discover that you're a minute faster. Not without the training.
Perhaps the dynamic ergs do give your times a boost. Perhaps you would not be as fast on the static C2.
But this idea that simply switching equipment will turn your average or even above average into a world champion, or record holder is laughable at best. Many countries row Empachers and don't win. Plenty of college football programs have palaces for training facilities and don't break double digits in victories.
It's like saying "Mileage makes champions." No, effective training makes it possible for you to compete for a championship.
A switch of equipment or a specific type of equipment might make the endeavor slightly easier, but the work, the time, the training still must exist.
Comments