New Requirements For Ranking Pieces

[[old] michael]

<!--QuoteBegin-chickenlegs+May 6 2005, 12:55 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(chickenlegs @ May 6 2005, 12:55 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->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 /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />In the four years that I've checked the rankings I think I may have seen one highly questionable submission. It become a topic of discussion on the forum and as I recall, the entry was summarily retracted. Seems to me that the queries that would naturally occur on the forum alone suffice in helping to purge specious entries. <br /><br />It is indeed a beautiful system and shows no obvious signs of being broken, so why "fix it"?<br />

[[old] whp4]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+May 6 2005, 06:09 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ May 6 2005, 06:09 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-c2bill+May 5 2005, 11:06 AM--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 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 /> </td></tr></table><br />Based on my experiments just now, yes, it is a correct description of the behavior.<br /><!--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--><!--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-->**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. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />John, you needed a code to enter a top 10 result last season as well. My reading is that they've simply changed it to a different code for entering a top 10 result this season, without changing the way things work. That system seems acceptable.<br /><br />What is new is the stricter requirements for a top 3 result (as measured against last year's results). We still haven't gotten a straight answer on exactly how a result is compared with last year's results (I'm a 42 year old HWT male - am I compared only against 42 y/o MHWT results, against 40-45 MHWT results, 40-49 MHWT, etc.) but essentially it boils down to people who are pushing the frontiers of performance will run into this and the rest of us won't. I'm naturally biased, but I think the scheme I proposed of simply tagging the results that C2 has "verified" is the least objectionable so far suggested.<br /><br />Where do you get this stuff about "10 days for approval" and C2 employees getting their (slower) results posted sooner? Looking at your PB listing in your signature and the top 3 slots for 50-59 male lwts from the 2005 rankings, I find it a little hard to believe that you've suddenly improved to the point where you have a top 3 time by those standards, and I can't see any ranking entries submitted by C2 employees in the 2006 season except for Bill Patton's 500m entry, which isn't anywhere near top 3 performance levels. Is this conspiracy you see already in place, blocking your latest results from being ranked?<br /><br />Picture the job interview at C2 HQ:<br /><br />Interviewer: "we'd really like to hire you, and can offer a very competitive package"<br />Interviewee: "what does the benefits package include?"<br />Interviewer: "well, the best one of all is that if you row a fast piece, we'll put it up on the rankings board before we'll let John Rupp's new PB go up"<br />Interviewee: "Wow! That's even better than medical coverage and 3 weeks paid vacation!"<br /><br />There were some very reasonable posts on this thread under your name yesterday - have you changed your password recently? <br /><br />Bill<br />

[[old] Dickie]

<!--QuoteBegin-chickenlegs+May 6 2005, 01:55 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(chickenlegs @ May 6 2005, 01:55 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->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 /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />First of all, we are not talking of a 'World Record' we are talking about a yearly ranking list that is (and here's the important part) attached to our 'Training Log' so we can conveniently rank our TRAINING pieces. And since I am training and not in danger of being one of the top 3, I would have no reason to alter my plans on a day to day basis to set up at a public place with witnesses. What happens if all the planets are just right and I feel great, and I just happen to pull off the row of a lifetime, are you telling me I can't rank my training piece, the operative word here is training not world record.<br /><br />Someone on this thread suggested a vote, I agree, these times we post are ours, they do not belong to C2, they own the server, they monitor the software, but the data belongs to us. We are the customer and as some unknown marketing genious once said 'The Customer is always right'. So C2 are you going to listen to your customers or not.<br /><br />I hope your following this c2bill because it is apparent from this thread that your customers are not happy with this decision, are you listening?<br />

[[old] John Rupp]

Bill,<br /><br />Your skit is humorous and, yes I do indeed wonder if that is what happens. <br /><br />The 3 pieces I entered last season were top 10 times when entered, and I didn't need any code to do so. If a code was required than that is news to me, but if so then that is no change. Even so, it is ridiculous to have to (1) send for a code, (2) wait to receive the code, and (3?) then reenter the time again before it can be put in the rankings.<br /><br />Notice C2 has had NO response to it's constituents today, and thus no regard for anyone's input but it's own.<br /><br />Why not just let everyone enter their times immediately, as IND (individual times). Then C2 can, at it's leisure, change the IND to VER when it verifies that the times meet it's standards. I am willing to bet that less than 10% of all rowers would bother to send in to C2 for any "approval" that they actually did what they did. This would be easy to test. Just start doing it this way and find out.<br /><br />Personally, I have 26+ million meters, and haven't even sent in for the rowing shorts, C2 bag, shirt, certificates, mugs etc, since 8 million meters or so.

[[old] John Rupp]

By the way, when I get a top 3 time do the new "rules" mean C2 is going to reject it, because the time was done in my garage, albeit with a witness but not in a health club???<br /><br />This is apparently EXACTLY what that means.

[[old] NavigationHazard]

At the moment, the practical reality of posting top-10 times doesn't quite match the furor.<br /><br />Right now I'm leading the 40-49 MH 5k standings, not by virtue of being fast but as an artifact of having ranked a totally offhand workout to see what would happen. Result- time posted to the rankings, no 'request code from Denah' message, no 'where are the witnesses' messages or any other C2 intervention.<br /><br />Perhaps they're only planning to ask for details of the row if the time would be in the top 10 from last year, unless or until 10 faster times accumulate this season.<br /><br />I have to agree with Canoeist -- like Paul, I'm turning 50 this year and planning to kick some age-group butt. As of 9/26, times that will have me around the top 10 or so in the 40-49 bracket should get me into the top 2 or 3 in at least 4 and maybe 5 categories among 50-59 MHs.* I utterly fail to see why I will be trusted to post results on the honor system until midnight on 9/25, and will have to provide prior notice, public performance, and verification thereafter.<br /><br />Having said all this, I don't particularly mind making assaults on top-ranking times in public forums. But I will suggest that C2 seems to be taking some of the spontaneity out of erging -- hey! let's see what I can do at 5k! -- and that's a damned shame.<br /><br />* Based on 2005 results, so yes, the top-3 rules apparently will apply.

[[old] seat5]

<!--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 3 pieces I entered last season were top 10 times when entered, and I didn't need any code to do so. If a code was required than that is news to me, but if so then that is no change. Even so, it is ridiculous to have to (1) send for a code, (2) wait to receive the code, and (3?) then reenter the time again before it can be put in the rankings. </td></tr></table> <br /><br />Not all the events on the rankings have required codes from Denah if you were in the top ten. I don't think the marathon and half marathon do. I can't remember but I am sure that there others that also did not require a code for being in the top ten. 10K did, and I think 5K. Can't remember about 6K or the timed pieces, and don't know about anything 2K or less because I'm pokey in those events.<br /><br />

[[old] monkey]

<!--QuoteBegin-NavigationHazard+May 6 2005, 11:08 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(NavigationHazard @ May 6 2005, 11:08 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->  But I will suggest that C2 seems to be taking some of the spontaneity out of erging -- hey!  let's see what I can do at 5k! -- and that's a damned shame.<br /><br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Absolutely NH! PBs/records just can't always be planed in advance, they just happen sometimes! I imagine its the same for the top guys as well as the slower guys like me to whom this rule does not apply.<br /><br />But still the question of access to public ergs doesn't appear to have been answered, <u>if</u> you no access to a public machine <u>and</u> you are one of the top 3 rankers then under this rule you are excluded from the top 3 ranking.<br />This is blatently unfair!<br /><br />And for those top people who have spent big money buying thier own C2s, setting up a home gym etc. Its a bit rich to expect those to go and join a gym/rowing club or whatever just so they can have their PBs ranked.<br /><br />Think again C2, this ruling is ridiculous.

[[old] Birkyboy]

<b>Does this apply to Great Britain's List?</b><br /><br /><b>Does this apply to every AGE/Weight Catagory or only the Full List?</b><br /><br />My view... If the 'honour system' is not valid, then having me obtain a 'friend' to verify, whether or not they did view a pb can still be abused.<br /><br /><b>Even IF I notify C2 of a planned event.. I could still do this for a time I did yesterday... To evade the rules</b>..<br /><br />For example. tomorrow I do a new pb at H/M.. because I am in a high AGE group 50/59.. I could make an impact.. So having done such a time, being aware of the rules.. I just note my time... Inform C2 I will be doing the event tomorrow.. Then submit my (Genuine and actual time of before) and have it verified..<br /><br />HOW can C2 know any different... and more to the point how can anyone looking at the listing know others have not done the same.. C2 cannot be at my gym for all my training.<br /><br /><b>SECONDLY</b>... This does seem really unfair for people who do erg at home and not have gym memberships.<br /><br /><b>FINALLY.... </b>If C2 want to 'toughen up' the rankings.. then surely they should have events to compete in.... <b>Where can anyone compete at F/M distance....?</b>

[[old] FrankJ]

What would solve the problem for me would be to consider an online event a "race" and accept the results from RowPro. Then all I would have to do is make sure that I was online before I tried for a PB.<br /><br />Currently I am near the top in the 50-59 age group for the marathon. In 3 months I will be 60 and figured that would be a good time to try for some new PBs which should put me in the top few for the 60-69 age group at least for the longer distances. Finding a public machine that is in good enough shape to use for PB attempts could be an impossible task.<br /><br />Frank

[[old] ehagberg]

<!--QuoteBegin-FrankJ+May 7 2005, 09:32 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(FrankJ @ May 7 2005, 09:32 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Finding a public machine that is in good enough shape to use for PB attempts could be an impossible task. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />This "public machine" thing is what really makes little sense, especially for those pieces that are of lengths that are never done at race events. You just plain can't row a marathon or anything longer than 60 minutes according to most health club rules, unless you happen to be there at a time when the staff will look the other way. At some gyms, there's only one or two ergs, so the likelihood of someone trying to boot you off after you've passed the 1 hour mark is pretty high.<br /><br />And for those of us with RowPro, which records every stroke, I think you're actually less likely to have fraudulent submissions than those entered by hand and "verified" by some random witness at the gym. Yes, you can doctor your entries, but then how about having the PM3 logcard image sent along as well - I don't think there's an easy way to fake data that the PM3 has stored on it... then you just have the possibility that you get someone else to row for you... <br /><br />And regarding online racing in RowPro counting - hasn't that been a little less than rock-solid? What happens if you row a personal best, top 3 ranking piece in an online race, but for some reason, your boat never came off the starting line as far as the race server was concerned, or it got dropped out at some point during the race? Would your result count?<br /><br />Perhaps for world records of all types I could see C2 wanting to have times verified, and I see no problem with that. My opinion is this: let the logbook and rankings work the way they always have in the past - honor system with occasional disputes over questionable times - and if you want a _world_ _ranking_ piece, then it has to be verified (and maybe even rowed with an official of some sort present).

[[old] VTSkier]

<!--QuoteBegin-Debra+May 5 2005, 09:33 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Debra @ May 5 2005, 09:33 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->... if you're really that good (top 3) then obviously there wouldn't be any trouble for you at all to repeat that performance under 'verifiable' conditions.  ... <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Carla's husband Dave here... No trouble at all? We own a model C, we do not belong to a health club, and with two kids in college, it is not possible financially right now. I do not know anywhere near here with a rower. Carla does her rowing the only time it fits in her schedule. Usually around midnight...no publicly accessible rowers will *ever* be available then with witnesses. I would call this a major trouble...spelled i-m-p-o-s-s-i-b-l-e to comply with.<br /><br />If this policy stands, Carla will never again be able to post a top time, which many of hers are. This is very demotivational to her. It also discriminates against people who own their own Concept II rowers and are busy (which describes most if not all competitive people I know).<br /><br />Somehow it does not seem like a smart business policy of Concept II to discriminate against people who are competitive rowers that own their own rowers. It also doesn't make sense to reduce the utility of the Rankings (which are mainly for motivation, true?). I don't think I've ever heard of someone getting paid for the seasonal rankings.<br /><br />The World records already have tight verifiability requirements, don't they? This only applies to the seasonal rankings.<br /><br />I am a software developer, so analysis of the data on the Rankings website comes to mind. I think that if you check last years rankings vs. the log book entries (which C2 can do), you will find a very small percentage of logged entries that were NOT ranked that beat the end-of-year top 3 rankings in each event. People like(d) the rankings and being at the top. I think that if you do the same analysis on this year's data (which is only 7 days old, admittedly), you will find a much higher percentage of fast times that due to the new policy are not ranked even though they could and should be.<br /><br />Shouldn't all policy changes be driven by the goals of increasing the utility of the web site and motivating the participants? If the utility of the rankings is to motivate and inform the users of how they rank worldwide, this policy seems counter-productive.<br /><br />"My two cents" Dave

[[old] CAROLE MAC]

Dave I agree with you Carla and I both row at home and we have had a good time competing against each other this will now go as I don't intend to join a gym. I sometimes row at the at work in the middle of the night where the public have no access unless they have been arrested...mind you I spose I could get one of the detained persons to verify my time!!!!!!!!! weg ........ <br /><br />If the powers that be don't believe peeps perhaps as already suggested we should just be able to say whether verified or not like you can state whether the time has been done on slides or not. These times we log are not world or british records just seasons best for individuals . There are rules for records .

[[old] Bayko]

I'm on the side of C2 here, even knowing that it will make things tougher for some, including me hopefully. Even the higher standards being proposed leaves this sport with the easiest method for ranking oneself amongst worldwide peers.<br /><br />Think of the contradictions being made in some of the arguments against it. The rankings are public. Ranking a piece shows a willingness and desire to have one's effort on display. Yet many are unwilling to publicly show it being done. The attitude seems to be "I'll do what I want, when I want, and you'll just have to take my word for it." For the most part, the rankings are actually conducted that way. We are fortunate for that. But a top three worldwide ranking? Why shouldn't there be a higher standard? If is so easy to achieve that someone can get it at the spur of the moment, totally unplanned, then they are obviously good enough to do it again in public. Either that, or the performance is so weak compared to the other age-groups that the standard isn't very high to begin with. (Sorry to be so blunt). If a top three isn't worthy of a little extra effort then perhaps it isn't a worthy mark to begin with.<br /><br />Another sentiment that I don't think has be thought through enough is that of Navigation Hazard et.al. when he wrote: <i>Having said all this, I don't particularly mind making assaults on top-ranking times in public forums. But I will suggest that C2 seems to be taking some of the spontaneity out of erging -- hey! let's see what I can do at 5k! -- and that's a damned shame.</i> Come on, you're better than that. That seems the kind of twisting that Rupp or ranger would do. What, in the new policy, prevents us from going -- hey! let's see what I can do at 5k!? the new policy only prevents it from being ranked in the top 3. Can you imagine any other sport in which the athlete feels good on a particular training day and decides to NOT bother seeing what he can do because it wouldn't be ranked publicly in the top three in the world? Say a weightlifter who feels strong enough to lift his biggest weight ever, or a pole-vaulter who feel a new PB height on the day, or a swimmer who felt himself tearing throught he water faster than ever? Of course not. They would do it, and we would do it because it would then give us confidence that we might be able to repeat it again another time.<br /><br />The question has been raised about our honesty. Fair question, and I assume that perhaps 99% of the times ranked are honest. Why would someone rank a time that they didn't do? Why did Rosie Ruiz run only the last mile of the Boston Marathon and cross the finish line as the first woman? Why do hackers send viruses and trojan horses to the computers of strangers? Why do some people shoplift? Why do some put false information on their resumes? Why do vandals spray paint public places and break other people's property? Sometimes they do it simply because it is easy and no one stops them. As the rankings get bigger so does the lure of messing things up just to be a smart-ass. Trying to nip that in the bud, at least at the top three doesn't seem unreasonable.<br /><br />Rick

[[old] NavigationHazard]

<!--QuoteBegin-Bayko+May 8 2005, 07:25 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Bayko @ May 8 2005, 07:25 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><br />Another sentiment that I don't think has be thought through enough is that of Navigation Hazard et.al. when he wrote: <i>Having said all this, I don't particularly mind making assaults on top-ranking times in public forums. But I will suggest that C2 seems to be taking some of the spontaneity out of erging -- hey! let's see what I can do at 5k! -- and that's a damned shame.</i>  Come on, you're better than that.  That seems the kind of twisting that Rupp or ranger would do.  What, in the new policy, prevents us from going -- hey! let's see what I can do at 5k!?  the new policy only prevents it from being ranked in the top 3.....  <br />Rick <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />You misunderstand me, Rick. C2's policy changes won't take the spontaneity out of my personal erging at all, and as I said, I'm perfectly willing to be as public as possible if/when I might attempt to be fast for a rankable distance or time. <br /><br />All I mean to say is that requiring prior arrangement and performance in public forums adds ranking constraints that previously had not been necessary. Again, they don't bother me -- I have ready access to public ergs (some of them decently maintained), and witnesses, and I don't care all that much about the rankings anyway. But clearly the new rules have not been well explained or introduced by C2, as this thread demonstrates. Nor do they seem to have been well understood by Forum posters. And from my point of view, anything -- misconception or otherwise -- that appears to get in the way of people erging either recreationally or competitively is regrettable. <br />