How To Calculate Your Patt Percentages

[[old] Porkchop]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Aug 30 2005, 10:30 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Aug 30 2005, 10:30 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However I find math and similar "sciences" to be boring, a forest for the trees kind of thing, and <u><i><b>don't have much use for them any more</b></i></u>. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />

[[old] John Rupp]

[[old] JimR]

Simple example, big observation ...<br /><br />I'm a 49 year old heavy rower. I sit on a erg and I do a 2K because someone told me that was the "standard" distance. It takes me 30 minutes, reasons don't matter it just does.<br /><br />I tell the rowers I know, some of which I could slap around with ease and they laugh until they wet themselves. They tell me I suck worse than anyone they know! I figure they are just jerking my chain but I do some research and find ...<br />> there is no slower time in the rankings, I might just suck after all<br />> I would get whipped by all the girls (everyone knows only big macho types are rowers right)<br />> I would be the 1 (or 0) percentile, all by myself<br /><br />But I get into this thread and find that because my PATT is 20.3 I am actually not so bad?! If this PATT number had a home as good as the Nonathon or the C2 rankings I would see my PATT sucks just as bad as my time, my ranking and my percentile.<br /><br />So I go away and improve my time to 24 minutes for the 2K and guess what ...<br />> my rower friends are still laughing<br />> I'm still last<br />> all the girls still ask me who's my mamma<br />> my percentile is still 0 or 1<br /><br />But now my PATT is 25.4!!! I don't think I'm feeling better about all this.<br /><br />The point here is that the numbers don't change much and don't accomplish this "self actualization" I might be looking for. If I want to be a rower I have to work at it ... otherwise I find something else to do, maybe something I'm good at. <br /><br />Someone making me think I'm good when I not makes no sense. And it is OK to be slow!<br /><br />JimR

[[old] TomB722]

i assume that was a hypothetical example

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-JimR+Aug 31 2005, 01:26 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(JimR @ Aug 31 2005, 01:26 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Simple example, big observation ...<br /><br />I'm a 49 year old heavy rower. I sit on a erg and I do a 2K because someone told me that was the "standard" distance. It takes me 30 minutes, reasons don't matter it just does.<br /><br />> I would be the 1 (or 0) percentile, all by myself<br /><br />But I get into this thread and find that because my PATT is 20.3 I am actually not so bad?! ....<br /><br />So I go away and improve my time to 24 minutes for the 2K and guess what ...<br /><br />> my percentile is still 0 or 1<br /><br />But now my PATT is 25.4!!! [right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />This is actually a good example of the differences between the ranking percentiles and PATT percentages. In your example, the rower improved by getting 5.1% closer to the WR for that AWG, yet the ranking percentile stayed at 0 (or 1). Thus the ranking percentile showed NO improvement at all, where the PATT percentages showed a 25% improvement in the score.<br /><br />If I understand the intent of your message correctly, it was to say the person remains "a bad rower", even with the improvement.<br /><br />This is a major difference, as the PATT percentages make no distinctions between "good" or "bad" and are simply useful tools that anyone can use to guage their efforts and performances over time. For myself, I am already seeing the benefits of comparing my times with two or three years ago. This gives me more to aim for. Can I reach the same PATT percentages as three years ago and even surpass them? This is where I feel is the greatest value of using them.

[[old] John Rupp]

This thread is quite interesting. I just went through it and read quite a few of the messages again. I might at some point, depending on motivation and time, go through PATT again with the intention of smoothing it out and making it much more easy to use.<br /><br />Some of my objectives might include:<br /><br />1) Using 2k times instead of 500m pace as the base;<br /><br />2) Putting an asterisk by the WR reference points;<br /><br />3) Listing the performers and performances for the reference points, <br />which I think was done on an earlier thread but it will be good to have them all updated in one place;<br /><br />4) Using a single additional number, rather then two or three, for calculation of each of the other nine events;<br /><br />5) Comparing the 4 weight/gender divisions for smoothing the curves from age 35 through 99;<br /><br />6) Coming up with a more descriptive name.<br /><br />It was quite a daunting task to come up with PATT in the first place and took awhile, with all the calcuations being done by hand, i.e. a calculator vs computer. Thus I don't know if anything else will be done to improve it but, if so, these are the things I would like to include.

[[old] medicineman]

John,<br />I think I understand the arithmetic and I want to ask about the interpretation. If I look at the calculations my 2K percentage is about 75.4%. My one (and only, so far) marathon worked out to 76.5%<br /><br />I can see the value of monitoring these numbers as a means of gauging improvement. Is it meaningful that the longer distance value exceeds the shorter?<br /><br />Now, granted I typically go for the long row and not the sprint so I know the 2K number is low. Even so, I still have trouble maintaining a 2:00 minute pace while 2:03 is manageable. On the longer rows I manage 2:07 and can do 2:12 for hours. Maybe it's normal but it seems like a narrow range to operate in between 'barely maintain' and 'row all day'.<br /><br />I hope to get some pointers by observing some live rowers at an upcoming competition.<br /><br />Kim