How To Calculate Your Patt Percentages

[[old] John Rupp]

Initially with the rankings, I noticed times tended to be in a group, and not spread out across the range of performances. In particular times were from an 85% or so percentage range, and up, with few times below that.<br /><br />I felt that concept was too competitive, and within only small groupings, that would be discouraging to the great majority who had times not nearly so fast, and not nearly in that range.<br /><br />One of the things I did to encourage others to enter their times in the rankings, and I did this for a couple of years, was to enter my first times in the rankings, for example 2:24 pace for the 500 meters. Then when someone else did a similar time, they would see mine there and it would be a welcome for their entry. After all the rankings should, in my opinion, be for everyone, and not just a small group, who perform in a quite narrow range of the wide realm of abilities.<br /><br />This range has changed, expanded, and thus improved quite a bit in the last few years, for which I am happy, though I would like to see it continuing even more, to encompass the entire range of people who would like to participate, if only there was room for them, i.e. others in the same sphere of abilties.<br /><br />The current "ranking percentage" does not do this. As has been stated, all the times for certain events might be in a range of 84 to 87% of the world record times. That is fine for anyone faster, as they have all the motivation already being faster by the time they put their times in the rankings. Or perhaps they would not bother, and have their focuses elsewhere. However what of those who have PATT percentages of 60 or 50 percent, i.e. much lower than that grouping.<br /><br />As has been pointed out, the "ranking percentage" that is used now would not be kind, and would put them at 10%, or really at 5 or less. Wow! That would certainly be discouraging, provided they bothered to look at the rankings more than once after that! How disheartening! No. That is not at all a good thing.<br /><br />Far better, I think, to give each person an opportunity to measure their OWN efforts and their own performances, without being judged in comparison to a narrow ranged grouping far ahead.

[[old] John Rupp]

2005 40-49 heavyweight men 2,000 meters (1435 entries)<br /><br />PATT (Dwayne Adams)<br />100% = 5:47.1 . . . . . . current ranking percentiles<br />90% = 6:25.7 . . . . . . 6:45.3 (58 seconds from WR awg)<br />80% = 7:13.9 . . . . . . 6:56.4 (only 11 seconds from 80 to 90 percent!)<br />70% = 8:15.9 . . . . . . 7:05.2 (only 8.8 seconds from 70 to 80 percent!)<br />60% = 9:38.5 . . . . . . 7:16.0 (only another 10.8 seconds!)<br />50% = 11:34.2 . . . . . 7:25.9 (10.9 seconds)<br /><br />The current "ranking percentiles" have the 90th percentile at 58 seconds from the WR awg, then only 40.6 more seconds to the 60th percentile! I understand that on a bell curve there are more in the middle (having gotten straight A's in statistics), however the question is how "important" it is to show the percentages that way, and whether it is encouraging and useful to participants. <br /><br />For one thing the percentiles are not accurate, as most people would normally be at 50% in a bell curve, not 84 or 87 or 90. Secondly, that the majority of rowers are between 84 and 87% of the world record time shows that the sample currently participating in the rankings is in a very small range, and affirms that it is not a good sample size or range of abilities to use the bell curve percentile concept for the rankings.

[[old] John Rupp]

Now here are the rest of the current "ranking percentiles"<br /><br />. . . . . . . . . . 40% . . . 7:36.0<br />. . . . . . . . . . 30% . . . 7:48.2<br />. . . . . . . . . . 20% . . . 8:03.6<br />. . . . . . . . . . 10% . . . 8:33.0 . . . . . this is a score of 66.6% PATT.<br /><br /><!--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-->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.[right] </td></tr></table><br />I think everyone would prefer the percent of world record method, once they were used to it, other than those who would want a 90% when they are really only with 70% of the record for their awg. However I think most people would want to be realistic and honest with their times, which gives them more meaning.<br /><br />Now tell me, if you were those who had done an 8:33 for the 2k, would you rather it show you in the 10th percentile, or that you were 66.6 percent of the world record with your time. Personally I would prefer the latter, and I think most others would too.<br /><br />Also this method is more accurate.<br /><br />It is based exactly on the current world record performance, for that age, weight class, and gender.

[[old] John Rupp]

Yes I agree the Nonathlon is similar and is an excellent system.

[[old] holm188]

PATT and Nonathlon are quite similar concepts of evaluating performance. Each have their own shortcomings. But both are helpful if they are not considered as the absolute truth. I workout far away from any other erg so it helps being somewhat more connected to other ergers.<br /><br />What both systems as well as the C2 ranking have is the "arbitrary" separation between LWt and HWT (this is based of course on the weight categories in rowing (on water)). I would like to see a system that includes a weight factor (as given by C2 for example) and not just a big jump when one goes from 74.9 to 75.1 kg (or the equivalent for women). This would be similar to the age factor in PATT and Nonathlon which is different from the C2 ranking categories, there is no more jump when you turn 30, 40 , etc.<br /><br />

[[old] bobamiller]

<!--QuoteBegin-bmoore+Aug 26 2005, 11:55 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(bmoore @ Aug 26 2005, 11:55 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><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 /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Consider this. When you're just starting out it can be hard set reasonable targets for yourself. For example, based on my personal best to date for 5000 meters, what pace can I set for myself at the beginning of 10000 meter row and have a reasonable expectation of being able to carry it to the end? How about for 60 minutes or even a half marathon? PATT provides useful reference information that helps me avoid both short-changing myself and dying midway through a hard effort.<br /><br />Bob Miller<br />Six weeks into a lifelong commitment, one row at a time.

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-Porkchop+Aug 26 2005, 03:54 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Porkchop @ Aug 26 2005, 03:54 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->PATT percentages ... tell you where you are, but not how many are ahead of you.[right] </td></tr></table><br />Yes that's a good way to put it.<br />

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-FrancoisA+Aug 26 2005, 04:58 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(FrancoisA @ Aug 26 2005, 04:58 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->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![right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />2k PATT times are calculated based on existing 2k world records and world bests. All the 2k PATT times have been calculated this way.<br /><br />As the other 9 events are not as competitive, overall, as the 2k, they have been determined from the 2k PATT times, by the means of a "conversion factor". There are 9 conversion factors, one for each event. These conversation factors have been determined by the FASTEST performance in each of the 9 events, across all ages, weight classes, and gender. Then these 9 conversion factors are used for the 9 events.<br /><br />For example, lightweight Rod Freed did the 10000 meters in 34:16.2 at age 52.<br /><br />This gives him a 100% PATT and also sets the standard for all the other WR awg classes. Lampi, being much younger and also having a slower time than Freed, would of course not have 100%. His 96.4%, however, is still very good.<br /><br />Remember also that PATT is based on comparision with all other rowers! Other rowers would need to better 96.4% to be ahead of Lampi. However such performances are quite rare, at least comparatively speaking. Thus he doesn't lose anything by having a 96.4 percentage. If he had all time fastest performance then he would have 100%. <br /><br /><br />

[[old] John Rupp]

Dwayne Adams has the WR best time for the 2k in his division, and also the fastest times for the 1k and 500 meters.<br /><br />Additionally his 1k and 500 meter times set the standard for the conversation factors for those two events, because no one else has done a faster 1k or 500 meters, based on the WR for their AWG.<br /><br />Thus Dwayne has 100% PATT scores for those 3 events. <br /><br />However he is not comparatively as close to the WR for his AWG for the 10000 meters, for example, as is Freed. He still has a very good store, just not 100 percent.<br /><br />Even more so for the marathon, which by the way is the most difficult event to complete at a high score. Dwayne Adams has an excellent time for the marathon, but it is not the fastest time across all AWG and thus not 100%, but is close.

[[old] FrancoisA]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Aug 27 2005, 03:38 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Aug 27 2005, 03:38 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There are 9 conversion factors, one for each event.  These conversation factors have been determined by the FASTEST performance in each of the 9 events, across all ages, weight classes, and gender.  Then these 9 conversion factors are used for the 9 events.<br /> </td></tr></table><br />Thanks John for the explanation, it makes sense to me now. <br />I am just curious as to how you got the 2K pace time for each age. Did you interpolate using the WR pace times at age group boundaries or considered the age at which those WR were set?<br /><br />Thanks

[[old] Neb154]

I dont really think this is the best guage of personal fitness at least in some part due to the fact that for an age category like 40-49 heavyweight men, someone who just turned 40 would skew the results for someone who is close to turning 50.

[[old] John Rupp]

Francois,<br /><br />You're quite welcome. <br /><br />The 2k PATT times have been determined from current world records and world best times. For the most part these were at the initial age of a weight class, for example age 40 for the 40 to 49 age group, unless the rower was known to be a different age. For example Joan Van Blom and Rich Cureton set 100% PATT times at age 52 for the 50 to 59 age group.<br /><br />These established world record and world best times were then used to calculate the rest of the single age PATT awg world record standard times.<br /><br />I used the "power learning curve" on the TI BAII plus calculator to calculate the rest of the times.

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-Neb154+Aug 27 2005, 10:56 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Neb154 @ Aug 27 2005, 10:56 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->for an age category like 40-49 heavyweight men, someone who just turned 40 would skew the results for someone who is close to turning 50.[right] </td></tr></table><br />PATT is based on single age performances, and not age groups.<br /><br />Check the chart at the beginning of this thread, and it will show the smooth curve from one age to the next.<br /><br />Thus there is no skewing as you mentioned.<br /><br />The PATT time for an age 49 rower would be influenced much more by the age 50 WR time, than the one at age 40.

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Aug 27 2005, 11:13 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Aug 27 2005, 11:13 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Neb154+Aug 27 2005, 10:56 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Neb154 @ Aug 27 2005, 10:56 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->for an age category like 40-49 heavyweight men, someone who just turned 40 would skew the results for someone who is close to turning 50.[right] </td></tr></table><br />PATT is based on single age performances, and not age groups.<br /><br />Check the chart at the beginning of this thread, and it will show the smooth curve from one age to the next.<br /><br />Thus there is no skewing as you mentioned.<br /><br />The PATT time for an age 49 rower would be influenced much more by the age 50 WR time, than the one at age 40. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Would you please post this comprehensive list of "Worlds Fastest Times By Individual Years of Age"? I know of such a <a href='http://www.geocities.com/aedziepak/trai ... wingwb.htm' target='_blank'>list</a>, however it has several gaps in it, and if you have managed to fill those in, it would be fantastic.

[[old] John Rupp]

PATT is based on single age performances, across age, weight, and gender.<br /><br />Check the chart at the beginning of this thread, and it will show the smooth curve from one age to the next.