Watts Per Kilogram

[[old] John Rupp]

A 110 pound woman rowing an 8:02 for the 2k has the same watts output per weight as a 240 pound man who rows 6:00 for the 2k.<br /><br />If both were men then the watts/kg would be the only difference.<br /><br />However in this case has the additional comparison of watts being the same but one is a woman and the other is a man.<br /><br />Which performance do you think is superior?

[[old] malor]

I think the man's performance is probably superior, because strength doesn't increase proportionally with weight. I would vote, but it won't let me since I entered a null vote.

[[old] PaulS]

Which is worth more, 6 pounds of feathers or a pound of gold? <br /><br />Oh, back to the original question: The 6 minute 2k is superior to the 8 minute 2k, Men and women are considerably different (though some may fail to notice this, I don't), and if both were men, it would still be a 2 minute differrence in time to complete 2k, and everyone knows which is a superior performance.<br /><br />Just as a 1000HP dragster and a Vespa will both get you down a 1/4mile stretch, one just does it much faster.<br /><br />Now if both were giving their greatest effort possible, I have far more sympathy for the slower time, as there was longer suffering involved. <br /><br />Life does not involve adjustments for lack of ability, deal with it. <br />

[[old] ebolton]

Looked in the C2 rankings, assuming both were 25 yo and using the default age range that came up in that field, the man's performance would be 9/849 and the woman's 46/117. It's not even close.<br /><br />I don't think watt/kg has any meaning as a metric out of context with age, gender, maybe height.<br /><br />Now if the man were 25 yo and the woman was 75 yo, different result I bet, for this case. Same conclusion though.<br /><br /><br />Ed

[[old] John Rupp]

Ed,<br /><br />Where did you get such results?<br /><br />Presumably you took only men weighing 240 or more pounds, and women weighing 110 pounds or less.<br /><br />I just looked at the rankings though and there is no way to determine weight of 110 or 240 pounds unless by checking each individual profile. Did you do this? If so, could you provide some of the names and times for the 46 women weighing 110 pounds or less who have rowed an 8:02 for the 2k. If not, then I am skeptical that you found 46 women of that weight who have rowed such a time.<br /><br />Even so, it is interesting that some of you think weight, and gender, makes no difference to rowing performance.<br /><br />However, perhaps not everyone has "weighed in" on this issue yet. I'm looking forward to seeing more results and opinions.

[[old] Sirrowsalot]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Feb 26 2005, 11:34 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 26 2005, 11:34 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-ebolton+Feb 26 2005, 06:33 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ebolton @ Feb 26 2005, 06:33 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Looked in the C2 rankings, assuming both were 25 yo and using the default age range that came up in that field, the man's performance would be 9/849 and the woman's 46/117.  It's not even close. </td></tr></table><br />Ed,<br /><br />Based on your ranking results, that would be 10.6% from the top for the man and 39.3% from the top for a woman. However, not many of those, if any, are from a woman as light as 110 pounds. <br /><br />It is interesting that some of you think weight, and gender, makes no difference to rowing performance.<br /><br />However, perhaps not everyone has "weighed in" on this issue yet. I'm looking forward to see more results and opinions. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />In the real world, the 6:00 performance is better--by definition. In the magical world of adjustments, who knows? Why are you only adjusting for the most obvious characteristics like age, weight, and gender? Why not adjust for V02 max, access to training equipment, coaching, mental toughness, etc. Then maybe we'd all be equal! Hooray! And even John Rupp's 7:22 would be a good time! Whoopee! Until we live in that world however, John Rupp remains a huge joke.

[[old] John Rupp]

I just now checked age 25 lightweight women, as you said you did, and found only 3 women out of 10 who have rowed 8:02 or faster.

[[old] John Rupp]

Out of these three women, one weighs 143 pounds (perhaps under 135 for her 2k?), one weighs 130 pounds, and one doesn't have a weight listed but placed 3rd at Birc. Thus her weight should be confirmable and is probably close to 135.<br /><br />Now, after checking these weights, that leaves 0 out of these 10 women who are 110 pounds or less and have bettered 8:02 for a 2k.

[[old] Sirrowsalot]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Feb 26 2005, 11:51 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 26 2005, 11:51 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I just now checked age 25 lightweight women, as you said you did, and found only 3 women out of 10 who have rowed 8:02 or faster. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Here's a quote from Physicist that echoes, in clearer terms, what I just said<br /><br />"For those who use the erg as an end in itself (exclusive indoor rowers) I also see no point in trying to make adjustments. What are you trying to achieve? Of course bigger rowers will do better on average (not because of the weight itself that they carry, but because of the extra strength and height that they have on average.) But why only factor away the obvious physical variables? Why not adjust for genetic limitations on VO2 max? Why not adjust for time available to train and childhood experiences that affected motivation? Adjust for everything and give everyone the same score - would that make people happy? This is sport - most of us will never be the best because we just haven't got the body for it. It's still worthwhile to compete, to try and beat ourselves and others of a similar standard - but I see no point in trying to equate our times with those of naturally superior athletes just because we feel hard done by"

[[old] ebolton]

<!--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-->Ed,<br /><br />Where did you get such results?<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I made screen shots of the setup and the results, but I don't know how to get images in here or if it is possible to do it in-line. If you persist, I'll post them to my own web site and post the URL.<br /><br />Basically, enter 2,000 meters, age 19-29, gender Woman, weight Lightweight, season 2005, city and state blank, country all, source all, adaptive class no disability, and you will find your hypothetical woman would fit between #43 and #44.<br /><br />Ed<br /><br />

[[old] John Rupp]

Ed,<br /><br />Lightweight women are 135 pounds or less.<br /><br />Yes I would like to see where you got 46 women <b>weighing 110 pounds or less</b> who have rowed an 8:02 or faster for the 2k.

[[old] ebolton]

<!--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-->Ed,<br /><br />Lightweight women are 135 pounds or less.<br /><br />Yes I would like to see where you got 46 women weighing 110 pounds or less who have rowed an 8:02 or faster for the 2k. </td></tr></table><br /><br />I never said I did that! I said what I did, and I did what I said. That's it.<br /><br />Could have limited it to just New Hampshire, I suppose. But I didn't do that either.<br /><br />Which means all LWT women, 19-29 yo. Did not break it down further, did not check weights for each one. I don't care enough to do that, since the issue is trivial, and it would be murder with my dialup connection anyway.<br /><br />Ed

[[old] JaapR]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Feb 26 2005, 02:04 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 26 2005, 02:04 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><br />Yes I would like to see where you got 46 women <b>weighing 110 pounds or less</b> who have rowed an 8:02 or faster for the 2k. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Think it's fair to have a HEAVY and LIGHT class, and we don't need a parameter like Watts/Kg to be able to compare the results for more weight classes.<br />Wish there was a HEAVY and LIGHT class for (half) marathon runners. Or do you also have a similar parameter to compare runners John (e.g. bodymass*velocity)? Oh, and cycling up hill deserves also some compensation too.<br /><br />Jaap, 40 yo, 91 kg<br /><br />

[[old] rjw]

Watts Per Kilogram, which is the better performance?<br /><br />As usual John you inbed questions and parameter to serve your perpose.<br /><br />Watts per kilogram: They are both the same.<br /><br />Which is the better performance? I guess it depends on the lense you look through. The 6:00 2k is the better performance. But depending on how you look at it you could argue for either. Which I am sure you will do. Why not give us an age and then there PATT score. How about their ponderal index? or BMI?<br /><br />The bottom line: Why should we care? <br /><br />Raoul

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-JaapR+Feb 26 2005, 12:55 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(JaapR @ Feb 26 2005, 12:55 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Think it's fair to have a HEAVY and LIGHT class, and we don't need a parameter like Watts/Kg to be able to compare the results for more weight classes. </td></tr></table><br />Oh I agree with that and think it would be difficult to do anyway, though Light, Medium (currently light), and Heavy classes would be nice to have.<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-->Wish there was a HEAVY and LIGHT class for (half) marathon runners. Or do you also have a similar parameter to compare runners John (e.g. bodymass*velocity)?<br /> </td></tr></table><br />Runners already carry their own weight. Thus performance for runners is already up to the watts/kg standard.<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-->Oh, and cycling up hill deserves also some compensation too.<br /> </td></tr></table><br />Yes well cyclists carry their own weight up hills too, though I would agree heavier cyclists have a "huge" advantage on the flats.<br />