OCD Rows

[plummy]

Nice! The perfectionists out there argue that a "proper" OCD row should have a minimum 8 (eight!) splits. I'm more in the camp of 6 being more than sufficient but any attempt is great to see.

[Claudius]

a ocd with 8 splits is really difficult to achieve...i am failing frequently on my 9999m (11 Splits a 909m) recovery rows on that

[plummy]

Failed again - and in almost exactly the same way...maybe that's a new type of OCD row, failing the same way again and again...

ScreenHunter_352 Mar. 15 12.07.jpg (27.31 KiB) Viewed 1981 times

[Draggon]

maybe that's a new type of OCD row, failing the same way again and again...

We'll take it if you manage to pull it off!

[plummy]

Tried again, failed again (though slightly better)...

ScreenHunter_356 Mar. 26 13.59.jpg (26.36 KiB) Viewed 1907 times

[Iain]

You do realise that at exactly 2:08 you would do 937.5M don't you? That means that you are not targetting exactly 2:08 to get a consistent result, but slightly more or less (hence the mixed response). WOuldn't you be better targetting an exact number of meters to give you the maximum leeway?

[MaxMacLaren1]

Good effort Dave. I don't know if Concept2 truncates or rounds up or down but an interesting observation from Iain.

[Iain]

Good point Max. It certainly truncates stroke rate and I think for target time/distance. So maybe a wise choice from Plummy if it is the same for distance.

- Iain

[Iain]

Does a "Just Row" where 6 5' sections all 1011M R15 count where 92M wind down afterwards at different rate and pace?

[plummy]

Didn't see your question Iain. I'm not here to judge per se as there are differing views on OCD rows. To me, anything 5~6 splits or above counts but others insist on 8 minimum. Re the 92 as part of a slow down I think that would eliminate it as a solid OCD effort in anyone's book. That said, feel free to post up a picture as the 6 in a row is still impressive anyway