New World Best 6K, 60-69

[Citroen]

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.

That's not what Carl said. He said he won't take IND entries seriously and by that he's reducing the 100% trustworthy population to those folks with RowPro, PM3/PM4 and card readers who use the more resilient ways of logging their results. He's eliminating all of the PM2 users and most of the PM2+ users at a stroke.

[Cyclingman1]

Did you not just repeat what I wrote?

[hjs]

5.39. Fastest 2k in the 40/50

Pretty decent of that guy.

[Carl Watts]

True but there has not been a PM2 made now for over 10 years so how may people in the top 5% of the rankings are still using a Model C with a PM2 or have not upgraded their monitor ?

I suspect very, very few so looking at the fact that the vast majority of entries in the rankings are IND they are either unaware of the IND_V system, don't know how to get the verification number and enter it or are just to lazy or the result is false.

If you want the top position in the rankings the result has to be verified, even then this is not 100% but it's then good enough in my book.

[hjs]

Ranking last year mike shots 14.18.8.....

Nobody boddered to care and delete it.

[Cyclingman1]

5.39. Fastest 2k in the 40/50

Pretty decent of that guy.

Don't know Mr. Crawford. I do know that the WR for 40-49, HWT, 2K was set in 2009 at 5:57.5.
No serious rower would be unaware of that. And one would think that anyone posting on C2 would be well aware of the significance of verified postings, especially when one is claiming to break a WR by nearly 19 secs. I would need more information before any credibility could be assigned to 5:39.

[hjs]

5.39. Fastest 2k in the 40/50

Pretty decent of that guy.

Don't know Mr. Crawford. I do know that the WR for 40-49, HWT, 2K was set in 2009 at 5:57.5.
No serious rower would be unaware of that. And one would think that anyone posting on C2 would be well aware of the significance of verified postings, especially when one is claiming to break a WR by nearly 19 secs. I would need more information before any credibility could be assigned to 5:39.

There is plenty more to see. The whole ranking is very far from compleet and far from errors and false times. In holland and germany almost nobody bodderes to rank anything. And in both ountrie are plenty fast rowers/ergers.

I do think plenty of serious rowers don,t know, for them erg times don,t mean much and erging is just a training tool. The rankings mean nothing to them.

[Carl Watts]

Which is a real shame Hjs because it would be great if they did care.

Have been pushing for an IND_V monthly Challange that C2 could run once a year for a while as well but they are not interested.

It's the lack of utilising the IND_V system that makes me not want to bother to put in an extreem amount of effort in either.

[Cyclingman1]

I have suggested to C2 that times that are below WR not be accepted unless in verified format for all distances. I don't think that is too strict of a requirement. It goes to giving the ranking system credibility. I agree that there are always questions about IND times, but unless one is claiming a WR, I can live with IND times. I think that most such times are legit. It would be good if by the end of the season all times are verified. Of course, that is not going to happen.

[hjs]

Which is a real shame Hjs because it would be great if they did care.

Have been pushing for an IND_V monthly Challange that C2 could run once a year for a while as well but they are not interested.

It's the lack of utilising the IND_V system that makes me not want to bother to put in an extreem amount of effort in either.

It is what it is. Their sport is rowing, not a machine.

I don't care mucg what others do or don't, for me its the personal effort that counts, I also never boddered to use the IND V system. So my rows in the ranking mean nothing to you Even though some of them are done in races.

C2 stays out it, it would be way to much trouble to organize something like that. By far the majority of c2 users are doing so for fitness reasons, I don't think most even know the rankings and the fact there are races.

[Bob S.]

I have suggested to C2 that times that are below WR not be accepted unless in verified format for all distances. I don't think that is too strict of a requirement. It goes to giving the ranking system credibility. I agree that there are always questions about IND times, but unless one is claiming a WR, I can live with IND times. I think that most such times are legit. It would be good if by the end of the season all times are verified. Of course, that is not going to happen.

IND times are not ranked for the top ranks. On a random check, I found one category for which the top two times were IND , but only the third time listed was ranked number 1 (60' M 50-59, either weight'). First and second places were C2log and third place was IND, so apparently it is only the top rankings that require verification. I also see that Oestereling has #1 ranking for all the times and distances at this point? I'm curious now if he has signed up to the nonathlon. I'll have to take a look. If there is a dominators list put out for this season, he is bound to be near the top, even if he loses ground on a few events.

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

I'll have to take a look.

Just looked - not there.

[Bob S.]

Which is a real shame Hjs because it would be great if they did care.

It is just a fact of life. It is amazing that erging is as popular as it is - popular enough to have world wide competitions and events like WIRC, BIRC, and EIRC that draw competitors up into the thousands, but it is still an oddball sport. How many top cyclists would participate in a stationary bicycle event? Big weight lifting competitions are done with free weights only - I have never heard of a major lifting competition in which a machine was used, but there are plenty of them around. The erg is a great exercise machine for getting fit and a reasonable device for a rower to use when it is impractical to got out on the water, but it does not have much appeal to most of the OTW competition rowers. Their time is far better spent out in a boat as much as possible.

Bob S.

[Cyclingman1]

I believe the way it works is that all times are posted. To be designated as 1 or 2 requires a verified posting. #1 starts with the first verified posting. #2 is assigned to the next. There is inconsistency by C2 on this. I have seen #1 assigned to an IND posting.

I saw a dominators posting earlier this yr. Oesterling is the first person to be #1 in 10 events more than once, and he has done that three times, including 2012. It would be interesting to see where Oesterling would be in nonathlon. He may not be #1.

[Ralph Earle]

Currently there are no M 64 H scores for 500m and 1K. Using the M 63 H criteria for those distances, I estimate that TJ Oesterling would have about 9,610 points, including the 100 bonus for a marathon.