Pb's Within Pb's

[[old] Dickie]

To me, its not a PB unless it can be ranked, and you can't rank 2 times from the same piece as it would double count meters which would inflate totals for the honor board, Million meter clubs and University ranking. <br /><br />What are we talking about here anyway, any shortcut to a PB is OK. If you can row it then do it and rank it. This is the type of argument I would have expected from the Rupp.

[[old] Coach Gus]

<!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+Oct 2 2005, 04:57 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Oct 2 2005, 04:57 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It would be very difficult, I might even suggest impossible, to find yourself completely alone in having a particular point of view in this forum.  <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I think you can consider as a PB and qualifying as a rankable piece any cumulative time for any distance no matter how it's made up. For example, a 10x500m would count as a 5K when the times are added together. Anybody else with me on this new rule?<br /><br />

[[old] george nz]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Oct 3 2005, 08:54 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Oct 3 2005, 08:54 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-george nz+Oct 1 2005, 04:22 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(george nz @ Oct 1 2005, 04:22 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I agree that from a standing start the first 5k of a 6k for example could be rowed as a fastest 5k to date but to do this you would have to extrapolate the average splits of the monitor wouldn't you? </td></tr></table><br />The monitor shows you the cumulative pace at each split.<br /><br />Press [ok][m] to set your splits on the pm2+.<br /><br />Afterwards, you can get your individual splits, or press [ok][rest] to get the cumulative splits for each distance. <br /><br />The 5k cumulative split will show what your exact time was at the 5k. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />John if you set it to record 500m splits i thought that when you cycled back thru them at the completion it only gave you 500m splits not a cumulative one. so in a 6k you could review each 500m interval but not your average at 5k? Or is there 2 ways as you say by pressing [ok][rest] as I have never read that ...doh you learn something new all the time<br /><br />George<br />

[[old] John Rupp]

George,<br /><br />Yes the monitor gives you each individual 500m split, or for whatever split distance that you set.<br /><br />Pressing [ok][rest] will also give you the cumulative time for each split distance that you set.<br /><br />Pressing [ok][rest] switches back and forth between individual splits and cumulative times.

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-Coach Gus+Oct 2 2005, 08:30 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Coach Gus @ Oct 2 2005, 08:30 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think you can consider as a PB and qualifying as a rankable piece any cumulative time for any distance no matter how it's made up.  For example, a 10x500m would count as a 5K when the times are added together.  Anybody else with me on this new rule? <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I agree -- except you'd need to use the cumulative time.<br /><br />Adding the splits would not give you an accurate total time for the distance.<br />

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-Dickie+Oct 2 2005, 07:10 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Dickie @ Oct 2 2005, 07:10 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->it would double count meters which would inflate totals for the honor board, Million meter clubs and University ranking. [right] </td></tr></table><br />I just subtract any extra ranking piece meters from the total for that day.<br /><br />If the ranking meters exceed the total then I subtract them from a different day.<br /><br />That usually only happens the first week or so of the season though.

[[old] John Rupp]

Or just row another 5k to warm down.

[[old] Coach Gus]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Oct 2 2005, 08:24 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Oct 2 2005, 08:24 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Coach Gus+Oct 2 2005, 08:30 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Coach Gus @ Oct 2 2005, 08:30 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think you can consider as a PB and qualifying as a rankable piece any cumulative time for any distance no matter how it's made up.  For example, a 10x500m would count as a 5K when the times are added together.  Anybody else with me on this new rule? <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I agree [right] <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Damn, Paul is right. (Paul says, "Was there any doubt?")<br />

[[old] Sir Pirate]

<!--QuoteBegin-Coach Gus+Oct 3 2005, 03:30 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Coach Gus @ Oct 3 2005, 03:30 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For example, a 10x500m would count as a 5K when the times are added together.  Anybody else with me on this new rule? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Gus, That is a Rupp'ism. I have never heard anything so ridiculous in my life, talk about ranking false information!!, I would go as far as to call that cheating. <br /><br />Sir Pirate

[[old] Sir Pirate]

<!--QuoteBegin-Coach Gus+Oct 2 2005, 08:30 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Coach Gus @ Oct 2 2005, 08:30 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think you can consider as a PB and qualifying as a rankable piece any cumulative time for any distance no matter how it's made up.[right] <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Well thanks to Gus’s logic I am now a sub 6 rower, I have taken the best of my 500m sprint sessions done over the last few months and added then together. This gives me a new 2K PB time of 5:53.7. <br /><br />Sir Pirate<br />

[[old] John Rupp]

SP,<br /><br />Read it again.<br /><br />Adding the splits would <b>not</b> give you an accurate time for the distance.<br /><br />You'd need to use the cumulative time.<br /><br />The only way to have a cumulative time for 10x 500 meters is to have them be contiguous, i.e. with no rests, or else add all the rest intervals to the times.<br /><br />For example, 10x 500m at 1:30.0 pace with 1:00 rests would be:<br /><br />[10 x 1:30] + [9 x 1:00] = 15:00 + 9:00 = 24:00<br /><br />I have absolutely no problem with you entering 24:00 for your 5k PB, as long as you actually did this, of course. <br />

[[old] rspenger]

I voted that I would never count a segment of a piece as a rankable time (or distance). However, I find that the information is useful to me personally. My best 2k time on my erg here at home has been 8:50.9, which is an average split time of 2:12.7. However, today I did a twenty minute piece of 4549 meters, which comes to a average split time of 2:11.9. Obviously, somewhere in the middle of that 20 minutes, I must have done a better 2k than I had done here before. Is it something to report? Certainly not. I bring it up here just to illustrate my point. Is it useful information to me only? It certainly is. It is very encouraging to know that I was capable of erging for over twice as long as the 2k averaging a slightly higher rate.<br /><br />Bob S.

[[old] neilb]

<!--QuoteBegin-Sir Pirate+Oct 2 2005, 12:05 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Sir Pirate @ Oct 2 2005, 12:05 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-neilb+Oct 2 2005, 04:56 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(neilb @ Oct 2 2005, 04:56 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My 60 min distance shown below was done a few weeks ago when I went to the gym planning to do just a steady 60 min trining session.  I started well and after about 8 mins into the session I decided to push on at the pace and see what happened.  It was a new PB over 60 min.<br /><br />Does it not count because I only decided to go for it as a PB effort 8 mins after I  started?  <br /><br />I think Sir Pirate has spent too long at sea.    <br /><br />Neil <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I think you may of misunderstood what I was trying to say. <br /><br />Sir Pirate <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Sir P<br /><br />No, I understood the point. <br /><br />I was just playing with the notion that if I set off to do 6k and happened to go thru 5k in a PB time but cannot count it (even if time recorded accurately) is this because I have not done 5k (which I have), because I have done more than 5k or beacause I did not stop at 5k (which is probably the case on every 5k PB as you do not stop bang on 5k and would always tend to end up at slightly more.)<br /><br />So, it must be because I did not mean to do it (as no one meaning to do a 5k PB would start off aiming at 6k) hence if I start as say 5k but not planning to do PB but ends up that way is this that different.<br /><br />Top marks Sir P for amusing topic to ponder on over the weekend. <br /><br />Neil<br /><br />p.s. when I started this thread I did not mean to make two contributions so should Concept2 deduct these from my postings history <br /><br /><br />

[[old] Andrew Burrows]

I voted no .

[[old] Sir Pirate]

<!--QuoteBegin-rspenger+Oct 3 2005, 07:35 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(rspenger @ Oct 3 2005, 07:35 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I voted that I would never count a segment of a piece as a rankable time (or distance). However, I find that the information is useful to me personally. My best 2k time on my erg here at home has been 8:50.9, which is an average split time of 2:12.7. However, today I did a twenty minute piece of 4549 meters, which comes to a average split time of 2:11.9. Obviously, somewhere in the middle of that 20 minutes, I must have done a better 2k than I had done here before. Is it something to report? Certainly not. I bring it up here just to illustrate my point. Is it useful information to me only? It certainly is. It is very encouraging to know that I was capable of erging for over twice as long as the 2k averaging a slightly higher rate.<br /><br />Bob S. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Bob. You are spot on fella <br /><br />Sir Pirate