Concept2 Forum

I am lightweight (and female and old) and I have no way to prove any of my times. I did one race this year but the person who weighed me didn’t ask for my ID, when I sat on the erg, no one asked me who I was. Maybe this piece should be pulled from the rankings because I could have cheated.

I have ranked my times for some of the other distances. It seems that some of them are faster than would be predicted from my 2K time. Isn’t that enough to say I cheated. They have verification codes and they were done in RowPro but my husband is capable of rowing these times. It is possible without his knowledge to get the verification codes off his logcard. So perhaps I should not be allowed to rank these either.

This theme is being addressed over and over again that the rankings are only for people who race and are fast enough to win. I don’t find the “Chad Threads” very entertaining. They make me feel like I don’t have any business being an indoor rower.

To me Chad Williams will never be a champion no matter how fast he rows. He doesn’t have the integrity. Champions inspire others to excel whereas Chad makes me want to quit.

Arlene

Arlene,

Why do you read threads that irritate you? There are many subjects relevant for only a small number of people. Don't let your fun being spoiled by something like that.
I myself don,t read many of the threads.

I have to ask!

How do you know if post irritates you if you haven't read it?

fish wrote:To me Chad Williams will never be a champion no matter how fast he rows. He doesn’t have the integrity. Champions inspire others to excel whereas Chad makes me want to quit.

Word.

I'm not sure whether Chad is an out-and-out troll, or simply not very good at raising topics in a manner less likely to cause upset or annoyance, but I do think he's more disruptive to the indoor rowing scene as a whole than he is beneficial, whatever his base motives.

Still, I suppose he has his right to post his views as he wishes.

Taffy Adams wrote:I have to ask!

How do you know if post irritates you if you haven't read it?

read the beginning and if it's not for you don,t read the rest. like zapping on your tv.

I've accomplished my objectives with the annual meters honor board, many others are doing higher meters now, and it is time for me to move on to other things, with rowing and elsewhere.

However, the honors board has also lost interest to me for several other reasons:

#1- There is STILL no search feature for women, who would like to see their meters listed on a WOMEN'S only meters honor board. I see this as being a major discrimination against women by C2.

#2- When Dwayne added an unbelieveable amount of meters at the end of the 2004/5 season, after he'd already been adding meters every day, and did this to pass another rower in position, I saw that as at the least a totally unethical use of the honors board.

#3- Some rowers have used their water time to greatly pad the meters they have rowed on their ergs.

I think people should use the annual honors meter board to motivate themselves to do more, and to do this in honorable ways.

John Rupp wrote:I think people should use the annual honors meter board to motivate themselves to do more, and to do this in honorable ways.

I think most people do just that.

fish wrote:Champions inspire others to excel whereas Chad makes me want to quit.


Arlene

I am glad Chad has spoken up about the issue of people cheating with their times, and their meters, in particular the situation with Dwayne. To me this means Chad is contributing to the integrity of the rankings.

I don't agree that only race times should be in the rankings, as I don't live near Boston and will probably never be there.

You know your times are legitimate, so you should feel free and feel proud to enter your times in the rankings.

John Rupp wrote:I've accomplished my objectives with the annual meters honor board, many others are doing higher meters now, and it is time for me to move on to other things, with rowing and elsewhere.

Move on then.

John Rupp wrote:However, the honors board has also lost interest to me for several other reasons:

#1- There is STILL no search feature for women, who would like to see their meters listed on a WOMEN'S only meters honor board. I see this as being a major discrimination against women by C2.

I see this as being a major discrimination against men by C2.

John Rupp wrote:#1- There is STILL no search feature for women, who would like to see their meters listed on a WOMEN'S only meters honor board. I see this as being a major discrimination against women by C2.

What the... is there a men's-only honor board? If not, this has a patronizing smell to it. PU.

John Rupp wrote: #3- Some rowers have used their water time to greatly pad the meters they have rowed on their ergs.

You have no idea how much, if any, any particular person has "padded" their meters in the honor board with on-water meters. Maybe it would be interesting to allow for additional fields - one for just on-water meters and one for just off-water meters, in addition to the already-available "total meters" field.

Allow sorting by those fields and displaying the differences in erg vs water meters would make some people happier. (though surely not all)

In my opinion though, if you really did row the on-water meters (especially in a single, where it takes considerably longer than on an erg to cover the same distance) I don't see a problem with having them logged.

Some of you could do with showing a bit more respect to Chad.
I don’t get on the forum as much as I used to, when I do get on these days I see that Chad as started topics and raised issues that other people would dare not start.

The amount of abuse he has taken from people is unjustified, yet he still comes on to put his points across. I for one think a lot of the issues he brings up are ones that need sorting out and could help to move the sport forward.

I agree that Chad’s manor is not the best around and he lacks tack in is writings, but none of us our perfect.

Sir P

ehagberg wrote:In my opinion though, if you really did row the on-water meters (especially in a single, where it takes considerably longer than on an erg to cover the same distance) I don't see a problem with having them logged.

There are a few problems with that though.

#1- There is no way to accurately estimate the number of meters rowed on the water;

#2- Some (or most) of those who have entered water meters did not really row anywhere close to the meters they entered;

#3- If you enter water meters, they why not running meters, as these are much more difficult and take longer to accomplish then coasting along on the water. There is no coasting along when you run.

#4- If you enter water meters, then why not enter meters from a bicycle. A c2 representative told me a few years ago that people asked him all the time about entering meters from bicycles and similar and he told them it was "fine as everyone else did it anyway".

Godfried wrote:Move on then.

I'm ahead of you in all the events, how's that.

John Rupp wrote:

ehagberg wrote:In my opinion though, if you really did row the on-water meters (especially in a single, where it takes considerably longer than on an erg to cover the same distance) I don't see a problem with having them logged.

There are a few problems with that though.

#1- There is no way to accurately estimate the number of meters rowed on the water;

#2- Some (or most) of those who have entered water meters did not really row anywhere close to the meters they entered;

#3- If you enter water meters, they why not running meters, as these are much more difficult and take longer to accomplish then coasting along on the water. There is no coasting along when you run.

#4- If you enter water meters, then why not enter meters from a bicycle. A c2 representative told me a few years ago that people asked him all the time about entering meters from bicycles and similar and he told them it was "fine as everyone else did it anyway".

#1 - GPS works, as does rowing from a starting point to a landmark a known distance away... perhaps even past the landmark (and rounding down to the known distance)
#2 - back to the whole "I don't believe they did what they said they did" argument
#3 - because running isn't rowing. Erging is off-water rowing and rowing is on-water rowing. Running isn't related to rowing in any sense.
#4 - see #3.