Is Ranking A Pb On The Way To A Pb "kosher"?

[[old] mpukita]

Question:<br /><br />Let's say I've been doing a great deal of training, and I elect to try for a 6K PB to rank. I set the PM3 to 6K, and go for it. Along the way, let's say at 5K, I break my 5K PB, as well as completing the piece for a 6K PB.<br /><br />Is it reasonable to expect I can rank both my 5K and 6K PBs?<br /><br />Not trying to play any games here, just wondering how others feel about this. And no, I didn't do this (wish I had!) ... just curious because I've heard of others who have, and I'm not sure they'd feel comfortable asking such a question after they had done it, so I'm asking for them.<br /><br />Thanks!<br /><br />-- Mark<br /><br />PS/NB - I know I can go ahead and rank anything I please, but does good sportmanship allow me to do this with the respect of the other (reasonable) participants in our sport?

[[old] Porkchop]

<!--QuoteBegin-mpukita+Jan 10 2006, 06:37 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Jan 10 2006, 06:37 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Question:<br /><br />Let's say I've been doing a great deal of training, and I elect to try for a 6K PB to rank.  I set the PM3 to 6K, and go for it.  Along the way, let's say at 5K, I break my 5K PB, as well as completing the piece for a 6K PB.<br /><br />Is it reasonable to expect I can rank both my 5K and 6K PBs?<br /><br />Not trying to play any games here, just wondering how others feel about this.  And no, I didn't do this (wish I had!) ... just curious because I've heard of others who have, and I'm not sure they'd feel comfortable asking such a question after they had done it, so I'm asking for them.<br /><br />Thanks!<br /><br />-- Mark<br /><br />PS/NB - I know I can go ahead and rank anything I please, but does good sportmanship allow me to do this with the respect of the other (reasonable) participants in our sport? <br /> </td></tr></table><br />This has been discussed at some length. I think the consensus was that you can't rank both, because you would be double-countnig the meters you rowed. Yuu would have to rank the 5K and then put in a second entry for the additional 1K.

[[old] samdkrc]

<br />I did that with a 6k recently, I only ranked the 6k though. I <i>would</i> count both the 6k and 5k as PBs if I wanted to because by definition it's the fastest time you can cover that distance in, wouldn't rank them though....however, I would only count the first 5k of the 6k for the PB because it has to be from a stationary fly-wheel...hope that helps...in some way

[[old] John Rupp]

You can rank every distance that you've done from a start.<br /><br />The meter totals can be adjusted so they come out to the right amounts.<br /><br />For example, if you get a 5k PB enroute to a 6k PB, both distances can be ranked as they were both done from a start.<br /><br />Then subtract the extra 5000 meters from the rest of the distance that was done for that day.

[[old] mpukita]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Jan 10 2006, 08:30 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Jan 10 2006, 08:30 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You can rank every distance that you've done from a start.<br /><br />The meter totals can be adjusted so they come out to the right amounts.<br /><br />For example, if you get a 5k PB enroute to a 6k PB, both distances can be ranked as they were both done from a start.<br /><br />Then subtract the extra 5000 meters from the rest of the distance that was done for that day. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Good points John ... I understand the strategy here.

[[old] mpukita]

<!--QuoteBegin-samdkrc+Jan 10 2006, 08:17 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(samdkrc @ Jan 10 2006, 08:17 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I did that with a 6k recently, I only ranked the 6k though. I <i>would</i> count both the 6k and 5k as PBs if I wanted to because by definition it's the fastest time you can cover that distance in, wouldn't rank them though....however, I would only count the first 5k of the 6k for the PB because it has to be from a stationary fly-wheel...hope that helps...in some way  <br /> </td></tr></table><br />... both would have been done from a stationary flywheel.<br /><br />I guess a better question is this: The PM3 measures the 5K and 6K, even when the 5K is the last of 5 x 1K splits, to the same tenth of a second accuracy so as to measure an accurate or "rankable" 5K, as it would the 6K, right?

[[old] cbrock]

<!--QuoteBegin-mpukita+Jan 11 2006, 07:37 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Jan 11 2006, 07:37 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Question:<br /><br />Let's say I've been doing a great deal of training, and I elect to try for a 6K PB to rank.  I set the PM3 to 6K, and go for it.  Along the way, let's say at 5K, I break my 5K PB, as well as completing the piece for a 6K PB.<br /><br />Is it reasonable to expect I can rank both my 5K and 6K PBs?<br /><br />Not trying to play any games here, just wondering how others feel about this.  And no, I didn't do this (wish I had!) ... just curious because I've heard of others who have, and I'm not sure they'd feel comfortable asking such a question after they had done it, so I'm asking for them.<br /><br />Thanks!<br /><br />-- Mark<br /><br />PS/NB - I know I can go ahead and rank anything I please, but does good sportmanship allow me to do this with the respect of the other (reasonable) participants in our sport? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Mike,<br />Happy for you to rank both your times but noting your weight is listed as 74.09 kilos if you had a heavy meal the night before or drank too much water before the row and weighed in at 75.09 kilos then I would expect you to rank this as a heavyweight Row!<br /><br />Best Wishes,<br />Chris<br />

[[old] John Rupp]

You would rank your 5k and 6k cumulative times, rather than adding the split times.<br /><br />On the pm2+, find the cumulative times by pressing [m], the arrow keys, then [ok][rest].<br /><br />On the pm3, find the same cumulative times and rank those.

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-mpukita+Jan 10 2006, 05:15 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Jan 10 2006, 05:15 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-samdkrc+Jan 10 2006, 08:17 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(samdkrc @ Jan 10 2006, 08:17 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I did that with a 6k recently, I only ranked the 6k though. I <i>would</i> count both the 6k and 5k as PBs if I wanted to because by definition it's the fastest time you can cover that distance in, wouldn't rank them though....however, I would only count the first 5k of the 6k for the PB because it has to be from a stationary fly-wheel...hope that helps...in some way  <br /> </td></tr></table><br />... both would have been done from a stationary flywheel.<br /><br />I guess a better question is this: The PM3 measures the 5K and 6K, even when the 5K is the last of 5 x 1K splits, to the same tenth of a second accuracy so as to measure an accurate or "rankable" 5K, as it would the 6K, right? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />That would work as long as you set up 1k splits, or at least soemthign that could add up to 5k. The default would have been 1200m splits which would leave you in a bit of a pickle. Needless to say, your 5k needs to be done on it's own anyhow, you've got a new target for it, which would be about 1.6 seconds in pace faster than your 6k.

[[old] mpukita]

<!--QuoteBegin-cbrock+Jan 10 2006, 09:26 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(cbrock @ Jan 10 2006, 09:26 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-mpukita+Jan 11 2006, 07:37 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Jan 11 2006, 07:37 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Question:<br /><br />Let's say I've been doing a great deal of training, and I elect to try for a 6K PB to rank.  I set the PM3 to 6K, and go for it.  Along the way, let's say at 5K, I break my 5K PB, as well as completing the piece for a 6K PB.<br /><br />Is it reasonable to expect I can rank both my 5K and 6K PBs?<br /><br />Not trying to play any games here, just wondering how others feel about this.  And no, I didn't do this (wish I had!) ... just curious because I've heard of others who have, and I'm not sure they'd feel comfortable asking such a question after they had done it, so I'm asking for them.<br /><br />Thanks!<br /><br />-- Mark<br /><br />PS/NB - I know I can go ahead and rank anything I please, but does good sportmanship allow me to do this with the respect of the other (reasonable) participants in our sport? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Mike,<br />Happy for you to rank both your times but noting your weight is listed as 74.09 kilos if you had a heavy meal the night before or drank too much water before the row and weighed in at 75.09 kilos then I would expect you to rank this as a heavyweight Row!<br /><br />Best Wishes,<br />Chris <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Chris:<br /><br />I've been hovering around 75kg since I lost the weight to get below 75kg months ago. I've not been able to rank a PB as a LW since, but I've also not been above 76kg. Today, easily down to 73/74 at workout time, but a dinner of red beans and rice, plus two Newcastles ... well ... time for a piece of pie with ice cream ... ummmm ... <br />

[[old] mpukita]

<!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+Jan 10 2006, 09:43 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Jan 10 2006, 09:43 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-mpukita+Jan 10 2006, 05:15 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Jan 10 2006, 05:15 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-samdkrc+Jan 10 2006, 08:17 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(samdkrc @ Jan 10 2006, 08:17 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I did that with a 6k recently, I only ranked the 6k though. I <i>would</i> count both the 6k and 5k as PBs if I wanted to because by definition it's the fastest time you can cover that distance in, wouldn't rank them though....however, I would only count the first 5k of the 6k for the PB because it has to be from a stationary fly-wheel...hope that helps...in some way  <br /> </td></tr></table><br />... both would have been done from a stationary flywheel.<br /><br />I guess a better question is this: The PM3 measures the 5K and 6K, even when the 5K is the last of 5 x 1K splits, to the same tenth of a second accuracy so as to measure an accurate or "rankable" 5K, as it would the 6K, right? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />That would work as long as you set up 1k splits, or at least soemthign that could add up to 5k. The default would have been 1200m splits which would leave you in a bit of a pickle. Needless to say, your 5k needs to be done on it's own anyhow, you've got a new target for it, which would be about 1.6 seconds in pace faster than your 6k. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Good point Paul ... I've got all my "favorites" on the PM3 set for 500M splits, except for 1 hour rows, which I split at 10' (or 6') for WP Level 4 workouts.

[[old] Krysta Coleman]

I've been a little unclear on this issue too, Mark. I recently did that Marathon and I completed the first 21097 meters of it much faster than my previous HM PB. And I think my 6k PB pace is faster than my 5k PB too now, after the Dec CTC 6k challenge. I personally don't have any problem with other people ranking a PB within another distance but I chose not to rank mine... just in case. I'd have to agree with Paul too, that you might as well re-do the shorter distance on it's own anyway and it should come out even faster yet. <br /><br />- Krysta

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-Krysta Coleman+Jan 10 2006, 06:05 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Krysta Coleman @ Jan 10 2006, 06:05 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->people ranking a PB within another distance[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />It isn't just within another distance -- it has to be from a start.<br /><br />The same thing would occur if you raced just a 5k, and then continued on for another 1k after that.<br /><br />World records have been approved the same way.<br /><br />For example, 1500 meter records have been approved enroute to a mile.<br />

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Jan 10 2006, 06:09 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Jan 10 2006, 06:09 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For example, 1500 meter records have been approved enroute to a mile. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />There is such a thing as a 1500m WR on the Erg? What is the general topic here? have you been kicked out of everyplace that talks about running? Now we have to deal with you? And you insult this sport also! Sheesh.

[[old] cbrock]

<!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+Jan 11 2006, 11:05 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Jan 11 2006, 11:05 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Jan 10 2006, 06:09 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Jan 10 2006, 06:09 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For example, 1500 meter records have been approved enroute to a mile. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />There is such a thing as a 1500m WR on the Erg? What is the general topic here? have you been kicked out of everyplace that talks about running? Now we have to deal with you? And you insult this sport also! Sheesh. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Paul,<br />I don't know the background of all the individual contributors to this forum but honestly sometimes people seem to take it too seriously!<br /><br />As this was only a general observation that was made by John, I feel your response was very harsh.<br /><br />Having said that as a former runner and a newcomer to the sport of indoor rowing it seems logical for John to make this remark as the official distances are seemingly based on running distances (eg: marathon,half marathon etc)<br /><br />And now to rub salt on the wound another running type question.<br /><br />Why do we measure pace in 500 splits rather than 1k splits?<br /><br />It used to drive me crazy when I first started.<br /><br />Regrds,<br />Chris<br /><br /><br />