Carrie,
I'm having problems reconciling the math in Angela's article about the power ratio.
What she writes does not seem to agree with what's in the two tables (Table 1 being Athlete A vs. Athlete B; Table 2 being Athlete C vs. Athlete D).
Here is the assumption I'm making for the calculations:
Power Ratio = Watts Generated in Rowing Effort / Rower's Body Weight
I base this on Angela writing the following: "...we can calculate each participant’s power ratio, which is the total wattage he or she generates divided by body weight (in pounds)..."
I'm Confused, Exhibit 1
So in Table 1 (Page 5)...
Athlete A produces 546 watts and weighs 209 lbs, which means his power ratio is 546/209 = 2.61.
So far, so good. Everything in the table agrees with what I'd expect to see.
Athlete B produces 546 watts and weighs 128 lbs, which means her power ratio is 546/128 = 4.27.
This is where I get confused. According to the table, Athlete B has a power ratio of 2.66. That's quite a large difference between what I'd expect and what is listed in the table.
Also, in the text supporting the table, Angela writes that Athlete B had a slower time, but in the table itself Athlete A and Athlete B both are listed with 500m times of 1:26.2.
I'm Confused, Exhibit 2
So in Table 2 (Page 5)...
Athlete C produces 303 watts and weighs 129 lbs, which means her power ratio is 303/129 = 2.35.
As in the case above, so far, so good. Everything in the table agrees with what I'd expect to see.
Athlete D produces 303 watts and weighs 141 lbs, which means her power ratio is 303/141 = 2.15.
And this is where I get confused again. In the table, Athlete D is listed with a power ratio of 2.33, instead of the 2.15 I'd expect to see based on the wattage and the athlete's body weight listed. If I multiply Athlete D's bodyweight (141) by the power ratio that's listed in the table (2.33), then the total watts that Athlete D produces would have to be 329. So I'm missing somethingwhat is it?
Help me understand, sister.
As an aside, I should note that even with the confusion over the math, I totally get the larger point of the article and it will have a big impact on how we rate our rowers at CF Oakland. And for that I'm extremely grateful. It's just bugging me that I can't tie the little details together and reconcile the math.
Thanks,
Mike
