Us Indoor Rowing Team Selection

[[old] Thomas]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Nov 20 2005, 06:13 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Nov 20 2005, 06:13 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Eddy Merckx knows it too!<br /><br />Here he is just before smashing the 1 Hour World Record at Mexico City in 1972.<br /><br /><img src='http://www.thespincycle.com/files/merckxMoltini.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' /><br /><br />"Throughout this hour, the longest of my career, I never knew a moment of weakness, but the effort needed was never easy ... I will never try it again ... I don't think I could ever improve on this record."<br /><br /><a href='http://www.thespincycle.com/trips.asp?l ... st_cyclist' target='_blank'>http://www.thespincycle.com/trips.asp?l ... ist</a><br /><br /><a href='http://www.torelli.com/owen/eddyhour.html' target='_blank'>http://www.torelli.com/owen/eddyhour.html</a> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />There was some controversy regarding the attempt due to Mexico City's high altitude supposedly providing lower air resistance being an unfair advantage to Merckx.

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-Thomas+Nov 20 2005, 06:21 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Thomas @ Nov 20 2005, 06:21 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It proves that there is some sort of needed adjustment for those racing in Denver, Colorado and who will later race in Boston, Massachusetts. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />What about the others who improve? Rich Cureton went to races and smashed the times he was doing at home. Where is his free assistance???<br /><br />Where is mine???? <br /><br />That is so nice of C2 to give Dennis Hastings 12 seconds, that he didn't really do but look, there it is posted on the web site!!! Whoooo Hooooo!!!

[[old] Thomas]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Nov 20 2005, 06:27 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Nov 20 2005, 06:27 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Thomas+Nov 20 2005, 06:21 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Thomas @ Nov 20 2005, 06:21 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It proves that there is some sort of needed adjustment for those racing in Denver, Colorado and who will later race in Boston, Massachusetts. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />What about the others who improve? Rich Cureton went to races and smashed the times he was doing at home. Where is his free assistance???<br /><br />Where is mine???? <br /><br />That is so nice of C2 to give Dennis Hastings 12 seconds, that he didn't really do but look, there it is posted on the web site!!! Whoooo Hooooo!!! <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Denver, Colorado-5277 feet<br />Elkhart, Indiana-750-feet<br />Santa, Maria, CA-216 feet.<br /><br />

[[old] NavigationHazard]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Nov 20 2005, 06:45 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Nov 20 2005, 06:45 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Thomas+Nov 20 2005, 02:57 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Thomas @ Nov 20 2005, 02:57 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In 2005 at the Mile High Sprints in Denver Colorado, he rowed 6:54.2 and later at the WIRC he rowed a 6:43.8, which is an 10.4 second difference.[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />I can do a time trial one week and a week later do 10 seconds faster, in my garage, with NO competition at all.<br /><br />What does that prove????<br /><br />Nothing.<br /><br />It is crazy to give someone a free 12 seconds just because they live at 5000 feet.<br /><br />Heck the times are probably in reality faster there.<br /><br />If he had qualified at Boston then you had WIRC at Evergreen the times would probably be reversed. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Presumably you're not aware, but the NCAA routinely makes altitude adjustments when setting qualifying standards for its Track and Field (both Indoor and Outdoor) and also Cross-Country Championships. These apply to all divisions.<br /><br />You can find qualifying-site-specific tables available at <a href='http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2006/ ... _rules.pdf' target='_blank'>2006 NCAA Track And Field/Cross Country Rule Book</a>. The Indoor adjustment tables are pp. 253-64 and the Outdoor are pp. 271-88.<br /><br />I haven't bothered to work out the formulas they use. Clearly though the higher the qualifying site, the greater the compensation given to endurance events for altitude.<br /><br />In setting the altitude adjustment for Crash-B qualifying times done at the Mile High race in Denver, C2 seems to have decided to refer to the NCAA adjustments for Division I athletes running 3000m indoors in that city.<br /><br />For Div I men running the 3k indoors, the current NCAA qualifying adjustment for Denver (5279') is 13.31 seconds.<br /><br />For Div I women running the 3k indoors, the current NCAA qualifying adjustment for Denver (5279') is 15.58 seconds.<br /><br />Some -- though not all -- of the current Crash-B qualifying standards appear to use these adjustments, rounded up. See for example the C2 altitude adjustment for both HW and LW men from 14-18 on up to 50-54, which evidently is approximately 13.31 seconds. Similarly, for both HW and LW women in the 40-44 bracket, the C2 altitude adjustment evidently is right around 15.58 seconds. I'm quite prepared to be corrected by someone from C2, but I don't think this is entirely by coincidence.<br /><br />Both Dennis Hastings and Karen Gress had their 2ks adjusted by only 12 seconds. I don't know where Dennis rowed his, since he lives at something like 7400', but Karen reports she did hers at 6012'. In any event their adjustments were actually LESS than the ones C2 uses for Crash-B qualifying. If the latter standards are applied, Dennis' 6:51.2 works out to a 6:37.9 (adjusted) and Karen's 7:32.9 to a 7:17.3 (adjusted).<br /><br />Whatever you personally may think of altitude adjustments, C2 agrees on the principle with the main collegiate sanctioning body in the US. Neither do its numbers seem to have been made up with an ouija board. Whatever their source, they are in line with well-established adjustments for a track event that probably makes similar physiological demands.

[[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-->In setting the altitude adjustment for Crash-B qualifying times done at the Mile High race in Denver, C2 seems to have decided to refer to the NCAA adjustments for Division I athletes running 3000m indoors in that city.<br /><br />For Div I men running the 3k indoors, the current NCAA qualifying adjustment for Denver (5279') is 13.31 seconds. </td></tr></table><br /><br />I have nothing against altittude adjustment. Yes, you need air to row!<br /><br />Interesting suggestion, NH. Why 3000m, though? Why not 2K, or .67 x the adjustment for 3K, or about 8.5 seconds for males? This sounds more like. My guess is that Dennis will row something like 6:44 in Copenhagen (and if he goes, in Boston at WIRC 2006).<br /><br />Of course, one of the problems with 6:44 in the 55-59 lwt is that it is dangerously close to not being a winning time. John Harvey rowed 6:44 to win the 55-59 lwt division yesterday at BIRC 2005. <br /><br />My guess is that t will be as much as 20 seconds off the winning time in the 55-59 lwt division at WIRC 2006 (and off into the future).<br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

Forgot that EIRC will only have 10-year categories, too. <br /><br />With a WR of 6:25.8 in the 50-55 lwt divison, a 6:44 is pretty vulnerable, 18 seconds off the world record. This is equivalent to about 6:36 in the 40s lwts, in which Meenck and Caviston row 6:22-6:24.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] george nz]

Go Dennis !!! No matter what happens you made the effort to get selected and now that you have will represent the 'team' to the best of your ability on the day and who could ask for more <br /><br />George

[[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-->you made the effort to get selected </td></tr></table><br /><br />Just the problem, George. It isn't clear that making the effort is what gets you selected. It is not even clear that rowing the best 2K trial gets you selected.<br /><br />If this were the case, C2 would have just made the results of _all_ of the 2K trials public from the beginning, like the national team trials. That they didn't (and still don't) is telling. Initially, they resisted revealing _any_ of the 2K times, as though the whole process were application for admission to some sort of secret society! <br /><br />Now they reveal the 2K times of the selected rowers but not the times of the others, who were not selected. This still veils the basis for the selection in secrecy. <br /><br />The trails are not a fair and open competition.<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-->who could ask for more </td></tr></table><br /><br />I know that this is a _lot_ more to ask, so probably too much, but how about a fair and open competition as the basis of team selection?<br /><br />ranger<br /><br />

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Nov 21 2005, 05:18 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Nov 21 2005, 05:18 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now they reveal the 2K times of the selected rowers but not the times of the others, who were not selected. This still veils the basis for the selection in secrecy. <br /><br />The trails are not a fair and open competition.<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />I agree, we should see all the times.<br /><br />Reveal away! What was your 'secret' time? This is the place.

[[old] FrancoisA]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Nov 19 2005, 11:18 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Nov 19 2005, 11:18 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-->Are you able to maintain 1:37 @ 26 spm ? </td></tr></table><br /><br />Yes, I can do 1:37 @ 26 spm.<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Ranger,<br />For how long can you maintain that 1:37 pace? <br /><br />Like Paul, I am also curious about your 2K time

[[old] Thomas]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Nov 21 2005, 05:18 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Nov 21 2005, 05:18 AM)</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-->you made the effort to get selected </td></tr></table><br /><br />Just the problem, George. It isn't clear that making the effort is what gets you selected. It is not even clear that rowing the best 2K trial gets you selected.<br /><br />If this were the case, C2 would have just made the results of _all_ of the 2K trials public from the beginning, like the national team trials. That they didn't (and still don't) is telling. Initially, they resisted revealing _any_ of the 2K times, as though the whole process were application for admission to some sort of secret society! <br /><br />Now they reveal the 2K times of the selected rowers but not the times of the others, who were not selected. This still veils the basis for the selection in secrecy. <br /><br />The trails are not a fair and open competition.<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I think going to the Time Trial and rowing a qualifying time gets you in the door, but from that point there are human interest factors involved among the qualifiers. The elements of those factors are only known among the decision makers.<br /><br />

[[old] PaulS]

This is starting to sound a lot like all the female tennis stars that were griping about Anna Kournikova getting far more lucrative advertising contracts than them, even though she wasn't ranked as high, i.e. "wasn't as good a tennis player".<br /><br />Well, Anna is hot, hot, hot, hot, hot, which apparently sells more tennis products, the primary interest of the companies that put her on their "advertising team". <br /><br />Hmm, maybe we should ask Anna to take up Indoor Rowing...

[[old] michaelb]

I'll 3rd the request: Ranger, what was your 2k qualifying time for 2005?

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+Nov 21 2005, 10:41 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Nov 21 2005, 10:41 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is starting to sound a lot like all the female tennis stars that were griping about Anna Kournikova getting far more lucrative advertising contracts than them, even though she wasn't ranked as high, i.e. "wasn't as good a tennis player".<br /><br />Well, Anna is hot, hot, hot, hot, hot, which apparently sells more tennis products, the primary interest of the companies that put her on their "advertising team".  <br /><br />Hmm, maybe we should ask Anna to take up Indoor Rowing...  <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Well, _that_, I might understand! A _hot_ indoor rowing team! <br /><br />But I am afraid that C2's motivations are nothing so smart, productive, and lucrative. <br /><br />Rather, while it is indeed hard to know for sure, it seems that C2 wants its team members to have similar training, personalities, backgrounds, opinions, connections, etc..<br /><br />Pretty indefinite stuff.<br /><br />Nothing so evident and unmistable as what Anna has! <br /><br />So I guess we go on guessing whether we are one of the "appropriate" ones, who, if we rowed well in a trial, might be selected, because we "fit the mould," whatever that might be.<br /><br />Bizarre. Go figure.<br /><br />ranger<br /><br />