New Requirements For Ranking Pieces

[[old] FrankJ]

Now it begins. I did an online HM today using RowPro in a race with 7 other rowers. I am in the 50-59 age group with a time of 1:19:59.6 which puts it in the top ten category. When I tried to rank it I was asked for a code so I have sent an email to Concept 2 with the necessary info to get the code.<br /><br />That seems reasonable and I've had to do it before for some of my better races. In 3 months I will be 60. If I row anywhere near that time when I'm 60 I will be in the top 3. What will I have to do to get ranked then? I've asked that question to Concept 2 when I sent in my ranking info this morning. Now to wait for a response.<br /><br />Frank

[[old] seat5]

Congrats on a great HM, Frank!<br /><br />Well, I think when you turn 60 and do a top 3 time for that age bracket, you can either rank the piece as "ind" (no "v"), and it will show up in its proper spot on the list but with no number next to it. Or, you can call C2Bill, who will help you find a place to do it on a "public erg"--I don't think it will necessarily cost money, just be inconvenient as all get out and possibly be a poorly maintained machine--row a top 3 time, Bill will call them to verify it, and you'll get the magic "v" and a place number to boot.<br /><br />That's my best understanding of it, anyway, like it or not...

[[old] michaelb]

I have said this at least 3 times in this thread or others already, but I will say it again. I was there in chat in rowpro when the HM rowers started coming in. Racing against 6 other people from around the world in rowpro is as verified as we need to get. Those results should count and should be listed.<br /><br />It doesn't matter to me if the method of verification is listed or spelled out in greater detail with the ranking entry (so you would have Race, or Rowpro, or Witnessed, etc, next to the result).

[[old] Andreas]

<!--QuoteBegin-michaelb+May 15 2005, 12:57 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(michaelb @ May 15 2005, 12:57 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have said this at least 3 times in this thread or others already, but I will say it again.  I was there in chat in rowpro when the HM rowers started coming in.  Racing against 6 other people from around the world in rowpro is as verified as we need to get.  Those results should count and should be listed.<br /><br />It doesn't matter to me if the method of verification is listed or spelled out in greater detail with the ranking entry (so you would have Race, or Rowpro, or Witnessed, etc, next to the result). <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I was also in this race.Managed to better my time from 2weeks ago with +- 4 sec.<br />I got a code from Dena with the previous entry(new code-last season's didnt work)<br />Today I wanted to entre this "beter" time but my new code didnt work, also this time would have put me in 4th position last season, so why is the ranking not taking my time.I aslo believe rowpro sould be enough witness.

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-c2bill+May 5 2005, 10:48 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(c2bill @ May 5 2005, 10:48 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->IMPORTANT NOTE:[/b] New for the 2006 season, <b>to enter a time that qualifies for a top 3 spot in your event</b>, you MUST notify Concept2 PRIOR to rowing and entering the time. Concept2 will require you to row on a public machine and have a witness that can verify the time. </td></tr></table><br />Without meeting those conditions, you cannot enter a time that qualifies for a top 3 spot.<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin-seat5+May 15 2005, 10:44 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(seat5 @ May 15 2005, 10:44 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Or, you can call C2Bill, who will help you find a place to do it on a "public erg".<br /> </td></tr></table><br />Bill found a "public erg", whatever that is, for Dwayne Adams, but that doesn't mean he is going to be able to do it for everyone else.

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-michaelb+May 15 2005, 10:57 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(michaelb @ May 15 2005, 10:57 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have said this at least 3 times in this thread or others already, but I will say it again.  I was there in chat in rowpro when the HM rowers started coming in.  Racing against 6 other people from around the world in rowpro is as verified as we need to get.  Those results should count and should be listed. </td></tr></table><br />I have seen you say that a number of times but perhaps you can clarify.<br /><br />Are you saying that unwitnessed times on RowPro should be given priority over witnessed times done anywhere else?<br /><br />Or that all witnessed times AND RowPro should likewise be acceptable.<br />

[[old] michaelb]

I am suggesting that rowpro count in addition to counting rows in public with witness. Neither provides complete protection against cheating, and neither are quite as impressive as race results, but for purposes of the online ranking, rowpro should be good enough.<br /><br />Allowing rowpro to count answers at least some of the concern that many of us own our own C2 ergs (ie. we are paying customers of C2) and row in our own homes. Allowing rowpro to count also encourages online racing, which also has to be good for C2 sales. I understand that many people here don't have rowpro, and want the restrictions removed entirely, so the suggestion to allow rowpro is a compromise for C2 if they want to keep the restrictions.

[[old] John Rupp]

The highest level of verifiability is a witness. There is no witness on RowPro and anyone could row a time for someone else, and or tamper with the software and how would the rest of us know any difference.<br /><br />If you are suggesting that rowpro times be admitted, while witnessed times elsewhere not be allowed, then you are asking C2 for exclusivity, not verifiability.<br /><br />The priority for verifiability is as follows:<br /><br />#1: Witnessed times, regardless of location;<br /><br />#2: Video;<br /><br />#3: Picture of the monitor, erow, rowpro etc.

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-michaelb+May 15 2005, 01:15 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(michaelb @ May 15 2005, 01:15 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I understand that many people here don't have rowpro, and want the restrictions removed entirely, so the suggestion to allow rowpro is a compromise for C2 if they want to keep the restrictions. </td></tr></table><br /><br />That is ridiculous. I'm not asking for any restrictions to be removed, but for the rankings to be equitable. They are not equitable when favoritism is given to one group or another, such as "commercial gyms" or "rowpro" and then to exclude everyone else who does not row in those venues.<br /><br />No, those have nothing to do with verification. <br /><br />Favoritism should NOT be a primary criteria for the rankings.

[[old] monkey]

All C2 need to do is drop the silly 'public erg' rule. Its no guarantee against bogus entries, its almost impossible for most people to do HMs or FMs because they wouldn't be allowed on a public erg and it just inconveniences people unduly.<br /><br />Just being witnessed should be enough for this non official ranking (which it will always be, nothing else)<br /><br />As for Bill arranging a public erg for everyone, I think some have forgotten this is a world ranking. <br />Is Bill going to get up in the middle of the night to talk to a gym on the other side of the world?<br />Assuming he knows of one, I don't think so do you?<br /><br />

[[old] dadams]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+May 15 2005, 02:28 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ May 15 2005, 02:28 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><br />Bill found a "public erg", whatever that is, for Dwayne Adams, but that doesn't mean he is going to be able to do it for everyone else.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />He didn't find me a erg. I told him where one was available. He simply called the facility to comfirm that the erg was indeed public, and in working order.

[[old] monkey]

<!--QuoteBegin-dadams+May 15 2005, 11:40 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(dadams @ May 15 2005, 11:40 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+May 15 2005, 02:28 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ May 15 2005, 02:28 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><br />Bill found a "public erg", whatever that is, for Dwayne Adams, but that doesn't mean he is going to be able to do it for everyone else.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />He didn't find me a erg. I told him where one was available. He simply called the facility to comfirm that the erg was indeed public, and in working order. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Yes, but by doing that the new rules are already favouring top ranking verifications towards rowers in the US.<br />Bill couldn't possibly do that with facilities all over the world.<br />

[[old] Canoeist]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+May 15 2005, 09:00 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ May 15 2005, 09:00 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The highest level of verifiability is a witness.  [right] <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I beg to differ. For the price of a beer, I could get one of the muscleheads at the gym to verify that I rowed a 5:37 2K. I would have to play some dishonest tricks on them, like row a 5:37 1K. Or, I could row row 8 x (250m, 5 min rest) at the correct pace. Sounds like a normal weightlifter's workout doesn't it? Or, maybe do it just for a joke? But, unless the witness is both trustworthy and knows the tricks, they are worse than having no witness at all. (Because people tend to assume the witness is trustworthy and knowledeable.)<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />Paul Flack

[[old] Canoeist]

I witnessed both Frank and Andreas' HMs. I was sandwiched between the two! For well over an hour, I watched closely the pace and distance of both Frank and Andreas. I wanted to pull ahead of Frank and keep the gap with Andreas at a minium. I didn't see any times where either rower might have switched with another rower. I didn't get their driver's licence to ensure that they didn't have someone else row for them, but, their times in RowPro are good enough for me.<br /><br />Paul Flack (witness to the rows)<br /><br />PS: Is there enough room in the box for "RowPro_V"? I think "RowPro" fills the box entirely.

[[old] John Rupp]

Paul,<br /><br />Did they give you a beer afterwards. <br /><br />So if a witness is not valid, and a commercial gym is not valid, what is your suggestion -- to leave the rankings as they were?