New Requirements For Ranking Pieces

[[old] Canoeist]

This whole verification on public equipment thing bugs me a bit. For the price of a beer, I am sure that I could row a 5:36 1K in a gym and have someone unwittingly sign off that I did a 2K. (Most people in the gym wouldn't know how to verify the distance or know what the numbers on the display meant.) So, should I be listed as the new world record holder because I had my time verified on a public machine? The new rules are just as open to cheating as the old ones.<br /><br />You can still have a false witness.<br /><br />Lightweights can still be overweight.<br /><br />You can still misread the output.<br /><br />You can still have a "tag" team row the piece.<br /><br />You can still have a friend row the piece and submit your name.<br /><br />You can still take performance enhancing drugs.<br /><br />Personally, I think RowPro or logicard data should suffice. Most of the errors in the rankings are done unintentionally. Someone misreads or copy the data wrong.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />Paul Flack<br /><br />PS: Where can I find a gym with slides so that I can row my marathons?

[[old] dmhayden]

Here are my two cents worth.<br /><br />I use the rankings as a source of motivation and inspiration. Motivation by seeing how high I can get in the rankings, and inspiration to see the amazing times that the top rowers can achieve. You folks are incredible! Dwayne Addams in particular is a real inspiration to me since we're about the same age. I never would have guessed that a guy in his 40's could do what he does.<br /><br />Because I get inspiration from the rankings, I'd hate to have a top rower's efforts not listed just because they weren't done in a verified setting. So I'd prefer to see an expanded use of the "source" column in the rankings. If a time is based entirely on someone's word, then say it. If there's a witness on a public machine, then say that. I bet we could come up with a short set of common criteria that help verify a common time. Other posts have already suggested some possibilities. Obviously two good ones would be the ones Bill is proposing: a witness to verify the time, and rowed on a public machine. Another might be a photograph of the display.<br /><br />One possible problem with a publicly accessible machine is maintenance. Will a well-maintained machine show a different time than a not-so-well maintained one? Public machines probably get a whole lot more use than private ones.<br /><br />Finally, I'd like to thank C2 for hosting the rankings for free in the first place. It's a great system and I hope that this discussion serves to make it better.<br /><br />Dave<br />

[[old] NavigationHazard]

<!--QuoteBegin-dmhayden+May 9 2005, 09:15 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(dmhayden @ May 9 2005, 09:15 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One possible problem with a publicly accessible machine is maintenance.  Will a well-maintained machine show a different time than a not-so-well maintained one?  Public machines probably get a whole lot more use than private ones.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Other things equal, if two flywheels spin the same rate for the same length of time, the monitors connected to them are going to show the same results.<br /><br />Where maintenance can make a big difference is in the ease of achieving a given outcome. Unoiled, dirty chains; rough or broken sprockets; stretched bungee cords; dirty rails; crudded-up seat rollers; broken dampers that won't stay put; etc. etc. all can affect the amount of effort it takes to accomplish a time or distance. Some of these can be compensated for by equalizing the drag factor. Some cannot.<br /><br />

[[old] Godfried]

<!--QuoteBegin-whp4+May 8 2005, 08:44 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(whp4 @ May 8 2005, 08:44 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+May 8 2005, 06:15 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ May 8 2005, 06:15 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now why does Bayko agree with c2, and then think that HIS times rowed in a garage meet the rules???? <br /> </td></tr></table><br />. . . <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I'm currently ignoring 1408 posts by 1 user, and still see his messages. <br />

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-Bayko+May 9 2005, 05:43 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Bayko @ May 9 2005, 05:43 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><br />It is a mystery how you have been excluded .<br />Rick <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Probably because I'm a hwt, except that we hwt's are considered "privileged" by default. <br /><br />With the ability to remain "logged in", I see nearly no difference in how the forum gets used, except that I still liked the format where the "tree view" was available. The "active posts" does a pretty good job, except that I pretty much skip w/e's and don't veiw back enough days to see what interesting things may have gone on, until someone responds to those missed posts during the week.<br /><br />(insert secret handshake, and all that stuff)

[[old] Godfried]

<!--QuoteBegin-dmhayden+May 9 2005, 04:15 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(dmhayden @ May 9 2005, 04:15 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One possible problem with a publicly accessible machine is maintenance.  Will a well-maintained machine show a different time than a not-so-well maintained one?  Public machines probably get a whole lot more use than private ones.<br /> </td></tr></table><br />The gym I go to has 5 Concept2 rowers. On #1 my pace is :05 slower than on #5, and the work I have to do to keep that pace is higher.<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin-dmhayden+May 9 2005, 04:15 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(dmhayden @ May 9 2005, 04:15 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Finally, I'd like to thank C2 for hosting the rankings for free in the first place.  It's a great system and I hope that this discussion serves to make it better.<br /> </td></tr></table><br />I second that. Same for the <a href='http://www.concept2.com/05/training/mot ... vation.asp' target='_blank'>motivation</a>.<br />Last year I did my first marathon and received the mug. The postal service charges a huge amount sending it to europe. <br />I reached my first million meters and received the shirt. And all at no charge to me. <br />All I bought were the deluxe-seat and a log-card.<br />

[[old] Godfried]

<!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+May 9 2005, 05:03 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ May 9 2005, 05:03 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->With the ability to remain "logged in", I see nearly no difference in how the forum gets used, except that I still liked the format where the "tree view" was available.  </td></tr></table><br />I guess the "Lo-Fi Version" (at the bottom of the page) is not what you want.<br /><br />( it does'nt ignore users you don't want to see )<br />

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-Godfried+May 9 2005, 07:12 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Godfried @ May 9 2005, 07:12 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The gym I go to has 5 Concept2 rowers. On #1 my pace is :05 slower than on #5, and the work I have to do to keep that pace is higher. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Perfect! Train on #1, Race on #5.<br /><br />You've got the best of both worlds, and these seem to be "public" machines.

[[old] Canoeist]

Maybe some kind of system to verify that the person can row times close to the ones claimed? I was a bit skeptical about Dwaynes times in all classes at first. But after knowing that he had to row a sub 6:00 2K with an approved C2 witness (not just anyone in the gym) to qualify for the USIRT 2002, all of the times claimed seem quite reasonable for him to achieve.<br /><br />Most of the people who rank top times also row at one or two of the big races where the machines and timers are public. The 2K times can be adjusted according to the distance vs. pace formula to see if the times claimed are reasonable for the individual. If the time is reasonable, then take their word for it.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />Paul Flack<br /><br />

[[old] whp4]

<!--QuoteBegin-Dickie+May 9 2005, 11:13 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Dickie @ May 9 2005, 11:13 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><br />You, also, may not be thinking this through.  As has been stated, this new rule applies to entries that would fall into the top 3 from the previous year.  If the Dwayne's, Carla's and other top rowers of the world do not enter their top times this year because thay can not conform to the new rules, then next years top times will be from #4, 5 and 6. so in the 2007 ranking year the Dwayne's and Carla's will still be faster than the new times and rowers 4, 5 and 6 will now occupy the first 3 spots and will be subject to the new rules, then next year it will be 7, 8 and 9.  Soon there may be a few categories where no one can enter a time that is not subject to the new rules., and all the while we are missing out on the top times with which we compare ourselves. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />This issue could be finessed by changing the top 3 hurdle from the best 3 scores of the previous season to the best 3 scores submitted in that event from the 2005 season onward. Makes the obstacle only appear if you are truly breaking new ground, not just approaching what someone did in the past. <br /><br />As an illustration, I tried this system on the 2002-2005 5k rankings for 30-39 y/o hwt males and compared it with the C2 version.<br /><br />Top 3 in 2002:<br />Fleming 15:53.1<br />Larkman 15:53.6<br />Moretto 16:35.0<br />Don't have prior year data handy, so we'll just say 2002 is the equivalent of 2005 for us.<br /><br />Top 6 scores in 2003:<br />Fleming 15:40.5<br />Larkman 15:46.6<br />Brett 16:12.0<br />Hernandez 16:26.4<br />Moretto 16:27.5<br />Smith 16:38.5<br /><br />5 rowers affected by the new requirement to rank their scores, and top 3 scores are now 15:40.5, 15:46.6, 15:53.1<br /><br />Top 4 scores in 2004<br />Adams 15:55.2<br />Fleming 16:06<br />Benton 16:08.1<br />Macrae 16:43.2<br />No rowers affected by my version, 3 rowers affected if comparing with previous year's best 3 scores, and the top 3 scores remain the same<br /><br />Top 3 scores in 2005<br />Xeno 15:47.7<br />Hernandez 16:15.1<br />Tomkinson 16:22.8<br /><br />Only Xeno affected by my version, only Xeno affected by C2 version. Dwayne would also have been affected by both with his 15:51.1, except he was in the 40-49 age group. New set of "best of the best" top 3 would be 15:40.5, 15:46.6, 15:47.7.<br /><br />Top scores in 2006<br />So far in 2006, a score of 16:22.9 could be submitted without verification in C2's version, 15:47.8 if using my variation. <br /><br />Looking at past years above, it's clear that there's a bit less "interference" with seeing how the very best are doing if using my scheme - fewer rowers affected means fewer lost datapoints if they are unable or unwilling to comply with C2's verification rules.<br /><br />Collecting the "best of the best" top 3 scores in this fashion has the effect of allowing (nearly) everyone to rank their scores without hassle as long as they aren't actually establishing a new standard, even if they might happen to be the fastest times submitted in a given year.<br /><br />Bill<br /><br /><br /><br />

[[old] DougB]

I just saw this thread and thought I would offer my thoughts, basically a reiteration of what's already been said (sorry if I repeat someone - I haven't read all the posts). This year I'll be racing in the 40-49 lightweights category, and though I may not break the top 3 in any event I should get close in some of them. And if I do break the top 3, it will either be in my basement by myself, with no witnesses other than a cricket or two, or on e-row/RowPro.<br /><br />1. One strong motivating factor for me is seeing the top times and knowing what to shoot for. I'd rather see more top times listed than fewer to get a better picture of where I stand. Already there are lots of race results and team trials that are not posted, and reducing this even more may be enough for me to not look at the rankings any more.<br /><br />2. As a lightweight I know that being within the weight limits is quite important, and this isn't regulated, leaving open the possibility of 168/170 pound rowers submitting times. Often this could be done unknowingly. I, for instance, often gain 3 or 4 pounds during the day and thus have to race in the morning or starve myself during the day to race as a lightweight. So weighing myself in the morning for an evening workout isn't sufficient. Also, my scale at home claims to be accurate within 0.5 pounds, but I don't know this for sure, and other home scales are much more inaccurate (based on tests I did). Finally, there's no real requirement for how early one can weigh in before racing (1 hour? 2 hours? 4 hours?).<br /><br />3. I think that using RowPro or e-row should be sufficient evidence, as would a photograph of the monitor. Of course in this case there's no proof that the rower submitting the time was the one who actually rowed. I could videotape myself now if that would help.<br /><br />4. With categories like we have know (race and individual), competitors can see that race results are more 'official' than individual results, and that questionable individual results can be, well, questioned.<br /><br />5. What this new policy may end up doing is causing me to circumvent the system (sort of) by submitting a top-3 time as one that is 0.1 seconds slower than the threshold. If others do the same then the rankings will start to show a bunch of rowers all with the same time, all co-incidentally 0.1 seconds slower than last year's 3rd best!<br /><br />I don't have a problem with C2 wanting to control submissions of the top times, but 1) the lightweight issue needs to be addressed as well and 2) the top times should be more comprehensive so that they better reflect the top times in the world. And there may be other reasonable solutions. If the concern is having unknown people submitting questionable times, then maybe top rowers should have to reference prior race results (erg or water) to show that they are indeed that good. Or, maybe a 'trusted' rower or coach could vouch for the capabilitity of that rower.<br /><br />Those are just my thoughts, and they seem to be shared among many of us.

[[old] John Rupp]

Regarding the lightweight issue, and I'm sure c2 and their cohorts don't agree with me, a lightweight should be a lightweight.<br /><br />In other sports, for example Olympic weightlifting, when a record is done then the competitor is required to hop on a scale before leaving the stage. If the competitor is over the limit, then the record does not count. <br /><br />It should be the same for rowing competitions. Someone bulking up after weigh-in, and getting up to 180 pounds by the time of the row, is not a lightweight any more and is NOT deserving of a record for the lightweights. Yes, some have admitted on the forum of having done this very thing. <br /><br />In my opinion, however, weighing 180 pounds for a lightweight is a violation of ethics and fair play, and IS NOT legitimate, not only for records but for competitions as well.<br /><br />The lightweight division is for lightweights.

[[old] ehagberg]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+May 9 2005, 03:46 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ May 9 2005, 03:46 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It should be the same for rowing competitions.  Someone bulking up after weigh-in, and getting up to 180 pounds by the time of the row, is not a lightweight any more and is NOT deserving of a record for the lightweights.  Yes, some have admitted on the forum of having done this very thing.  <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I don't necessarily agree.<br /><br />Weighing in _after_ an event gives the rower an advantage in that they can lose water weight through the course of the event - especially true for marathons. I forget exactly how much water I lost the last time I did one, but it was more than a couple pounds.<br /><br />A weigh-in should be before the event and can be whatever timeframe prior to the event that's specified - one or two hours is common, no? I know that allows people to eat and drink between weighing in and rowing, but this is common practice in on-water rowing... though if you allow weigh-in the night before an event (like in come collegiate events) you'll surely have people weighing 180lbs at the start of the race but qualifying as lightweights.

[[old] scout]

Well, here's my two cents...<br /><br />I enjoy the online log and ranking system, and have long maintained that C2 provides the best customer service of any company I know. Thank you!<br /><br />I also think that the honor system is a better way to go. As with several others, I can see the reasoning for the 2k (and perhaps even the 5k, 6k), and could grudgingly support it. However, especially on some of the extrememly long and short distances (500m, marathon), this just seems silly. <br /><br />If someone has been so shallow as to want the top spot without earning it, then they've broken the honor system in the past. That same person can still circumvent the system being implemented now (who's to say they'd procure an honest witness?). <br /><br />The only reward currently in place (and this is good!) for the top three spots is the ability to look in the mirror and know that you're rowing at the top of your game, and your hard work is paying off in competition with your peers. If you're lying to get into the top three, you don't have that satisfaction anyways. <br /><br />Just out of curiosity - if this hasn't been answered already- what inspired the change in policy?<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />Kate Benson<br />Camas, WA

[[old] Dickie]

<!--QuoteBegin-scout+May 10 2005, 01:27 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(scout @ May 10 2005, 01:27 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, here's my two cents...<br /><br /><br />Just out of curiosity - if this hasn't been answered already- what inspired the change in policy?<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />Kate Benson<br />Camas, WA <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I'd also like to know, Why the change?