Concept2 Forum

Just noticed a fellow from Wellsford 0974, NZL, Craig Goodley, age 61, HWT, has submitted a time of 20.05.8 for 6K for the 2013 rankings. The current WR for that age group is 20:40.4 by TJ Oesterling, age 63. That is a pace of 1:43.4. The new time is a pace of 1:40.5. That is quite an improvement.

Looking at it conservatively, one can generally row around 6 sec faster for 2K or 1:34.5. That would be 6:18. The current WR for 2K, 60-69, HWT is 6:23.7, a record that has stood since 2004. Is everyone as impressed with this new time for 6K as I am? All other records could be in jeopardy.

I'm holding that out as hope that I'll get faster as I get older.

jvincent wrote:I'm holding that out as hope that I'll get faster as I get older.

Not sure what the 20.05 represents in terms of previous/younger efforts. Cannot find evidence of any other postings. I would hate to dash hopes, but I strongly suspect that you will be getting slower as you age, not faster. Sorry.

That is absurdly fast for that age.

Very impressive.

Cyclingman1 wrote:Just noticed a fellow from Wellsford 0974, NZL, Craig Goodley, age 61, HWT, has submitted a time of 20.05.8 for 6K for the 2013 rankings. The current WR for that age group is 20:40.4 by TJ Oesterling, age 63. That is a pace of 1:43.4. The new time is a pace of 1:40.5. That is quite an improvement.

Looking at it conservatively, one can generally row around 6 sec faster for 2K or 1:34.5. That would be 6:18. The current WR for 2K, 60-69, HWT is 6:23.7, a record that has stood since 2004. Is everyone as impressed with this new time for 6K as I am? All other records could be in jeopardy.

If he never been seen in the ranks, it could be that he used a wrongly set up erg. Although not impossible this seems a very tough target. But we will proberly know soon. It is not uncommon for people to post wrong results by mistake.

hjs wrote:it could be that he used a wrongly set up erg.

What can a user do to make an erg misreport a time for a distance? Other than mistyping when entering data.

Not sure if there is a way of contacting the person. There is no mail link. Perhaps the moderator can shoot him an email.

I do know that there are four blokes over age 63 with verified times under 21:45 for 6K that might be wondering if 20:05 is an accurate reporting. That is the 11th best time in world across all ages and weights in 2013 with only one person so much as age 44 being better, that person being a noted rower. Hopefully, this will be clarified at some point.

Cyclingman1 wrote:

hjs wrote:it could be that he used a wrongly set up erg.

What can a user do to make an erg misreport a time for a distance? Other than mistyping when entering data.

Not sure if there is a way of contacting the person. There is no mail link. Perhaps the moderator can shoot him an email.

I do know that there are four blokes over age 63 with verified times under 21:45 for 6K that might be wondering if 20:05 is an accurate reporting. That is the 11th best time in world across all ages and weights in 2013 with only one person so much as age 44 being better, that person being a noted rower. Hopefully, this will be clarified at some point.

The erg can have the wrong software for the type it is, if so it will give wrong results.

Adding to the unbelievable times is a posting today of 15:22.9 for 5K for the same individual, now age 62 a day later, but not verified. The current WR for 60-69 is 17:11. Are there any suggestions about how to clarify/substantiate these remarkable times?

Cyclingman1 wrote:Adding to the unbelievable times is a posting today of 15:22.9 for 5K for the same individual, now age 62 a day later, but not verified. The current WR for 60-69 is 17:11. Are there any suggestions about how to clarify/substantiate these remarkable times?

I just checked it out and the 15:22.9 isn't there now, just the 20:05.8 and that one is not verified either. In my opinion it is probably not valid. It is likely to be a mistake or it could be a put on. There is always an element of doubt in the submitted rankings, even with the verification V. The monitor can be set for the wrong model and the system has already been gamed by a team doing a record breaking piece and submitting it as an individual entry - just as a gag. Always take the rankings with a grain of salt unless there is a race designation.

Bob S.

All gone now. (Sigh -- fame is so fleeting!)

To clarify. I don't think it is a breach of confidence to say that I asked C2 to ask Mr. Goodley about his postings. It turns out that he was not using a C2 machine, therefore his times were skewed. Either C2 or Mr. Goodley deleted the postings. Everyone can rest easy that a 15:22 5K rower has not appeared out of nowhere. We all knew something was amiss, and now we know. Jim G.

That's a new twist for me. I have seen forum posts about results from other machines, but that is the first time that I have heard about such a post in the rankings. Most of the posts on the forum have been upfront about the fact that it was done on a non-C2 indoor rower.

Bob S.

Bob S. wrote:That's a new twist for me. I have seen forum posts about results from other machines, but that is the first time that I have heard about such a post in the rankings. Most of the posts on the forum have been upfront about the fact that it was done on a non-C2 indoor rower.

Bob S.

Hence I only take IND_V, RowPro or C2Log results seriously. Anything entered manually is not really worth a thing.

These Shakespearean much ados about nothing really devastate me. At least the Nonathlon 1000 point levels will stay put.

Carl Watts wrote:Hence I only take IND_V, RowPro or C2Log results seriously. Anything entered manually is not really worth a thing.

I agree that there is an element of doubt about IND entries. Having said that I have a few IND entries which resulted from "Just Row" efforts that turned out better than expected. Plus, most posters have a context: all other distances and past years as well as age and the like. A questionable entry will usually stick out. My feeling is that by the end of the year one's entries should be verified. During the year, they are only a snapshot in time subject to change. It should be noted that the vast majority of entries are IND. I don't think one can say that they are all not legit.

Nonathlon is even one more step removed from verification. It is strictly an honor system. I don't know if they have had abusers in the past and how that has been dealt with. The people at the top undoubtedly get more scrutiny. Just like the subject of this topic. Had he been #100 instead of #1, no one would have even noticed.