Pb's Within Pb's

[[old] rspenger]

<!--QuoteBegin-Sir Pirate+Oct 3 2005, 02:25 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Sir Pirate @ Oct 3 2005, 02:25 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--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 <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Actually, after I sent that message, I mulled it over a bit and realized that there was a flaw in my logic. If the 20' piece included a slow middle segment, say about 2.5 k, sandwiched in between two much faster sections of about 1 k each, it could have the same 20' results, but not include a contiguous, fast 2k. After that occurred to me, I checked out my brand new PM3 for the 4 min split times, but with ambiguous results. The first two 4' splits strongly suggest that the first 2k was faster, but there is no proof positive. A sudden slow down at the beginning of the ninth minute would have nullified the faster 2k and would not necessarily show up in that third split. All the more reason, of course, for not trying to rank the 2k. In any case, the encouragement I got from the overall result was the most important factor for me.<br /><br />regards,<br /><br />Bob S.

[[old] NightRower]

I would not count them towards a PB. I may consider them an "unofficial" PB but would not count them in the online log, total meters rowed etc. It is hard to get an exact time, when I am rowing anyways. I am usually so winded, with trying to attain a PB that I try to watch the time roll by and see how I am doing, but usually am only within a few seconds of it when I see the time (if that makes sense). <br /><br />Bottom line, I think that if you want to count a PB "officially" it should be rowed as one piece. That being said, I agree that if you know where you are at a given point in whatever distance you are rowing, that can give you guidance for the next time you try to break that PB.<br /><br />I rank my fastest times, which are therefore my best times at a given distance/time. I have not been rowing long enough (only my second season) to encounter starting a season with worse times than the previous one. If I did not break my best ever whatever time in a season, would I rank anything at all? If I did and someone looked at saw that my quoted times on my signature are better than my ranked times, would they assume I am a liar? Interesting hypothetical (again, assuming someone is watching that close which I doubt). <br /><br />My 2 cents!<br /><br />Darren

[[old] bmoore]

My 5k PB is (temporarily) faster than my ranked PB. (I realize this isn't the same as a PB within a longer piece). My 5k PB is based on a handicap race with a 35 second delayed start, but I didn't rank it because I only want to rank complete pieces from RowPro.<br /><br />The PB is almost 30 seconds faster than the ranked piece. I'll continue to use the faster time as my PB for handicapping, since using the slower time would be sandbagging.<br /><br />I fully expect to row a complete 5k PB in 2 weeks when we actually race a straight 5k without any HC delay and will rank it at that time.

[[old] Bayko]

A bit of ancient history from track & field:<br /><br />On 23August1923 Finland's Paavo Nurmi got official World Records for both the 1500m and One Mile in the same race. (From the book Runners & Races: 1500m/Mile published by Track & Field News Press)<br /><br />On 15September1951 Emil Zatopek ran official World Records for 10 miles, 20 kilometers, and One Hour in the same race.<br /><br />As if that wasn't enough, two weeks later on 29September1951 Zatopek bettered all three World Records at another meet in a different city.<br /><br />On 26October1952 Zatopek nabbed the World Records at 15 miles, 25 kilometers, and 30 kilometers in the same race.<br /><br />And on 29October1955 Zatopek took a final shot at bettering the 15 mile and 25 kilometer records at the same meet and was successful. It was noted in the book Zatopek, Zatopek, Zatopek by Bob Phillips (2002) that those last records stood for 10 years until they were beaten by Brit Ron Hill. And I seem to recall that Hill also did so in the same single race.<br /><br /><br />If it is good enough for those World Records, I see no reason me for little ol' me to deny myself mere PB's as long as I'm careful enough to record things properly. In actual fact, I haven't been able to do this for the past three and a half years (since doing an erg half-marathon best enroute to a full marathon). I've sufficiently tested myself to the point where attempting a PB at a shorter distance within a longer PB attempt would cause fly & die, and failure.<br /><br />This doesn't mean that I don't respect those who choose to have even higher standards for themselves. It only means that I feel ethically at peace doing it myself if the situation presented itself.<br /><br />Rick

[[old] dadams]

Up until I read Rick's comments, I was leaning toward not doing pb's within pb's. But if the world will recognize them, then I don't see an issue with it. To bad I can't go back and change my vote.

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-Bayko+Oct 3 2005, 07:51 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Bayko @ Oct 3 2005, 07:51 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This doesn't mean that I don't respect those who choose to have even higher standards for themselves.<br />Rick <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Higher standards than for Official World Records in Track and Field? Methinks that is just a bit too high on ones own high horse. <br /><br />Though I do like Freds point about it being a "rankable piece" on it's own, but John came up with a reasonable solution so the overall total could be kept accurate.<br /><br />To rank both the 5k that was within the 6k, another 5k must be covered that is not put in the log to keep the accounting straight. The honor system applies of course.

[[old] bmoore]

<!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+Oct 3 2005, 11:34 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Oct 3 2005, 11:34 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...John came up with a reasonable solution...[right] <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Who are you and what did you do with Paul Smith? Or is this the "other" Paul S?

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-bmoore+Oct 3 2005, 09:52 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(bmoore @ Oct 3 2005, 09:52 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+Oct 3 2005, 11:34 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Oct 3 2005, 11:34 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...John came up with a reasonable solution...[right] <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Who are you and what did you do with Paul Smith? Or is this the "other" Paul S? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />The original PaulS; There have been a few times that John has come down on the side of lucidity, and I do my best to make public note of those times. I'm not "anti-JR", I'm "Pro-reality", but I also recognize how closely those may align to create the impression of the former.

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-neilb+Oct 3 2005, 01:03 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(neilb @ Oct 3 2005, 01:03 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->is this because I have not done 5k (which I have), because I have done more than 5k or because 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.) </td></tr></table><br />Excellent point.<br /><br />Everyone, even when you set 5000m on the monitor, ends up doing more than a 5k.<br /><br />It might be 5011 or 5017 or 5022 but it's definitely more than a 5k, even though that's where the time stops.<br /><br />Thus based on SP's theory, no one can have a 5k or any other PB!<br /><br />Because everyone, even if they are aiming specifically for a 5k, is actually ending up doing more than, and not exactly, what they were aiming for when they started.

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-bmoore+Oct 3 2005, 09:52 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(bmoore @ Oct 3 2005, 09:52 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+Oct 3 2005, 11:34 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Oct 3 2005, 11:34 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...John came up with a reasonable solution...[right] <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Who are you and what did you do with Paul Smith? Or is this the "other" Paul S? <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I am wondering the same thing.

[[old] Sir Pirate]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Oct 3 2005, 05:08 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Oct 3 2005, 05:08 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Everyone, even when you set 5000m on the monitor, ends up doing more than a 5k.<br /><br />It might be 5011 or 5017 or 5022 but it's definitely more than a 5k, even though that's where the time stops.[right] <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />John. educate me on this point that you have made above!! Explain!!<br /><br />Sir Pirate

[[old] DavidA]

I voted yes.<br />A PB (personal best) is the most meters you have rowed in specific time, or the fastest time in which you have rowed a specific distance. (I personally have never done x meters in such a fast time previously, so this is my personal fastest time for that distance.) A PB has to be rowed from a standing start, so you can't pick the last, or middle parts of a row, but the beginning of the row is perfectly acceptable.<br />Now if you are able to set a new PB for a shorter distance while on your way to a PB for a longer distance I think that it indicates you could probably improve your PB at the shorter distance if you just were to try for the shorter distance.<br /><br />David<br />

[[old] slo_boat]

I haven't read the rest of the thread yet. I'll be interested to see how my opinion compares.<br /><br />I'm sure this will produce some arguments. Part of the reason for this is that "indoor rowing" is still finding its way as a sport and people play games with semantics.<br /><br />If a personal best is simply an individual's best ever effort, then whatever an individual chooses to measure seems to be appropriate. However, with the introduction of comparisons, then there seems to be some sort of requirement for consistency. This is especially so if the rankings are going to be promoted as some sort of record keeping system for the sport and not merely as a useful tool for tracking individual progress. <br /><br />For the rankings to be valid, they need to be based on an event and should meet the same standards as contests held in other sporting fields. That suggests a deliberate and predetermined event and everything that implies. If that is the framework, then a fast 5K in the middle of a fast 10K is nice, but it is not something to count. It is not even something to count it was a fast 5K in the middle of a meltdown and a slow 10K. On the other hand, if the 5K is the first part, and the event rules permit, then the event could be considered a concurrent 5K and 10K and that would count.

[[old] dadams]

<!--QuoteBegin-slo_boat+Oct 3 2005, 04:00 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(slo_boat @ Oct 3 2005, 04:00 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I haven't read the rest of the thread yet. I'll be interested to see how my opinion compares.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />See Rick's "Bayko" entry on the sport of running.

[[old] John Rupp]

SP,<br /><br />One way to test this is to set your splits with [ok][m] then row for any even number of minutes, 30:00 or whatever. After rowing, take note of the total meters. Then check your last split. You'll notice your total is around 15 to 25 meters more than the final split distance.<br /><br />The same thing happens if you are doing a time trial for 5k or for any other distance. You are doing an additional 15 to 25 meters after the end of the piece, as the fan is still going and the meters add up for another 6 seconds.