Percentage of World Records

Ben Rea · Post by **Ben Rea** » March 19th, 2006, 12:05 pm

i dont get it...

i want to see it though, i love statistics, and they push me to do better, thats a big part of why i erg.

PaulS · Post by **PaulS** » March 19th, 2006, 12:31 pm

Ben Rea wrote:i dont get it...

i want to see it though, i love statistics, and they push me to do better, thats a big part of why i erg.

Okay, let's make it very simple.

If you improve your 2k by 4 seconds, you will have improved your 2k by 4 seconds. How about that for a meaningful statistic?

Or would you like a more pure statistic? If so, take a look at the WR in your category, the Avg "virtual boat speed" for that, and your percentage of that speed. The percentage of "Gold medal Speed" is commonly used and therefore useful. Handicapped stuff is all based on some form of estimated adjustment and and will never be considered much beyond entertainment value.

For example: Lifting 100lbs takes more strength than lifting 50lbs, it doesn't matter what the weight of the lifter is, does it?

Anyway, it's generally apparent to ourselves if we are the best we can be, or if there is still room for improvement. If you think you have reached a point at which it is no longer possible to improve, you're probably right.

The nice part is, if you think you can still improve, you are also probably right.

Ben Rea · Post by **Ben Rea** » March 19th, 2006, 12:47 pm

cool, thanks for the info, reality check

johnlvs2run · Post by **johnlvs2run** » March 19th, 2006, 1:17 pm

cbrock wrote:Your new calculations look pretty good to me John. Good Work!

Thank you, Chris!

Ben Rea wrote:i cant find out mine though because it only goes down to age 35.......and im 15

The standards for ages 19 through 35 are the same.

I am looking to expand the curve to include ages less than 19.

johnlvs2run · Post by **johnlvs2run** » March 19th, 2006, 1:41 pm

I have added Perathlon Ratios from age 12 through age 95.

Ben Rea · Post by **Ben Rea** » March 19th, 2006, 4:48 pm

Thanks so much john!

i think my 2k is only 60% tho

johnlvs2run · Post by **johnlvs2run** » March 19th, 2006, 5:18 pm

John Foy · Post by **John Foy** » March 19th, 2006, 5:29 pm

John, you need a perathlon calculator because the maths mess with my head.

John

johnlvs2run · Post by **johnlvs2run** » March 19th, 2006, 5:45 pm

Hi John,
That's a great idea. Any ideas how to get one?

johnlvs2run · Post by **johnlvs2run** » March 19th, 2006, 5:52 pm

Gus · Post by **Gus** » March 19th, 2006, 8:09 pm

PaulS wrote: For example: Lifting 100lbs takes more strength than lifting 50lbs, it doesn't matter what the weight of the lifter is, does it?

Of course the first part of the statement is correct. If the weight of the lifter doesn't matter, why do they have weight classes in olympic lifting?

PaulS wrote: The nice part is, if you think you can still improve, you are also probably right.

"Whether you think you can or can't, you're right."

Henry Ford (If I remember correctly.)

Citroen · Post by **Citroen** » March 19th, 2006, 9:05 pm

John Foy wrote:John, you need a perathlon calculator because the maths mess with my head.

John

John, I'll use one of my contacts at the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting. You clearly need a high-end Cray super computer (or something like the BlueGene Grid super computer) to begin to make any sense of the bizarre maths that JR is presenting here.

I've yet to see any evidence that these figure show anything or predict anything.

One thing missing is the fudge factor for height. (As we all know the creator of these bizarre stats is fixated on stroke length from his other musings on the two forums.)

On the other hand it may be better for you to spend the time you'd waste on calculating this stuff on rowing a decent 10K (or three) instead.

PaulS · Post by **PaulS** » March 19th, 2006, 9:08 pm

Gus wrote:
PaulS wrote: For example: Lifting 100lbs takes more strength than lifting 50lbs, it doesn't matter what the weight of the lifter is, does it?
Of course the first part of the statement is correct. If the weight of the lifter doesn't matter, why do they have weight classes in olympic lifting?

Same reason they have Midget Wrestling, lwt rowing (only since 1974), boxing weight classes, age categories, etc...

To allow those that would have no competitive chance in open competition a chance to win a bit of ribbon and metal, though I think in boxing they can even get some money.

How about the "Flea Circus"? Everyone loves that, don't they?

Why do they have "Olympic Weight lifting" at all? Perhaps so commentators can get away with saying Clean and Jerk, and Snatch without the FCC fining them.

Gus wrote:
PaulS wrote: The nice part is, if you think you can still improve, you are also probably right.
"Whether you think you can or can't, you're right."

Henry Ford (If I remember correctly.)

You Remember Correctly.

jjpisano · Post by **jjpisano** » March 20th, 2006, 11:38 am

John:

I'm very impressed by how much time and effort you have devoted to the statistical analysis of Concept2 world records.

I don't mean to rain on your parade but I think it's more helpful to look at the performances in watts.

Just as an example, I'm going to give you my situation.

I'm a 40 y.o. male lightweight with a PB of 6:52 or 412 seconds.
Mike Caviston is the current record holder for that category at 6:18 or 378 seconds.

My performance by your reckoning is 378/412 as good as his or 91.75%.

It would seem that my performance just would have to improve by a little more than 8% to get to world record level.

In fact, however, my performance needs to improve much more significantly. To do a 6:52, I had to perform at 320w. To do a 6:18, Mike had to perform at around 415w. My 6:52 is a piddling 320/415 of Mike's world best or 77.11%.

To get to Mike's level, each and every stroke I pull has to be nearly 23% more powerful.

Looking at watts makes you realize just what an extraordinary task each of the world records is and you realize the enormity of the task of being competitive with the world's best.

Again, I admire your efforts but a good dose of reality with interpreting the data in watts may be helpful.

Jim SWCSPI Pisano (My new signature includes SWCSPI - meaning strapless, watts, constant SPI. I figure if Paul Smith can go by the moniker Paul S10MPS Smith, then I can go by Jim SWCSPI Pisano).

hjs · Post by **hjs** » March 20th, 2006, 11:47 am

jjpisano wrote:John:

My performance by your reckoning is 378/412 as good as his or 91.75%.

It would seem that my performance just would have to improve by a little more than 8% to get to world record level.

In fact, however, my performance needs to improve much more significantly. To do a 6:52, I had to perform at 320w. To do a 6:18, Mike had to perform at around 415w. My 6:52 is a piddling 320/415 of Mike's world best or 77.11%.

To get to Mike's level, each and every stroke I pull has to be nearly 23% more powerful.

Looking at watts makes you realize just what an extraordinary task each of the world records is and you realize the enormity of the task of being competitive with the world's best.

Again, I admire your efforts but a good dose of reality with interpreting the data in watts may be helpful.

Jim SWCSPI Pisano (My new signature includes SWCSPI - meaning strapless, watts, constant SPI. I figure if Paul Smith can go by the moniker Paul S10MPS Smith, then I can go by Jim SWCSPI Pisano).

the 6.18/6.52 not 23 % harder but far more. A 6.52 erger has to pull 415/320 = 1.296 times harder to pull 61.8 almost 30 %