Percentage of World Records

[johnlvs2run]

[johnlvs2run]

[PaulH]

The PERathlon scores, similar to the Nonathlon but more accurate, are a competitive model comparing the PERcentage of one's times to a World Record quality Curve.

Except that the Nonathlon doesn't do that, nor does it claim to, accurately or otherwise. I appreciate that lying is easier than thinking and understanding, John, but it's worth applying yourself.

JimR - no offense taken

Cheers, Paul

[johnlvs2run]

the Nonathlon doesn't do that, nor does it claim to

Agreed.

[PaulH]

The PERathlon scores, similar to the Nonathlon but more accurate, are a competitive model comparing the PERcentage of one's times to a World Record quality Curve.

the Nonathlon doesn't do that, nor does it claim to

Right.

However, the PERathlon does.

Thus the PERathlon is more accurate than the Nonathlon.

So you think the PERathlon does, but agree that the Nonathlon doesn't. So why do you describe them as 'similar' in this respect?

[johnlvs2run]

The PERathlon scores compare the percentage of one's times to the World Record quality curve.

[johnlvs2run]

why do you describe them as 'similar' in this respect?

Both give scores based on performances in the same 10 events used in the Concept2 rankings.

[PaulH]

The PERathlon scores, as stated above, are a competitive model comparing the PERcentage of one's times to a World Record Quality Curve.

The PERathlon scores are similar to the Nonathlon, but the Nonathlon is not similar to the accuracy of the PERathlon, as to comparison with a World Record Quality Curve.

In what way are they similar? The Nonathlon doesn't use World Records as the PERathlon does, prefering instead the best times recorded on the online ranking. The PERathlon uses a small set of data and extrapolates from it using arbitrary factors to calculate other distances. The Nonathlon uses (quick calculation) 2,330 separate pieces of data. The Nonathlon uses a 2nd order polynomial to calculate scores, whereas the PERathlon uses a power curve that as far as I can understand doesn't actually apply to 19-35 year olds. Heck, on a purely surface level the PERathlon uses fractional percentages whereas the Nonathlon uses integers. Oh, one other difference - you repeatedly say that the PERathlon lets people calculate their percent of World Record Times, which is a lie; the Nonathlon's description is not very well worded, but we don't lie about it.

So in what way are they similar? The only way is that they both claim to be a useful way of comparing performance across different groupings. The Nonathlon is certainly flawed in this respect, in some cases because of the data, in others because there are sophisticated mathematical models available (no, not power curves) that I choose not to implement because their complexity comes along with reduced transparency. But you haven't demonstrated that the PERathlon is in any way better, or indeed has any particular validity at all outside, perhaps, of the 2k. Right now saying that the two are similar but the PERathlon is more accurate is like saying that bicycles and Hummers are similar, but Hummers are sparklier; they're not really similar, and you haven't defined what sparkly means in any case.

[JimR]

JimR,

The PERathon is not a training plan, but rather a measurement of PERformance.

By using the PERathlon, you can tell the benefits of any training program, and how it has or has not been a useful as a guide to improvements.

John -

I think I finally get it!

(1) The PERathon is NOT a training plan so it does not replace/augment the STM plan from Paul or the Wolverine Plan from Mike or the C2 plans or the Interactive or the Pete Plan or etc. As such it can offer no useful advice on what my next workout should be.

(2) The PERathon is NOT a substitute for the NONathon so it is not intended to provide an interesting look at how someone's times compare with others who enter their efforts. While Paul himself has thoughts on improving the NONathon I think it succeeds on the "reward" topic (little effort for the user, interesting results).

So the PERathon is supposed to tell me if my training plan is working. I actually get the same information currently by ...

(1) Comparing my actual result after completing a workout against my target/goal for the workout. The feedback is immediate, requires no effort on my part beyond what I would do anyway and needs no technology.

(2) Compare the same workouts over time to see if I am improving. If I am then my training plan is a success, if not I need to refine my training plan. Again, the feedback is immediate, requires no effort on my part beyond what I would do anyway and needs no technology.

So based on my current training process the PERathon
> increases my tracking effort
> increases the time spent on unproductive activities related to erg performance (which could be better spent erging)
> adds no useful information beyond what I alread have available to guide my training
> does not directly improve my performance on the erg

If you were able to explain to me where the value-add comes from when I take the time to calculate my PERathon scores I could reassess the effort and reward in participating in your PERathon. Based on the information I have at this point I hold the opinion that there is nothing to be gained from the effort of tracking my PERathon scores.

Until then I will console myself in the fact that my erg performance for the workouts I do is improving ... which has always been a 100% accurate indicator that my 2K erg time is improving as well.

JimR

[johnlvs2run]

PaulH,

The Perathlon and Nonathlon are similar that they both provide scores for the 10 rowing events from the rankings.

The Perathon us unique by providing these scores as a percentage of the 2k World Records, and as a ratio of a World Record Quality Curve.

By doing so, the Perathon includes the totality of all performances achieved by everyone in the world, and has near 100 percent across all events, all ages, both weight classes and both genders.

So there are some similarities, but the Perathlon is primarily quite unique.

[johnlvs2run]

[johnlvs2run]

[JimR]

The PERathon is not a substitute for the nonathon

It's also not a substitute for banging your head on a wall, jumping off a bridge, or taking bad advice from a medical quack.

Are your times in the nonathlon? If so, what are they?

Or do you not post them there either?

Since you haven't done either of these, how would you know how they compare?

John, as an expert in "banging your head on a wall, jumping off a bridge, or taking bad advice from a medical quack" I will defer to your opinion in this case.

As far as the subject of my erg times and "how they compare" I believe I am the expert and I have the best comparison of all ... my times. So with complete accuracy I am sure that if my training pieces show decreasing paces then my performance is improving.

As I said before ... calculating my PERathon and WATTathon scores yields no useful information that I can see ... and so I choose not to simply because I receive no benefit for the effort.

Yet I remain open to the possibility that there is a benefit I do not yet understand. I will continue to follow the saga of the PERathon ... perhaps you will develop the logic at some point to explain the real-world usefullness of your invention.

JimR

[johnlvs2run]

[johnlvs2run]