Watts Per Kilogram

[[old] Sirrowsalot]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Mar 3 2005, 03:31 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Mar 3 2005, 03:31 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We might even say that you're facing this (almost) 30 second gap too, in comparison to elite lightweights. Your excuse is your age; for others it's that they are too short; for others it's genetic limitations on VO2 max--these are all legimate reasons for not being as fast as the very best, but let's not pretend they can be "adjusted away"--they're quite real...and for whatever reason John pulls a a 7:24 (age, weight, height, other genetic limitatiosn), it's still a slow time.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />The sport of indoor (and outdoor) rowing, as it now stands, already "adjusts away" disparities in age, weight, and gender by having separate divisions along these parameters. So your talk along this line doesn't have anything to do with the sport as it is now done, races as they are now run. Only the hypothetical sport you are playing with in your head has absolutely fast and absolutely slow times. In the real world, these absolutes are "adjusted." I don't know what sport you are participating in, but in the real world, in real races as they are really run, I emphatically_don't_ face that 30-second gap. <br /><br />Oh well. Win a few, lose a few.<br /><br />As I see it, the argument for watts/kg is just a finer (and better) adjustment in terms of a parameter that is already recognized in the sport as it is now run/done.<br /><br />I am agreeing with you more generally about John's 2K time, but not for the reasons you cite, which again don't have anything to do with the sport as it is now run. His argument for a finer adjustment for disparities in weight just doesn't help him much if his aim is to recommend his 2K performance. <br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I think we've been through this before, but here goes again: <br />If the sport is indoor rowing, then no, no adjustments are made--there are simply different categories for older folks to give them something to strive for, precisely like an old timer's baseball game, the master's league tennis, or the senior pga tour, not so they can claim equal status with the main event. There are no adjustments made--the sport, as it stands, not as it is in my head, does not equate a victory in the overall division with a win beating lightweights who are over the hill. This is exactly analagous to tennis, for instance. No one in the world thinks that Jimmy Connors winning a few events on the Senior tour is anything like the achievement of say a Roger Federer last year. The two have very little to do with each other. Unless you are willing to say winning an old-timer's competition can be "adjusted" to the same status of winning the main competition, you're speaking nonsense.<br /><br />This endows your phrase, "Win a few, lose a few" with new meaning. You've won a few competitions against over the hill, lightweight fellows, yet you've lost the main competition of actually performing at an elite level in the open category. This is perfectly understandable. You're around thirty years past your prime. You've worked incredibly hard--you've won the old-timer's baseball game, the master's tennis game, the senior pga tournament--but let's not pretend that's the same thing as winning the World Series, Wimbledon, or the Master's. Hope that clears things up.

[[old] Sirrowsalot]

<!--QuoteBegin-Sirrowsalot+Mar 3 2005, 07:38 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Sirrowsalot @ Mar 3 2005, 07:38 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Mar 3 2005, 03:31 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Mar 3 2005, 03:31 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We might even say that you're facing this (almost) 30 second gap too, in comparison to elite lightweights. Your excuse is your age; for others it's that they are too short; for others it's genetic limitations on VO2 max--these are all legimate reasons for not being as fast as the very best, but let's not pretend they can be "adjusted away"--they're quite real...and for whatever reason John pulls a a 7:24 (age, weight, height, other genetic limitatiosn), it's still a slow time.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />The sport of indoor (and outdoor) rowing, as it now stands, already "adjusts away" disparities in age, weight, and gender by having separate divisions along these parameters. So your talk along this line doesn't have anything to do with the sport as it is now done, races as they are now run. Only the hypothetical sport you are playing with in your head has absolutely fast and absolutely slow times. In the real world, these absolutes are "adjusted." I don't know what sport you are participating in, but in the real world, in real races as they are really run, I emphatically_don't_ face that 30-second gap. <br /><br />Oh well. Win a few, lose a few.<br /><br />As I see it, the argument for watts/kg is just a finer (and better) adjustment in terms of a parameter that is already recognized in the sport as it is now run/done.<br /><br />I am agreeing with you more generally about John's 2K time, but not for the reasons you cite, which again don't have anything to do with the sport as it is now run. His argument for a finer adjustment for disparities in weight just doesn't help him much if his aim is to recommend his 2K performance. <br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I think we've been through this before, but here goes again: <br />If the sport is indoor rowing, then no, no adjustments are made--there are simply different categories for older folks to give them something to strive for, precisely like an old timer's baseball game, the master's league tennis, or the senior pga tour, not so they can claim equal status with the main event. There are no adjustments made--the sport, as it stands, not as it is in my head, does not equate a victory in the overall division with a win beating lightweights who are over the hill. This is exactly analagous to tennis, for instance. No one in the world thinks that Jimmy Connors winning a few events on the Senior tour is anything like the achievement of say a Roger Federer last year. The two have very little to do with each other. Unless you are willing to say winning an old-timer's competition can be "adjusted" to the same status of winning the main competition, you're speaking nonsense.<br /><br />This endows your phrase, "Win a few, lose a few" with new meaning. You've won a few competitions against over the hill, lightweight fellows, yet you've lost the main competition of actually performing at an elite level in the open category. This is perfectly understandable. You're around thirty years past your prime. You've worked incredibly hard--you've won the old-timer's baseball game, the master's tennis game, the senior pga tournament--but let's not pretend that's the same thing as winning the World Series, Wimbledon, or the Master's. Hope that clears things up. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Yep, we've had this precise conversation in "Battle of the Giants" (under training, 2003) a long time ago, so I've taken the liberty of replying for you, since you responded then to almost this exact same post.<br /><br />"Indeed. I am _way_ over the hill.<br /><br />I am not sure what can be concluded about the (eariler) potential of someone who takes up a sport at 50. As I said, rowing well at 50 (against others 50-year-olds) is pretty different than rowing well at 20 (against other 20-year-olds). <br /><br />Yes, agreed. Participating in senior and veteran rowing is exactly like participating in a retired persons league.<br /><br />This is just the point. The average decline in performance in indoor rowing is about a second a year after 30. Therefore, Graham's head-to-head competition is Seijkowski/Waddell, not Dwayne. Dwayne is now like a (spectacular) retired person. When he races again, he will be a senior. Sure, Graham could race against Dwayne, but I'm not sure why Graham wants to duck his real competition and race a senior. Apples and oranges. <br /><br />ranger"<br /><br />Notice: "over the hill", "pretty different," "exactly like participating in a retired persons league," "duck his real competition and race a senior," "apples and oranges."<br /><br />As one might say at the end of a tennis match (whether it's an old timer's game or one between the world's best): <b>Game, set, and match.</b><br /><br />

[[old] Sirrowsalot]

Let me add this: Ranger, what I've always found most incredible about your erging is that you don't need to make adjustments to be impressive. You're not a John Rupp who has to contrive elaborate tables to enter the realm of respectability. To someone like him, you can simply say, "At the age of 54, three times the age of some college athletes, my erging times would stand up to those of any lightweight college program in the country." To me, that's far more impressive than some percentage on a PATT table. I think that the John Rupps of the world need adjustments, you have defied your age and are impressive in an absolute sense.

[[old] John Rupp]

Rich,<br /><br />Thanks much for your insightful comments.<br /><br />My intention with bringing up the watts/kilogram question is as you have stated, i.e. performance across age, gender, and weight class.<br /><br />This has nothing to do with trying to promote my own 2k time, which I know is slow compared to world records. My PATT score for 2k is 90.0% of a world record time for my age, gender, and weight class.<br /><br />Interestingly though, those who moan the loudest about watts/kilogram have lower PATT scores than I do, i.e. 86%, 78%, 73% etc. For some it is easier to moan than get fit, or perhaps the lack of fitness creates moaning.<br /><br />Personally I have much greater admiration for a 110 woman who can row 8:02 for a 2k -- have any been discovered yet? -- than a heavyweight man who does 6:00 flat. Quite simply these performances would be equivalent if the 110 pounder was a man. But being a woman means her performance is roughly 10% superior to the heavyweight. It is telling, of course, that probably 90% of those in the rankings are heavyweight men, and noteworthy that none of them voted for the woman's performance being superior.<br /><br />A moral here, if you're a 110 pound woman looking for appreciation, support and encouragement from a man, your chances of finding it from a heavyweight rower are not very good!<br /><br />Oh well, to each their own.

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin-Sirrowsalot+Mar 3 2005, 08:12 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Sirrowsalot @ Mar 3 2005, 08:12 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Let me add this:  Ranger, what I've always found most incredible about your erging is that you don't need to make adjustments to be impressive.  You're not a John Rupp who has to contrive elaborate tables to enter the realm of respectability.  To someone like him, you can simply say, "At the age of 54, three times the age of some college athletes, my erging times would stand up to those of any lightweight college program in the country."  To me, that's far more impressive than some percentage on a PATT table.  I think that the John Rupps of the world need adjustments, you have defied your age and are impressive in an absolute sense. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Sir Row--<br /><br />Thanks for the compliment.<br /><br />Yes, I continue to endorse my comment that masters and veteran rowers at the moment are not in the same league as open rowers. Much of this is due to lifestyle and training, though, not to genetically controlled decline.<br /><br />And much of this decline with age due to life style and training might diminish somewhat as time goes on, if masters and veteran rowers, for whatever reason, start to train like open rowers, as I (and some others now) do. If this happened, I think we might find that the open categories and the age group categories might become similarly competitive and similarly exciting to participate in as a competitive arena. <br /><br />That is, if this trend continues, it might turn out that there will eventually be several hundred lwt males who can do sub-6:30 at 55, and perhaps a whole collection who could do 6:20. If that were the case, the younger kids would have to hustle up if they wanted to beat the granddads. No more slackin' at the oar! <br /><br />If this were to happen, I think the age group categories would become as exciting to track as the younger women and lightweights, even though, as you say, their diminished absolute achievement takes the edge off somewhat, even so.<br /><br />Personally, my next project is to take to the water. On the water, I can forget all of this crap about weight, too. The water will take care of that. I can just beef up, haul away, and match strokes with the big boys.<br /><br />Can't wait for that one.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Mar 3 2005, 07:31 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Mar 3 2005, 07:31 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><br />A moral here, if you're a 110 pound woman looking for appreciation, support and encouragement from a man, your chances of finding it from a heavyweight rower are not very good!<br /><br />Oh well, to each their own. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Once again, Complete BS!<br /><br />Hwt Male Rowers (of which I know a few) have tremendous respect for 110lb women, who do you think we like to choose for our coxswains. <br /><br />I've told you before John, this Transferrence issue should be dealt with by your Life Coach Coach. Your obvious disrespect for anyone who has performance better than you is getting pretty tired.<br /><br /><br />Ranger,<br /><br />The Relative Vs Absolute values for things like VO2Max (/kg) or "watts/Kg" have a place in Running (weight bearing), a bit more limited place in cycling (terrain varying, Note that Track Riders will be pretty large compared to ones that must attack hills. ), but NOT in Rowing (Level play field). I could dig up a reference from Stephen Seilers reasearch saying just that, however I see little point in that, I've never fabricated any information, so if someone chooses not to believe me, well that's their problem.<br /><br />

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Mar 4 2005, 12:04 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Mar 4 2005, 12:04 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes, I continue to endorse my comment that masters and veteran rowers at the moment are not in the same league as open rowers. Much of this is due to lifestyle and training, though, not to genetically controlled decline.<br /> </td></tr></table><br />If you're comparing --all-- 50+ rowers to open World Record holders then that is certainly the case -- for any age, gender, or weight class.<br /><br />Conversely when you compare --all-- open rowers to the World Records in the 50+ divisions, then the World Record holders for 50+ are just as superior and even more so.<br /><br />This comparing of run of the mill heavyweights to the other ages, gender, and weight class is where the PATT percentages show the differences very well. For example my 2k, though not very good compared to your World Record for your age, is equivalent to a 6:12 open heavyweight time, which shows such a time is also "not very good" for a heavyweight.<br /><br />The World Record for an open heavyweight is 5:37.

[[old] Sirrowsalot]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Mar 4 2005, 03:22 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Mar 4 2005, 03:22 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Mar 4 2005, 12:04 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Mar 4 2005, 12:04 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes, I continue to endorse my comment that masters and veteran rowers at the moment are not in the same league as open rowers. Much of this is due to lifestyle and training, though, not to genetically controlled decline.<br /> </td></tr></table><br />If you're comparing --all-- 50+ rowers to open World Record holders then that is certainly the case -- for any age, gender, or weight class.<br /><br />Conversely when you compare --all-- open rowers to the World Records in the 50+ divisions, then the World Record holders for 50+ are just as superior and even more so.<br /><br />This comparing of run of the mill heavyweights to the other ages, gender, and weight class is where the PATT percentages show the differences very well. For example my 2k, though not very good compared to your World Record for your age, is equivalent to a 6:12 open heavyweight time, which shows such a time is also "not very good" for a heavyweight.<br /><br />The World Record for an open heavyweight is 5:37. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Good point John: If you were much younger, much bigger, much stronger, and much fitter, you would have a great time--unfortunately you're not any of these things. That is a problem in the real world, but not in the world of adjustments! Not strong? Simply adjust away strength! Not tall? Adjust for height! The magical world of adjustments, where John Rupp pulls a 6:12!<br />

[[old] hwt]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Mar 4 2005, 03:22 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Mar 4 2005, 03:22 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><br />This comparing of run of the mill heavyweights to the other ages, gender, and weight class is where the PATT percentages show the differences very well.  For example my 2k, though not very good compared to your World Record for your age, is equivalent to a 6:12 open heavyweight time, which shows such a time is also "not very good" for a heavyweight.<br /><br />The World Record for an open heavyweight is 5:37. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />John many of us compare our hard earned results to our own previous results when we want to evaluate how our training is going. No adjustments required.

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-hwt+Mar 4 2005, 04:03 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(hwt @ Mar 4 2005, 04:03 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->John many of us compare our hard earned results to our own previous results when we want to evaluate how our training is going.  No adjustments required.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Yes very true and I do the same.<br /><br />My personal goals are always completely focused on my own personal objectives.

[[old] NavigationHazard]

<!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This endows your phrase, "Win a few, lose a few" with new meaning. You've won a few competitions against over the hill, lightweight fellows, yet you've lost the main competition of actually performing at an elite level in the open category. This is perfectly understandable. You're around thirty years past your prime. You've worked incredibly hard--you've won the old-timer's baseball game, the master's tennis game, the senior pga tournament--but let's not pretend that's the same thing as winning the World Series, <span style='color:blue'>Wimbledon</span>, or the Master's. Hope that clears things up. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Actually, Wimbledon has recognized two age categories for some time. Semi-formal play among Juniors began in 1947, and was raised to official Championship Status in 1975. As far as the organizers are concerned, Juniors now play in the same tournament as everyone else, albeit in age and gender-differentiated divisions. Moreover, as far as the Club organizing the competition is concerned, for the past twenty-nine years a player winning one of the Junior titles has been every bit as much a champion as the winner of the Gentlemen's or Ladies' singles.<br /><br />See <a href='http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/juniors/ ... story.html' target='_blank'>Wimbledon Tennis Club -- Juniors History</a> for details.

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->John many of us compare our hard earned results to our own previous results when we want to evaluate how our training is going. No adjustments required. </td></tr></table><br /><br />When Andly Ripley was 50, he rowed 6:07. At 56, he rows 6:23.<br />When Mike Caviston was 40, he rowed 6:18. At 44, he rows 6:26.<br />When Dennis Hastings was 50, he rowed 6:32. At 54, he rows 6:44.<br />When Paul Hendershott was 50, he rowed 6:13. At 61, he rows 6:28.<br /><br />So come again? If you discount age, how do talented, hard working rowers such as these use their "own previous results" to assess how their training is going from year to year as they get older? <br /><br />I don't understand.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Relative Vs Absolute values for things like VO2Max (/kg) or "watts/Kg" have a place in Running (weight bearing), a bit more limited place in cycling (terrain varying, Note that Track Riders will be pretty large compared to ones that must attack hills. ), but NOT in Rowing (Level play field). </td></tr></table><br /><br />Yes, I agree. But here, we are talking about erging, not rowing.<br /><br />I agree that weight becomes much less important when rowing on the water, as I know well from canoeing. <br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

Don't know about the history and validity of these things, but the physics of rowing pages say that the loss in time due to deadweight when rowing on the water is 1/6 the percentage increase in mass. <br /><br />By my calculation, this means that in a 1x, over a six minute course, all other things equal, a 110 kg. hwt has to deal with around 23 seconds worth (6.2%) of additional drag compared to a 75 lb. lwt. <br /><br />The open lwt WR on the erg is 5:37.<br />The open hwt WR on the erg is 6:02.<br /><br />Difference: 25 seconds<br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The open lwt WR on the erg is 5:37.<br />The open hwt WR on the erg is 6:02.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /> <br /><br />Sorry for the reversed figures. <br /><br />ranger