New Requirements For Ranking Pieces

[old] ehagberg · Post by **[old] ehagberg** » May 5th, 2005, 5:19 pm

Maybe the nonathlon can add similar requirements that only officially C2-verified/ranked pieces will be allowed to score more than 1000 points? ;-) Seriously though, a PB is PB, regardless of whether it was rowed on a public machine with witnesses. I don't see how this actually adds value to those pieces other than the fact that perfectly-valid PBs might now be disqualified... better make sure you're pretty good but not _too_ good if you want the piece(s) you rowed at home to get into the rankings!

[old] Sir Pirate · Post by **[old] Sir Pirate** » May 5th, 2005, 5:42 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Dwayne "Lord of the Erg" Adams @ May 5 2005, 08:36 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>To all those interested....my home is now open to anyone that wants to use it. There...now I have a publically accessable machine. </td></tr></table> I tip my hat to you Mr Adams, Quality Reply I don't care, I won't get in the top 3 (Does seem a bit silly though) Dwaynes Hero Sir Pirate

[old] whp4 · Post by **[old] whp4** » May 5th, 2005, 6:25 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(c2bill @ May 5 2005, 08:04 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(PaulS @ May 5 2005, 02:55 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(c2bill @ May 5 2005, 11:25 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> if anything this will make a top spot more valuable and credible than ever before - benefitting the top performers in all events. regards, bill </td></tr></table> Working toward your potential has a benefit, this will be a highly individual pursuit, and in fact may lead to a "top of the rankings" spot for a few. The broad benefit is having a ranking in which a lot of people want to participate, not making the fastest times listed any more "credible". [right] </td></tr></table> remember all - this new regulation applies ONLY to those who row a top three time in a given event. This means that this rule will impact a total of roughly 400 people - not counting 2k race times. This on a base of 28,000 ranking users. By my calculations then this rule impacts about 1.4% of ranking users. -bill </td></tr></table> Bill, it may only directly affect 1.4% of the users (the ones actually entering "top 3" times), but it affects all of the rankings users to the extent that it may deter participation by the real speedsters, and that participation is much of the attraction for some of us, even if we aren't at the top. Frankly, I've seen numerous obvious errors in submitted results (invariably by people who haven't selected the "allow people to email me" option in their profile). For example, during the most recent Holiday Challenge a woman in Montreal put up a couple of 100k rows in the first day or two. I'm pretty sure she didn't really row 100k in 50 minutes! I've seen other people who only logged their pace for a piece, and then made arithmetic mistakes converting it back to a time. No doubt there have been other errors made which didn't result in a time that looked like a new world record, and so went unnoticed. I haven't seen any results which were obvious attempts to deceive. And is the insistence on "public" ergs due to a fear that people are modifying their machines in some fashion for record attempts? Has there been a problem with this? How do we know that the "public" erg in the back room of some fitness center hasn't been tampered with by any of the large number of people who are authorized to use it? You guys are missing out on an obvious marketing angle here - record pieces must be done on ergs newly purchased from the factory! Maybe Dwayne can negotiate a volume discount Bill

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

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>IMPORTANT NOTE: 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. </td></tr></table> I was in first place for a very short time last year in the marathon (lightweight men 60-69.) I based my effort entirely on beating the times of the other two people who had posted times. Later, I got knocked down to fourth place, but I think I could do a much better marathon and perhaps move up in the standings. However, I have no interest in notifying anybody that I am going to attempt a better time, and since I now own a C2 I don't care to spend money at a public gym or fitness center just to move up possibly to third place in the rankings. I thought it was all for fun and I liked the honor system and low-key approach to the standings. My suggestion: Do a poll and see how many would prefer the old method to your new methods. Byron

[old] michaelb · Post by **[old] michaelb** » May 5th, 2005, 8:51 pm

There have been controversies over the years, so I understand why C2 would want to make changes. I think it makes sense to make changes that encourage the sport of indoor rowing. I think it would be great to count results on rowpro and/or erow. They are done in "public" and with advance notice and in competition. So if there is anyway to validate those results that would eliminate many complaints that people say these can't be done at home. It would also help expand racing online, which is perfect for doing all of the funky, non2k distances, anyway. Also, the rankings are generally pretty casual, and people seem to want to keep them that way. But I think the world rankings could be expanded a lot. There has been regular disagreement on the forum if there really are "world rankings" for a lot of distances. If C2 worked to develop that more, more people would row them hard, more entries would be made, and the times would come down in all the distances. Since world records are so hard and so rare, I don't think they should go away each year as season best rows (if I was one of the top rowers in the world, I have a hard time believing I would care where one of my training rows stood in the rankings at the end of the year). So have a section that lists the 5 fastest times of all time for each distance, age, weight category. Give people some incentive to get on the list (only your top row in that distance can be listed). Require these top 5 rows to be witnessed or raced, or rowed online. In 10 years, we won't argue about how fast someone could really go for a 500m, or a marathon, since we would have lots people making serious race attempts at various distances. Ok, people here can argue about anything, but I think it would still be worth trying.

[old] seat5 · Post by **[old] seat5** » May 5th, 2005, 9:02 pm

Oh, nuts! I almost always row at midnight. That's when I have time to do it, and meals digested and out of the way--and usually everyone in the house asleep. Almost all my PBs have been at that time. Most of them end up in the top few spots in the rankings. Frequently, when I send in the results to Dena, I add a digital photo of the PM2 which shows the result. Wouldn't this be as good as witness? About half the time I know I'm going to pull a good time and have a plan. The other times I intend to take it easy, but the horses want to run, and I end up with a top ranking time. I am sure that having to line up witnesses would not help my performance one bit--some people respond to that by out doing themselves, others, like myself, get psyched out by it.

[old] cynthia · Post by **[old] cynthia** » May 5th, 2005, 9:17 pm

Hmm.... we could look at the prior notice requirement the other way..... I think I may find it to be more like a race, my competitive nature would take over and I may have a better result for it. I don't know what to say about the public venue issue. All of my erg work is done at the rowing club so that is not a difficulty for me. I usually do my workouts with at least one or two other people so finding a witness would not be difficult. Cynthia

[old] seat5 · Post by **[old] seat5** » May 5th, 2005, 9:22 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>we could look at the prior notice requirement the other way..... I think I may find it to be more like a race, my competitive nature would take over and I may have a better result for it. </td></tr></table> wish I was like that...anyway, there's nothing stopping anyone right now from announcing their intentions to everyone if they want to. I have done that on a very few occasions where I wanted to give myself "no way out" on a goal. But I don't think I'd care for a steady diet of it!

[old] Byron Drachman · Post by **[old] Byron Drachman** » May 5th, 2005, 9:23 pm

Another problem with the new method: it says a witness must verify the time submitted. It is not explicitly stated, but the implication is that the submitter is dishonest and would submit a false time, and that by requiring a witness the dishonest submitter is less likely to submit a false time. I suspect that is really what is annoying about the new method—the assumed dishonesty of someone submitting a ranking. I’ve never liked loyalty oaths, or extra documents swearing that the previous documents to which I affixed my signature were truthful. Similarly, I don't like the idea of needing a witness to verify I didn't cheat. Byron

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » May 5th, 2005, 9:25 pm

There is a "Source" column in the rankings that is not used very much, or else reads the same display most of the time. Currently the column displays one of two things: IND = time entered by individual RACE = race time entered by C2 or RowPro In line with previous suggestions, a few more options could be added, then the options can be made searchable by the options selected, and the selected options kept from thereon as default. For example: IND = time entered by individual RP = time entered by individual from RowPro RACE = race time entered by C2 VER = verified time entered by individual SLI = slide time regardless of how entered Now all times are still on the same page, but have the OPTION to be preselected on a permanent basis for all subsequent searches. For example, rowers could select: IND (only) or RP, RACE, and VER or SLI only or ALL or.... etc etc etc. Then the search will display only times from the source categories that were preselected by the person doing the search.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » May 5th, 2005, 9:28 pm

Byron, I agree with you totally. Also if someone was going to cheat, they could probably find a number of friends in a coffee house somewhere to "witness" their row, without even being near a rowing machine, i.e. "The Coffee House Rowing Club".

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » May 5th, 2005, 9:39 pm

Cynthia, It is certainly a great BENEFIT to be able to pop into a rowing club and have immediate competition, as well as convenient witnesses. I always do much better with competition. In running, I did marathons at the speed I could only do 1/2 of in practice. Likewise I did 10k's at my 5k practice speeds. I'm sure it would be much the same on the erg. And it would be interesting to train with other rowers now and then. Sure that would be great. The point is that a very small percentage of erg owners have that type of convenience and access. Come to think of it, I could call my garage the JOHN RUPP ROWING CLUB, and invite my neighbors to join me, giving this access to the public (membership required). Of course most of the time (like most rowing clubs) the venue would be empty, or I might be rowing there by myself. Other times, when I do a PB, a witness might be found, from the vast membership of the JRRC.

[old] Stevo · Post by **[old] Stevo** » May 5th, 2005, 10:04 pm

Everyone knows who the top three (10?) in each event will be...these people will most likely not be the kind of athletes to cheat for the sake of a name on a website. I am currently No.1 ranked in Mens Heavyweight 30-39yrs 500m and 1000m and 5th in the 2000m...but l didn't know I was going to be prior (only 15 people in my division have ranked times in these at the moment) so I couldn't have had witnesses and subsequently have not notified C2. If they remove my time I don't really care (I already have screenshots for history sake!). The real glory is in the actual events (of which I have been to none) - I see the rankings as a casual form of motivation only. Steve PS. I am hoping to hold onto these places for at least three days, until the 200 people who were in front of me last season crank up again! My times just aren't that good!!!

[old] andyArvid · Post by **[old] andyArvid** » May 5th, 2005, 10:31 pm

I hate to go against the grain but I am with C2Bill on this one. My personal bests are just that personal. If I lie and cheat, I am just cheating one person: me. But for World Records (or top rankings), there should be a standard. I do believe that one should be able to post any time rowed just that they should be considered unvalidated and be clearly marked in the rankings. Or equivalently mark the times that follow the rules as verified. Most of the complaints are about the inconvenience of the rules. Well, too bad. For me the nearest publicly accessible erg is probably 1600km away in Sao Paulo and at least a $200 flight. Sometimes posterity costs something. Or feel they have been dishonored by the need for a witness. Well, you need a witness to get married, did you feel that your love for your spouse was dishonored? The rules posted are certainly weaker than the rules for any sport I can think of. Just think, the rules for qualifying for the Boston marathon are tougher. As long as there are no standards, the sport will continue to have arguments about its records. Everytime one is posted here, invariably someone posts that they know of someone who went faster. These are World Records, not world recollections. Perhaps this will elevate the status of the Rankings and encourage more speedsters to post times because they are competing against a time that means something. cheers, andy

[old] Debra · Post by **[old] Debra** » May 5th, 2005, 10:33 pm

Well, this certainly is a very interesting topic! I have to agree with both 'sides' of the argument for different reasons. I do agree with C2 for implementing this new system. With membership in the indoor rowing community growing so rapidly, there has to be a point when it can be considered credible. If this sport if ever to be taken really seriously it is necessary to move towards this implementation. As far as I know this is the only sport that allows people to claim 'world ranking' times/distances based on training they have done on their own. I believe that most sports do not consider training times when posting rankings. For example let's look at a runner out for a training run. They are feeling great and end up running a really great time let's say for a 10k that would put them into 'world ranking.' Do you think that if they called up their coach or governing body and told them this that it would be put into the rankings? I understand that a lot of people may do their 'PB's' on a training day and at home, but if you're really that good (top 3) then obviously there wouldn't be any trouble for you at all to repeat that performance under 'verifiable' conditions. This new system by C2 would eliminate any doubt about times/distances which, as the rankings have been thus far, leave a lot of room for. On the other side of the argument, I have to say that yes, it is a lot of fun to post whenever you get a new PB. I think that for most people nothing will change for them. In the past I have been involved with posting times/distances, and have been close to the top a few times. I don't see how this new system will change how I train. If I happen to get a great time (which hopefully will be in the next few months!) then I will make arrangements to do the piece again under verifiable conditions. It would be the same as if I were a runner again and ran a fantastic 400m sprint in training. I'd have to do it again for it to count wouldn't I? For the people who are ranking at the top 3, just think of this as a real sport now. Compare it to another sport you may have participated in in the past (or on-water rowing.) Were you able to 'post' your training times as part of a ranking system without verification from anyone? Okay, I've babbled on enough and I think I've made my point. Something for C2 to consider I think is the definition of a 'public rowing machine' and definition of who is eligible to verifiy time/distances. As strict as these new rules seem, they seem to still leave a lot flexibilty. Debra

Concept2 Forum

New Requirements For Ranking Pieces

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General