World Records

[nick rockliff]

I would suggest anyone else just check, even if you're already credited as a little surprised they published this incomplete with a 'lessor' time.

Wow! Some very impressive scores there Rich!

Cheers Mike, unfortunately I may have a battle on my hands to get them recognised as it appears C2 are only retrospectively using verified times and none of these times were verified at the time. FWIW they did'nt need to be then as none of them were a 50-59 British records, so I never bothered, just ranked them for a score on the table.

Not sure whether I can be bothered to argue the case, I'd be arguing for the people 'chasing' the said record and also those credited with a record, that's not actually the fastest (or longest), rather than myself as I have racked up a few over the years

Anyway, mulling it over for a few days

I can remember back pre 2005 if you wanted to rank a time that was going to end up towards the top of the rankings you needed to send an email to Dena. Needed to say when and where it was done and name a witness! Early 2005 I was asked to test a version of firmware for the PM3 which had the verification codes. Made things more simple back then.

[le grand fromage]

"Cheers Mike, unfortunately I may have a battle on my hands to get them recognised as it appears C2 are only retrospectively using verified times and none of these times were verified at the time. FWIW they did'nt need to be then as none of them were a 50-59 British records, so I never bothered, just ranked them for a score on the table.

Not sure whether I can be bothered to argue the case, I'd be arguing for the people 'chasing' the said record and also those credited with a record, that's not actually the fastest (or longest), rather than myself as I have racked up a few over the years

Anyway, mulling it over for a few days"

Just to close the loop on this. I have argued the case with C2 and supplied screen shots of PM's, pointed out that I had uploaded said PM screen shots to my Twitter account when I did them, highlighted that some were done and entered in the CTC and Sub 7 ITC and at a race meeting as well. And, also gave a brief synopsis of my own past 2k race history and records held and they've now agreed to recognise them as 'British Records'.

[MPx]

A great result Rich and well deserved of course but I think very much down to your long history as a multiple record breaker and race winner. I can't see unverified results being recognised for the rest of us - and personally I prefer that as its so easy to do now through ergdata or other apps and cuts out some of the potential errors.

[Cyclingman1]

Of course, C2 all along recognized that five yr increments were appropriate for record keeping. Just a short step to include all distances beyond 2K. I think the 50-59 break is border liney.

OTOW, there is an element of diluting the significance of records by doubling the number. It feels a little weird to be immediately elevated to being a multiple WR holder overnight having been behind T J Oesterling in 7 70-79 categories. So now with substantially slower times after 75, I'm a WR holder. A similar situation is in rankings. This yr, I've been rowing like crap really and yet I'm ranked #1 in 8 75-79 distances. I just basically ignore it all.

I want to row well and I know what that is regardless of rankings and WRs. When I was behind Oesterling that was not particularly troubling because I had some good times. Not to mention that Oesterling is by far the best Concept 2 rower over the last fifteen yrs. I think he still holds 17 WRs ranging from 60-75. He has not been posting, but I wouldn't be surprised if he were to obliterate all of my 75-79 WRs any time he wants.

One more point, I think focusing on national WRs is a little silly. Come on, rowing is world wide. Next we'll have state or county WRs.

[Ombrax]

One more point, I think focusing on national WRs is a little silly. Come on, rowing is world wide. Next we'll have state or county WRs.

Hey, don't denigrate the records I hold for my living room!