They Don't Award Form Points in Olympic Weightlifting

[IndividualThoughtPatterns]

Hey Mark! first time here writing.. been reading long time tho.. anyhow... question is... Do you think the american women 75+ Holley Mangold (105 / 135) lifter needs more strength or technique (she didnt have that poor technique after all)? Since if you compare her to 53kg lifter CHINSHANLO Zulfiya (95 / 131) they almost totaled same in London olympics even they have 100kg difference in bodyweight. Im quite sure Holley would be stronger in strict pushing movements etc... quite sure she squats way more too... And overal do you think old time 50's n 60's oly lifting is compared to nowdays? Even tho they are nowdays massivly strong but im pretty sure that records has been getting up mostly becouse of technique not strength factor. Would like to hear your take has streght gotten so much further nowdays from 60's or has the technique changed more than strength levels? Cheers already

I wonder this aswell.

[Corrie]

Hey coachd50, I appreciate the opposing view. I had a few thoughts when I read your post though.

1. Starr set those numbers 50 years ago. As far as I can tell every sport has progressed past the records of 50 years ago. To me this doesn't necessarily mean that what we're doing now is better or what they did in the past was worse.

2. Starr was competitive in the US and at that time the US was competitive on the world stage. Although Starr's numbers wouldn't hold up in the US today, the numbers of the US don't hold up on the world stage. So even though the US has gotten better since Starr's time, the rest of the world has done the same, but at a faster rate.

Just wanted to hear your thoughts. Thanks.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I was just curious as to how often Coach Starr is visiting Coach Totten or any of the other coaches from East Coast Gold? When was the last time he visited with Gayle Hatch at Hatch Weightlifting, or visited Hassel Free, or Dave Spitz of California Strength or Dr. Pierce at LSU Shreveport, or Catalyst Athletics and Greg Everett. Or Glen at. MDUSA? Or even the much aligned Broz. Because these are the places that are producing the lifters here. (Although interestingly enough in other internet writings, olympic coaches have complained that when their lifters go to the OTC, they come back with great squat and pull gains, and not enough gains in the competition lifts). It is one thing to say "the US is not successful at Olympic Weightlifting". That is black and white, and it can not be disputed. But unless he is visiting those places, and seeing what Kendrick Farris, and Donny Shankle and Phil Sabatini, and Chad Vaughn and Jared Fleming and Ian Wilson, and Cameron Swart and Matt Bruce and the Barnes brothers are doing...I don't see how he can just proclaim "they aren't working on strength".

And this obviously means that American weightlifters are already strong enough. If only their technique was better, we'd place better than 35th at the Worlds. Thanks for this valuable insight, coach.

[coachd50]

And this obviously means that American weightlifters are already strong enough. If only their technique was better, we'd place better than 35th at the Worlds. Thanks for this valuable insight, coach.

No Coach, that is not what was stated, and I am not sure how someone could possibly interpret that. What was said was "If Coach Starr is not visiting those places, HOW can he comment on what they are doing." The quote from Coach Starr stated that "US Lifters are not working on strength". It seems fairly rudimentary that in order to say what US lifters are NOT working on, then one needs to know what they are doing.

I am not quite certain how you got "America is already strong enough" from asking "How can Coach Starr comment on what the lifters are training. Is he visiting those gyms?"

[coachd50]

Hey coachd50, I appreciate the opposing view. I had a few thoughts when I read your post though.

Corrie, Just to clarify, I wouldn't say I have an "opposing" viewpoint. I am simply questioning some of the premises of this article.

1. Starr set those numbers 50 years ago. As far as I can tell every sport has progressed past the records of 50 years ago. To me this doesn't necessarily mean that what we're doing now is better or what they did in the past was worse.

I would ask you here, WHY did those sports progress? I would say that the reason performance has improved in "every" sport IS because what they are doing in those sports now, is better than what they did 50 years ago. I don't think performance has just "magically" improved over time.

2. Starr was competitive in the US and at that time the US was competitive on the world stage. Although Starr's numbers wouldn't hold up in the US today, the numbers of the US don't hold up on the world stage. So even though the US has gotten better since Starr's time, the rest of the world has done the same, but at a faster rate.

The interesting thing about this discussion is that there are absolute and relative components. Weightlifting, like sprinting, swimming, throwing events, jumping events etc... are static sports. So the performances can be compared against all time, and both absolutely and relatively. The bar hasn't changed, the plates haven't really changed. The competition HAS changed, and as I suggested, that may have some bearing on the differences. But my thoughts still remain...in an absolute sense, the lifters of those times are being outperformed. Based on that, how does one say "you guys should do it like WE did" when they are

[elVarouza]

I think one thing that is often overlooked is the competition was a 3-lift competition before 1972. "Being worn out from the press" wouldn't explain the lower C&J/snatch numbers back then. However, you have to realize that because the press is a brute strength movement compared to the faster lifts of the C&J and the snatch training was different back then. I don't doubt that lifters from "back in the day" could bring their snatch and C&J numbers up higher than what they lifted, but the press was an integral part of training, and that couldn't be allowed to lag behind.

[Rob Waskis]

I dug into some of the placements at the Olympics, Worlds, Pan-Am Games etc. with the intention gathering some data in response to coached50's assertion that US lifters are stronger now than they were 50 years ago. The data I gathered shows that indeed, the US has gotten stronger, but everyone else has gotten "more stronger".

I focused on the 50s and 60s, as that was the time period referenced in the article and that was the heyday of US achievement in weightlifting. I looked at two of the most successful lifters in US history (Norbert Schemanski and Tommy Kono) and compared them to two of the "most promising" lifters currently (Pat Mendes and Kendrick Farris). I stuck to the Olympics to keep the data set manageable.

In the '64 Olympics (heavyweight/105+), the gold went to Ukrainian Leonid Zhabotinski who had a 385 total. The US took the bronze thanks to Schemanski who posted a 357.5 total.

Fast forward to 2012, and at London the gold again went to a Ukrainian, Oleksiy Torokhtiy who had a 412 total. This represents a 7.0% increase from the Ukrainian performance in 1964.

At the 2011 US Nationals (the most relevant competition I could find), Pat Mendes totaled 389, representing an 8.8% increase over the US performance in 1964, and a mere 1% improvement over the gold-winning effort of Zhabotinski.

In 1956, Kono took the gold in the light heavyweight/82.5kg with a 307.5 total. The silver went to Latvian Vasily Stepanovs who had a 292.5 total.

In 2012 at London, there was no Latvian competitor in the 85kg weight class. The gold went to Adrian Zielinski of Poland with a 385 total (an improvement of 25.2% over Kono and 30.1% over Stapanovs).

Also in the 2012 Olympics, Kendrick Farris totaled 355, representing a 15.4% improvement over the 1956 US performance.

My conclusion from this very limited data set is that the US is not progressing at the same rate as other countries with respect to medal-winning performances of yesteryear. Starr & Rip have offered a plausible root cause for the US falling behind that we have the ability to correct immediately: a difference in training focus. I have not yet seen any other suggestions, only attempts to refute their potential root cause.

[thefrightnight]

raw32: the training focus of the countries beating the USA since 1972 when the C&P was discontinued has been mostly on technique and maintaining technique as the weights increase. Look at the bulgarian method - it is mostly the Olympic lifts and its variants. Front squats, pulls, ect.

[Subsistence]

I dug into some of the placements at the Olympics, Worlds, Pan-Am Games etc. with the intention gathering some data in response to coached50's assertion that US lifters are stronger now than they were 50 years ago. The data I gathered shows that indeed, the US has gotten stronger, but everyone else has gotten "more stronger".

I focused on the 50s and 60s, as that was the time period referenced in the article and that was the heyday of US achievement in weightlifting. I looked at two of the most successful lifters in US history (Norbert Schemanski and Tommy Kono) and compared them to two of the "most promising" lifters currently (Pat Mendes and Kendrick Farris). I stuck to the Olympics to keep the data set manageable.

In the '64 Olympics (heavyweight/105+), the gold went to Ukrainian Leonid Zhabotinski who had a 385 total. The US took the bronze thanks to Schemanski who posted a 357.5 total.

Fast forward to 2012, and at London the gold again went to a Ukrainian, Oleksiy Torokhtiy who had a 412 total. This represents a 7.0% increase from the Ukrainian performance in 1964.

At the 2011 US Nationals (the most relevant competition I could find), Pat Mendes totaled 389, representing an 8.8% increase over the US performance in 1964, and a mere 1% improvement over the gold-winning effort of Zhabotinski.

In 1956, Kono took the gold in the light heavyweight/82.5kg with a 307.5 total. The silver went to Latvian Vasily Stepanovs who had a 292.5 total.

In 2012 at London, there was no Latvian competitor in the 85kg weight class. The gold went to Adrian Zielinski of Poland with a 385 total (an improvement of 25.2% over Kono and 30.1% over Stapanovs).

Also in the 2012 Olympics, Kendrick Farris totaled 355, representing a 15.4% improvement over the 1956 US performance.

My conclusion from this very limited data set is that the US is not progressing at the same rate as other countries with respect to medal-winning performances of yesteryear. Starr & Rip have offered a plausible root cause for the US falling behind that we have the ability to correct immediately: a difference in training focus. I have not yet seen any other suggestions, only attempts to refute their potential root cause.

Drugs are a popular alternate explanation. As is other sports taking the top athletes. I am sure there are more.

[DV]

Drugs is probably one of the explanations. Lifters from the Western countries are tested more, and have less access to drugs, whereas I am told that Eastern lifters (not to mention Chinese) have a drug protocol run by their coaches, teams etc. Back when Starr lifted, everyone took them, so it might be more even? This also means that strength is probably the problem, with genes being a close second (all the potentially great lifters run around chasing balls).

As to "Weightlifters don't focus on strength" I always thought it was a strawman argument, sort of like Pendlay wrote once. At least at the rhetorical level, I mean - who would deny that lifting heavy things is easier when you are stronger? Yet I've been talking to some guys in Danish Weightlifting, and FWIW "Strength isn't really important, technique is" has been said more than once, and very, very rarely do I see them doing strength work, much less do some actual cycles of strength work to PR on the squat or deadlift. I'm just a fan of the sport not a competitor, maybe strength ISN'T that important. But the argument "Danish lifters aren't working (much) on strength" seems to hold true from my little sample. Maybe it's true for the US too?

In any case it seems to warrant discussion, and listening to some of the guys who were part of it when the US actually won stuff makes sense I'd think. And then Starr writes about this stuff in a way, that makes you want to read more, which is quite rare, I find.