Battle Of The Giants

[old] Rogus · Post by **[old] Rogus** » June 6th, 2004, 10:08 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (ranger @ Jun 3 2004, 01:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Sure, anyone can enter the CRASH-Bs. You don't have to qualify. Qualifying is a nice goal (and benefit), though, and one that gives you a nice measure of what it might take to be in and around medal territory in your division. _Very_ good light heavyweights (such as Pete M.) are (and in all likelihood, will remain) _way_ out of the running for a heavyweight gold at the CRASH-Bs. ranger  </td></tr></table> What is the benefit of beating the qualifying time? So you don't think a 180-185 lb erger can win the Bs in any age category below the 70s? I think you previously mentioned 60s, but with Paul in the 60s, he's the odds on favorite there and he's 210 lbs.

[old] Canoeist · Post by **[old] Canoeist** » June 6th, 2004, 11:43 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Rogus @ Jun 7 2004, 02:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (ranger @ Jun 3 2004, 01:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Sure, anyone can enter the CRASH-Bs. You don't have to qualify. Qualifying is a nice goal (and benefit), though, and one that gives you a nice measure of what it might take to be in and around medal territory in your division. _Very_ good light heavyweights (such as Pete M.) are (and in all likelihood, will remain) _way_ out of the running for a heavyweight gold at the CRASH-Bs. ranger  </td></tr></table> What is the benefit of beating the qualifying time? So you don't think a 180-185 lb erger can win the Bs in any age category below the 70s? I think you previously mentioned 60s, but with Paul in the 60s, he's the odds on favorite there and he's 210 lbs. </td></tr></table> Free airfare to Boston is the benefit of beating the qualification time. It doesn't do much if you live in Boston though. Ranger came very close to winning the 50 Hwt as a lightweight when he came in second in 2003 CRASH-B. He received two medals for one performance - Gold in M/50/L and Silver in M/50/H. Cheers, Paul Flack

[old] Rogus · Post by **[old] Rogus** » June 7th, 2004, 2:42 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Canoeist @ Jun 6 2004, 08:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Free airfare to Boston is the benefit of beating the qualification time. It doesn't do much if you live in Boston though. Ranger came very close to winning the 50 Hwt as a lightweight when he came in second in 2003 CRASH-B. He received two medals for one performance - Gold in M/50/L and Silver in M/50/H. Cheers, Paul Flack  </td></tr></table> The free airfare isn't automatic. Each regional race can only award 4 free airfares to those who beat qualifying times. You may beat a qualifying time, but not be one of the top four, who in any of the divisions, beat their qualifying time by the most. Ranger took second, which is quite an accomplishment, but wasn't very close to winning as he was about 19 seconds behind Tore Foss who took first. That's not what I would describe as a close race. It was the largest winning margin of the day other than the men's 80-89 race. Which just reinforces what Ranger has said about the chances of a lightweight being able to win the open weight division. Virtually none. I would guess he had the best chance of any lightweight to be able to do so. Does anyone know whether a light heavyweight of under say 190 lb has ever won any under 60 age group class at the Bs?

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » June 7th, 2004, 4:00 am

Rogus, To answer your question if a 185 pound hwt can win the Crash-B:s Estimated open age WR-class performance _at that weight_ is 5:54. This means no gold, at least in the open age category.

[old] eurofoot13 · Post by **[old] eurofoot13** » June 7th, 2004, 1:11 pm

ouch ... so, lightweights cannot physically beat a heavy WR? meaning that it's impossible, not that it would just require a lot of work.

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » June 7th, 2004, 6:10 pm

That's correct. A popular measure that is widely spread is the "max ml oxygen per minute and kg bodymass" wich I will use as an argument here for simplicity. Lwt rowers get higher measures than hwt rowers in this, but not as high as athletes in certain other sports such as cross country skiing. The highest value measured is 94, and it's from a cross country skier. This is an extreme value. A lwt pulling a 5:37 2k would have an estimated value of 113. That is something not even a cross country skier will ever reach, and even less so a rower.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » June 8th, 2004, 11:34 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Carl Henrik @ Jun 7 2004, 10:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>That's correct. A popular measure that is widely spread is the "max ml oxygen per minute and kg bodymass" wich I will use as an argument here for simplicity. Lwt rowers get higher measures than hwt rowers in this, but not as high as athletes in certain other sports such as cross country skiing. The highest value measured is 94, and it's from a cross country skier. This is an extreme value. A lwt pulling a 5:37 2k would have an estimated value of 113. That is something not even a cross country skier will ever reach, and even less so a rower. </td></tr></table> Except that the non-adjusted MaxVO2 is the relevant part when talking about Ultimate performance on the Erg. Dividing by weight is more or less an indicator of relative fitness (and it's just a fairly meaningless number). i.e. a 20hp engine can sustain 20hp of work and a 30hp engine can do 50% more work, it doesn't really matter what they weigh. If you need 30hp to get the job done, the 20hp isn't going to manage it no matter how little it weighs or how you adjust for it's lack of capacity. Now the new calculation that C2 has placed up for weight adjustment, seems pretty accurate, but it dampens out the 'advantage' that was generally given to the lwt by placing the 'break even' weight out at 270lbs instead of 170lbs. So nearly everyone gets 'credit' for power that they do not actually produce. - Paul Smith

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » June 8th, 2004, 4:02 pm

Yes, on the erg, pure wattage output is all that matters. And that's the reason why a lwt won't get an open WR or close to it. A larger human body can produce more power. Just like an elefant body probably produces more wattage than Siejkowski on the erg just strolling about. The elephant is made for more power development. To get a more meaningful value, VO2max should be divided with weight^(2/3) wich then gives the same value for 105kg 5:37 and 75kg 6:03.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » June 8th, 2004, 5:47 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Carl Henrik @ Jun 8 2004, 08:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Yes, on the erg, pure wattage output is all that matters. And that's the reason why a lwt won't get an open WR or close to it. A larger human body can produce more power. Just like an elefant body probably produces more wattage than Siejkowski on the erg just strolling about. The elephant is made for more power development. To get a more meaningful value, VO2max should be divided with weight^(2/3) wich then gives the same value for 105kg 5:37 and 75kg 6:03. </td></tr></table> There is still the fact that 337 seconds is less than and not equal to 363 seconds; the equating of such things with various mathematical manipulations is quaint but silly. The 2/3 exponent seems reasonable given the relationship between weight and volume, but still giving credit for something unattained is not particularly useful. Respect the effort for what it is, or don't, but don't try to equate them. Similarly, since the Erg is not exactly a conditon dependent activity, any time, accomplished at any time, is equally valid (Unless there are documented differences as in the PM1 Vs PM2 and above). Race venues have the potential for a small amount of additional time, but that's equal for everyone, and trivial at best. Easy aye? - Paul Smith PS - Did you know that the Elephant is the only mamal that can't jump, and to bring that factoid into relevance here, it's because they have no heel from which to drive, they essentially walk around on their tip-toes. So those that "drive off of your toes for extra power", no you don't.

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » June 8th, 2004, 6:41 pm

I do not equate the erg efforts. What can be equated is the VO2 value divided by weight^(2/3).

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » June 8th, 2004, 6:46 pm

VO2 value divided by weight shows the actual work output performance quite accurately.

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » June 8th, 2004, 7:59 pm

No, not on the erg. In running there may be a very strong correlation between performance and VO2max/weight. On the erg the formula with good correlation with performance is VO2Max/1. The formulas are for performances in different sports. Looking at the aerobic system, and not erging nor running, and how well developed it is for a certain weight, dividing by weight^(2/3) gives a good measure. It does not have a very strong correlation to performance on the erg or running though. The above formulas are better for their respective sport.

[old] yogieatspies · Post by **[old] yogieatspies** » June 9th, 2004, 6:34 am

If you want to be entirely pedantic then you should take lean body weight and ignore the fat. Therefore you are only taking account of useable weight (ignoring additional stimulus to the back swing because you have to unswing it on the recovery). I suspect that the top heavyweights are a bit more chunky around the waste than the top lightweights. We have all seen Redgrave's love handles after the race at Sydney (the curse of lycra). Fat doesn't add anything to ergo racing. Paul.

[old] eurofoot13 · Post by **[old] eurofoot13** » June 9th, 2004, 10:35 am

but it does - fat - hence increased mass - adds to the heavyweight advantage seriously. erging and rowing is really a physics problem. you have a forcethat you are applying to the handle, and what is force but MASS times velocity. a lightweight finds it harder to achieve the smae erg score because his mass is less. He CANNOT put as much force on the handle as a heavyweight.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » June 9th, 2004, 4:33 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (eurofoot13 @ Jun 9 2004, 02:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> but it does - fat - hence increased mass - adds to the heavyweight advantage seriously. erging and rowing is really a physics problem. you have a forcethat you are applying to the handle, and what is force but MASS times velocity. a lightweight finds it harder to achieve the smae erg score because his mass is less. He CANNOT put as much force on the handle as a heavyweight.  </td></tr></table> Sorry, you are seriously mixed up; Reminding me of the "Trading weight for Pace" argument of days past. Force = Mass * Acceleration But in any case, additional fat is a small liability, made small by the fact that it is being supported on the seat. However it must be lifted during the drive. We could start another discussion regarding Erg Jacking (or Reverse Jacking), and the relative changes in performance that might be had. The numbers being derived here are akin to the Body Mass Index, which of course is an extremely accurate representation of fitness and body composition, NOT! Even body fat percentage is somewhat relative, i.e. Take a 100lb person and a 200lb person, both at 10% body fat (estimated of course), well there is 10lb of fat on one and 20lbs of fat on the other, but they both might be considered "equally fat", even though one contains 100% more fat than the other. Aren't statistics fun? You're a bit over-tall for your weight, I'm amazed that your nickname is not 'spider'. BTW - There are some lwts that can put more force on the handle than some hwts, but you are correct in thinking that the best of both weights will end with a hwt victory, but it has only to do with the increased number of motor units involved and the power they are capable of, not merely that they have more MASS. Erg on, Paul Smith PS - The (VO2Max/lean body mass) figure would be a very good measurement of relative aerobic fitness, but once again is pretty useless in practice.

Concept2 Forum

Battle Of The Giants

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training