Concept2 Forum

Hi
I have just published a web page on applying age, weight, and gender based corrections to erg scores for our masters competitive program at Texas Rowing Center. It includes a link to a calculator similar to the Concept2 weight correction page .
I thought other ergers might be interested.

Thanks
Mike watts

http://www.impattern.com/Handicap

mpcwatts wrote:Hi I have just published a web page on applying age, weight, and gender based corrections to erg scores for our masters competitive program at Texas Rowing Center. It includes a link to a calculator similar to the Concept2 weight correction page .
I thought other ergers might be interested. Thanks Mike watts
http://www.impattern.com/Handicap

Well done Mike nice maths!
FWIW and just for fun I plugged my numbers in and doesn't really work for me though if I got it right - the adjusted times were all well faster than current WRs for 500/1000/2000
(65/208)

From one Watts to another it looks great for me but I think a calculation is not possible without height in it.

Have said a while ago that Concept 2 should be collecting the data as part of the online logbook, the problem is you need a massive sample because rather than a corrected time I am only really interested in people my age, height and weight to see how I directly compare without having to use any math at all. There are certainly enough ergs out there in the world to establish a pool of people the same as you and then take the whole thing to the next level and build a fitness test into the Erg Firmware using this data.

So rather than just enter the date and time into your monitor you also add your age, height, weight and sex and you can run a fitness test and get a score out of 100.

The obvious advantage of a straight score is you can then directly compare it to anyone of any age, height or weight.

lindsayh wrote:

mpcwatts wrote:Hi I have just published a web page on applying age, weight, and gender based corrections to erg scores for our masters competitive program at Texas Rowing Center. It includes a link to a calculator similar to the Concept2 weight correction page .
I thought other ergers might be interested. Thanks Mike watts
http://www.impattern.com/Handicap

Well done Mike nice maths!
FWIW and just for fun I plugged my numbers in and doesn't really work for me though if I got it right - the adjusted times were all well faster than current WRs for 500/1000/2000
(65/208)

People often underestimate what we can do when we age.

People often underestimate what we can do when we age.

Oh definitely! My decrepitude-adjusted 6:24/2k was no effort at all!

jackarabit wrote:

People often underestimate what we can do when we age.

Oh definitely! My decrepitude-adjusted 6:24/2k was no effort at all!

N1 and you are easily a lightweight, although a bit hidden and already 6.24

5.43 for me.... Pretty poor far from 5.36

5:36 for this 66 yo LW. Wow!

Why not just use the Nonathlon? That takes a huge data base (the C2 ranking data) and applies solid math to put everyone on the same plane. Very effective in seeing how you do compared to everyone else, all age and weight adjusted.

Cyclist2 wrote:5:36 for this 66 yo LW. Wow!

Why not just use the Nonathlon? That takes a huge data base (the C2 ranking data) and applies solid math to put everyone on the same plane. Very effective in seeing how you do compared to everyone else, all age and weight adjusted.

Just as poor, not 1 30 year old in sight, top ranks all very very mature

Cyclist2 wrote:5:36 for this 66 yo LW. Wow! Why not just use the Nonathlon? That takes a huge data base (the C2 ranking data) and applies solid math to put everyone on the same plane. Very effective in seeing how you do compared to everyone else, all age and weight adjusted.

Mine is 5:20 for 2km!

The nonathlon favours the oldies too as H says even with their much more complicated formulae.
Sebastien at Indoor rowing league (http://indoorrowers.org/indoor-rowers-league) has also had a go and he I think uses a formula related to how close to a WR you are in age and weight group. It also appears to favour the older lwts as well but younger peeps have done better there.

hjs wrote:

Cyclist2 wrote:5:36 for this 66 yo LW. Wow!

Why not just use the Nonathlon? That takes a huge data base (the C2 ranking data) and applies solid math to put everyone on the same plane. Very effective in seeing how you do compared to everyone else, all age and weight adjusted.

Just as poor, not 1 30 year old in sight, top ranks all very very mature

I like the principle behind the Nonathlon's ranking except that its database looks like it has not been updated in a long time - I have been complaining about it for a while and repeatedly offered to help with it but never got a response. It makes no sense that year after year, I would score so far above the 1000 points target ; if the database had been updated to include my recent times, it would not be the case, even with the smoothing effect of the interpolation used to calculate the targets. And the new online handicap calculator is indeed very generous to me also, but probably appropriate in a statistical sense for people with performances closer to the average for their group.

anne.bourlioux wrote:

hjs wrote:

Cyclist2 wrote:5:36 for this 66 yo LW. Wow!

Why not just use the Nonathlon? That takes a huge data base (the C2 ranking data) and applies solid math to put everyone on the same plane. Very effective in seeing how you do compared to everyone else, all age and weight adjusted.

Just as poor, not 1 30 year old in sight, top ranks all very very mature

I like the principle behind the Nonathlon's ranking except that its database looks like it has not been updated in a long time - I have been complaining about it for a while and repeatedly offered to help with it but never got a response. It makes no sense that year after year, I would score so far above the 1000 points target ; if the database had been updated to include my recent times, it would not be the case, even with the smoothing effect of the interpolation used to calculate the targets. And the new online handicap calculator is indeed very generous to me also, but probably appropriate in a statistical sense for people with performances closer to the average for their group.

It really makes no sence now, 1000 pounds should be wr level, in the top everybody scores far above 1000 points, while a 30 year pulling a 5.40 would not.

For the rest its fine offcourse, I can,t think of a way doing it differently, apart from the obvious updating. Raw scores are very much underperforming, it is what it is.

To compete is to participate with others; to contest to struggle against others. The old "gymnasium" model is honored in the C2 rankings. All may take the field and hierarchical placement in open as well as restricted categories is offered. I recognize the legitimate utility of weight-adjusted erg scores to OTW coaches who want their boats to sit on their design waterlines underway but formulas which purport to discover equivalence of performance across categories or classes mostly serve to indulge fantasies of personal accomplishment.

Thanks to all for your comments.
Please note, the corrected times are a referenced to a nominal 27 year old, 270 lb, male athlete, so the times are for comparison to other corrected times only.
I did not make this clear in my write up --- so I added some clarification.

The fairness of nonathlon scoring comes up every now and then. The main argument is that the algorithm favors older and lightweight rowers. Furthermore, scoring well over 1000 for an event seems odd for times well below WRs. For example, 1160 is currently awarded for a FM time that is 14 min over WR time for a 60+ F, LWt.

Just did an experiment comparing an actual 71 M, HWt versus a hypothetical 41 M, HWt for nine distances. These rowers are actually in nonathlon standings. The 71 HWt is the baseline. First percentages of actual pace over WR pace are calculated for all events (excluding FM). Those percentages range from 9.1% to 0.6%, most of them being less than 3%. Despite the fact that all paces are slower than WR pacing, 7 of 9 events are scored from 1007 to 1038 for a total of 9134. The target times for 1000 points for all nine events are quite a bit slower than WR times.

The hypothetical 41 HWt is scored dramatically different. If you give him times over WR times using the exact percentages calculated above for nine events, the total score is 8789, some 345 pts below the 71 HWt. In looking at target times, four of them are actually below WR times and the others are quite close.

The 41 HWt receives a score that is only 96.3 % of the score given to the 71 HWt despite rowing at a paces over WR paces identical in terms of percentage to the older rower. I think this discrepancy is only partially related to out of date data. This set of data makes nonathlon seem substantially flawed.

Cyclingman1 wrote:The fairness of nonathlon scoring comes up every now and then. The main argument is that the algorithm favors older and lightweight rowers. Furthermore, scoring well over 1000 for an event seems odd for times well below WRs. For example, 1160 is currently awarded for a FM time that is 14 min over WR time for a 60+ F, LWt.

Just did an experiment comparing an actual 71 M, HWt versus a hypothetical 41 M, HWt for nine distances. These rowers are actually in nonathlon standings. The 71 HWt is the baseline. First percentages of actual pace over WR pace are calculated for all events (excluding FM). Those percentages range from 9.1% to 0.6%, most of them being less than 3%. Despite the fact that all paces are slower than WR pacing, 7 of 9 events are scored from 1007 to 1038 for a total of 9134. The target times for 1000 points for all nine events are quite a bit slower than WR times.

The hypothetical 41 HWt is scored dramatically different. If you give him times over WR times using the exact percentages calculated above for nine events, the total score is 8789, some 345 pts below the 71 HWt. In looking at target times, four of them are actually below WR times and the others are quite close.

The 41 HWt receives a score that is only 96.3 % of the score given to the 71 HWt despite rowing at a paces over WR paces identical in terms of percentage to the older rower. I think this discrepancy is only partially related to out of date data. This set of data makes nonathlon seem substantially flawed.

Nice you looked into it. Very strange, makes the whole idea pretty stupid, a 1000 points is supposed to a Wr, I see people scoring plus 1000 points hardly needing to work for it.
Easy said from the rockingchair, but the scoring needs a big revision.

The points for that 41 year old also should be a lot lower, wr s have tumbled last year.