What is “Elite” on the RowErg?

[Nomath]

...Is it the conclusion for you that there is no elite level on rowErg?
As everyone is doing it on his own and majority of people are older 30 years? Because scientific papers are not taking this group into account for studies?

No, I just wanted to point out how the world of science understands the term 'elite' : competing on a national or international level.
But as others have said, it is not an Appellation Controlée. Anyone is free to interpret and use the word as it suits him or her.
But in my understanding, within a group, only few qualify as 'elite'. Therefore, I object to what JaapvE wrote.

..
Personally, I think that any rower over 70 that is on the Erg on a regular basis, by definition is Elite and a shining example for the rest of us....

Although I would then automatically qualify as Elite, I think it deflates the meaning of the word. It's almost a contradiction!

[JaapvanE]

But in my understanding, within a group, only few qualify as 'elite'. Therefore, I object to what JaapvE wrote.

..
Personally, I think that any rower over 70 that is on the Erg on a regular basis, by definition is Elite and a shining example for the rest of us....

Although I would then automatically qualify as Elite, I think it deflates the meaning of the word. It's almost a contradiction!

First of all, there aren't that many 70+ rowers out there. Second, don't underestimate yourself.

But to throw a nice dilema onto you. What about this guy: https://www.concept2.com/news/95-year-o ... ecord-9558
Would you consider him elite?

[Sakly]

...Is it the conclusion for you that there is no elite level on rowErg?
As everyone is doing it on his own and majority of people are older 30 years? Because scientific papers are not taking this group into account for studies?

No, I just wanted to point out how the world of science understands the term 'elite' : competing on a national or international level.
But as others have said, it is not an Appellation Controlée. Anyone is free to interpret and use the word as it suits him or her.
But in my understanding, within a group, only few qualify as 'elite'. Therefore, I object to what JaapvE wrote.

..
Personally, I think that any rower over 70 that is on the Erg on a regular basis, by definition is Elite and a shining example for the rest of us....

Although I would then automatically qualify as Elite, I think it deflates the meaning of the word. It's almost a contradiction!

Science is probably wrong if "competing on a national or international level" is their definition, as it does not primarily relate to the performance. Sure, you will easily find many people which perform on a high level in this group, as they train much for it. But you will also be able to find individuals in the same level, but not competing.
Agreed to the rest. "Elite" defines the top of a group. How many or what baseline is not defined. This is why I find the percentile a very elegant way to define the elite level (based on own thoughts).
The bigger the group gets, the larger the group of the elite. If you say >98th percentile, you must stay on top of the ranking of your group is less than 50 individuals and only the first of the group is elite. If 3000 people rank, elite is formed by the top 60 - regardless of their time.

Short story: elite depends on threshold and group attributes selected.

[Ombrax]

In my humble opinion 2 sigma is not "truly elite," but I doubt anyone would disagree that 3 sigma or better is tip-top elite condition.

So, somewhere between 2 and 3 sigma is probably "simple elite."

(randomly inventing my own modifiers of the term)

[jamesg]

"Elite" is an absolute term, referring to seats in boats, so I'd put the 2k limit at around 5Wkg for M, maybe 4 for F, as measured on a C2 Rowerg.

[Elizabeth]

I'm not going to comment on where the line should be, but I do want to say that I perceive a huge difference in my 2k time and that of, say, Brooke Mooney or Elena Buryak, and I will not be at all offended if I am not grouped with them.

On male/female pace adjustments, I use +12 on the splits, with no adjustment for my relatively lower body weight. This is the difference in the M/F world record 2k and 5k times, and allows us to figure out CTC pacing as well as engage in a little friendly competition with my male friends - sometimes they win, sometimes I win, so it feels fair enough.

[Dangerscouse]

I'm not going to comment on where the line should be, but I do want to say that I perceive a huge difference in my 2k time and that of, say, Brooke Mooney or Elena Buryak, and I will not be at all offended if I am not grouped with them.

Given enough time, you'll be very comparable imo, but then there's also an issue with grouping. For example, Cam (Buchan) is elite, but he's not comparable to Redgrave & Pinsent or the Kiwi Pair, but that doesn't make him any less elite.

This is a great example of the vagaries of defining elite.

[NavigationHazard]

By way of comparison, here are the February 2023 US Rowing team testing resukts, for 2k: https://www.row2k.com/results/resultspa ... 0009&cat=6

They're totally out of context: there's no way to know from inspection who's a LW and who is a HW (I happen to know who some of the LWs are, e.g. Hilton Park among the senior men); neither is there any clue as to what they may/may not have been doing in training prior to the test; neither is there any clue as to expectations going forward; neither is there any clue as to who didn't participate that might still be in the mix. Bear in mind also where we are in the Olympic cycle. Also bear in mind that erg scores don't win OTW medals, OTW performance does. The latter will be prioritized.

Still. To the extent that these results give any general guidance...

Everybody on the list is training at the national-squad level. Specifically, for the US national rowing teams. If one wants to argue that national-level rowers from rowing powers are elite by definition, which I think I do, then everyone above is elite. They're all serious contenders to make at least the B Final in any conceivable OTW competition including the Olympics, depending on things like boating arrangements and of course what the competition might be up to. To be in that league generally requires a high degree of fitness as demonstrated by erg scores. There's not a one-to-one correspondence, e.g. Sir Steve Redgrave was never the fastest erger on any of his British national squads. But you do have to be pretty fast in a way that translates into boat speed, whether by meshing well with others or by having great individual technique or by having great power/weight output along with the other desiderata.

Right now, a year out from the Paris Olympics, it looks to me like the top rowers among the US Women are roughly 6:35-6:42 over 2k. M ost of them will be HW sweep specialists, probably rowing together in the HW viii. That boat is going to be among the presumptive medal contenders 15 months from now. Doesn't guarantee anything, but IMO makes the people in it (or close to being in it, as there are always reserves) elite.

Think of it a bit like chess ratings. In one sense there's only Magnus Carlsen at the top. OTOH anyone in the top 25 is capable of beating Magnus on a good day for them and a bad day for him, so most would agree they're also elite. Farther down the rankings, the performance gap between the top and the contenders grows....

EDIT: forgot to add that erg scores and time trials are also not the same as erg-competition results. I am a bit of an outlier here, as I've never much cared about speed or distance as opposed to podium places. Unless there's a record attempt involved, you generally don't get style points for winning by (say) 10 seconds when 1 will do. I've always actually raced most of my competitons, i.e. rowed in relation to others in my event. That approach has been rather more suited to medaling than to posting fast leaderboard times....

[Gorow]

Hello, OP here. Thanks for all the thought-provoking replies. A wide-ranging conversation so far, as befits a true “forum,” and the passionate aficionados represented here.

I would still appreciate more thoughts on the question I was trying to ask, re-stated here: Are there standards for determining/quantifying the “highest performance” strata of COMPETITIVE ERG performance (completely unrelated to OTW) at EVERY age/weight/gender/distance.

And if not, would the C2 Community take a stab at defining?

Sakly offered a % of C2 Rankings, and Ombrax offered a 2 to 3 sigma approach, which also must be based on C2 Rankings. Interesting!

BTW, I probably got things off on the wrong track by using the word “elite,” which I now see has specific connections to Olympic/National Team level, and therefore refers to athletes in their competitive prime. The word distracted from my real question.

Elizabeth (an “elite,” all agree) asked “..to what end?” Well, an accepted definition of “Elite” or “High Performance” strata would be an additional motivating factor, at least for me.

As I can only get to one or two races a year, I would favor a defintion based on C2 rankings. Since most seem to agree that true Olympic/National Team members rarely post on C2 Rankings, that is a problem for that younger group. But I am betting that more and more of the best RowErg performances are posted in the 50 and up age groups. We have no reason to hold back!

THANKS!

[Dangerscouse]

I would still appreciate more thoughts on the question I was trying to ask, re-stated here: Are there standards for determining/quantifying the “highest performance” strata of COMPETITIVE ERG performance (completely unrelated to OTW) at EVERY age/weight/gender/distance.
THANKS!

In this case, I'd use the C2 rankings as it's definitely a great representation of high performance erging.

If I had to give an answer on what definition to use, I'd go with Sascha's (Sakly) suggestion

[Yankeerunner]

I would still appreciate more thoughts on the question I was trying to ask, re-stated here: Are there standards for determining/quantifying the “highest performance” strata of COMPETITIVE ERG performance (completely unrelated to OTW) at EVERY age/weight/gender/distance.
THANKS!

In this case, I'd use the C2 rankings as it's definitely a great representation of high performance erging.

If I had to give an answer on what definition to use, I'd go with Sascha's (Sakly) suggestion

Another place to look is the Nonathlon. https://www.nonathlon.com/ranking.php

Many of the older age groups are represented, and point scores are determined by age & weight & gender. As a line in the sand I'd consider a Nonathon score of 1000 to be Elite or Highest Performance among ergers only. Every year, as standards are beaten and raised, scores are recalculated and often higher performances are then needed to reach 1000. Many of us have found the Nonathlon to be a good motivator, especially when we were newbies and improving rapidly.

[Dangerscouse]

Another place to look is the Nonathlon. https://www.nonathlon.com/ranking.php

Many of the older age groups are represented, and point scores are determined by age & weight & gender. As a line in the sand I'd consider a Nonathon score of 1000 to be Elite or Highest Performance among ergers only. Every year, as standards are beaten and raised, scores are recalculated and often higher performances are then needed to reach 1000. Many of us have found the Nonathlon to be a good motivator, especially when we were newbies and improving rapidly.

I never use it, but that's a great suggestion

[MPx]

As I can only get to one or two races a year, I would favor a defintion based on C2 rankings. Since most seem to agree that true Olympic/National Team members rarely post on C2 Rankings, that is a problem for that younger group. But I am betting that more and more of the best RowErg performances are posted in the 50 and up age groups. We have no reason to hold back!

Interesting thought - re racing. While its a purer side of the sport, you can only race who turns up, so if the race is in the wrong place at the wrong time then the winners will be unlikely to feature the best ergers. When the best ergers turn up (like Nav explained) then they only have to go as hard as they need to win, not get a great time. But if the comp is right place right time....eg This year's 70+ M HW in Canada saw two guys inside the old world record and Richard Stout the winner by some margin. I've never seen any entry in the rankings from Stout so his 6:44 kind of came out of nowhere to me.

I learned from a minor spat on another thread on here that here is a cohort who treat the Erg purely as a training tool and are simply not interested in any sort of comparison with any of their peers, yet bizarrely still enter times in the Rankings simply to judge themselves against a previous version of themselves. Those, and the OTW rowers who use ergs but don't treat them as a sport in their own right, probably add to the noise in the data. Nevertheless I'm with others here who believe they are sufficiently few that the numbers in the Rankings still represent a significant sample of what can be achieved by each age/weight/sex category. If that's the case then clearly those towards the top are closer to a soft definition of elite level.

I would add however, that I find the numbers more believeable with the greater participation that we see in younger people than the more sparsely populated older masters. However meritorious it is to still be sawing away into your eighth decade and beyond, I don't see unchallenged numbers as a useful definition of the "best". I got more satisfaction from being 4th this year in the World Sprint challenge from 414 entrants than I did winning Bronze medals in previous years from half that number. (But there's still plenty of others above me in the rankings who didn't post a time).

For motivational purposes I think we can easily define our own satisfaction zones - I think you should do that. On my journey that has gone top half, top quarter, first page (ie top 50), and currently >95%ile. But that's for my motivation not a definition of "the best" - as for example my 96th%ile 10k in 38:52 is light years slower than Richard's (LGF) 60+ British record of 35:15 - clearly a completely different class. Even in my strongest pieces 98th%ile, some of those in front are sufficiently better to define another level or two!

[MudSweatAndYears]

If there is a need to define 'elite' on the rowerg, I would argue in favor of a simple absolute metric that applies across all masters age categories.

E.g. a P/AR (power over age reserve score -- viewtopic.php?f=6&t=205949) well above 6 Watts/year for a 2k (arguably close to 6.3 Watts/year). This applies to openweight males and females (with the gender-factor 1.56 included). For lightweights a somewhat lower P/AR threshold.

[iain]

I'm amazed at the P/AR scores as I have seen many experts quote a discontinuity in older life giving a steeper decline, but no clear evidence of that here. Sadly I would use the term "elite" to be independent of age. Age group record holders are amazing and their performances as valid, but I would say that most people would use the word "elite" to mean absolute fastest rather than fastest for their age in the same way that there is no weight or height handicapping in the heavy weight category.