New Requirements For Ranking Pieces

[old] whp4 · Post by **[old] whp4** » May 8th, 2005, 2:44 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ May 8 2005, 06:15 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Now why does Bayko agree with c2, and then think that HIS times rowed in a garage meet the rules???? <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Simple, his times rowed in a garage were done during last season, when the rule(s) in question didn't apply. <br /><br />It is unclear (at least to me) if they would meet the rules regarding public machines this year, as we haven't gotten a clear definition of what a public machine is. I'd be willing to bet he didn't notify Dena in advance that he was going to make an attempt on the record I, for one, would appreciate C2 taking the time to make any new rules they choose to impose (it's their ranking system, and they can do as they like, regardless of my opinion) at least be clear-cut so that we don't have to listen in the future to anything about how C2 favors so-and-so because they got a favorable ruling on a point that the rules didn't nail down in advance.<br /><br />Bill<br />

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » May 8th, 2005, 3:50 pm

Bill,<br /><br />Yes the new "rules" need to be clarified.<br /><br />I agree, and find it quite humorous that Bayko, who has a 6:55 or so 2k is so afraid of me passing him up in the rankings!<br /><br />I'm getting quite a big laugh about that!

[old] ehagberg · Post by **[old] ehagberg** » May 8th, 2005, 5:04 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Bayko @ May 8 2005, 01:25 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Second, only my marathon made the top three anyway which means that the others also fall out of the new standards. And the marathon was done at someone else's house on RowPro with two witnesses present doing their own marathons at the time. That seems reasonably public. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I did a marathon at the end of the 2004 season that ranked second, but as it was done on my home erg, even though on RowPro, it wouldn't have counted if I rowed the same time this year... and I think that's sh**ty.<br /><br />If new rules allowed, for example, video before, during and after (can't fit a marathon on one DV tape) and perhaps required measuring the incline of the erg on video as well (I'm sure there aren't _any_ public ergs that sit on non-level floors), then maybe I could've done enough to allow it to be ranked (it would've made the top 3 last year as well), but it wouldn't have counted at all currently, right?<br /><br />

[old] NavigationHazard · Post by **[old] NavigationHazard** » May 8th, 2005, 5:36 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ehagberg @ May 8 2005, 04:04 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Bayko @ May 8 2005, 01:25 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Second, only my marathon made the top three anyway which means that the others also fall out of the new standards. And the marathon was done at someone else's house on RowPro with two witnesses present doing their own marathons at the time. That seems reasonably public. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I did a marathon at the end of the 2004 season that ranked second, but as it was done on my home erg, even though on RowPro, it wouldn't have counted if I rowed the same time this year... and I think that's sh**ty.<br /><br />If new rules allowed, for example, video before, during and after (can't fit a marathon on one DV tape) and perhaps required measuring the incline of the erg on video as well (I'm sure there aren't _any_ public ergs that sit on non-level floors), then maybe I could've done enough to allow it to be ranked (it would've made the top 3 last year as well), but it wouldn't have counted at all currently, right? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Eric, if you ever feel the urge to have another go at a top 3, let me know and I'll figure out a way to witness it. Maybe I can paddle up the river to Nereid, or you can come down to PRRA, and we can figure something out re ergs. Or maybe we can talk the Peter Sharpe folks into serving as a neutral public venue. Provided it doesn't get in the way of one of the college practices, Tom might be amenable....<br /><br />

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » May 8th, 2005, 6:31 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ehagberg @ May 8 2005, 01:04 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>then maybe I could've done enough to allow it to be ranked (it would've made the top 3 last year as well), but it wouldn't have counted at all currently, right?<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Not unless your name is Bayko, Dennis, or Caviston.

[old] mwardell · Post by **[old] mwardell** » May 9th, 2005, 2:58 am

I'm fairly new to the erg and to this site so you won't be seeing any top 10 entries from me... however, I think the new rules will do little to discourage bogus entries and in fact, will make it that much more difficult to spot the fakers! <br /><br />I would really hate to see serious athletes like Mr. Adams, miss entering a time because he wasn't witnessed. I would prefer to see a requirement for the top contenders to post a "vertified picture" and an email address before they are permitted to make a top 10 entry. I personally never trust the top entries that aren't accompanied by a picture and email... and I doubt the fakers would make the effort to have a photo certified. This wouldn't guarantee an end to bogus entries but I can assure you that if you saw my picture beside a top entry you would know the entry was a fake!

[old] Bayko · Post by **[old] Bayko** » May 9th, 2005, 7:00 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Byron Drachman @ May 8 2005, 05:07 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><br />This is a well-written and persuasive argument. If I am charged with a serious crime, I would want Rick to be on my team of lawyers. <br /><br />However, I still think you want to be careful not to blur the distinction between when we need tight security and when we don’t. Unfortunately, the year-to-year standings don’t compare to the Boston Marathon. One becomes a celebrity by winning the Boston Marathon. There is money involved. Similarly, shoplifting has serious consequences to a business, and I don’t object to security cameras even though I don’t like them. False data on a resume also can have serious consequences, such as cheating someone who did the necessary preparation out of a good job. Stealing and vandalism also have economic consequences. Viruses also have economic impact. Yes, there is serious crime everywhere. <br /><br />Do we really need to “authenticate and verify” posting a top three time in the previously friendly and informal rankings at great inconvenience, especially to those with their own machines?<br /><br />To put it another way, is the slight increase in security of the times posted worth the inconvenience to so many?<br /><br />A cynical definition of progress is the action of trying to correct a mistake with another mistake. Human nature being what it is, people seldom withdraw their initial proposals or ideas. If this goes into effect, there will be modifications to deal with the unintended consequences.<br /><br />Byron <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Thanks for the endorsement Byron, although you would only want me on your team if you were truly innocent. <br /><br />While I understand the sentiments expressed on this thread, I also find that the outrage indicates that it is not quite as friendly and informal as some want think that it is. As I mentioned in another post, we still have our own logbooks, the Nonathlon, the PB threads on the forum, and all but the top three places in the rankings to do exactly as we have always done. Yet C2's attempt to validate even a tiny portion of one aspect of all these things is met with a barrage of criticism.<br /><br />Perhaps it seems like a smaller problem than it is because most of us pay attention to our own age and weight groups and miss what is going on most other places. I know in my own age group that there have been several suspect entries as well as some that were just plain wrong. Dwayne's time were questioned, then Dwayne turned around and demanded that Bill remove entries that he claimed to be impossible. Pornographic fake names have appeared in the rankings and had to be removed. Several times over the years postings have appeared on the forum demanding that Bill look into this or that time in someone's particular age group, because someone else in that same age group has an easier time spotting bogus entries. I also believe (and Bill can correct me if I'm wrong) that Bill has sometimes been inundated with emails about bogus entries that ends up taking too much of his time.<br /><br />That being said, I concur with your statement that <i>"Human nature being what it is, people seldom withdraw their initial proposals or ideas."</i> although I see it from a different angle. Given the vitriol contained in this thread I don't believe that there is anything, no matter how well-reasoned, that C2 could do or say now that would change anyone's mind.<br /><br />I doubt that I'll change anyone's mind either, so I'll drop it here.<br /><br />Rick<br /><br />(Excuse me while I go and be afraid about John Rupp passing me )

[old] Dickie · Post by **[old] Dickie** » May 9th, 2005, 7:13 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Bayko @ May 8 2005, 01:25 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ May 8 2005, 03:30 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Bayko @ May 8 2005, 04:25 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I'm on the side of C2 here, even knowing that it will make things tougher for some, including me hopefully.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />In that case your marathon and other times from last year, except 2k, should be removed as they weren't done on public machines.<br /><br />On the other hand you are fortunate there are plenty of c2's in public places where you live. This brings up the question why you didn't do your other marks on public machines and, rather, did them at home. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Thanks for helping me to prove my point that people are not thinking these things through. First, the rule was not in effect last year and therefore I should not have to remove my times any more than anyone else should. Second, only my marathon made the top three anyway which means that the others also fall out of the new standards. And the marathon was done at someone else's house on RowPro with two witnesses present doing their own marathons at the time. That seems reasonably public.<br /><br />You of all people should have an appreciation for what C2 is trying to do after seeing the reaction to your April Fools joke. Despite your roundabout way of telling people that you were joking at the end of your post, nearly everyone believed it to be true for no other reason than that you had posted it. To your credit you didn't rank it or even put it into you PATT, yet the belief lives on with many that you actually did it!<br /><br />Another example was a fantastic 50-59 lwt marathon that was accepted on face value. After a couple of weeks when Roy Brooks questioned the "2:33:00" marathoner the guy told him that he actually took four breaks of about 4 minutes each and that his time from start to finish was 2:49:00+. Yet he posted 2:33:00+. I tend to remain skeptical even of that, since it would still mean 5 X 8km at a faster pace each than anything the guy had posted before. But maybe that's just me.<br /><br />And finally, rarely does a day goes by on the forum in which there is some posting to the effect that "after all, it's all about competing against ourselves." And there is general agreement. Nothing in the new policy affects that. We still have our own logbooks. We still have the Nonathlon. We all still have the "New PB" threads on the USA and UK forums. And we still have all but the top three worldwide times in the rankings. That seems to be ample opportunity to get the word out to our peers and to stay motivated. But again, maybe that's just me.<br /><br />Rick <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />You, also, may not be thinking this through. As has been stated, this new rule applies to entries that would fall into the top 3 from the previous year. If the Dwayne's, Carla's and other top rowers of the world do not enter their top times this year because thay can not conform to the new rules, then next years top times will be from #4, 5 and 6. so in the 2007 ranking year the Dwayne's and Carla's will still be faster than the new times and rowers 4, 5 and 6 will now occupy the first 3 spots and will be subject to the new rules, then next year it will be 7, 8 and 9. Soon there may be a few categories where no one can enter a time that is not subject to the new rules., and all the while we are missing out on the top times with which we compare ourselves. <br /><br />I still think you are missing the point. The yearly ranking has never been about 'World Records'. As we saw last year, Dwayne was denied his record because it was not set according to the rules but it was still posted in the rankings, where it should be. You ofter hear of athletes who have broken the record in training, it adds to the hype when thay are in competition. The yearly ranking has always been about training, you can rank your training pieces right from your daily training logbook.<br /><br />Some of the posts here argue that all legitimate sports apply rules to thier record breakers and that to be legitimate, indoor rowing must also. I would argue that we do place rules on our record breakers just like every other sport (ask Dwayne about this), but unlike every other sport C2 also provides a mechanism for the lowliest erger to post their best times and rank them among the best , at least they could rank their times among the best up through the 2005 season, that may no longer be true.

[old] ehagberg · Post by **[old] ehagberg** » May 9th, 2005, 7:21 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Bayko @ May 9 2005, 07:00 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Perhaps it seems like a smaller problem than it is because most of us pay attention to our own age and weight groups and miss what is going on most other places. I know in my own age group that there have been several suspect entries as well as some that were just plain wrong. Dwayne's time were questioned, then Dwayne turned around and demanded that Bill remove entries that he claimed to be impossible. Pornographic fake names have appeared in the rankings and had to be removed. Several times over the years postings have appeared on the forum demanding that Bill look into this or that time in someone's particular age group, because someone else in that same age group has an easier time spotting bogus entries. I also believe (and Bill can correct me if I'm wrong) that Bill has sometimes been inundated with emails about bogus entries that ends up taking too much of his time. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />And by forcing people to notify C2 of their intent and then having to manually verify every time/distance that's within the top 3 for every age/weight/gender/distance they will spend less time?<br /><br />I think they may be asking for more emails than they've had to deal with in the past.

[old] bhutz · Post by **[old] bhutz** » May 9th, 2005, 7:57 am

2 comments on this.<br /><br />First, I understand what concept2 is trying to do in ensuring the validitity of the top 3 spots and I think this is a reasonable sentiment. However, the problem I see is that the new requirements to be able to submit a top 3 time do almost nothing to prevent false times. I see two scenarios for a false time.<br /> 1) Accidentally enter a false time. In this case the code system from C2 is certainly enough to catch these mistakes.<br /> 2) Actively lying. In this case, the perpetrator could just notify C2 that they will attempt a time and then lie about the time/witness/public machine anyway.<br /><br />In other words, I see no added benefit only more hassle with these new requirements.<br /><br />Second, that added hassle I think will cause fewer people to enter top times. For example, looking back at the 2005 times, I would either be in the top 3 or close to it in several of the distances. Under the new system, as Dwayne mentioned, I would simply not enter my times as I would have to adjust my training to accomplish a "valid" time. While I am willing to do that for a 2k race, I'm not willing to do that for a 1k or 30min test, etc. (I should note here that I typically do not enter my times at all.)<br /><br /><br />In an effort to not just criticize, I put my support with some of the ideas already expressed in this thread.<br /><br />I think the verified/not-verified flag has merit. With the verified only being possible under similar conditions to world record times. ie. lightweights really have to be at weight! and there must a C2 witness(not just a random witness). Then leave the verification code in place to deal with the accidental times.<br /><br /> Ben

[old] Gill2005 · Post by **[old] Gill2005** » May 9th, 2005, 8:39 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(c2bill @ May 5 2005, 06:48 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>many of you have already seen this announcement (which appears to anyone who ranks any sort of piece in the ranking) - however I wanted to also be sure to post it here.<br /><br />The ranking has for years operated purely on an honor system - by and large i think this has worked well.<br /><br />in any sport, however, top athletes can expect to be held to a higher standard and endure more scrutiny. This is true in the sport of indoor rowing as well.<br /><br />To that end this is the notice that now appears for ranked results:<br /><br /><b><br />IMPORTANT NOTE:</b> New for the 2006 season, to enter a time that qualifies for a top 3 spot in your event, you MUST notify Concept2 PRIOR to rowing and entering the time. Concept2 will require you to row on a public machine and have a witness that can verify the time. <br /><br />**This applies only to top 3 spots (as determined by measuring against the 2005 rankings) <br /><br />**To enter a top 10 result a new code is required for the 2006 season- this may be obtained by emailing denah@concept2.com <br /><br />**Race results are exempt from this requirement <br /> </td></tr></table><br />

[old] Gill2005 · Post by **[old] Gill2005** » May 9th, 2005, 8:40 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Gill2005 @ May 9 2005, 01:39 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(c2bill @ May 5 2005, 06:48 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>many of you have already seen this announcement (which appears to anyone who ranks any sort of piece in the ranking) - however I wanted to also be sure to post it here.<br /><br />The ranking has for years operated purely on an honor system - by and large i think this has worked well.<br /><br />in any sport, however, top athletes can expect to be held to a higher standard and endure more scrutiny. This is true in the sport of indoor rowing as well.<br /><br />To that end this is the notice that now appears for ranked results:<br /><br /><b><br />IMPORTANT NOTE:</b> New for the 2006 season, to enter a time that qualifies for a top 3 spot in your event, you MUST notify Concept2 PRIOR to rowing and entering the time. Concept2 will require you to row on a public machine and have a witness that can verify the time. <br /><br />**This applies only to top 3 spots (as determined by measuring against the 2005 rankings) <br /><br />**To enter a top 10 result a new code is required for the 2006 season- this may be obtained by emailing denah@concept2.com <br /><br />**Race results are exempt from this requirement <br /> </td></tr></table> <br /> </td></tr></table><br />

[old] Nancy Franks · Post by **[old] Nancy Franks** » May 9th, 2005, 9:08 am

In my age group (women 70+) only two of us did the half marathon last year and I was the only one doing the marathon. I was also in the top three of 4 other distances (of course there are not many of us in this age group!).<br />I've been rowing on my own machine in my own home since 1996, and no way am I going to row a half or full marathon in public - it's not a pretty sight! <br />I certainly don't mind notifying C2 that I'm going to attempt such, but as the new rules stand, I guess there will be one less 70 year old listed in a lot of the rankings. 2000K is no problem since speed at that distance is not my forte!<br /><br />Nancy

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » May 9th, 2005, 9:29 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Bayko @ May 9 2005, 03:00 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>(Excuse me while I go and be afraid about John Rupp passing me ) <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Rick,<br /><br />Just be careful not to be doing this at altitude, because then you would have to be extra afraid. <br /><br />Cheers!<br /><br />- Paul Smith<br /><br />PS - How can I get on the list of "C2 Preferred Ergers"?

[old] Bayko · Post by **[old] Bayko** » May 9th, 2005, 9:43 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ May 9 2005, 01:29 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Bayko @ May 9 2005, 03:00 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>(Excuse me while I go and be afraid about John Rupp passing me ) <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Rick,<br /><br />Just be careful not to be doing this at altitude, because then you would have to be extra afraid. <br /><br />Cheers!<br /><br />- Paul Smith<br /><br />PS - How can I get on the list of "C2 Preferred Ergers"? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />It is a mystery how you have been excluded . Surely you are as qualified as the three listed! (BTW I don't consider myself to be in the same league as Dennis and Mike, but I'm flattered that John does)<br /><br />Wasn't it a little over a year ago that there were similar predictions of gloom & doom and taking the spontaneity and fun out of the Old Forum if we were made to register? And then the Old Forum was hacked and ruined. How about a little faith in C2, which is often praised as one of the best companies that anyone has dealt with when problems have arisen.<br /><br />Rick<br />

Concept2 Forum

New Requirements For Ranking Pieces

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General