New Requirements For Ranking Pieces

[[old] seat5]

Carole, we'll just have to have an Unofficial Top 3 thread to compare notes and egg each other on, unless C2 takes on this great idea Dave's got.

[[old] John Hendrie]

I have a few comments/gripes re this subject:<br /><br />1) All this talk about Row Pro is fine but not everyone has Row Pro (being a Mac user I think I cannot even consider it). Limiting ranking entries to Row Pro users seeems to exclude a large percentage of the rowing community.<br /><br />2) As an experiment I tried to "RANK" a 4:00 minute time and got a message that I need to e mail Denah for a code. I then checked the rankings and find that there are no entries for the 60-69 HW males in that category, not surprising if it is so difficult to enter a ranking. I did e mail Denah and will keep you posted on how that works but, if it does, my pitiful 4 minute time will become the tops in the world. World rankings (and attempting to move up) have been a great incentive for me in the past. If it is this difficult to enter a ranking it destroys that incentive<br /><br />john

[[old] holm188]

What will be the next "improvement" of the ranking rules? Random doping tests? There are still a lot of ways to cheat if one really wants.<br /><br />How about having two lists: <br />One as before for people to rank their performence as a tool for knowing where you stand. <br />One based on time done at official C2 races (for say 3 distances 2k, 6k, marathon; 6k & m could be side events on a few ergs for those who want to set a record) and that one would count as "world record".<br /><br />didn't read all the posts, sorry if someone suggested that before.

[[old] ehagberg]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Hendrie+May 8 2005, 10:43 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Hendrie @ May 8 2005, 10:43 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All this talk about Row Pro is fine but not everyone has Row Pro (being a Mac user I think I cannot even consider it). Limiting ranking entries to Row Pro users seeems to exclude a large percentage of the rowing community. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I agree, but it excludes far fewer than the current rules w/o RowPro being acceptable. <br /><br />And what about the lightweight events? Do we need to have our witness(es) also verify seeing us step on a scale prior to rowing, and what type of scale is allowed (again a public one?)? Surely one's at-home scale might be tweaked to read lighter than reality.

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-Bayko+May 8 2005, 04:25 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Bayko @ May 8 2005, 04:25 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm on the side of C2 here, even knowing that it will make things tougher for some, including me hopefully.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />In that case your marathon and other times from last year, except 2k, should be removed as they weren't done on public machines.<br /><br />On the other hand you are fortunate there are plenty of c2's in public places where you live. This brings up the question why you didn't do your other marks on public machines and, rather, did them at home.

[[old] monkey]

On the notification, would we have to wait for a reply from Denah before attempting the row?<br />Quite often its been 7-10 days before I received a reply to emails.<br />How will people know to go ahead?<br /><br />So questions so far unanswered<br /><br />If no public erg available, how then?<br />Doing a marathon isn't normally allowed on publics ergs, how then?<br />Are Concept2 really expecting people to join a public gym/rowing club after spending big money on setting up their own?<br /><br />Will C2 add a note to their sales brochure 'only ranking times under the top three will be accepted if rowed on this machine'<br /><br />I don't think so, do you? <br />

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-ehagberg+May 8 2005, 07:20 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ehagberg @ May 8 2005, 07:20 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And what about the lightweight events? Do we need to have our witness(es) also verify seeing us step on a scale prior to rowing, and what type of scale is allowed (again a public one?)? Surely one's at-home scale might be tweaked to read lighter than reality. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I knew of a weightlifting coach in the 70's who would get his borderline athletes into a weightclass by sticking a piece of gum at the end of the balance while "adjusting" the scale. He did that while an official was standing there watching and didn't have a clue what was going on. I didn't have any problems making weight, and didn't actually see him doing it but a friend on another team told me later on. I didn't agree with him doing it, but it was good to be aware of what was going on. <br /><br />This points out that cheaters are going to cheat even if it is right in front of everyone.<br /><br />Fortunately, there has been no obvious cheating in the rankings, at least not that I know of (leaving the slides issue aside), so hopefully the gum of this issue can be taken off the scales and the playing field can be kept level for everyone, as it has been in the past.<br />

[[old] michaelb]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Hendrie+May 8 2005, 09:43 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Hendrie @ May 8 2005, 09:43 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><br />1) All this talk about Row Pro is fine but not everyone has Row Pro (being a Mac user I think I cannot even consider it). Limiting ranking entries to Row Pro users seeems to exclude a large percentage of the rowing community.<br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I don't think anyone was suggesting that C2 should limit ranking entries to Row Pro. The suggestion is that C2 find a way to have online races with Row Pro qualify. Those races are done "in public" since you would be racing in real time with other rowers from around the world, and have the added credibility of having RP save data on each stroke. Allowing these races to qualify as races would help expand online racing, and seems to me to be the only realistic way to have races over distances like the 10k and the marathons, etc. I don't support tightening the requirements as done by C2, but if they do, they should consider this change.<br /><br />As a fellow mac user, I feel your pain. However, since I think most people with rowing computers have or need a dedicated rowing computer that is set up just for rowing, I would use your mac for everything else, and a get a junk PC (sub $200) for rowing. Particularly as people upgrade computers, there are a lot of older, unused computers out there that meet rowpro's minimum specs.<br />

[[old] Byron Drachman]

<!--QuoteBegin-Bayko+May 8 2005, 07:25 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Bayko @ May 8 2005, 07:25 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm on the side of C2 here, even knowing that it will make things tougher for some, including me hopefully.  Even the higher standards being proposed leaves this sport with the easiest method for ranking oneself amongst worldwide peers.<br /><br />Think of the contradictions being made in some of the arguments against it.  The rankings are public.  Ranking a piece shows a willingness and desire to have one's effort on display.  Yet many are unwilling to publicly show it being done.  The attitude seems to be "I'll do what I want, when I want, and you'll just have to take my word for it."  For the most part, the rankings are actually conducted that way.  We are fortunate for that.  But a top three worldwide ranking?  Why shouldn't there be a higher standard?  If is so easy to achieve that someone can get it at the spur of the moment, totally unplanned, then they are obviously good enough to do it again in public.  Either that, or the performance is so weak compared to the other age-groups that the standard isn't very high to begin with.  (Sorry to be so blunt).  If a top three isn't worthy of a little extra effort then perhaps it isn't a worthy mark to begin with.<br /><br />Another sentiment that I don't think has be thought through enough is that of Navigation Hazard et.al. when he wrote: <i>Having said all this, I don't particularly mind making assaults on top-ranking times in public forums. But I will suggest that C2 seems to be taking some of the spontaneity out of erging -- hey! let's see what I can do at 5k! -- and that's a damned shame.</i>  Come on, you're better than that.  That seems the kind of twisting that Rupp or ranger would do.  What, in the new policy, prevents us from going -- hey! let's see what I can do at 5k!?  the new policy only prevents it from being ranked in the top 3.  Can you imagine any other sport in which the athlete feels good on a particular training day and decides to NOT bother seeing what he can do because it wouldn't be ranked publicly in the top three in the world?  Say a weightlifter who feels strong enough to lift his biggest weight ever, or a pole-vaulter who feel a new PB height on the day, or a swimmer who felt himself tearing throught he water faster than ever?  Of course not.  They would do it, and we would do it because it would then give us confidence that we might be able to repeat it again another time.<br /><br />The question has been raised about our honesty.  Fair question, and I assume that perhaps 99% of the times ranked are honest.  Why would someone rank a time that they didn't do?  Why did Rosie Ruiz run only the last mile of the Boston Marathon and cross the finish line as the first woman?  Why do hackers send viruses and trojan horses to the computers of strangers?  Why do some people shoplift?  Why do some put false information on their resumes?  Why do vandals spray paint public places and break other people's property?  Sometimes they do it simply because it is easy and no one stops them.  As the rankings get bigger so does the lure of messing things up just to be a smart-ass.  Trying to nip that in the bud, at least at the top three doesn't seem unreasonable.<br /><br />Rick <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />This is a well-written and persuasive argument. If I am charged with a serious crime, I would want Rick to be on my team of lawyers. <br /><br />However, I still think you want to be careful not to blur the distinction between when we need tight security and when we don’t. Unfortunately, the year-to-year standings don’t compare to the Boston Marathon. One becomes a celebrity by winning the Boston Marathon. There is money involved. Similarly, shoplifting has serious consequences to a business, and I don’t object to security cameras even though I don’t like them. False data on a resume also can have serious consequences, such as cheating someone who did the necessary preparation out of a good job. Stealing and vandalism also have economic consequences. Viruses also have economic impact. Yes, there is serious crime everywhere. <br /><br />Do we really need to “authenticate and verify” posting a top three time in the previously friendly and informal rankings at great inconvenience, especially to those with their own machines?<br /><br />To put it another way, is the slight increase in security of the times posted worth the inconvenience to so many?<br /><br />A cynical definition of progress is the action of trying to correct a mistake with another mistake. Human nature being what it is, people seldom withdraw their initial proposals or ideas. If this goes into effect, there will be modifications to deal with the unintended consequences.<br /><br />Byron<br />

[[old] VTSkier]

The basic issue that has prompted this new policy is verifiability, yet there are flaws in the policy:<br /><br />1) spontaneous rows excluded<br />2) perceived as questioning honesty<br />3) could be faked by "drinking buddies" type ruse<br />4) very difficult for some to comply with for financial, availability, or schedule reasons<br />5) etc.<br /><br />I have designed and developed a computer security system (the Security System module of Visibility, a software system incorporating over 1300 screens for make-to-order manufacturers), so a more universally acceptable solution comes to mind:<br /><br />What is the only "authority" that actually knows and can verify that a piece was rowed? Not you, your buddies, a witness off the street (eye-witness testimony is quite fallible), or any other person... the erg is the only one that really knows (and in fact it is the erg's testimony that we rank right now).<br /><br />The erg obviously has a timekeeping system as well as a microprocessor. My proposal is to enhance the software in the erg. After a piece is rowed, the rower could press a button and get a "Validate" screen containing encrypted (hashed) data that would positively verify the results in a non-fakeable fashion. The C2 log book system would require NO changes. The ranking function would check the submission for whether or not it needs to be validated. If so, it would display a web page to enter the Validate data. After security checking it, the piece would be ranked.<br /><br />In effect, we'd have the erg "under oath" about a rowed piece...<br /><br />This would satisfy all my objections as well as every one I've seen on this forum. It is scaleable because only top-3 ranked pieces would require it. It requires zero database changes for C2 to either the ranking database OR the log book databases. The Validate data could be concatenated to a separate Validate log on the C2 server.<br /><br />C2Bill, I will email you separately about recommendations concerning the technical details... or should I send them to C2Scott?<br /><br />I don't know if the PM2 monitor is firmware updateable, but I have seen that the PM3 Beta Firmware V88 is now released which indicates that the PM3 is firmware updateable.<br /><br />C2, this could be a good opportunity to sell upgrades to monitors... Obviously from our point of view, the less expensive, the better...<br /><br />Sometimes there's pretty stiff competition for other slots like a head to head competition between two people in say 21st and 22nd place, so allowing Validate to be entered for any ranking might make sense. It could be mandatory for 1-3 and optional for 4-n. It also would allow people to prove "yes, I really got that time!"<br /><br />Regards,<br />Dave

[[old] Fran]

I think the whole idea of scrapping the honour system is an absolute tragedy. I'm a C2 plodder not a speedster and have never had a snowball's chance of getting a top 3 ranking, but that doesn't mean for one moment that I have ever entertained the notion that any of the fastest times were anything other than accurately and honestly entered by the people responsible for setting them.<br /><br />I've always felt that <b>any</b> of the top rakings have been something to aspire to not question the veracity of; and the fact that nothing more than the integrity of individuals has thus far been relied upon for validation has, for me anyway, been a huge part of the charm of this wonderfully encouraging and motivating, global rowing community. It's with enormous regret that I have to say that the creeping cynicism and suspicion, which presumably provided the impetus for formulating the new ranking system, has destroyed that charm in a single sweep.<br /><br />PS: One of the reasons that I scrimped and saved enough money to buy an erg of my own was so that I would (1) be able to enjoy exercising <b>in private</b> in my own home and that (2) would never more have to set foot in our gruesomely crappy local gym. Nothing on earth would persude me to go public/gyming ever again - thusly under the new ranking regime if I was the fastest indoor rower in the whole wide world no-one would ever know! <br />

[[old] Bayko]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+May 8 2005, 03:30 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ May 8 2005, 03:30 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Bayko+May 8 2005, 04:25 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Bayko @ May 8 2005, 04:25 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm on the side of C2 here, even knowing that it will make things tougher for some, including me hopefully.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />In that case your marathon and other times from last year, except 2k, should be removed as they weren't done on public machines.<br /><br />On the other hand you are fortunate there are plenty of c2's in public places where you live. This brings up the question why you didn't do your other marks on public machines and, rather, did them at home. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Thanks for helping me to prove my point that people are not thinking these things through. First, the rule was not in effect last year and therefore I should not have to remove my times any more than anyone else should. Second, only my marathon made the top three anyway which means that the others also fall out of the new standards. And the marathon was done at someone else's house on RowPro with two witnesses present doing their own marathons at the time. That seems reasonably public.<br /><br />You of all people should have an appreciation for what C2 is trying to do after seeing the reaction to your April Fools joke. Despite your roundabout way of telling people that you were joking at the end of your post, nearly everyone believed it to be true for no other reason than that you had posted it. To your credit you didn't rank it or even put it into you PATT, yet the belief lives on with many that you actually did it!<br /><br />Another example was a fantastic 50-59 lwt marathon that was accepted on face value. After a couple of weeks when Roy Brooks questioned the "2:33:00" marathoner the guy told him that he actually took four breaks of about 4 minutes each and that his time from start to finish was 2:49:00+. Yet he posted 2:33:00+. I tend to remain skeptical even of that, since it would still mean 5 X 8km at a faster pace each than anything the guy had posted before. But maybe that's just me.<br /><br />And finally, rarely does a day goes by on the forum in which there is some posting to the effect that "after all, it's all about competing against ourselves." And there is general agreement. Nothing in the new policy affects that. We still have our own logbooks. We still have the Nonathlon. We all still have the "New PB" threads on the USA and UK forums. And we still have all but the top three worldwide times in the rankings. That seems to be ample opportunity to get the word out to our peers and to stay motivated. But again, maybe that's just me.<br /><br />Rick<br />

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-Fran+May 8 2005, 09:24 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Fran @ May 8 2005, 09:24 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's with enormous regret that I have to say that the creeping cynicism and suspicion, which presumably provided the impetus for formulating the new ranking system, has destroyed that charm in a single sweep.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />There's never been any mention of cynicism nor suspicion on the part of c2, and I have not even for one instant thought that any question of people's times, honesty, or integrity was the reason for their "new ruling", though they certainly seem quite willing and accepting of the opportunity to give that impression.

[[old] John Rupp]

Now why does Bayko agree with c2, and then think that HIS times rowed in a garage meet the rules????<br /><br />That is very, very, very strange!<br /><br />This is simply additional evidence for my feeling that c2's rulings were not motivated by any question of people's times, honesty, or integrity.

[[old] whp4]

<!--QuoteBegin-VTSkier+May 8 2005, 05:18 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(VTSkier @ May 8 2005, 05:18 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The basic issue that has prompted this new policy is verifiability [...]<br /><br />What is the only "authority" that actually knows and can verify that a piece was rowed?  Not you, your buddies, a witness off the street (eye-witness testimony is quite fallible), or any other person... the erg is the only one that really knows (and in fact it is the erg's testimony that we rank right now).<br /> </td></tr></table><br />Though in most if not all cases, that testimony is being heard second or third hand...<br /><!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><br />The erg obviously has a timekeeping system as well as a microprocessor.  My proposal is to enhance the software in the erg.  After a piece is rowed, the rower could press a button and get a "Validate" screen containing encrypted (hashed) data that would positively verify the results in a non-fakeable fashion.  The C2 log book system would require NO changes.  The ranking function would check the submission for whether or not it needs to be validated.  If so, it would display a web page to enter the Validate data.  After security checking it, the piece would be ranked.<br /><br />In effect, we'd have the erg "under oath" about a rowed piece...<br /><br />This would satisfy all my objections as well as every one I've seen on this forum.  It is scaleable because only top-3 ranked pieces would require it.  It requires zero database changes for C2 to either the ranking database OR the log book databases.  The Validate data could be concatenated to a separate Validate log on the C2 server.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Okay, time for some objections it wouldn't address:<br /><br />1) you'll need to have the firmware cryptographically signed as well to be sure it hasn't been tampered with to alter the fundamental calculations of work done!<br />2) doesn't provide any protection against the cheater who props up the appropriate end of the erg or otherwise changes the dynamics <br />3) doesn't prove that the new women's lightweight record wasn't actually rowed by her heavyweight boyfriend<br /><br />Points 2 and 3 would be less of an issue if the witness requirement remained, assuming, of course, that one trusted the witnesses, the floor was verified to be level, etc.<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[...]<br />It also would allow people to prove "yes, I really got that time!"[right] <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Or at least something spun the flywheel on my erg in such fashion or otherwise supplied an input signal that the monitor registered this result <br /><br />Bill