World Classic Powerlifting Championships

[Marenghi]

While Wilks is skewed due to a larger talent pool in the middle weights and based on decades old data, the 2/3 surface area/volume method has its faults too. It's much harder to remain lean at higher body weights. And why discourage getting bigger and stronger? You don't see many shredded tested lifters above 105 kg.

In my opinion, absolute strength should be valued more than relative strength. I'm much more impressed by a 1,000-lb squat from a 400-lb lifter than a 400-lb squat from a 100-lb lifter.

Oh, everyone has their preferences. If you think like that - fine. [Bear in mind though, that you can turn the argument both ways: The athlete pool for very heavy (and very light) competitors is smaller than that of medium ones (normal distribution at work here), so you can either see a world record in those classes and think: "I dont know many lifters at that weight - thats a very rare performance!". You can also see it the other way round: "The sheer number of competitors is greater in the medium classes. A world record there certainly means (on average) a higher relative performance because larger athlete pool --> more extreme performances!" ]

Anyway, regardless what your preference is there, the true extreme performance or the "rare" performance: It would be very unlogical to design a RELATIVE strength formula based on that the ABSOLUTE strongest shell win/have an advantage. Thats not the goal of a relative strength assessment. Finding out whos the absolute strongest is pretty easy after all. The goal of a relative strength formula is to be able to compare lifters of different weight classes. Based on their performance - not on their rarity or on "its harder to remain lean at higher body weights" (which is very strange - what do you mean by that? If one decides to be as heavy as they can, they will have a higher BFA? Eh, yeah.).

For more details - the links I posted for Eric seal the deal.

[TimD]

...you can turn the argument both ways: The athlete pool for very heavy (and very light) competitors is smaller than that of medium ones (normal distribution at work here)

...It would be very unlogical to design a RELATIVE strength formula based on that the ABSOLUTE strongest shell win/have an advantage.

It looks like you just ignored my entire post for the sake of a seemingly harsher argument.

I acknowledged that the talent pool is not uniformly distributed.

I also acknowledged that absolute strength being more impressive is just my opinion. Both absolute and relative strength are important. Weight class sports would be even less popular if only the biggest were rewarded. Gymnasts are small and jacked because they need to be strong relative to their weight. At the same time, I would rather be in the stronger 10% of 200-lb males than the strongest 100-lb male in the world. Good luck applying yourself effectively to any real contact sport at that weight.

[Eric K]

It looks like you just ignored my entire post for the sake of a seemingly harsher argument.

I acknowledged that the talent pool is not uniformly distributed.

I also acknowledged that absolute strength being more impressive is just my opinion. Both absolute and relative strength are important. Weight class sports would be even less popular if only the biggest were rewarded. Gymnasts are small and jacked because they need to be strong relative to their weight. At the same time, I would rather be in the stronger 10% of 200-lb males than the strongest 100-lb male in the world. Good luck applying yourself effectively to any real contact sport at that weight.

100 is not a middle weight. It might also be worth pointing out that I explicitly addressed medals for best total as well as best weight-adjusted total... But it's all just pointless bitching about "if I were King..."

[TimD]

I made this in Excel about a year ago. It compares relative strength based on the strength:weight, cross-sectional area:density, and Wilks. You can compare yourself to other lifters or yourself if you decide to jump a weight class. PM me if you want a copy.

[Leah Lutz]

Yeah, there's no neat way to skin it. But I'm partial to the idea of medals for top 3 totals and top 3 weight-adjusted totals. Generally, the big guys would dominate the former, while the middle weights would dominate the latter. It would make the awards ceremony almost bearable.



Thanks, Marenghi. Greg's article sold me on the idea.

The top three totals for the whole meet?

Got to say, I think you guys are bitching and moaning about local level awards and meets. I doubt that any high level competitor would think this is a cool idea.

[Eric K]

The top three totals for the whole meet?

Got to say, I think you guys are bitching and moaning about local level awards and meets. I doubt that any high level competitor would think this is a cool idea.

Meh. It's preferable to 3 medals for each of 8 weight classes across 2 genders, 8 age classes, (and 2-4 divisions), plus 3 more for "best lifter." But it's just a preference.

[marcf]

Short armed lifters should be ranked higher IMO. No bias.

We can develop our own metric where we take into account height and arm length of lifter. It's not fair for a 6'3" 220 lifter with short arms to be subjected to the same metrics as an Ed Coan.

[Leah Lutz]

Meh. It's preferable to 3 medals for each of 8 weight classes across 2 genders, 8 age classes, (and 2-4 divisions), plus 3 more for "best lifter." But it's just a preference.

As a female, I'll always be against the idea then. [emoji4] I agree that it can get out of hand but we like to win too.

[Eric K]

As a female, I'll always be against the idea then. [emoji4] I agree that it can get out of hand but we like to win too.

Totes fair. I wouldn't throw a stink about M/F categories to be honest. And, while I'm being honest, no matter the method, I suspect you're in a far better position to win than I.

[Igor]

Anybody else had issues with the stream today?