Concept2 Forum

I know that this question has come up in various forms several times thru the yrs.

I also know that there are numerous variables. For example, a newby can make rapid gains, but even they have gradations in starting capabilities and circumstances.

I know that when I started erging about 8 yrs ago, I improved about 16 sec for 2K [4 sec pace] in around 100 days and that was with a lot of interval work. I was an experienced endurance athlete. I would think that a complete couch potato could improve more than that. For me, that rapid improvement came to a screeching halt. Could not sustain the intense effort it took to do 6:40 at age 66. I wonder about claims of gains that are three times better than what I could do.

Recently I saw where a gentleman at the top of several 70+ HWt distances has made pace improvements from 12.5 to 14.5 sec in about 4 months time. All of his ranked times from 2019 to 2020 are unverified. For example, in Apr, 2019 I see a 2K at 8:01.3 [2:00.3] improving to 7:11.9 [1:47.9] in Aug, 2019. There was a 10K improvement from 43:33.8 to 38:42.1 in 5 months time. Can a 70 yr old guy, who is 5'8", 179lb, and not a complete newby, make those kinds of gains? I could see LeBron James going from 8:00 to 6:00 in a few weeks.

I suppose I can become a believer if others can truthfully say that they have made those kinds of gains in a few months. Otherwise, I'll be a big doubter and probably will try to take corrective steps.

i would say anything is possible over the 5 month span even at that age. Certainly the 2k time improvement doesn't seem unreasonable.

You say all of these times posted are unverified? Why do you even care? I wouldn't waste my time.

I am very suspicious of any unverified results, especially at that age, height, weight etc. Even if you don't have a smartphone anyone can get a verification code.

mitchel674 wrote: ↑

September 23rd, 2019, 3:58 pm

You say all of these times posted are unverified? Why do you even care? I wouldn't waste my time.

I thought exactly this before I read this reply. FWIW when I use the results search filters I always ignore anything which is Unverified.

It seems very unlikely of course.
In my experience it is usually because the guy has ranked a water rower time not understanding that they are very different machines that cant be compared. IMO there should be no unverified entries allowed in the top 25% of rankings - there are many people who don't care about the performance so much but just like to see where it sits and that is fine. We can all ignore them.
I find it best to contact rankings@concept2.com and have Dina sort it out - she is good at it and normally contacts them to find out what has happened.

I wasn't really trying to emphasize any one no verification, per se. But absolutely no verifications is another matter. If, say, one-half of a person's rankings are verified, it's really easy to see if an unverified time does not fit. To follow up on Lindsay's suggestion, I think that perhaps the top 3 postings in the rankings should be verified. And I am guilty of not consistently doing that. But I would support such a rule.

mitchel674 wrote: ↑

September 23rd, 2019, 3:58 pm

i would say anything is possible over the 5 month span even at that age. Certainly the 2k time improvement doesn't seem unreasonable.

Really, can you actually point to such improvement? Now, I'm speaking of comparing a max effort to a max effort. Obviously, if one pulls with moderate effort one time, followed by max effort in a few months, great improvement can be seen.

Cyclingman1 wrote: ↑

September 23rd, 2019, 9:22 pm

mitchel674 wrote: ↑

September 23rd, 2019, 3:58 pm

i would say anything is possible over the 5 month span even at that age. Certainly the 2k time improvement doesn't seem unreasonable.

Really, can you actually point to such improvement? Now, I'm speaking of comparing a max effort to a max effort. Obviously, if one pulls with moderate effort one time, followed by max effort in a few months, great improvement can be seen.

Well, the initial 2k time was a pretty pedestrian 8 minutes. I can imagine someone training over 5 months and getting that down to 7:11 even at that age. Sure it would require significant training, but it's certainly in the realm of possibility.

With all of these being unverified, there's no point in speculating.

mitchel674 wrote: ↑

September 23rd, 2019, 9:37 pm

With all of these being unverified, there's no point in speculating.

Mitchell that is the only bit I (respectfully) disagree with - I think we all have an interest in helping ensure that the rankings here have as much credibility as possible and that we can help C2 do that by calling out anomalies.

lindsayh wrote: ↑

September 23rd, 2019, 8:19 pm

It seems very unlikely of course.
In my experience it is usually because the guy has ranked a water rower time not understanding that they are very different machines that cant be compared. IMO there should be no unverified entries allowed in the top 25% of rankings - there are many people who don't care about the performance so much but just like to see where it sits and that is fine. We can all ignore them.
I find it best to contact rankings@concept2.com and have Dina sort it out - she is good at it and normally contacts them to find out what has happened.

Make that Deena Hirchak and the threshold of compulsory V at 50th percentile and I’m on board.

I think the 50” jump on 2k is possible for a superfit 70 yr. old novice crossing over from another sport in which he excelled. Brings to mind Jim’s easy transition from road cycling TTs to competitive indoor rowing All we know about this fellow is multiple top placements and no verifications. Yes, also vertically challenged. I don’t enjoy marking an outlier as a person of interest but this is exactly what we all do privately when we hear of unwitnessed outlier accomplishments. Better verified outliers than outright liars in the age group rankings.

jackarabit wrote: ↑

September 23rd, 2019, 11:19 pm

I don’t enjoy marking an outlier as a person of interest but this is exactly what we all do privately when we hear of unwitnessed outlier accomplishments. Better verified outliers than outright liars in the age group rankings.

That is a good point, there are always exceptions and outliers of expectations.

How do you get the verification codes? My work gym has C2's but I've never seen any codes on them. My home gym however has the Technogym machines so I guess all rows on there are pointless

I think if you're only cheating yourself by manipulating the numbers and ranking unreal rows. For me it's me against myself and I know I'll never be at the top of anything so that is enough.......be good to have verified data though.

winniewinser wrote: ↑

September 24th, 2019, 5:42 am

How do you get the verification codes? My work gym has C2's but I've never seen any codes on them. My home gym however has the Technogym machines so I guess all rows on there are pointless

https://www.concept2.com/service/monito ... ation-code

I never bothered, largely because nobody's ever going to look at my times and think "wow!".
But now that I use Ergdata, it's not an issue, because all tracked workouts are automatically verified.

winniewinser wrote: ↑

September 24th, 2019, 5:42 am

I think if you're only cheating yourself by manipulating the numbers and ranking unreal rows. For me it's me against myself and I know I'll never be at the top of anything so that is enough.......be good to have verified data though.

I'd assumed that we were all grown ups! What is the point of making times up? I would guess that any fraudulent times are from WUMs who don't actually row at all.

C2 does not care. To much hasle. Same with ped use, there are now people setting records who clearly are users. Difficult to find a way to get that worked out.

Not sure my work gym machines have the latest firmware as they don't produce verification codes but I will check later.

TBH I think will just continue to paddle along and improve for my own benefit, be it health or just as a personal challenge. I'm also trying to encourage others to row such as my wife.

Lifes good

OK, going off at a tangent. If anyone posts fictional performances and/or uses PEDs, you have to ask what their motivation is and why. They probably feel like something is lacking about themselves and maybe for some don't want to put in the hard graft to have something that is considered respectable from a competitive standpoint (most people if they are dogged enough can find a sport which they can will themselves to be above average at). To me, this misses the point of performance at sport. If what you're doing isn't bringing you money, it should be done for fun or curiousity, and beyond that for some as part of a deep intrinsic need which you feel is being addressed on a very personal level. For me, I love it when I find something I can enjoy the process with and see how far I can take it.