Question about Virtual challenge

[rhr]

Lindsay you mention ranked pieces - I haven't posted any of those for a long while but I do find it helpful to get benchmarks from CTC regulars who are of a similar level and use them as pace guides. Plus I find it interesting to see who are the top rowers in each age / weight category. In doing this I have noticed that you, TJ and a couple of others use verified or race times for rankings. Whereas others have posted questionable times using the IND stamp.

Surely the easy answer is for C2 to set a standard or cut off, say Top 50, where the row must be verified? Basically not allow a ranking entry to be loaded if it is in the Top 50 and is IND coded. Problem solved.

[Bob S.]

Surely the easy answer is for C2 to set a standard or cut off, say Top 50, where the row must be verified? Basically not allow a ranking entry to be loaded if it is in the Top 50 and is IND coded. Problem solved.

They never show a first as IND. It might be at the top of the list, but the next one on the list (if it is in one of the 4 verification categories) will be labelled with number 1. I don't know it it applies to any beyond 1.

(Note: By 4 categories, I was referring to race, log card, verification code, and RowPro. Actually there are others, such as witnessed or videoed event.)

Bob S.

[jackarabit]

The challenges and the event/age rankings are different in that the challenges "appear" to require no evidenciary support for the pieces and totals entered. Perhaps once a week uploads and optimistic guesstimation (prevarication by reason of O gee how long was that row Friday last?) is common and should be discouraged by incorporating publicly displayed verification for challenge uploads. On the question of pace, surely the speedy and/or youthful among us can find it in their hearts to leave something for those (handicapped, old and slow) who can only compete in the ultra-endurance category.

As Carl Watts has stated in the past, anyone of us can pull the unverified "weeds" out of the garden of TT competition. I've done it a few times and more often than not, I landed on the same percentile whether or not unverified rows were eliminated. I agree with the thought that the PM2 holdouts are going to have to break their monitors in fhe interest of making potentially honest men honest. C2 will have to decide what is and isn't productive in their marketing philosophy and apparatus.

Jack

[heartwood]

rhr wrote:Surely the easy answer is for C2 to set a standard or cut off, say Top 50, where the row must be verified? Basically not allow a ranking entry to be loaded if it is in the Top 50 and is IND coded. Problem solved.

Hi new to forum but using erg last 18months. I have a PM2 monitor so my times can only be marked as independent. I for one would be frustrated by your suggestion as I find it helps me judge my performance against others and target my time trials.

Jeremy

[jackarabit]

Here's another solution, Carl. Continue to allow IND entries. Continue to mix with verified times but only enumerate the verified times from fastest to slowest. This method of recording could be put in place for C2 TT rankings and a similar method of enumerating ranking applied to individual meters rowed for seasonal challenges. In the case of admixture of verified and unverified meters, inclusion in the enumeration from most to least meters rowed would be denied. I can't think this would be an impossible task for C2's IT people.

Heartwood, judgment or comparison of one's performance can be undertaken in total anonymity without ever entering a time in the rankings. The regulars on this forum do this fairly often in answer to prospective high school or college rowers who use the erg in their training and are anxious whether their times are "good enough" to indicate a good chance of success in their new sport.

Jack

[Carl Watts]

Here's another solution, Carl. Continue to allow IND entries. Continue to mix with verified times but only enumerate the verified times from fastest to slowest. This method of recording could be put in place for C2 TT rankings and a similar method of enumerating ranking applied to individual meters rowed for seasonal challenges. In the case of admixture of verified and unverified meters, inclusion in the enumeration from most to least meters rowed would be denied. I can't think this would be an impossible task for C2's IT people.

Heartwood, judgment or comparison of one's performance can be undertaken in total anonymity without ever entering a time in the rankings. The regulars on this forum do this fairly often in answer to prospective high school or college rowers who use the erg in their training and are anxious whether their times are "good enough" to indicate a good chance of success in their new sport.

Jack

Great idea, I have probably already mentioned it, just let those who want to put up a verified row by the four different methods to do so and then perhaps just be able to do a sort on verified only or just overall.

The big advantage here is it will encourage everyone to eventually move to a verified row then there will be no questions asked.

There is already this option in the rankings and those that take it seriously and want to be taken seriously, especially in the top placing's its just a given that it needs to be a verified row.

What really surprises me is that no one in the top placing's in the challenges is pushing Concept 2 for a verified system. why is that ? it leads you to only one conclusion.

Also every single Challenge being based on total meters is a little boring. By changing the system it would be possible to run other types of challenges during the year that appeal to the other 90% of people that don't bother with the existing ones, like say 500Km for the month (or 300Km or whatever) at the fastest average pace. Very tactical you have to row the 500Km to rank so no point going to fast and not making the target but if you get to the 500Km early then you can continue to row some faster rows to improve your average pace.

Is it not time that Concept 2 mixed it up a bit and added some honesty for the future benefit of the product name ?

[Citroen]

Is it not time that Concept 2 mixed it up a bit and added some honesty for the future benefit of the product name ?

Why not send an email to Concept2 and ask if you can join their beta testing for the new ranking system they are due to introduce this year?

[lindsayh]

Lindsay you mention ranked pieces - I haven't posted any of those for a long while but I do find it helpful to get benchmarks from CTC regulars who are of a similar level and use them as pace guides. Plus I find it interesting to see who are the top rowers in each age / weight category. In doing this I have noticed that you, TJ and a couple of others use verified or race times for rankings. Whereas others have posted questionable times using the IND stamp.
Surely the easy answer is for C2 to set a standard or cut off, say Top 50, where the row must be verified? Basically not allow a ranking entry to be loaded if it is in the Top 50 and is IND coded. Problem solved.

Yes Rodney I try to IND_V all ranking pieces for credibility (even my slow long ones) and because I would love it if all pieces were able to be verified especially at the top. It seems a little random but my impression is that to get a ranking in the top 3 to 5 you need to verify and I have had a couple knocked back until the code is entered for top 3 times. I like the idea of only accepting verified rankings for top (say) 20% or maybe having a filter to remove unverified or something like that. At the same time I can see that Jack likes the idea of just putting times in to see where things stand and the PM2 people would still like to see where they stand.
I am impressed if Dougie is suggesting that a new and improved system of ranking and verification is coming that may give us the sort of flexibility that Carl is after - that would be great. Bring it on!!

[jackarabit]

Carl Watts writes:

Also every single Challenge being based on total meters is a little boring. By changing the system it would be possible to run other types of challenges during the year that appeal to the other 90% of people that don't bother with the existing ones, like say 500Km for the month (or 300Km or whatever) at the fastest average pace. Very tactical you have to row the 500Km to rank so no point going to fast and not making the target but if you get to the 500Km early then you can continue to row some faster rows to improve your average pace.

Is it not time that Concept 2 mixed it up a bit and added some honesty for the future benefit of the product name ?

Yes, I agree that other challenge goals in addition to time on the rower (reflected as cumulative meters) are possible and desirable. The pace/distance "balancing act" would add an alternative challenge format. Something new in the mix but no nix on the simple participation goal of the current challenges? Peaceful coexistence of simple and complex challenge goals appeals to me. Doug says C2 is moving on this so maybe we'll see inclusivity, innovation, and ethical clarity in one package.

Jack

[Bob S.]

But is it real or just sarcasm?

Bob S.

[jackarabit]

Parsing yur comment above meant considerable rummaging in the headspace, Bob. I do remember Carl offering to Beta test some C2 product or other. Ya spose Doug was jest funnin us? Jack

[Bob S.]

Parsing yur comment above meant considerable rummaging in the headspace, Bob. I do remember Carl offering to Beta test some C2 product or other. Ya spose Doug was jest funnin us? Jack

Possible. I am not above doing similar stuff, but I try to make it obvious when I am being sarcastic. All too often sarcasm is misinterpreted to have been meant for real.

Bob S.

[Carl Watts]

Is it not time that Concept 2 mixed it up a bit and added some honesty for the future benefit of the product name ?

Why not send an email to Concept2 and ask if you can join their beta testing for the new ranking system they are due to introduce this year?

Glad to see that some changes are being made. Some progress is better than none at all, that's good news.

I live in hope for some other Challenge options, even one a year would be enough for me to participate in.

The current Challenge format only really suits those with unlimited time to spend on the erg. Something based on a challenge of rowing 30 to 60+ minutes a day like a 300Km in a month would open it up to far more people. Those rowing more than 10Km a day could try rowing less metres at a faster pace and those doing less metres could try rowing more at a slower pace. This would appeal to a much greater percentage of rowers. Just look at the annual metres board to see where the real volume of rowers are positioned, its all less than 10Km a day average.

[jamesg]

Saw a TV show about a Mr Dean Karnazes, said to run a marathon every day before breakfast. Seems he works too and the least one can say is he makes his own rules.

However imposing rules for ergers would perhaps imply that C2 favours certain types of training over others:
like say 500Km for the month (or 300Km or whatever) at the fastest average pace
The pace/distance "balancing act"

Then of course any damage or injury caused by that type of training would be thanks to C2. Or can we cite the original poster here?

Those who want special formats (who knows, someone might want to race 2000 m) can always sort it themselves and carry the responsibility.

Surely we've had enough examples of problems existing only in certain heads?

[Carl Watts]

Sorry but there is hardly a sporting event in the world without rules, its just up to the individual as to whether they want to participate or not.

500Km or 300km in a month is hardly going to automatically result in an "Injury" !!! thats called personal responsibility, you cannot blame someone else or C2 for that, besides we supposedly have 70 year olds rowing millions of metres in a month so anyone should be able to do it, its simply about the right pace and spending enough time on the erg.

Some different formats with a wider appeal only make sense, is the only running event at the Olympics the Full Marathon ? of course not as it doesn't suit the majority of runners.

The current Challenges suit retired or semi-retired people who can sit on an Erg all day, this is a very small proportion of those out there rowing and every Challenge is this same format. Its the easiest format for the IT people to throw up a results table for but it's by far and away the worst kind of format for those wanting to push themselves to row about 10Km a day and have less than an hour a day to spare.