New Requirements For Ranking Pieces

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-dadams+May 11 2005, 10:44 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(dadams @ May 11 2005, 10:44 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+May 11 2005, 01:03 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ May 11 2005, 01:03 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><br />You sure you didn't just pick the "fastest" machine in the gym?   <br /> </td></tr></table><br />There's only one. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Ah, so you are admitting that you did, in fact, pick the "fastest" machine in the gym? (Said in Perry Mason-like fashion) <br /><br />Maybe that machine should be named "Timex", it takes a licking and keeps on ticking!<br />

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-Godfried+May 11 2005, 10:31 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Godfried @ May 11 2005, 10:31 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+May 11 2005, 08:23 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ May 11 2005, 08:23 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now <b>STOP WHINING!</b><br /> </td></tr></table><br />That is the beauty of this forum , you can <a href='http://concept2.ipbhost.com/index.php?a ... ore&uid=22' target='_blank'>Ignore User</a> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Thanks for the tip, however, there are some things that just shouldn't be ignored, no matter how painful it is to have to deal with them.<br /><br />Plus there is some very good humor from time to time.<br /><br />Though it is nice that John has decided to exercise his ignor-ance regarding me, though he still will throw insults my way, so it's quite possible he's not truly being as ignor-ant as he says.

[[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-->Although I don't buy the arguement that one might just dust of a top-3 time on a whim and I think an athlete should be able to perform elsewhere than in his own home, </td></tr></table> <br /><br />Considering the fact that C2 machines were designed so athletes could train/perform in their homes, and the rankings were invented to motivate these home-athletes, I disagree. <br /><br />As for the comment about whims: Just going on my own experience: all my top ranked PBs, ( 2nd in marathon, HM, hour, and 10K; 6th in 5K, and 4th in half hour) except the marathon, were done on a whim. All were done after 11:00 at night, some after 1:00 am. All were times that surpassed previously whim-driven PBs, and I only decided to do the marathon that morning, about 2 hours before. That works best for me. I use the rankings to figure out what I want to accomplish and do it, right then, before I can back out. Usually I have a horrid attack of nerves right before I do it, even home alone. <br /> <br />Believe it or not, someone can be a really good, strong, fit, goal oriented and driven athlete and still have a very hard time performing in public or under the pressure of expectations--their own and whoever is witnessing. Not everyone that is physically able to do something is mentally/psychologically able to do it. I'm one of them. I plan to work on it, and will probably force myself to go through this rowing on a public machine routine, but just thinking about it makes my stomach churn. It will likely take several attempts to be able to do any good at all. <br /><br />Probably there will be plenty of people who read this and don't believe it, but I can't do anything about that! <br /><br />As for having some sort of flexible verification process, I don't think that's good at all. If you are going to have a verification process it should be the same for everyone, so that no one can wonder if other people's rows were verified less stringently or something. <br /><br />Maybe we should have everyone have to comply with the new rules, even if they are ranked #949.

[[old] cynthia]

Carla, I hear you on the point about nerves before the race! Same for me too, but I think those nerves contribute to a faster time. As far as doing the piece when other people are around, nobody can snarl quite as effectively as me when someone stands over my monitor, but it is a definate bonus if you're able (and I understand that not everyone has access to this) to do the same workout with other rowers. <br /><br />I see both sides of the controversy but am also hopeful that the effect of the verification process might be to actually encourage some of the faster athletes to rank their times. I know there are women out there who would easily smoke both of us and it would be terrific if there was some encouragement for them to post their times. This year I was lazy in that I did not a. log all of my pieces on-line or b. get around to ranking a lot of the pieces I did that would have been top pieces. Perhaps now there will be more incentive to rank more pieces next winter.<br /><br />Cynthia<br />

[[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-->I know there are women out there who would easily smoke both of us and it would be terrific if there was some encouragement for them to post their times </td></tr></table> <br /><br />Good! Then I won't have to worry about getting verification. I won't be in the top 3!

[[old] monkey]

Despite the considerable majority on this and the GB forum against these ill conceived and ill thought out new rules I think C2 are just waiting for the objections to die away. Notice C2Bill has not contributed to the dicussion all week.<br /><br />I suggest now we all email our objections to C2, Perhaps then they'll listen, I don't think they're reading this anymore.

[[old] michael]

<!--QuoteBegin-monkey+May 12 2005, 02:33 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(monkey @ May 12 2005, 02:33 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Despite the considerable majority on this and the GB forum against these ill conceived and ill thought out new rules I think C2 are just waiting for the objections to die away. Notice C2Bill has not contributed to the dicussion all week.<br /><br />I suggest now we all email our objections to C2, Perhaps then they'll listen, I don't think they're reading this anymore. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Couldn't we just email our objection and add a link to this thread with the recommendation that they peruse it thoroughly?

[[old] seat5]

I've actually talked to Bill, and I appreciate what he is trying to accomplish. There is a small possibility of a firmware solution to the problem, which my husband, a software developer, is discussing with him. That solution may not prove to be practical--we'll see.<br /><br />But Bill's reasonable idea is that those top 3 times that are verified by doing the public machine deal will say "ind v" (like Dwayne's awesome 500 PB), and be numbered. Those that are not verified will be in the rankings at the location on the list where they would belong, but don't say "v", and will not have the number, i.e., an unverified fastest time, without a "v" would go before the official #1 on the list (with a "v") but would not be #1. The number spot would be blank.<br /><br />That's cool with me. It would be better to have this firmware deal that would provide absolute proof on any time anyone rowed, without having to go to a gym or have witnesses (barring the chance that you could get someone else to do the rowing part, of course!) but allowing all times on the rankings while distinguishing the "official" times is an OK compromise.

[[old] michael]

<!--QuoteBegin-seat5+May 12 2005, 09:09 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(seat5 @ May 12 2005, 09:09 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I've actually talked to Bill, and I appreciate what he is trying to accomplish.  There is a small possibility of a firmware solution to the problem, which my husband, a software developer, is discussing with him.  That solution may not prove to be practical--we'll see.<br /><br />But Bill's reasonable idea is that those top 3 times that are verified by doing the public machine deal will say "ind v" (like Dwayne's awesome 500 PB), and be numbered. Those that are not verified will be in the rankings at the location on the list where they would belong, but don't say "v", and will not have the number, i.e., an unverified fastest time, without a "v"  would go before the official #1 on the list (with a "v") but would not be #1.  The number spot would be blank.<br /><br />That's cool with me.  It would be better to have this firmware deal that would provide absolute proof on any time anyone rowed, without having to go to a gym or have witnesses  (barring the chance that you could get someone else to do the rowing part, of course!) but allowing all times on the rankings while distinguishing the "official" times is an OK compromise. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />If the firmware deal goes through, it sounds like a viable solution. Personally, I don't like the "v" concept because in my mind it implies that other highly ranked entries are automatically suspect. They may as well carry a "b" for bogus. This whole thing still disenfranchises individuals who have no access to a "publicly accessible machine", something which C2 to date has not adequately addressed.<br />

[[old] monkey]

<!--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-->If the firmware deal goes through, it sounds like a viable solution. Personally, I don't like the "v" concept because in my mind it implies that other highly ranked entries are automatically suspect. They may as well carry a "b" for bogus. This whole thing still disenfranchises individuals who have no access to a "publicly accessible machine", something which C2 to date has not adequately addressed. </td></tr></table><br /><br />This is crux of the issue and most peoples main objection, as well as it being a bit rich that you spend big money on your own machine but if you row a top three ranking peice on it it won't be accepted.<br /><br />Its just not on!<br /><br /><br />

[[old] ehagberg]

<!--QuoteBegin-whp4+May 11 2005, 03:23 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(whp4 @ May 11 2005, 03:23 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, he did do a 3:14 marathon during the GMC, so it's plausible he could do 100k in a day if he put his mind to it.  But I certainly wasn't eager to even look at the machine the day after I did 100k, much less repeat the stunt several times in a row!  I see that both of the amazing Egyptians have disappeared from the 10k/day annual meters board...<br /><br />Paul Harris suggested another possibility - they row the 100k downstream, in a brisk current <br /> </td></tr></table><br />That must be it. A _very_ brisk current, unless they want to row it in 5-6 hours.<br /><br />And one of them is back on the list again. Haven't heard back from him since the last time I asked him how long he takes to do his 100k each day.

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-michael+May 12 2005, 08:45 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(michael @ May 12 2005, 08:45 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They may as well carry a "b" for bogus. </td></tr></table><br />Very well said.<br /><br />Skipping numbers doesn't make any sense either. A "V" can mean "verified", but that doesn't mean the time is any more apropos or legitimate, but to the contrary, particularly since apparently witnessed times done at home will NOT be allowed. <br /><br />As far as I'm concerned this shoots any "V" times right out the back door, as they are not truly "verified" but, rather, they are "exclusive".<br /><br />Instead of "verified", since that doesn't really mean verified but "commercial gymnasium", how about a big "W", standing for "witnessed", then all witnessed times can have a "W".<br /><br />The term "verified" is ambiguous and not well defined. If "V" indeed meant "verified by a witness" then a "V" would be accurate, provided all other times were numbered as well. However, for "V" to mean "commercial gymnasium" is quite simply just exclusive and means nothing as to the acceptability and quality of certain times vs others.

[[old] michaelb]

<!--QuoteBegin-seat5+May 12 2005, 09:09 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(seat5 @ May 12 2005, 09:09 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But Bill's reasonable idea is that those top 3 times that are verified by doing the public machine deal will say "ind v" (like Dwayne's awesome 500 PB), and be numbered. Those that are not verified will be in the rankings at the location on the list where they would belong, but don't say "v", and will not have the number, i.e., an unverified fastest time, without a "v"  would go before the official #1 on the list (with a "v") but would not be #1.  The number spot would be blank. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Sounds like we are making progress. I don't think rowpro entries need to be verified by firmware, if the stroke data is uploaded (but not a big deal if needed).<br /><br />I do think races done on rowpro (or erow) should qualify though for a numerical ranking, since they are done in the online presence of others, and with the added stress and benefits that racing others entails. Ranked rows done on rowpro already say "rowpro" next to the entry, and at least for me, that is substantial verification. If C2 decided to only count races on rowpro and not count workouts entered on rowpro, that would OK with me too.<br /><br />The reason that accepting rowpro/erow entries is so important is because that is the only realistic way to expect people to really race the long distances like the half and full M in competition.

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-michaelb+May 12 2005, 11:03 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(michaelb @ May 12 2005, 11:03 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I do think races done on rowpro (or erow) should qualify though for a numerical ranking, since they are done in the online presence of others, and with the added stress and benefits that racing others entails. </td></tr></table><br />I agree, and feel ANY witnessed time should also be acceptable. A home witnessed time is actually seen by another live person, as (hopefully) would be times done in gymnasiums.<br /><br />Thus the highest level of verifiability is a witness, regardless of location.<br /><br />Secondly, there are probably a great number of people who don't have access to a gym, OR to a witness. However if they can take a picture of the screen, or else if they do their time with rowpro then, this is also verification and thus, in my opinion, either a picture or rowpro should also be acceptable for the rankings.

[[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-->Well, he did do a 3:14 marathon during the GMC, so it's plausible he could do 100k in a day if he put his mind to it. </td></tr></table> <br /><br />I don't think a 3:14 marathon suggests any such thing....I did one in 3:07 something and there is no way I could ever in a million years if my life depended on it row 100K in a day. N_W!