Usirt Update

[[old] Xavier]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Jun 17 2005, 07:52 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Jun 17 2005, 07:52 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Pete--<br /><br />No, I won't be 55 for BIRC and EIRC this year. My 55th birthday is January 25, 2006. That means that I _will_ be 55 for WIRC/CRASH-Bs, though. The 55-59 lwt M world record is 6:41.9.<br /><br />The M 50s lwt qualification standard last year for the USIRT was 6:30! <br /><br />Are there a bunch of 50s lwts hanging around your gym who can row under 6:30? A bit harder than 7:09.5. <br /><br />ranger<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />There just isn't the coverage that high up the age ladder in this sport. It's been said time and time again.<br /><br /><a href='http://www.guldfireren.dk/fm2005/?loeb=129' target='_blank'>http://www.guldfireren.dk/fm2005/?loeb=129</a><br /><br />Xav

[[old] ranger]

<!--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-->There just isn't the coverage that high up the age ladder in this sport. </td></tr></table><br /><br />True. Then again, if I were 20 years old and training to win the lwt BUSA race at BIRC, I might want to be able to outrow a bunch of 50-year-olds and might worry if I couldn't! "Coverage" doesn't seem to be that bad if the 50-year-olds can still beat the college kids. Sounds to me as though the lack of "coverage," given the situation, is at the college level. The international lightweights are indeed good, but the college lightweights seem astoundingly slow. What is the problem? Just lack of participation? Inadequate training? <br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

<!--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-->There just isn't the coverage that high up the age ladder in this sport. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Xav--<br /><br />So you don't think that Graham Watt's 6:25.8 is a quality row for a 50-year-old lightweight? If there were good "coverage" high up the age ladder in erging, what do you think would be the standard for 50-year-old lwts? 6:20? 6:15? 6:10?<br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

Xav--<br /><br />There just isn't coverage down the age ladder in this sport. It has been said many times.<br /><br /><a href='http://www.concept2.co.uk/birc/results_ ... p?event=B2' target='_blank'>http://www.concept2.co.uk/birc/results_ ... =B2</a><br /><br />ranger<br /><br />

[[old] Xavier]

But what you don't seem to realise is that I don't mind beating the system. <br /><br />Xav

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin-Xavier+Jun 20 2005, 12:04 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Xavier @ Jun 20 2005, 12:04 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But what you don't seem to realise is that I don't mind beating the system. <br /><br />Xav <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /> <br /><br />ranger

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-Pete Marston+Jun 16 2005, 11:38 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Pete Marston @ Jun 16 2005, 11:38 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->some of the times are very far from elite times for that division, and some are right up there at elite levels. The time for your cat could have a lot of people meeting it don't you think? The 50's lwt ones, to pick more cats, could also have many people. The open hwt men and women's times are much harder though, IMO.[right] </td></tr></table><br />The hardest qualifying times with PATT percentages are:<br />94.5 ... men's 50+ lightweight - 6:48.1<br />94.2 ... women's open hwt - 6:52.9<br />93.4 ... men's open hwt - 6:00.4<br />92.0 ... men's 55+ lightweight - 7:09.5<br />90.4 ... men's 40+ hwt - 6:24.2<br /><br /><a href='http://concept2.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1276' target='_blank'>http://concept2.ipbhost.com/index.php?s ... 276</a><br />

[[old] joanvb]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Jun 20 2005, 02:28 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Jun 20 2005, 02:28 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Pete Marston+Jun 16 2005, 11:38 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Pete Marston @ Jun 16 2005, 11:38 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->some of the times are very far from elite times for that division, and some are right up there at elite levels. The time for your cat could have a lot of people meeting it don't you think? The 50's lwt ones, to pick more cats, could also have many people. The open hwt men and women's times are much harder though, IMO.[right] </td></tr></table><br />The hardest qualifying times with PATT percentages are:<br />94.5 ... men's 50+ lightweight - 6:48.1<br />94.2 ... women's open hwt - 6:52.9<br />93.4 ... men's open hwt - 6:00.4<br />92.0 ... men's 55+ lightweight - 7:09.5<br />90.4 ... men's 40+ hwt - 6:24.2<br /><br /><a href='http://concept2.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1276' target='_blank'>http://concept2.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1276</a> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Hello John, <br /><br />Just wondering...did you consider women's 50+ lightweight in your PATT percentage ranking of qualifying times? Using your previously posted formula, would you include that category, as well? <br />1:51.3 (WR 7:25.1 for women's 50+ lightweight) = 111.3 seconds<br />1:57.6 (for a 7:50.4 women's 50+ lightweight qualifying time) = 117.6 seconds<br />111.3/117.6 x 100 = 94.6<br /><br /> <br />Joan Van Blom

[[old] John Rupp]

Hi Joan,<br /><br />You're right. <br /><br />Women's 50+ lwt has the most difficult qualifying standard of these six:<br />94.6 ... women's 50+ lightweight - 7:50.4<br />94.5 ... men's 50+ lightweight - 6:48.1<br />94.2 ... women's open hwt - 6:52.9<br />93.4 ... men's open hwt - 6:00.4<br />92.0 ... men's 55+ lightweight - 7:09.5<br />90.4 ... men's 40+ hwt - 6:24.2

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Jun 20 2005, 11:28 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Jun 20 2005, 11:28 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The hardest qualifying times with PATT percentages are:<br />94.5 ... men's 50+ lightweight - 6:48.1<br />94.2 ... women's open hwt - 6:52.9<br />93.4 ... men's open hwt - 6:00.4<br />92.0 ... men's 55+ lightweight - 7:09.5<br />90.4 ... men's 40+ hwt - 6:24.2<br /><br /><a href='http://concept2.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1276' target='_blank'>http://concept2.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1276</a> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Illustrating the relative uselessness of PATT for evaluation.<br /><br />The practice of adding 5% ot the previous years winning time makes it all a bit tougher for the fast performers, as they must produce a higher percentage of average power to meet the goal. That said, the minimum standard was certainly set with making the Development squad very accessible, at least for anyone with a chance of earning a medal after making the team.

[[old] ranger]

<!--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 practice of adding 5% ot the previous years winning time makes it all a bit tougher for the fast performers, as they must produce a higher percentage of average power to meet the goal. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Paul--<br /><br />Good point. So in your opinion, would adding 5% of previous years winning _watts_ be fairer as a standard?<br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

<!--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-->94.6 ... women's 50+ lightweight - 7:50.4<br />94.5 ... men's 50+ lightweight - 6:48.1<br />94.2 ... women's open hwt - 6:52.9<br />93.4 ... men's open hwt - 6:00.4<br />92.0 ... men's 55+ lightweight - 7:09.5<br />90.4 ... men's 40+ hwt - 6:24.2 </td></tr></table><br /><br />Joan--<br /><br />Way to stick up for the peewee geezers! I knew our 50s lwt category was the toughest, all around and all things considererd; I just couldn't put my finger on it!<br /><br /> <br /><br />ranger

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Jun 21 2005, 10:41 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Jun 21 2005, 10:41 PM)</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-->The practice of adding 5% ot the previous years winning time makes it all a bit tougher for the fast performers, as they must produce a higher percentage of average power to meet the goal. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Paul--<br /><br />Good point. So in your opinion, would adding 5% of previous years winning _watts_ be fairer as a standard?<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Well, first it would be "subtracting" 5% from the previous years winning Avg Watts, and it would only be a "different" way of looking at it.<br /><br />If I were the one setting the way in which a development squad was being selected, it would be based on a fixed number of seconds over the previous winning times. i.e. 20 seconds. Using "percent" when dealing with non-linear relationships is silly.<br /><br />In reality, if a person is not opperating within 10 seconds of the previous years winning time there is no chance of them beating it with a few months training, so the 20 second standard is only offered in the spirit of inclusion, and since it's not exactly "personalised" programs, there is no harm in having a bit of additional inclusion in this case.<br /><br />With the Rowers I've coached in the past, I tell them to look at the Erg score percentiles from the previous seasons World Rankings, and to make the 90th percentile the standard by which they should consider themselves anywhere near fit enough to be "competitive" in anything but "local yocal" competition. "I can improve your technique to make use of the strength you have, but if you have no strength to back up the technique you'll still be out of the running."

[[old] ranger]

<!--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 I were the one setting the way in which a development squad was being selected, it would be based on a fixed number of seconds over the previous winning times. i.e. 20 seconds. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Ah. Don't know about the other divisions, but with this criterion, the qualfication time for the M 50-54 lwts would be just the same: 6:48. Watt won the 50-54 lwts at the 2005 CRASH-Bs with a 6:28.<br /><br />ranger