New Requirements For Ranking Pieces

[old] Stevo · Post by **[old] Stevo** » May 5th, 2005, 10:39 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(andyArvid @ May 6 2005, 12:31 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I do believe that one should be able to post any time rowed just that they should be considered unvalidated and be clearly marked in the rankings. Or equivalently mark the times that follow the rules as verified. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I think definitely mark verified rows, rather than all of the unverified.

[old] TRIBUM · Post by **[old] TRIBUM** » May 5th, 2005, 11:51 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(dadams @ May 5 2005, 12:43 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(c2bill @ May 5 2005, 02:25 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>dwayne - you are unfortunately one of the people that this rule will impact -and i apologize for the inconvenience. the ranking is more than just a collection of 2k times - each event is valuable and important to the integrity of the ranking. if anything this will make a top spot more valuable and credible than ever before - benefitting the top performers in all events. There are several rowing and health clubs i have a relationship with in your area - i'll personally take on the responsibility of ensuring that you have access to a machine when ever you feel ready to post a top time.<br /><br />regards,<br />bill <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Bill,<br />Access to a machine is not the issue. I know all the people around here as well. I do appreciate the offer though. <br /><br />My point is that in order for a 'non-regulation' distance to count I need to basically change the way I train. As would everyone. Every one of the top athletes in this sport that I personally know has a very specific way that they train (as I'm sure everyone reading this does). And it works for them. <br /><br />Now you're asking all of us to change something that already works. For what purpose? And correct me if I'm wrong please - Because you (C2) feel that the integrity of the sport is either in question, or in jeopardy.<br /><br />As PaulS said above, you know when someone is bull-sh***ing. When the time and person just don't match. <br /><br />If someone were to post an incredible time and it makes it to the top three. We (the rowing/erging community) know whether or not its real. So it stays on the ranking list? Big deal. To the rest of the worlds eye, it won't count worth a hoot.<br /><br />Ok...I've rambled enough. My point still stays. I think this one should be rethought for the 'standard' distances only (2k, 5k, 6k and possibly the 10K). QED.<br /><br />Dwayne <br /> </td></tr></table><br />

[old] TRIBUM · Post by **[old] TRIBUM** » May 5th, 2005, 11:53 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulH @ May 5 2005, 12:53 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>One potential issue here is that somebody needs to be at the top. If the people who 'deserve' to be there can't be bothered with this, and the people who aren't really that fast would never even consider doing an official time, then nobody should count as being in the top 3.<br /><br />For example, there are already 3 people with the top times in the HM 2k. I assume that they didn't go through the official channels for these times, so we can dismiss their times. But the same is true of the next three, and so on. So as long as I can get organized the 8 minute time I can do will be the best in the world for this year. Clearly I'm not going to bother, because that's just silly, so does that mean we don't rank any time?<br /><br />Cheers, Paul <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Yeah well, one of those Half-IM's posted was my time, and I did it today on my RowPro connected machine. I doubt that I will hold the place for very long, and I didn't fudge any numbers. That was my time - plain and simple.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » May 6th, 2005, 1:24 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(andyArvid @ May 5 2005, 06:31 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I do believe that one should be able to post any time rowed just that they should be considered unvalidated and be clearly marked in the rankings. Or equivalently mark the times that follow the rules as verified.<br /><br />These are World Records, not world recollections.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Andy,<br /><br />Have you read the previous messages? You apparently do NOT agree with BillP, as he said the times could not even be ////entered//// unless valiated. And several people have already suggested marking valiadation and slides etc in the rankings.<br /><br />Actually differentiating slide from erg times has been requested of C2 for YEARS! and C2 has been the one holding out in NOT doing that.<br /><br />And the question has nothing to do with world records. Of course world records need to be witnessed and validated. They already needed to be and still are.<br />

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » May 6th, 2005, 1:26 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Debra @ May 5 2005, 06:33 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>With membership in the indoor rowing community growing so rapidly, there has to be a point when it can be considered credible.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />It would not be credible to allow only a small niche to post times, and to exclude everyone else.<br /><br />That is the problem with the suggestion.<br /><br />It is exclusionary.

[old] Ralph Earle · Post by **[old] Ralph Earle** » May 6th, 2005, 4:06 am

Is it possible people have not understood what Bill is proposing? <br /><br />He says "(as determined by measuring against the 2005 rankings)." To me that means you must have a witness if you want to submit a time which would have been in the top three last year in your gender/weight/age class. <br /><br />In that case, I don't see a real problem -- we'll have ten months to take a shot at anything we have a chance at. By next March everyone should know whether they have a chance at cracking last year's Top Three and can plan to have a witness. <br /><br />The best ergers in the world will rarely beat last year's Bronze Medal time "accidentally" in training.<br /><br />I do think, however, that it's unfair to top ergers who have a machine at home.<br /><br /><br />An easier way to handle this situation would be to list all times submitted in the rankings, but only give a ranking number to results achieved at a Concept2-sponsored race. <br /><br />Sure, there would be more than a few combinations of event/gender/weight/age with no races results, but that's OK -- how many people would get an ego boost from submitting a false time to those rankings?<br /><br />

[old] seat5 · Post by **[old] seat5** » May 6th, 2005, 8:31 am

I was ranked in the top 3 in 5 events in the 2005 season. Therefore, if I row any of them faster than last year, I won't be able to rank them unless I find some place to row them in public after announcing my intentions and doing it in front of witnesses. 3 out of 5 of those events were rowed after midnight in my living room and until about 10 minutes before them I had no idea what piece I was even going to row. I went on the rankings, looked at what I would have to do to move up, and decided to give it a go, spur of the moment. The other two, HM and Marathon, were rowed in the afternoon, also at home. Those events would be especially hard to do at a health club since they take so long.<br /><br />I bought my machine after considering joining a local health club because I wanted to row when I could fit it in my schedule and because I can't afford to pay for a health club membership month after month. Nor do I have time to work out when the clubs are open (early morning being not good at all since it's too risky for my back). <br /><br />If you don't belong to a club, you can't just waltz in and use their equipment. <br /><br />I would be willing to upgrade my monitor to the PM3, which records your achievements quite accurately, if C2 would consider that as proof of your rowing the piece. I don't really want to spend $180, but at least that is for equipment I would have and use for years, unlike club membership which just keeps on costing you money.

[old] Canoeist · Post by **[old] Canoeist** » May 6th, 2005, 8:44 am

I am 49 years old. Next year, I will be in the 50's group. Assuming that I maintain reasonable fitness until then, I will have to notify Concept every time that I want to do a hard 5K, 6K, 30min, 10K, 1 hour, HM, or FM. (Because I never know which one will be the best for the season.) I will also have to find a local gym that is willing to give up a machine for 1 to 2 hours. And pay the gym. And spend the extra time to get to the gym, set up, etc. It ain't going to happen because I have my own machine so that my normal workouts don't take up the whole day.<br /><br />This means that the top distance times in the 50 M/H next year will not be representative of the class. <br /><br />How about if I row using RowPro? Maybe do it on-line with some others so they can see if the boat jumps as it would if two people switched off during a row? RowPro is easy to use and records every stroke for scrutiny.<br /><br />What would happen to my times in my on-line log book? Would the distances not be entered because the row was not "certified"? Would RowPro give me an error message saying that the Concept rankings rejected my entry to my log book?<br /><br />For some of the longer events in the older age classes, I think that rowing at a public facility is a bit restrictive and unproductive. For example, I haven't rowed a marathon yet that wouldn't place me in the top three of the 50s class. And only one or two of my training HM rows wouldn't be in the top three. (I rowed a few HM for low slow distance workouts.)<br /><br />Paul Flack

[old] Byron Drachman · Post by **[old] Byron Drachman** » May 6th, 2005, 9:07 am

<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'>Or feel they have been dishonored by the need for a witness. Well, you need a witness to get married, did you feel that your love for your spouse was dishonored?<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Hi Andy,<br /><br />I must have missed the point. I can see why when doing legal documents, etc., witnesses, notary publics, etc. are traditionally used. I thought the purpose of the on-line ranking was to see how you were doing in comparison to others in your age group and weight class. I can also see why "real rankings" are done in competitions. I had no idea we were supposed to take the on-line yearly rankings as official documents. <br /><br />Besides the annoyance of the requirement of needing a witness and going to a public place to row in order to move into one of the top three positions, the fitness centers available to me have signs about no food or drinks allowed. That's hardly suitable for doing a marathon. <br /> <br />Byron

[old] gw1 · Post by **[old] gw1** » May 6th, 2005, 9:22 am

I think RowPro is a suitable verification! I couldn't imagine any rower rowing a piece for some one else!!<br />Last year i sent my 40+ HW 500 & 1000m Pb's to C2 on a disk for verification, with no problems.<br />Good luck to all posting in the up coming year, i won't have any quality times until late Jan early Feb! <br /><br />GW

[old] michael · Post by **[old] michael** » May 6th, 2005, 10:41 am

I like Byron's idea of putting this to a poll. Aside from a couple of detractors who haven't thought this through well enough, I estimate that overwhelmingly people who use the rankings would not be in favor of the proposed rule changes.<br /><br />John hit it on the head on the very first reply when he replied "just because a machine is in a gym, doesn't make it or a witness any more credible." How can this be properly verified anyway--isn't it still at your word when you say that you went there and had a real person as a witness? The only way this can truly be verified is if C2 contacts the gym/fitness center directly for strict confirmation. I have to say that the few times I've used a "publicly accessible machine" I've been very frustrated with the lack of maintenance care given to them by the club staff. Add to that the distractions of other non-serious rowers who sit next to you with their "gee whiz, I wonder how this thing-a-mabob works" 4 minute workout, and you can see the potential pitfalls of attempting a top three position in such an environment. Who does their PB at a gym anyway?<br /><br />I realize that suspicious entries are made from time to time, for example Dwayne currently being surpassed in the total meters category by a 16 year old from Cairo (400,000 meters to date--come on!) but these things are quickly dispensed with right?<br />

[old] Dickie · Post by **[old] Dickie** » May 6th, 2005, 12:58 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(c2bill @ May 5 2005, 04:04 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>paul - didn't you get your check for $1m? <br /><br />remember all - this new regulation applies ONLY to those who row a top three time in a given event. This means that this rule will impact a total of roughly 400 people - not counting 2k race times. This on a base of 28,000 ranking users. <br /><br />By my calculations then this rule impacts about 1.4% of ranking users.<br /><br />-bill<br /><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ May 5 2005, 02:55 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(c2bill @ May 5 2005, 11:25 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><br />if anything this will make a top spot more valuable and credible than ever before - benefitting the top performers in all events. <br /><br />regards,<br />bill <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />You are exactly making my point here. Could you please explain the "benefit" of a top spot in the rankings? The World Record already has similar requirements, and according to some holders, along with $5, will get you a Latte at Starbucks (tip included). <br /><br />Working toward your potential has a benefit, this will be a highly individual pursuit, and in fact may lead to a "top of the rankings" spot for a few. The broad benefit is having a ranking in which a lot of people want to participate, not making the fastest times listed any more "credible". I'd guess that no matter what your policy, there will be those that simply will not believe the fastest times listed, of course, with the current "benefit", it makes no difference whether or not it is believed.<br /><br />"There can be only 1." <br /> </td></tr></table> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />The number of people this affects doesn't matter. What does matter is that this has been a very successful HONOR system and there is no reason to single out even 1 of those 28,000. I can see having some rules for an Official World Record but what you are suggesting for the rankings is simply ridiculous.<br /><br />I'm sorry, but this change offends me, and it is insulting to all the honorable members who post in the rankings.<br />

[old] chickenlegs · Post by **[old] chickenlegs** » May 6th, 2005, 1:55 pm

in any other serious sport i can think of, exceptional performances are either verified or verifiable or are not even taken into consideration by the sport's governing body.<br /><br />i consider indoor rowing a serious sport.<br />i row hard when i train and when i race i race as hard as i can.<br />if i win, i win, if i lose, i lose.<br /><br />i have rowed long anough to know that if you pull 6'30" on your own erg at home, you are going to pull a similar score in a race. usually faster.<br />if you pull 7' in a race, don't expect to be believed as a 6'30" rower.<br /><br />the honour system is a beautiful system, but it makes cheating easy, and in any large enough group of people there will be cheaters.<br />why would anybody cheart about their erg time is beyond me, but that is a matter for psycologists to study.<br /><br />concept 2 is simply trying to do what every other serious sport is already doing: if you are faster than everybody else, prove it. if you can't prove it, don't waste our time.<br /><br />if, like myself and probably 99% of people reading this, you are (and likely never will be) a world record breaker, then the new rule makes no difference.<br /><br />p.s. - if i could row under 5'37" (world record for my category) I would pay for my own ticket to Boston.<br /><br />

[old] JaapR · Post by **[old] JaapR** » May 6th, 2005, 2:06 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(michael @ May 6 2005, 09:41 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I like Byron's idea of putting this to a poll. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Also thought a poll would be a good idea, but I now think that reading this topic should convince C2 just to let go of the idea. You have showed your willingness to the disbelievers to make things more official. From all the reactions you may reconsider the new rule. To my opinion, just skip it.<br />The next best would be adding the extra VER category into the IND/RACE/ROWPRO category as suggested somewhere else in this topic.<br />But don't disallow people to enter their performance into the database! <br /><br />Jaap

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » May 6th, 2005, 2:09 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(c2bill @ May 5 2005, 11:06 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> if your PR's qualify you for one of the top 3 spots in the ranking, then these rules apply to you. If not, then there will be no impact at all on how you enter times in the ranking.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Is that right?<br /><br /><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'>**To enter a top 10 result a new code is required for the 2006 season- this may be obtained by emailing denah@concept2.com <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />No, that is NOT right.<br /><br />The new rules apply to EVERYONE who has one of the top 10 times in in the rankings, i.e. you MUST submit your time and details to C2. Submitting your times and details to the rankings is not enough. No, you must submit them to C2 (who knows why) and then wait 10 days for them to be "approved" to be put in the rankings. Why do they need to be "approved"? Who knows????<br /><br />Apparently now the "top 10" will be a very short list.<br /><br />Now tell me who wants to row a fast time and THEN have to wait 10 days for C2 to approve inclusion, while someone at C2 who rows a slower time after me gets their time put in the rankings immediately and before mine is approved.<br /><br />No, the new rules have very little to do with making times equitable, and everything to do with making sure they are not.

Concept2 Forum

New Requirements For Ranking Pieces

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General