Rod Freed

[old] aquaman · Post by **[old] aquaman** » December 9th, 2005, 3:27 pm

a 5k at 2k pace? doesnt that mean that you'd be doing your 2k at 5k pace? the coaches here would not be too pleased with that

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 9th, 2005, 3:33 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(hjs @ Dec 9 2005, 02:40 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>It takes a lot of pure talent to compeet on those events. Offcause you have to train a lot also, but the main thing is youre pure talent. Most people don,t have talent so they stay far away to avoid the confrontation. The choose event's in wich the can train en feel fine. This had nothing to do with real (top)sports. There is nothing wrong in doing this but is't no more than spending your free time. It's no special thing.[right] </td></tr></table> That's exactly the point. People run for 10 seconds because that's all they can do. Rowers compete in a 2k because that's all they can do. It takes talent, hard work and dedication for an age 50+ lightweight to do a half marathon at 1:45 pace, i.e. 2k + 6. Not so many have done that. IT'S NOT EASY! If you want it to be easy then go to some race and row a 2k. Then you will be done in a few minutes. And you don't need to train much for that -- no big deal. Maybe Freed is not inspired by that. People are not inspired to travel around the world for insignificant events, like running for 10 seconds or rowing a few minutes. Anyway the World Record for the marathon is 2:04:55.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » December 9th, 2005, 4:03 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 9 2005, 11:33 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(hjs @ Dec 9 2005, 02:40 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>It takes a lot of pure talent to compeet on those events. Offcause you have to train a lot also, but the main thing is youre pure talent. Most people don,t have talent so they stay far away to avoid the confrontation. The choose event's in wich the can train en feel fine. This had nothing to do with real (top)sports. There is nothing wrong in doing this but is't no more than spending your free time. It's no special thing.[right] </td></tr></table> That's exactly the point. People run for 10 seconds because that's all they can do. Rowers compete in a 2k because that's all they can do. It takes talent, hard work and dedication for an age 50+ lightweight to do a half marathon at 1:45 pace, i.e. 2k + 6. Not so many have done that. IT'S NOT EASY! If you want it to be easy then go to some race and row a 2k. Then you will be done in a few minutes. And you don't need to train much for that -- no big deal. Maybe Freed is not inspired by that. People are not inspired to travel around the world for insignificant events, like running for 10 seconds or rowing a few minutes. Anyway the World Record for the marathon is 2:04:55. </td></tr></table> I'm just posting to preserve this nonsense so it can not be editted away in the future. Summary: Athletes that compete at shorter than marathon distances obviously don't need to train hard. John, you have certainly raised your game to new heights with this epic post.

[old] hjs · Post by **[old] hjs** » December 9th, 2005, 4:54 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 9 2005, 08:33 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(hjs @ Dec 9 2005, 02:40 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>It takes a lot of pure talent to compeet on those events. Offcause you have to train a lot also, but the main thing is youre pure talent. Most people don,t have talent so they stay far away to avoid the confrontation. The choose event's in wich the can train en feel fine. This had nothing to do with real (top)sports. There is nothing wrong in doing this but is't no more than spending your free time. It's no special thing.[right] </td></tr></table> That's exactly the point. People run for 10 seconds because that's all they can do. Rowers compete in a 2k because that's all they can do. It takes talent, hard work and dedication for an age 50+ lightweight to do a half marathon at 1:45 pace, i.e. 2k + 6. Not so many have done that. IT'S NOT EASY! If you want it to be easy then go to some race and row a 2k. Then you will be done in a few minutes. And you don't need to train much for that -- no big deal. Maybe Freed is not inspired by that. People are not inspired to travel around the world for insignificant events, like running for 10 seconds or rowing a few minutes. Anyway the World Record for the marathon is 2:04:55. </td></tr></table> Setting a worldrecord in any sportsevent takes hard work and a lot of talent to achieve. No matter what discipline or distance. And thinking that the longer the distant the harder you should work is a sheer dum idee. No matter what distance you wil have to work hard and clever. And yes a 100 meter sprinter can never be a marathonwinnar and a marathonrunner can never be a 100 m worldrecordholder. No matter how hard they would work on that event. They are simply not build for such an discipline. And only hard work is not enough. There are numerus people who work maybe just as hard as the wr holder in their event but will never even come close in achievements. So hard work is great but whitout a lot of talent it will bring you nowhere John

[old] hjs · Post by **[old] hjs** » December 9th, 2005, 5:00 pm

[ Then you will be done in a few minutes. And you don't need to train much for that -- no big deal. Maybe Freed is not inspired by that. People are not inspired to travel around the world for insignificant events, like running for 10 seconds or rowing a few minutes. Anyway the World Record for the marathon is 2:04:55. [/quote] I'm just posting to preserve this nonsense so it can not be editted away in the future. Summary: Athletes that compete at shorter than marathon distances obviously don't need to train hard. No you know Paul. You train t hard 3 time/week 5 minutes on the erg and you will break the 5.37 on the k. People who row 2 k's are just leazy. John, you have certainly raised your game to new heights with this epic post. [/quote]

[old] TomB722 · Post by **[old] TomB722** » December 9th, 2005, 5:21 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 9 2005, 03:33 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(hjs @ Dec 9 2005, 02:40 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>It takes a lot of pure talent to compeet on those events. Offcause you have to train a lot also, but the main thing is youre pure talent. Most people don,t have talent so they stay far away to avoid the confrontation. The choose event's in wich the can train en feel fine. This had nothing to do with real (top)sports. There is nothing wrong in doing this but is't no more than spending your free time. It's no special thing.[right] </td></tr></table> That's exactly the point. People run for 10 seconds because that's all they can do. Rowers compete in a 2k because that's all they can do. It takes talent, hard work and dedication for an age 50+ lightweight to do a half marathon at 1:45 pace, i.e. 2k + 6. Not so many have done that. IT'S NOT EASY! If you want it to be easy then go to some race and row a 2k. Then you will be done in a few minutes. And you don't need to train much for that -- no big deal. Maybe Freed is not inspired by that. People are not inspired to travel around the world for insignificant events, like running for 10 seconds or rowing a few minutes. Anyway the World Record for the marathon is 2:04:55. </td></tr></table> hahahahahahahahahahaahah i hope thats a joke

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » December 9th, 2005, 5:30 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(hjs @ Dec 9 2005, 01:00 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>No you know Paul. You train t hard 3 time/week 5 minutes on the erg and you will break the 5.37 on the k. People who row 2 k's are just leazy. </td></tr></table> Well actually, it takes more like 6 water days (~60 minutes each) , 3 easy and 2 hard Erg 6k's, and one weight day per week for that. I agree completely with the "laziness" however, my goal was always to get done with the 2k as fast as possible, why make the pain last longer than it has to?

[old] Ralph Earle · Post by **[old] Ralph Earle** » December 10th, 2005, 3:53 pm

To many, Rod Freed’s ranked results look implausible. What can the numbers themselves tell us? I looked at his 30minute meters in 2000, 2001 and 2002. It turns out that if you set aside his results and any less than 6000m, in each year the remaining ranked entries for 50-59 lightweight men are distributed normally, i.e., they fit under the bell curve. Accordingly, given the number of ranked results, one can compute the probability of a score as extreme as Freed’s. Here are the results: Year N* Freed Prob. 2000 40 8634m 1 in 240 2001 40 8703m 1 in 312 2002 60 8767m 1 in 671 * Number of entries in the rankings 6000m or further, excluding Freed’s. Freed’s 2002 total of 8767 is currently recognized by Concept 2 among the “World Records for All Ranking Distances” <a href='http://www.concept2.com/05/training/com ... ds_all.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.concept2.com/05/training/com ... all.asp</a> So in 2000 Freed’s meters were 6 times more unlikely than one would expect by chance – 1 in 240, instead of 1 in 40. In 2001 they were 8 times more unlikely, and in 2002, 11 times more unlikely. No wonder people find them hard to believe. As a cross-check, I applied the same analysis to the world record for 30 minutes for 50-59 heavyweight men, a performance I witnessed. Year N* Record Prob. 2004 469 8771m 1 in 357 This analysis was biased, however, because the distribution of the heavyweights’ totals was not normal; there were too many scores in range of 6500-7000m. This made the standard deviation larger than it would have been if the scores were normally distributed, and that, in turn, makes the probability of a score of 8771m higher than it should be. So I repeated the analysis using the lightweight mens’ standard deviation in 2004. There were 109 lightweight men’s results 6000m or further, and these results were normally distributed. The lightweights’ average was 7260m, compared with the heavyweights’ average of 7222m, so using the lightweights’ standard deviation seemed reasonable. This gave: Year N* Record Prob. 2004 469 8771m 1 in 532 The probability of a result as high as 8771m for the heavyweight men is only 1.1 times higher than expected. Having said all this, however, I should add that in his profile in 2000 Freed wrote: “05/21/99 sent photo of PM in June. witnessed by wife”. So it would appear that Concept2 could verify at least his 2000 total of 8634m, which would make his world record much more believable.

[old] H_2O · Post by **[old] H_2O** » December 11th, 2005, 6:15 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Ralph Earle @ Dec 10 2005, 02:53 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>To many, Rod Freed’s ranked results look implausible. What can the numbers themselves tell us .... </td></tr></table> How did you conduct this analysis? Would not the proper way to approach it be the following: What is the probability that one individual in a population of M individuals can reach a score such as rod freed's. Here M is the number of lightweight participants in his age group. This should increase the probability considerably. The doubts about any submitted score are always based on the belief that no one in the relevant population can do that. If q is the probability that a given individual can pull this score (or better), then 1-(1-q)^M is the probability that at least one individual in a population of M independent individuals can pull that score (or better). Using the approximation (1-q)^M is about 1-Mq if Mq is small we get a probability of Mq instead of q.

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » December 11th, 2005, 10:06 am

I based a normaldistriubtion on the 44 non-Freed on the 6k distance, 50-59 yo lwt. I converted to watts because that's more "normaly distributed" I would guess since it's the power we can deliver, not skewed in a strange manner. With 45 people rowing I got a 3.5 % probability that someone as fast as Freed would rank. If this was increased to 1000 people from the same distribution the probability would be 55%. I also tried making a distribution in the form of two normal distributions added together. My thought was this should represent a trained group of individuals and an untrained group. I used Maximum Likelihood Method to find the parameters and a genetic algorithm to do the searh easily. One of the model parts took the responsibility to describe a pack of rowers around 23:30 and the other one did it's best to look like the distribution I got with just one bell curve. I think this means there were too few samples to conduct this analysis. The curiosities of the specific data hid any underlying information on where the untrained and the trained group would have there mean values. So I could not make a more precise determination of how improbable Freeds result was. I reserve myself for any errors in numbers or logic off course

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » December 11th, 2005, 11:34 am

Perhaps there are just some pretty amazing Endurance athetes out there. I'll stoke this fire a bit. Let's look at 2003 and see what we find, strangely enough there does seem to be a 44 year old Kent Timm that is very similar to the 53 year old Rod Freed, the best part is that they are both lwts, so the comparisons are somewhat 'fair'. First the events where they both did them. I'll just put Avg Paces to make it easy. 5k: T:1:40.2 F:1:40.7 6k: T:1:39.9 F:1:41.4 30min: T:1:42.7 F:1:42.8 10k: T:1:45.1 F:1:43.1 60min: T:1:45.2 F:1:45.1 Timm Only 500: 1:27.5 2k: 1:36.9 Marathon: 1:57.6 Mr. Timm, having ranked times at both ends of the spectrum gives an interesting opportunity to check "Paul's Law" which would predict that a Marathon Pace - 30.8 sec would be a 500m Pace. Mr. Timms Difference = 30.1 seconds... Seems he is what I would call a "Balanced fitness athlete". Freed Only Half Marathon: 1:45.5 So in spite of the 9 years in age difference, and that Mr. Timm seems to be able to produce 2k and 500m performances within reasonable range of what would be predicted, maybe that 9 years only costs strength and not so much endurance. Note: There is a well known quantity that falls in Mr Timms group, and that would be Mike Caviston, who wee see as a 43 41 year old that year, but with a 2k pace of 1:35.4 which is verifiable as a subsequent WR holder (2k @ 1:34.6). Finally it is important to note that Both Timm and Freed reportedly weigh in at precisely 74.55kg, which does not correspond to a direct conversion from 165lbs (74.84kg) or 164lbs (74.39kg), so maybe it's simply a "magic weight" for performance. To be clear, I have no dispute with anyone producing any particular performance, my argument is soley based on the relationship between times. I also recognize that many times in the rankings have nothing to do with absolute maximum capacity of any given athlete, many do, but it is certainly not a ranking requirement for the perfomance to also be a "personal best", as not everyone even tries to go "all out" at every ranking distance, sometimes we just do them for fun, and rank them because it's an option in the logbook.

[old] Ralph Earle · Post by **[old] Ralph Earle** » December 11th, 2005, 2:04 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(H_2O @ Dec 11 2005, 10:15 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Ralph Earle @ Dec 10 2005, 02:53 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>To many, Rod Freed’s ranked results look implausible. What can the numbers themselves tell us .... </td></tr></table> How did you conduct this analysis? Would not the proper way to approach it be the following: What is the probability that one individual in a population of M individuals can reach a score such as rod freed's. Here M is the number of lightweight participants in his age group. This should increase the probability considerably. The doubts about any submitted score are always based on the belief that no one in the relevant population can do that. If q is the probability that a given individual can pull this score (or better), then 1-(1-q)^M is the probability that at least one individual in a population of M independent individuals can pull that score (or better). Using the approximation (1-q)^M is about 1-Mq if Mq is small we get a probability of Mq instead of q. </td></tr></table> That's essentially what I did. For example, in 2000, first I checked to see that the ranked results, without Freed, were normal: Normality Tests Section ------ Skewness Test ------- -------- Kurtosis Test -------- - Omnibus Test - Variable Variable Value Z Prob Value Z Prob K2 Prob Normal? Meters -0.19 -0.49 0.6206 2.74 0.1 0.9231 0.25 0.8806 Yes Then I calculated the mean, standard deviation and t-tscore for Freed's total: Count Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Dev. 32 6045 8206 7176 518.4447 t(8634) = 2.812257508 p(t) = 0.004167556 1 in 240 (N=32) I thought the probability would be easier to understand as "1 in 240" rather than "p=0.00417" or "0.133 rowers in 32".

[old] Ralph Earle · Post by **[old] Ralph Earle** » December 11th, 2005, 2:16 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Carl Henrik @ Dec 11 2005, 02:06 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><snip> I also tried making a distribution in the form of two normal distributions added together. My thought was this should represent a trained group of individuals and an untrained group. I used Maximum Likelihood Method to find the parameters and a genetic algorithm to do the searh easily. One of the model parts took the responsibility to describe a pack of rowers around 23:30 and the other one did it's best to look like the distribution I got with just one bell curve. I think this means there were too few samples to conduct this analysis. The curiosities of the specific data hid any underlying information on where the untrained and the trained group would have there mean values. So I could not make a more precise determination of how improbable Freeds result was. </td></tr></table> I'm not suprised, Carl. In the 1980s I labored mightily to separate two normal distributions (~70% not improved + ~30% improved) using M-L estimation. I found that the means had to differ by two or three standard deviations to disentangle the mixture, when a difference of just one standard deviation would have been a "large" improvement. The unanswerable question underlying any analysis of ranked results is, "How many potential comparable ergers are there?" My odds for Freed's 2000 total (8634m) of 1 in 240 suggests that if 1,000 50-59 lightweights trained for it, we should expect two or three to be even faster than Freed.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 11th, 2005, 2:28 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'>my argument is soley based on the relationship between times </td></tr></table> I don't think that Freed's distance rows are at all impossible for a 50s lwt. In fact, I assume someone will best them--pretty soon. What is bizarre is how slow he is in the 2K, given his distance times. That is, just as you say, what is bizarre is the the _relationship_ between his times: distance times vs. 500m/1K/2K times. His rowing must be a technical disaster: a weak stroke due to poor leverage, or whatever. No top end speed. ranger

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » December 11th, 2005, 6:57 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 11 2005, 11:34 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Mr. Timm, having ranked times at both ends of the spectrum... Seems he is what I would call a "Balanced fitness athlete". </td></tr></table> Not that balanced, really. I see that in the 2003-04-05 seasons Timm lists 2K times 3-6 seconds slower than I was capable of. Yet the 500m, 1K, and 6K times he lists are all faster than I could do in that period. Hmmm… Just about every category has a name or two that seems to be too good to be true. A handful of people active on the forums seem to report some amazing times while training but never seem to make it to a venue race or perform very well if they do. Maybe they are frauds. Maybe they can’t handle the pressure of performing in public. Maybe some of the “lightweights” are being a little generous in their estimations of their body mass. Who really cares? But it seems if the people who care enough about public recognition to rank such fantastic times could really perform so well, they’d go to a public race and really get some respect. Mike Caviston

Concept2 Forum

Rod Freed

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training