How To Calculate Your Patt Percentages

[[old] reynolds352]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Jun 21 2005, 12:33 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Jun 21 2005, 12:33 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Reynolds,<br /><br />Great idea!  <br /><br />It will be very interesting to see how it works!  <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I've almost got the web page finished - I spent a little time sprucing it up, making it look nice, and now I have one last bug to crush.<br /><br />It looks like it's going to work very well!<br /><br /> - Adam<br /><br />Edit : page is done and is temporarily at <a href='http://www.permanentmarking.com/patt/index.php' target='_blank'>http://www.permanentmarking.com/patt/index.php</a><br /><br />Gimme feedback!

[[old] JimR]

I took a quick peek ... the page itself looks very nice indeed.<br /><br />What I find interesting is that this page would have me conclude that Concept2 is officially reconizing the PATT concept. I'm not sure this whole idea has any validity other than what John Rupp would have others believe.<br /><br />The fact that John is so absolutely committed to this ranking idea does not make it accurate, correct or logical. I don't believe that I have even seen people in the forum who actually understand statistics claim this idea is valid ... much less anyone else.<br /><br />Which brings me to a Chinese proverb I like to recall at times such as these ... (paraphrased) If a lie is repeated enough times it becomes the truth.<br /><br />JimR

[[old] reynolds352]

<!--QuoteBegin-JimR+Jun 21 2005, 05:11 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(JimR @ Jun 21 2005, 05:11 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I took a quick peek ... the page itself looks very nice indeed.<br /><br />What I find interesting is that this page would have me conclude that Concept2 is officially reconizing the PATT concept. I'm not sure this whole idea has any validity other than what John Rupp would have others believe.<br /><br />The fact that John is so absolutely committed to this ranking idea does not make it accurate, correct or logical. I don't believe that I have even seen people in the forum who actually understand statistics claim this idea is valid ... much less anyone else.<br /><br />Which brings me to a Chinese proverb I like to recall at times such as these ... (paraphrased) If a lie is repeated enough times it becomes the truth.<br /><br />JimR <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Haha, this is true, Concept2 do NOT officially recognize the PATT concept. However, I thought that their logo looked nice on the page. I should probably remove their images, considering copyrights and such. That's a task for tonight...

[[old] John Rupp]

Hi Adam,<br /><br />You did a fantastic job with the page!<br /><br />It looks great! <br /><br />I plugged in my 2k time for this year and it came out right on the button.<br /><br />My 30 minute time was within .1 of a second. That is close. Did you use a formula for calculation of the 30 and 60 minute events?<br /><br />I'm going to be offline until Friday or Saturday, and will check it again when I'm back.<br /><br />Thanks for doing this! I am very impressed.<br />

[[old] ehagberg]

The automatic PATT calculations seem way off for the HM and FM - I plugged in John's numbers (to make sure mine didn't just really suck) and got a 10.354 for his FM time and similarly wrong results for his HM.

[[old] John Rupp]

I just tried it again and my marathon for this year comes out right on 84.7.<br /><br />Make sure you're putting in the pace, not time, for the event you are entering.<br /><br />It would be possible, provided more interest, to use times instead of paces, and to simplify the formulas, which would entail for me to rework the tables. However, there's no need for that now, as the percentages are plentifully accurate.

[[old] ehagberg]

It looks like I was trying to put too much accuracy into the "fractions" input field - given the long distance, it is actually sort of important, I'd think.

[[old] reynolds352]

<!--QuoteBegin-ehagberg+Jun 22 2005, 04:38 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ehagberg @ Jun 22 2005, 04:38 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It looks like I was trying to put too much accuracy into the "fractions" input field - given the long distance, it is actually sort of important, I'd think. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I cannot understand why a longer fractions of a second field would create an issue, as long as it's in decimal form. Stumped....

[[old] ehagberg]

<!--QuoteBegin-reynolds352+Jun 22 2005, 07:11 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(reynolds352 @ Jun 22 2005, 07:11 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I cannot understand why a longer fractions of a second field would create an issue, as long as it's in decimal form. Stumped.... <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I can't say why, but for each extra number used in the fractional field, the PATT gets worse and worse. Use 4 digits in there and you get something like a 10.something for John's PATT score at the marathon.<br />

[[old] reynolds352]

<!--QuoteBegin-ehagberg+Jun 22 2005, 08:43 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ehagberg @ Jun 22 2005, 08:43 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-reynolds352+Jun 22 2005, 07:11 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(reynolds352 @ Jun 22 2005, 07:11 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I cannot understand why a longer fractions of a second field would create an issue, as long as it's in decimal form. Stumped.... <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I can't say why, but for each extra number used in the fractional field, the PATT gets worse and worse. Use 4 digits in there and you get something like a 10.something for John's PATT score at the marathon. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I figured out the problem. In my calculation, to convert fractions of a second to seconds (so I can add up the total seconds), I take the fractions of a second and divide by 10. Thus, 1 fraction = 1/10 = 0.1 seconds, which is right. However, if you enter something like 12495 with the intention of it equaling 0.12495, it will actually give 12495/10 = 1249.5 seconds. So, just use one decimal place

[[old] bmoore]

Sorry for digging this up, but this concept of a percentage of world record time has been bugging me. I'm curious about the benefit of the PATT over the percentiles in the online rankings. The PATT takes your percentage against one result, while the online ranking percentile is where you place in the entire population of results for the year.<br /><br />Here's some calculations from the 2005 40-49 heavyweight men 2,000 meters to highlight my concern.<br /><br />World Record: 5:52.0 (Or pick Dwayne Adam's 5:47.1 if you like, it's just technically not C2s recognized record, and I want to be as literal as possible for this. Regardless of which time you select, the example below highlights a challenge).<br /><br />The 90th percentile time is 6:44.8, which gives you a 87.0 PATT. PATT is lower by 3%. This time ranks 137th out of 1,435.<br /><br />The 75th percentile time is 6:59.2, which gives you a 84.0 PATT. PATT is higher by 9%. This time ranks 351st.<br /><br />The 50th percentile time is 7:25.7, which gives you a 79.0 PATT. PATT is now higher by 29%. This time ranks 713th.<br /><br />To get a higher "score", it appears the faster rowers would prefer the percentile of the annual rankings, and slower rowers would prefer the PATT number. <br /><br />On the C2 website, you can see all of your ranked workouts and get the percentile of your ranked times, and receive what has been promoted as the benefit of the PATT (a relative indicator of your performance across events or against other rowers). If that's the case, then I'm having a hard time finding the benefit of this over what C2 already has and how it relates to training.<br /><br />Finally, if I can see where I rank across events at the click of a button on C2, why would I bother with PATT?<br /><br />(Disclosure point: I'm a CPA formerly with Price Waterhouse, so I do have experience with numbers representing performance).<br /><br />Kind, non-inflamatory, and genuinely curious regards,

[[old] Dickie]

<!--QuoteBegin-bmoore+Aug 26 2005, 02:55 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(bmoore @ Aug 26 2005, 02:55 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sorry for digging this up, but this concept of a percentage of world record time has been bugging me.  I'm curious about the benefit of the PATT over the percentiles in the online rankings.  The PATT takes your percentage against one result, while the online ranking percentile is where you place in the entire population of results for the year.<br /><br />Here's some calculations from the 2005 40-49 heavyweight men 2,000 meters to highlight my concern.<br /><br />World Record:  5:52.0  (Or pick Dwayne Adam's 5:47.1 if you like, it's just technically not C2s recognized record, and I want to be as literal as possible for this.  Regardless of which time you select, the example below highlights a challenge).<br /><br />The 90th percentile time is 6:44.8, which gives you a 87.0 PATT.  PATT is lower by 3%.  This time ranks 137th out of 1,435.<br /><br />The 75th percentile time is 6:59.2, which gives you a 84.0 PATT.  PATT is higher by 9%.  This time ranks 351st.<br /><br />The 50th percentile time is 7:25.7, which gives you a 79.0 PATT.  PATT is now higher by 29%.  This time ranks 713th.<br /><br />To get a higher "score", it appears the faster rowers would prefer the percentile of the annual rankings, and slower rowers would prefer the PATT number. <br /><br />On the C2 website, you can see all of your ranked workouts and get the percentile of your ranked times, and receive what has been promoted as the benefit of the PATT (a relative indicator of your performance across events or against other rowers).  If that's the case, then I'm having a hard time finding the benefit of this over what C2 already has and how it relates to training.<br /><br />Finally, if I can see where I rank across events at the click of a button on C2, why would I bother with PATT?<br /><br />(Disclosure point:  I'm a CPA formerly with Price Waterhouse, so I do have experience with numbers representing performance).<br /><br />Kind, non-inflamatory, and genuinely curious regards, <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />As I understand it, the C2 percentage is a percentage based on the number of entries in a certain class, if you are #25 out of 100 entries then you are at the 25th percentile. PATT is based on a percentage of World Record Time. Two different numbers, take your pick.<br /><br />You could also try the <a href='http://http://www.nonathlon.com/' target='_blank'>Nonathlon</a>. This is similar to PATT in that it assigns points based on percentage of best times, but they use a more complicated method to determine points. There is an explanation on the site. This is fun to use, check it out.

[[old] Porkchop]

<!--QuoteBegin-bmoore+Aug 26 2005, 01:55 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(bmoore @ Aug 26 2005, 01:55 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sorry for digging this up, but this concept of a percentage of world record time has been bugging me.  I'm curious about the benefit of the PATT over the percentiles in the online rankings.  The PATT takes your percentage against one result, while the online ranking percentile is where you place in the entire population of results for the year.<br /><br />Here's some calculations from the 2005 40-49 heavyweight men 2,000 meters to highlight my concern.<br /><br />World Record:  5:52.0  (Or pick Dwayne Adam's 5:47.1 if you like, it's just technically not C2s recognized record, and I want to be as literal as possible for this.  Regardless of which time you select, the example below highlights a challenge).<br /><br />The 90th percentile time is 6:44.8, which gives you a 87.0 PATT.  PATT is lower by 3%.  This time ranks 137th out of 1,435.<br /><br />The 75th percentile time is 6:59.2, which gives you a 84.0 PATT.  PATT is higher by 9%.  This time ranks 351st.<br /><br />The 50th percentile time is 7:25.7, which gives you a 79.0 PATT.  PATT is now higher by 29%.  This time ranks 713th.<br /><br />To get a higher "score", it appears the faster rowers would prefer the percentile of the annual rankings, and slower rowers would prefer the PATT number. <br /><br />On the C2 website, you can see all of your ranked workouts and get the percentile of your ranked times, and receive what has been promoted as the benefit of the PATT (a relative indicator of your performance across events or against other rowers).  If that's the case, then I'm having a hard time finding the benefit of this over what C2 already has and how it relates to training.<br /><br />Finally, if I can see where I rank across events at the click of a button on C2, why would I bother with PATT?<br /><br />(Disclosure point:  I'm a CPA formerly with Price Waterhouse, so I do have experience with numbers representing performance).<br /><br />Kind, non-inflamatory, and genuinely curious regards, <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I shouldn't do this, but --<br /><br />Presumbly, the rankings form something in the nature of a bell curve. PATT percentages are a straight line comparison, I think. They tell you where you are, but not how many are ahead of you.

[[old] FrancoisA]

<!--QuoteBegin-bmoore+Aug 26 2005, 06:55 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(bmoore @ Aug 26 2005, 06:55 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To get a higher "score", it appears the faster rowers would prefer the percentile of the annual rankings, and slower rowers would prefer the PATT number. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I agree with you. Here are two examples that shows how ridiculous those PATT scores can be:<br /><br />1) Jari Lampi has the 40-49 lwt world record for the 10K with a time of 34:28.4; His PATT score would be 96.4%. In order to get a PATT score of 100% he would need to do 33:15!<br /><br />2) Dwayne Adams has the 40-49 hwt world record for the marathon in 2:27:48.4 with a PATT score of only 91.4%. To get 100% Dwayne would have to do 2:15 or be 57 years old! (Note that 2:27:48 is the fastest time ever done for a marathon irrespective of age and weight!)<br /><br />As Paul Smith rightly said, PATT scores are another "invention" from Bizzarro World and should certainly be taken with a grain of salt! I suspect they were invented so that a certain John could pat (no pun intended!) himself on the back with his erg performances

[[old] John Rupp]

I have decided to give the iggie bin a good cleansing, and have removed everyone from that list. Hence it is a clean slate and a starting over point for the list. Hopefully it won't need to be used again, but is there and convenient if need be.<br /><br />The points brought up are interesting, and also have something to do with my initially coming up with the concept of basing the times on world records. This is nothing new, as from high school I did the same with my running times, always aiming to raise the percentages up higher. I didn't do this all the time, but now and then it was entertaining to see.