P/AR all-time 2k leaderboard

[Cyclingman1]

I personally feel this P/AR calculation is very legit and enlightening. I don't think that the data lies. Although I can see arguments that the numbers are not the end all, be all of determining the best rower(s). The thing I'm curious about is this data used anywhere or is it just a standalone curiosity? I never see reference to it on rowing sites, not even this forum.

I wonder how it could be used practically. A list from 1 to 20000 rowers is not useful. Unlike the many, but more limited C2 rankings based on age, wt, etc. Nonathlon too would be unwieldy if thousands participated, unless it was broken down on maybe wt.

Since I've become aware of P/AR just a few months ago, I've almost gotten obsessed with moving up the lists [2K, 5K]. Way easier said than done. Right now TJO dominates, which confirms my contention that he is by far the top older rower who has come along.

[lindsayh]

Since I've become aware of P/AR just a few months ago, I've almost gotten obsessed with moving up the lists [2K, 5K]. Way easier said than done. Right now TJO dominates, which confirms my contention that he is by far the top older rower who has come along.

Jim I'm with you - what TJO did in his 60's is by far the best of all. He was way ahead of the pack from 500m to FM for a number of years. (and Benko and some others are amazing of course) The only disappointment is that he never raced the CRASH Bs.

[Cyclingman1]

deleted

[Cyclingman1]

Quite a distance from Hawaii to Boston. It's a shame he couldn't get credit for his 2Ks. Nonetheless he was the best.

I'm not even close to TJO, but I've had two sub WRs that I couldn't get credit for including the current 75+ WR. I was under it by nearly 6 sec in 2022. The other was the 65+ WR in 2012. No big deal. I'm just trying to hang on these days.

[Cyclingman1]

Back to the suggestion of updating the original 2K P/AR list. From what little I've seen, there has been some movement up the list. For example, Richard Stout, age 71, 2023, now comes in at 6.93, up from 6.50; Steve Krum, age 69, 2024, is at 6.90, up from 6.66. Both fairly large gains. There are several others I've noticed, including at least one female rower.

Talk about the difference of one day, today I did 2K in 7:03, one day shy of being 78. My P/AR increased to 6.88, up from 6.66. Had I done it tomorrow, I would be at 7.05, or at the top of the current list. Seems a bit arbitrary. I'm sure I can duplicate the row.

But I would like to see the list updated. It's just more ammunition to add to the rankings and WR data to see where we all stand. It's worth millions.

[MudSweatAndYears]

[..] today I did 2K in 7:03, one day shy of being 78. My P/AR increased to 6.88, up from 6.66. [..]

This was on slides, right? Currently the list does not include 2k's on slides (nor on the dynamic C2).

[Cyclingman1]

This was on slides, right? Currently the list does not include 2k's on slides (nor on the dynamic C2).

1. The dynamic is a completely different beast.

2. There seems to be disagreement as to whether a rower on slides on distances 2K and above is an advantage. I do know that a Watt expended on slides certainly does not seem easier than on a std rower.

3. Did you actually find Slide times that would have calculated to be on the list? Other than the fact that C2 does not permit slide times for 2K WRs, is there a reason to not put slide times on the list?

[MudSweatAndYears]

So far I've just followed C2's practise of considering slide-results to be a different beast, and hence I always filtered on 'static Rowerg' results. Unless there would be consensus on slides not providing any advantage over static Ergs, I would like to keep it like that.

A more pressing issue is that so far P/AR all-time leaderboards don't seem to trigger much interest. P/AR scoring has been implemented successfully by the Diamonds (an online group of more than 1,000 indoor rowers aged 60+) for their intra-team monthly CTC competition, so maybe we have to wait till such activities yield a wider acceptance of P/AR scoring as a reasonable and transparent way of creating a level laying field for master's competitions.

[Cyclingman1]

Something that many may not be aware of is that it was only a few years ago that C2 began distinguishing between slides and static ergs in terms of WRs for age groups with the exception of 2K WRs. I know that in 2016 season I was listed as the 5K, 6K, 10K, amd 30 min 70+ WR holder even though done on slides. It was a couple of years later when my WRs were shifted to a "slides" only category. Of course, since then there has been further differentiation by creating five year record ranges. BTW, I have held 65+ and 70+ WRs on static erg, but have been surpassed. I can do both.

It is interesting that in three of those distances from 2016 my slide times are still below the current static erg 70+ WR times and under 2 sec slower in the fourth. Those records have held up for 8 years. No way do I think they are not legit because I used slides. Anyone thinking slides are a piece of cake, have at it.

And if I can get to > 7.5 P/AR for 2K, I'll know it was a tough effort regardless of slides or not.

[MudSweatAndYears]

Your reply made me check the World Records for slides vs those for static rowers. It appears that for very short efforts (100 m and 1 minute) slides give a distinct advantage.This is most pronounced for 100m, and less so for 1 minute. For longer efforts the static rower records tend to be faster than the slide records, with the only exception the 6k and the full marathon.

Of course we have to consider the fact that static rowers are utilized by the vast majority of those who compete on the RowErg, and RowErgs on slides are somewhat of an oddity. But still, I think you have a point: as long as sub 1 minute efforts are excluded, it is unlikely that slides provide a real advantage over a static machine. I will soon compile a list of all-time top 2k P/AR results that includes slides results.

[MudSweatAndYears]

Updated list, now including results on slides, and updated with results up to March 21st, 2024:

Code: Select all

#	Name			Time	Age	Season	Verif	Type	Country	Class	Watts	P/AR
1	Matthias Siejkowski	5:37.0	37	2002	Race	Normal	GER	Heavy	585	7.05
2	Maciej Maciejewski	5:40.5	39	2017	Yes	Normal	POL	Heavy	567	7.00
3	Timothy Buchanan	6:11.2	57	2021	No	Normal	USA	Heavy	438	6.95
4	Richard Stout		6:44.0	71	2023	Yes	Normal	CAN	Heavy	340	6.94
5	TJ Oesterling		6:26.5	64	2013	Yes	Normal	USA	Heavy	388	6.93
6	Jim Grattan		7:03.0	77	2024	Yes	Slides	USA	Heavy	296	6.88
7	Dwayne Adams		5:47.9	42	2007	Race	Normal	USA	Heavy	532	6.82
8	Andrew Benko		6:09.9	55	2023	Yes	Normal	USA	Heavy	443	6.82
9	Luke Wollenschlaeger	6:01.0	50	2024	Yes	Normal	RSA	Heavy	476	6.80
10	Graham Benton		5:48.3	42	2016	Race	Normal	GBR	Heavy	530	6.79
11	Steve Krum		6:36.7	67	2022	No	Normal	USA	Heavy	359	6.77
12	Paul Hendershott	6:24.0	61	2004	Race	Normal	USA	Heavy	396	6.71
13	Gustave Carl Schoch	6:33.5	65	2021	Yes	Normal	CAN	Heavy	368	6.69
14	Rob Waddell		5:36.6	32	2008	Yes	Normal	NZL	Heavy	587	6.67
15	Thomas Darling		6:12.6	55	2014	Race	Normal	USA	Heavy	433	6.66
16	Pavel Shurmei		5:47.8	40	2017	Race	Normal	BLR	Heavy	532	6.65
17	Klaus Geiger		6:12.1	54	2022	No	Normal	FIN	Heavy	435	6.59
18	Ken Gates  		6:31.5	63	2023	No	Normal	USA	Heavy	373	6.54
19	Rich Cureton		6:32.0	63	2015	No	Normal	USA	Heavy	372	6.53
20	George Petelin		7:07.9	76	2021	Yes	Normal	AUS	Heavy	286	6.50
21	Keith Brewer		6:39.6	66	2016	No	Normal	GBR	Heavy	351	6.50
22	Raimund Haberl		6:55.8	72	2022	Yes	Normal	AUT	Light	312	6.50
23	Richard Steventon	6:28.4	61	2014	Race	Normal	GBR	Heavy	382	6.47
24	Srdan Jovanovic		5:55.6	43	2019	Yes	Normal	SRB	Heavy	498	6.47
25	Jeremy Martin		6:56.3	72	2023	Yes	Normal	GBR	Heavy	310	6.46
26	Josh Dunkley-Smith	5:35.8	28	2018	Yes	Normal	AUS	Heavy	592	6.43
27	michael rascher  	6:16.9	55	2021	Yes	Normal	CAN	Heavy	418	6.43
28	Dave Gray		6:11.4	52	2012	Race	Normal	GER	Heavy	437	6.43
29	John Thomson		6:13.5	53	2021	Yes	Normal	NZL	Heavy	430	6.42
30	Marcos Cesar Morales	5:55.2	42	2020	Yes	Slides	ESP	Heavy	500	6.41
31	Hamish Bond		5:43.9	34	2021	Yes	Normal	NZL	Heavy	551	6.41
32	Roger Borggaard  	6:52.1	70	2016	Race	Normal	USA	Heavy	320	6.40
33	Robert Spousta		6:32.4	62	2012	Race	Normal	USA	Heavy	371	6.40
34	Michele Marullo		6:10.3	51	2011	Race	Normal	ITA	Heavy	441	6.39
35	Chris Cooper		6:39.5	65	2017	Race	Normal	USA	Heavy	351	6.38
36	Robert Constable	6:16.1	54	2017	Race	Normal	USA	Heavy	421	6.38
37	Torben Pedersen  	6:14.3	53	2016	Race	Normal	DEN	Heavy	427	6.37
38	James Castellan  	6:55.6	71	2016	Race	Normal	USA	Heavy	312	6.37
39	Dietmar Kuttelwascher	6:11.1	51	2017	Race	Normal	USA	Heavy	438	6.35
40	Charles Hamlin		6:40.3	65	2013	Race	Normal	USA	Heavy	349	6.35
41	David Dix		6:14.8	53	2021	Yes	Normal	GBR	Heavy	425	6.34
42	Daniel Casale 		5:35.0	26	2009	No	Normal	USA	Heavy	596	6.34
43	Chris Ives		6:13.1	52	2012	Race	Normal	USA	Heavy	431	6.34
44	Hideyoshi Wakimoto	9:41.2	102	2002	Race	Normal	JPN	Heavy	114	6.33
45	John Irvine		6:35.9	63	2019	Yes	Normal	GBR	Heavy	361	6.33
46	Mike Hurley		7:37.7	83	2019	Yes	Normal	GBR	Heavy	234	6.32
47	Larry O'Toole		6:38.4	64	2015	Race	Normal	USA	Heavy	354	6.32
48	Bob Spousta		6:36.1	63	2013	Race	Normal	USA	Heavy	360	6.32
49	Thomas Jensen		6:12.1	51	2020	Yes	Normal	DEN	Heavy	435	6.30
50	Frans van Mierlo	7:02.9	73	2020	Yes	Normal	NED	Heavy	296	6.30

[Cyclingman1]

I appreciate the updated list. As I suspected, there has been movement. I noticed a few things. Thomas Darling dropped down from 6.77 - not sure why. Bob/Robert Spousta is listed twice. I think Steve Krum, 69, may have a better number in 2024. Women are not in this list. The biggest surprise is that non-verified rows are included, one of which may be highly suspect. Slides must not be much, if any, advantage with only two entries in the list.

One thing for sure is that virtually all of the names in this list are known to be good on Rowergs, with the exception of yours truly. Might be some age skew going on. Kind of like winning nonathlon three yrs in a row - I should be apologizing for a decent standing.

I do wish I saw more interest in the P/AR ratings. I don't think they are bogus. I do hope that the list can be updated, say, every yr.

[Elizabeth]

Slides continue to provide an advantage for longer pieces, just not as marked as the advantage for sprints. The slower records are a matter of a smaller pool as well as fewer people taking them seriously.

It's going to be really hard to get widespread buy-in for a ranking system that places Rich Cureton above Josh Dunkley-Smith.

[CaseyClarke]

Funny list. To begin with, #2 and #7 aren’t legit…

[MudSweatAndYears]

It's going to be really hard to get widespread buy-in for a ranking system that places Rich Cureton above Josh Dunkley-Smith.

In essence, P/AR scoring yields a 'healthy ageing ranking'. As such it is intended for athletes who are well 'over the hill'. Athletes in their early thirties or younger are disadvantaged as the P/AR algorithm is based on a power decline linear with age.

A simple fix would be not to show athletes younger than say 35 in P/AR rankings. A better alternative would be to top off the age reserve for younger athletes. Something like age reserve is 80 years for athletes aged 40 and younger, and drops one year for every year the athlete is older than 40. Will do some analysis (determine the best fit to the online C2 data), and publish this revised list when ready.