October Iron Fest Winners - 2014

[tmcnulty]

Sure. It may be we're arguing about different hypotheses. Whether or not that's true, I'm happy to accept correction is my reasoning is wrong.

We're both showing the same math, but we're interpreting it differently. That's pretty interesting, and makes for a worthwhile discussion. Thanks again for a detailed response.

The claim, as I understand it, is: The Wilks formula is not a good way to determine the winner of Iron Fest (IF) because it favors a relatively weaker presser when compared to a S/B/D PL contest. My first thought was, "Who cares? IF and a S/B/D PL meet are separate events."

To "Who cares?" I would say, "Anyone who wants to maximize their chances of winning by understanding the rules."

However, I was interested to read your white paper, and when doing so I felt that your arguments didn't support your claim.

I have attached a link to my algebra. I don't feel it merits elevation to a Latex document (sorry!), I trust my real-time scrawl is legible. http://imgur.com/AhqDwHT

I got stuck at your Equ (1), and I maintain
(a) It is incorrect as you've written it, if you treat k as a constant while varying r. (See the derivation in the lower rhs of my attached page.)

Hold k constant, and observe the variation in BP/PR and in r_PR parametrically. There's only one degree of freedom. For example, you can choose a value for the press, and it will completely determine the value for the bench press you need in order to hold k constant. I made the plots in my last post (these) by varying the IronFest Wilks score, which makes it easy to compare lifters.

(b) The equation simply states that if my press gets weaker while my bench stays the same, my bench-to-press ratio goes up. Umm, duh, right? Am I missing something? The equation says nothing about the Wilks coefficients and the two meets, so I don't see how it's useful to prove or falsify the claim.

The bench doesn't stay the same when you hold k constant and vary the press.

I then pulled a piece of paper and started scribbling (see the linked document) to see if I could falsify or prove the claim. I started with your example of two lifters who got the same Wilks score at the two meets and wrote my Equ (1) and (2). Two equations and eight unknowns - ughh, not promising. Nonetheless, I pressed on.

The claim, I believe, is a statement about the press and bench contributions to the total, so I wanted to look at those contributions. I found that the ratio of lifters' press contributions is similar to the ratio of their bench contributions. That is, the press in IF is weighted exactly the same way the bench is weighted at the PL meet. (Then I felt stupid, because we didn't need math for that. Some angry crossing out followed.) From that result, I reasoned IF fest doesn't favor a relatively weaker presser.

To your analysis, add a final, crucial assumption: everyone benches more than they press. I am relying heavily on this in the examples. If you're expected to press the same as you bench, there's absolutely no discrepancy to be expected between powerlifting and IronFest results.

(Equivalently, require k > 0.)

I then proceeded to look at it another way. Was Alice's press contribution was smaller than Bob's? That analysis (r_A < r_B ?) is at the bottom of the page. I couldn't see a way to make a definitive statement (too many unknowns), but I found that if it is true then the same could be said for their bench contributions at the PL meet. So, once again I didn't see an advantage at IF for the relatively weaker presser.

Forget about comparing powerlifting and IronFest for a moment. IronFest is biased against the press because the press is weaker than the squat or deadlift.

Let's say I did two IronFests back to back. I got an 1100 total at the first one. I got a 900 at the other, but it's because I bombed one of my lifts, and scored the same on the other two. Which lift would you conclude that I bombed? What if it was 600 instead?

[Savs]

We're both showing the same math, but we're interpreting it differently. That's pretty interesting, and makes for a worthwhile discussion. Thanks again for a detailed response.

You're welcome. I appreciate the cordial discussion, but I must say you're drowning in simple algebra and you are taking an awfully long goddamn time to die.

To "Who cares?" I would say, "Anyone who wants to maximize their chances of winning by understanding the rules."

Since I wasn't there, I can only guess as to how one wins. My guess is that by the time the day is finished, in order to win, one has to lift close to an Imperial fuckton of weight.

I'm going to drop out of the conversation here*. I feel uncomfortable having a math discussion in a venue celebrating a strength contest in which I would have been in the bottom third. We are creatures of our experiences and early on my experiences began teaching me that this behavior is a very bad idea.

* I'd be happy to chat in a new thread, perhaps in E&P where the conversation is free-flowing thus allowing Hitler and assorted creationists to invariably make an appearance.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I'd be happy to chat in a new thread, perhaps in E&P where the conversation is free-flowing thus allowing Hitler and assorted creationists to invariably make an appearance.

I'd really appreciate that.