New Requirements For Ranking Pieces

[[old] c2bill]

many of you have already seen this announcement (which appears to anyone who ranks any sort of piece in the ranking) - however I wanted to also be sure to post it here.<br /><br />The ranking has for years operated purely on an honor system - by and large i think this has worked well.<br /><br />in any sport, however, top athletes can expect to be held to a higher standard and endure more scrutiny. This is true in the sport of indoor rowing as well.<br /><br />To that end this is the notice that now appears for ranked results:<br /><br /><b><br />IMPORTANT NOTE:</b> 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. <br /><br />**This applies only to top 3 spots (as determined by measuring against the 2005 rankings) <br /><br />**To enter a top 10 result a new code is required for the 2006 season- this may be obtained by emailing denah@concept2.com <br /><br />**Race results are exempt from this requirement

[[old] John Rupp]

I understand the reasoning but, other than for 2k, there are NO public events in most places, and for the majority of the ranking events.<br /><br />A witness might be possible, but what is a "public machine"?<br /><br />Just because a machine is in a gym, doesn't make it or a witness any more credible.<br /><br />The sentiment is fine, but for rankings I think such a requirement is not reasonable.<br /><br />I don't even know anyone else who has or rows on a c2 rowing machine in this town, which is 138,000 people.

[[old] John Rupp]

"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."<br /><br />Here is my notice then, I'm planning to smash all my PB's this coming ranking year.<br /><br />If and when I do any of this, I will let you know.<br /><br />Also, my machine is in my garage, which is public in that it is viewable from anyone going by my house and/or who lives in my neighborhood.

[[old] ehagberg]

The RowPro data and/or a PM3 logcard image wouldn't be enough? If I'm the only person who ever enters my apartment and sits on the erg, the PM3 image should give a pretty good idea of how much training and what kind of training I do and be enough to verify that I'm not just submitting an invalid score...<br /><br />I also agree with John - who is going to be able to set up a "public event" every time they want to row a personal best and rank it? Especially the non-2K pieces.<br /><br />Oh, what about having an RowPro race against a number of people online (that makes it "public" as the output from your machine is visible to those you're racing), and the witnesses are the others you're rowing against?

[[old] whp4]

<!--QuoteBegin-c2bill+May 5 2005, 05:48 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(c2bill @ May 5 2005, 05:48 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->many of you have already seen this announcement (which appears to anyone who ranks any sort of piece in the ranking) - however I wanted to also be sure to post it here.<br /><br />The ranking has for years operated purely on an honor system - by and large i think this has worked well.<br /><br />in any sport, however, top athletes can expect to be held to a higher standard and endure more scrutiny. This is true in the sport of indoor rowing as well.<br /><br />To that end this is the notice that now appears for ranked results:<br /><br /><b><br />IMPORTANT NOTE:</b> 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. <br /><br />**This applies only to top 3 spots (as determined by measuring against the 2005 rankings) <br /><br />**To enter a top 10 result a new code is required for the 2006 season- this may be obtained by emailing denah@concept2.com <br /><br />**Race results are exempt from this requirement <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Questions:<br /><br />What is a public machine?<br /><br />Does the time need to be verified by independent means, or does the witness merely need to say "yes, the PM3 really said XYZ"? Does an online racing result with Rowpro or E-row qualify? If it does, is a local witness needed?<br /><br />What is meant by "notify Concept2"? Do we have to get some positive acknowledgement of our planned effort before rowing the piece? How precisely do the plans need to be spelled out?<br /><br />Are the "Top 3 spots" restricted by gender and weight class? Age group?<br /><br />For some reason, I'm reminded of a Sydney Harris cartoon where a scientific researcher is being told "Due to budgetary cutbacks, management requests that all major breakthroughs be made as early in the week as possible." I have no objection to rules intended to ensure the veracity of submitted results, provided they are clearly and consistently applied, and we don't see good-faith efforts rejected because the rules weren't thought or spelled out carefully enough when promulgated. I would find it undesirable to have the requirements be so onerous that the rankings didn't provide a true picture of achievement because no one with an address out on the toe of the bell curve could be bothered to jump through all the hoops for an official result. I'll never be a contender for the top 3 spots, but I do enjoy seeing the results of those who are, and I doubt many of the top results from last year would have qualified, even without the "prior notification" requirement.<br /><br />Bill

[[old] PaulS]

So is the numbering going to start at "11" (or "4") while in the early season and even relatively slow times are in the top positions and people have yet to "have witnesses"? <br /><br />IMO, this additional "seriousness" goes a long way in the wrong direction, remember the foundations of CRASH-B's that created the ensuing madness that we have today. The institution of more "officialness" seems anathema to the origins of success.<br /><br />Posted times are either "doable" or "ridiculous", and it's pretty obvious which is the case.<br /><br />Was there some form of deception that was going on to inspire this change? I'd not really been looking at the rankings for the last year, but there didn't seem to be much discussion of such a thing in the Forum.<br /><br />

[[old] Steve G]

<!--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-->**This applies only to top 3 spots (as determined by measuring against the 2005 rankings) **To enter a top 10 result a new code is required for the 2006 season- this may be obtained by emailing denah@concept2.com </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />I don't agree with this at all, many PBs are spur of the moment events and just happen. Will LW marks also have to weigh in too, on official calibrated C2 scales, and have it witnessed ? My machine at home is in far better nick than our gym ones, so PBs more likely at home. Can I get Mrs G to witness and Grandaughter Louise <br />Does anybody really care at odd distances any way ?<br />Steve

[[old] c2bill]

i figured that this would generate quite a bit of controvery.<br /><br />1. in response to Mr. Rupp - if your PR's qualify you for one of the top 3 spots in the ranking, then these rules apply to you. If not, then there will be no impact at all on how you enter times in the ranking.<br /><br />2. please remember that these rules only apply to a VERY small minority of users of the ranking. In order to row a top 3 time in the ranking (as compared to 2005 times) you must be very fast indeed.<br /><br />3. It is not a public event - but rather a publically accessible machine.<br /><br />4. if you think that you will be able to row a top 3 time and can not comply with these requirements, there may be other arrangements - this is the reason for the 'prior notice'.<br /><br />-bill

[[old] dadams]

I can agree with C2 on this for the 2k, but not any of the other distances.<br /><br />For example. I'm currently training for Masters Worlds in Edmondton in July. Which means alot of shorter training pieces. If I choose to do a 500 or a 1k to check my progress, and end up setting a pb on a Friday afternoon in my livingroom, are you telling me that it won't count in the rankings?? Seems silly.<br /><br />And since I do fall into that upper percentage of athletes, it really sounds silly.<br /><br />To check my progress on the spur of the moment and have it count, I need to premeditate it, as it were. Come one guys....really.<br /><br />I personally think this should be thought through again. 2k pieces even 5 and 6k pieces sure. Those are world recognized distances in this sport. But a 30 minute pieces?? Or a half marathon??? Or even the 4 minute ranking??? Are you serious??<br /><br />My two cents.<br /><br />Dwayne

[[old] DavidA]

I didn't realize there was really a problem with the former method for the rankings.<br />For the vast majority of people this is not an issue as they are not going to be in the top 3, no matter how many PBs they set.<br />For those who have a chance at a top 3 spot, I would guess that often the times would be done at race, so also not a problem, or at a time where they felt their training, motivation, whatever, was at a peak, and that they should try for a top 3 time. I would think this wouldn't be as likely to be a spur of the moment thing as for many people's PBs, and would be scheduled a couple of days ahead of time without too much trouble.<br />Not being anywhere near a top athlete, I may be totally wrong about that, but that is what I guess to be the case.<br /><br />John,<br />I would think that to make sure your attempts for a top 3 time are public, you could take your machine to a local shopping center so everyone who wanted could come watch.<br /><br />David<br />

[[old] c2bill]

dwayne - you are unfortunately one of the people that this rule will impact -and i apologize for the inconvenience. the ranking is more than just a collection of 2k times - each event is valuable and important to the integrity of the ranking. if anything this will make a top spot more valuable and credible than ever before - benefitting the top performers in all events. There are several rowing and health clubs i have a relationship with in your area - i'll personally take on the responsibility of ensuring that you have access to a machine when ever you feel ready to post a top time.<br /><br />regards,<br />bill

[[old] dadams]

<!--QuoteBegin-c2bill+May 5 2005, 02:25 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(c2bill @ May 5 2005, 02:25 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->dwayne - you are unfortunately one of the people that this rule will impact -and i apologize for the inconvenience. the ranking is more than just a collection of 2k times - each event is valuable and important to the integrity of the ranking. if anything this will make a top spot more valuable and credible than ever before - benefitting the top performers in all events. There are several rowing and health clubs i have a relationship with in your area - i'll personally take on the responsibility of ensuring that you have access to a machine when ever you feel ready to post a top time.<br /><br />regards,<br />bill <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Bill,<br />Access to a machine is not the issue. I know all the people around here as well. I do appreciate the offer though. <br /><br />My point is that in order for a 'non-regulation' distance to count I need to basically change the way I train. As would everyone. Every one of the top athletes in this sport that I personally know has a very specific way that they train (as I'm sure everyone reading this does). And it works for them. <br /><br />Now you're asking all of us to change something that already works. For what purpose? And correct me if I'm wrong please - Because you (C2) feel that the integrity of the sport is either in question, or in jeopardy.<br /><br />As PaulS said above, you know when someone is bull-sh***ing. When the time and person just don't match. <br /><br />If someone were to post an incredible time and it makes it to the top three. We (the rowing/erging community) know whether or not its real. So it stays on the ranking list? Big deal. To the rest of the worlds eye, it won't count worth a hoot.<br /><br />Ok...I've rambled enough. My point still stays. I think this one should be rethought for the 'standard' distances only (2k, 5k, 6k and possibly the 10K). QED.<br /><br />Dwayne

[[old] PaulH]

One potential issue here is that somebody needs to be at the top. If the people who 'deserve' to be there can't be bothered with this, and the people who aren't really that fast would never even consider doing an official time, then nobody should count as being in the top 3.<br /><br />For example, there are already 3 people with the top times in the HM 2k. I assume that they didn't go through the official channels for these times, so we can dismiss their times. But the same is true of the next three, and so on. So as long as I can get organized the 8 minute time I can do will be the best in the world for this year. Clearly I'm not going to bother, because that's just silly, so does that mean we don't rank any time?<br /><br />Cheers, Paul

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-c2bill+May 5 2005, 11:25 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(c2bill @ May 5 2005, 11:25 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><br />if anything this will make a top spot more valuable and credible than ever before - benefitting the top performers in all events. <br /><br />regards,<br />bill <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />You are exactly making my point here. Could you please explain the "benefit" of a top spot in the rankings? The World Record already has similar requirements, and according to some holders, along with $5, will get you a Latte at Starbucks (tip included). <br /><br />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". I'd guess that no matter what your policy, there will be those that simply will not believe the fastest times listed, of course, with the current "benefit", it makes no difference whether or not it is believed.<br /><br />"There can be only 1."

[[old] raverlaw]

John,<br /><br />I live in Cambria, just an hour north of you, and I row on a C2. I'm not going to be competitive for a top three slot, but I'll be glad to be your witness if you are,<br /><br />Bill<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+May 5 2005, 01:02 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ May 5 2005, 01:02 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I understand the reasoning but, other than for 2k, there are NO public events in most places, and for the majority of the ranking events.<br /><br />A witness might be possible, but what is a "public machine"?<br /><br />Just because a machine is in a gym, doesn't make it or a witness any more credible.<br /><br />The sentiment is fine, but for rankings I think such a requirement is not reasonable.<br /><br />I don't even know anyone else who has or rows on a c2 rowing machine in this town, which is 138,000 people. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />