New 30-39 Mens Lwt Marathon Record

[[old] ehagberg]

Apparently there was an indoor marathon rowed at the Austrian Indoor Rowing Champoinships, by Matthias Auer, in a time of 2:32:32.6.<br /><br />I'm amazed there wasn't any mention of it earlier, nor could I find it in the docs at <a href="http://www.rudern.at/kalender/kalender_ ... &jahr=2006" target="_blank">http://www.rudern.at/kalender/kalender_ ... 006</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.concept2.com/sranking03/prof ... ex=3502660" target="_blank">http://www.concept2.com/sranking03/prof ... 660</a><br /><br />Yes, I'm skeptical, even with the C2 "IND_V" the time received.

[[old] ehagberg]

Never mind the skepticism... unless he's really fooled a lot of people, this new story would seem to validate the time:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ka-news.de/sport/news.php4?s ... 0623-4143I" target="_blank">http://www.ka-news.de/sport/news.php4?s ... 43I</a><br /><br />Now I'm just very impressed! Better than 1:48.5 for a whole marathon and as a lightweight!

[[old] John Rupp]

Interesting style.

[[old] Ben Rea]

that guy is a beast! 1:48 for a whole marathon.....i cant even hold that for 2k.....

[[old] mpukita]

<!--quoteo(post=56319:date=Feb 18 2006, 10:33 PM:name=ehagberg)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ehagberg @ Feb 18 2006, 10:33 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Yes, I'm skeptical, even with the C2 "IND_V" the time received.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Why were you skeptical in the first place Eric?<br />

[[old] ehagberg]

<!--quoteo(post=56388:date=Feb 19 2006, 07:47 PM:name=mpukita)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Feb 19 2006, 07:47 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Why were you skeptical in the first place Eric?<br /> </td></tr></table><br />The fact that his time was significantly (more than 5 minutes) faster than anyone in the 30-39 lwt category has ever previously done (well, at least from the 6 or 7 years of ranking data on the C2 site) and he'd never ranked a marathon (or any other time/distance) prior to this one entry.<br /><br />Wouldn't you be surprised, given those bits of data?<br /><br />So I was. Now I'm not.

[[old] mpukita]

<!--quoteo(post=56395:date=Feb 19 2006, 08:33 PM:name=ehagberg)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ehagberg @ Feb 19 2006, 08:33 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--quoteo(post=56388:date=Feb 19 2006, 07:47 PM:name=mpukita)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Feb 19 2006, 07:47 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Why were you skeptical in the first place Eric?<br /> </td></tr></table><br />The fact that his time was significantly (more than 5 minutes) faster than anyone in the 30-39 lwt category has ever previously done (well, at least from the 6 or 7 years of ranking data on the C2 site) and he'd never ranked a marathon (or any other time/distance) prior to this one entry.<br /><br />Wouldn't you be surprised, given those bits of data?<br /><br />So I was. Now I'm not.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Surprised ... yes. Astounded ... yes. "Skeptical", with an IND_V, no.

[[old] ehagberg]

<!--quoteo(post=56397:date=Feb 19 2006, 08:51 PM:name=mpukita)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Feb 19 2006, 08:51 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>"Skeptical", with an IND_V, no.<br /> </td></tr></table><br />You believe everything C2 says?<br /><br />IND_V isn't necessarily a verified PM3 logcard entry; it just means that C2 believed the information sent to them... now if this had been publicized by C2, I might have been more likely to believe it right away, but since it wasn't, I thought that maybe they weren't quite done checking the facts.<br /><br />In fact, this record isn't just for 30-39 lwts, it's an open lightweight record.

[[old] mpukita]

<!--quoteo(post=56399:date=Feb 19 2006, 09:00 PM:name=ehagberg)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ehagberg @ Feb 19 2006, 09:00 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>IND_V isn't necessarily a verified PM3 logcard entry; it just means that C2 believed the information sent to them... now if this had been publicized by C2, I might have been more likely to believe it right away, but since it wasn't, I thought that maybe they weren't quite done checking the facts.<br /><br />In fact, this record isn't just for 30-39 lwts, it's an open lightweight record.<br /> </td></tr></table><br />Eric:<br /><br />I thought the IND_V meant that the racer sent the encrypted code to C2, and they de-encrypted it to confirm the time that was posted was actually the time that the PM3 recorded, and that it was a continuous piece, etc.<br /><br />Do I have this correct?<br /><br />It really has nothing to do with belief in C2, but rather the technology behind the IND_V process.<br /><br />-- Mark

[[old] ehagberg]

<!--quoteo(post=56411:date=Feb 19 2006, 10:38 PM:name=mpukita)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Feb 19 2006, 10:38 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><br />I thought the IND_V meant that the racer sent the encrypted code to C2, and they de-encrypted it to confirm the time that was posted was actually the time that the PM3 recorded, and that it was a continuous piece, etc.<br /><br />Do I have this correct?<br /> </td></tr></table><br />No, it indicates that _either_ the PM3 code was sent or that C2 received information that they felt verified the row (witnesses, etc). Maybe C2 should create another tag ("IND_PM3") to indicate a code-derived verification to alleviate the confusion surrounding the current tag.<br /><!--quoteo(post=56411:date=Feb 19 2006, 10:38 PM:name=mpukita)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Feb 19 2006, 10:38 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>It really has nothing to do with belief in C2, but rather the technology behind the IND_V process.<br /><br />-- Mark<br /> </td></tr></table><br />And since IND_V isn't based on technology in all cases, you are putting your faith in C2 in some cases w/o knowing it.<br /><br />See <a href="http://www.concept2.com/sranking03/rankingfaq.asp" target="_blank">http://www.concept2.com/sranking03/rankingfaq.asp</a> for what used to constitute the only way to get an IND_V status, until the PM3 verification came along (quite recently in fact)... I'm sure that you can still get IND_V in cases where you have no logcard or PM3 available.

[[old] mpukita]

<!--quoteo(post=56413:date=Feb 19 2006, 10:53 PM:name=ehagberg)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ehagberg @ Feb 19 2006, 10:53 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--quoteo(post=56411:date=Feb 19 2006, 10:38 PM:name=mpukita)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Feb 19 2006, 10:38 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><br />I thought the IND_V meant that the racer sent the encrypted code to C2, and they de-encrypted it to confirm the time that was posted was actually the time that the PM3 recorded, and that it was a continuous piece, etc.<br /><br />Do I have this correct?<br /> </td></tr></table><br />No, it indicates that _either_ the PM3 code was sent or that C2 received information that they felt verified the row (witnesses, etc). Maybe C2 should create another tag ("IND_PM3") to indicate a code-derived verification to alleviate the confusion surrounding the current tag.<br /><!--quoteo(post=56411:date=Feb 19 2006, 10:38 PM:name=mpukita)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Feb 19 2006, 10:38 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>It really has nothing to do with belief in C2, but rather the technology behind the IND_V process.<br /><br />-- Mark<br /> </td></tr></table><br />And since IND_V isn't based on technology in all cases, you are putting your faith in C2 in some cases w/o knowing it.<br /><br />See <a href="http://www.concept2.com/sranking03/rankingfaq.asp" target="_blank">http://www.concept2.com/sranking03/rankingfaq.asp</a> for what used to constitute the only way to get an IND_V status, until the PM3 verification came along (quite recently in fact)... I'm sure that you can still get IND_V in cases where you have no logcard or PM3 available.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Interesting ... I thought the IND_V was <b>only </b> based on the PM3 encrypted verification code.<br /><br />

[[old] ancho]

Seeing the background, it doesn't surprise me as much. If such an astonishing achievement is to be expected, than from a German marathon rower. <br />There is lots of long distance and marathon rowing tradition in Germany, and there are many incredible competitions and challenges, i.e. the "blaues Fänchen" on the Rhine:<br />If I am well informed, you have to row stream downwards from Bonn, leave a blue flag on the furthest point you arrive and return in 24 hours. The "Blaue Fahne" (blue flag)-trophy goes to the person who has arrived furthest AND returned within these 24 hours. If you don't arrive to to the starting point in time, you are out, if you arrive too early, you have missplanned!<br />Outstanding endurance and planning required!!

[[old] grams]

I challenge all of you 'IND_V whiners' to do all of the C2 time and distance events using the IND_V system and put up your times instead of questioning others' times. With more posted times the rankings will be more 'real'.<br /><br />I believe the reason that the C2 ranking records can be broken by unknowns is because not everyone in the world posts their times in the C2 rankings. I know I wouldn't have my #1 marathon spot if some other much better than me ladies were to do an INV_V verified marathon and put their time up. Right now there are only 2 2006 entries-mine and one other.<br /><br />I have the top marathon time for my age group on the C2 rankings and have had it for several years. This year I did mine using IND_V, and an extremely thankful that C2 provides this additional feature to make me 'street legal'. I wouldn't have the thrill of wearing my #1 Marathoner t-shirt without the C2 system. <br /><br />From my perspective, the IND_V a great way for us normal ergers to verify our other-than 2000m results without travelling thousands of miles to an event. In point of fact there aren't very many competitions in the world where I could do a marathon with other 60-69 yo ladies. Like none.<br /><br />So before you completely destroy the validity of the system C2 has provided for all of us normal ergers in our respective basements, try coming up with a way for competitions to provide for verifiable times in other than 2000m. Especially longer ones. My fastest marathon time is 3 hours 41 minutes. <br /><br />To do a proper public marathon competition for all age groups you would need a lot of C2 ergs and several days to do it. Then there is the 10,00m, 5,000m, hm etc. RowPro is good if you have the computer and the program, but not everyone does. Any other suggestions? <br /><br />

[[old] mpukita]

<!--quoteo(post=56497:date=Feb 20 2006, 03:24 PM:name=grams)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(grams @ Feb 20 2006, 03:24 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Any other suggestions?<br /> </td></tr></table><br />Eric and I had a civil discussion going on about the IND_V process. If you re-read the posts, you'll see that it's possible to get an IND_V, based on the informnation and links Eric has provided, without having a PM3 verification code. This, in essence, invalidates the validity of using IND_V in the rankings as a tool to verify anything. That's all we were discussing.<br /><br />Or, Eric, did I miss something?<br /><br /><br /><!--quoteo(post=56413:date=Feb 19 2006, 10:53 PM:name=ehagberg)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ehagberg @ Feb 19 2006, 10:53 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Maybe C2 should create another tag ("IND_PM3") to indicate a code-derived verification to alleviate the confusion surrounding the current tag.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />After re-reading this Eric, this seems like a very simple solution to help clarify the process. Maybe we can suggest to C2 that they start this now, or at the beginning of next season, which is right around the corner.<br /><br />There have been so many questions about this recently, C2 might want to consider these categories:<br /><br />IND (simple enough)<br /><br />RACE (at a public venue, with witnesses, times verified by judges/officials etc.)<br /><br />IND_PM3 (PM3 verification only)<br /><br />IND_V (witnesses only)<br /><br />IND_VPM3 (PM3 verification <b>& </b> witness verification)<br /><br />Would these cover all of the possibilities?<br /><br />I added a few since some people were challenging PM3 verified rows because a team could have rowed the piece.<br /><br />The more ways that people can substantiate a great row, even if it's done in their basement or garage, the better it will be for C2, and the sport, IMHO.<br /><br />What do you think?<br /><br />Regards -- Mark<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

[[old] ehagberg]

<!--quoteo(post=56499:date=Feb 20 2006, 03:44 PM:name=mpukita)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Feb 20 2006, 03:44 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>What do you think?<br /> </td></tr></table><br />I think the suggestions are fine. Anything that gets people to rank pieces more regularly would likely make things better, in my opinion.