New Lifter Classification Standards

i totaled master in the old adfpa as a 181, and only like 12 kg from totaling master at 198, in what was basically a singlet and belt and knee wraps.

so I know what you mean Tom.

[quote]StormTheBeach wrote:

[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:

[quote]LiquidMercury wrote:

[quote]grettiron wrote:

[/quote]

I wouldn’t be surprised if we see how many people totaled elite it would be much more than 10 lifters per weight class, in America alone.[/quote]

You can verify this very easily via powerliftingwatch.com and looking at the rankings. I explained the procedure in the FAQ on that page but I took the 5th through 9th best numbers in each weight class for the years 2008, 2009, and 2010 and averaged them per year and then averaged those 3 numbers and that was the basis for how these numbers came about. I did have to exclude results from feds that don’t test and/or don’t enforce strict rules (which are usually the same feds). So did more than 10 PEOPLE in American total more than elite, likely yes. Did more than 10 people do it in raw, drug free, strict feds? Maybe in a few weight classes but likely not on a regular basis.

Thanks for the post and the feedback, I understand everybody’s operational definitions are different.[/quote]

That makes a little bit more sense. Under those standards, I’m still considered elite. That is just strange to me because most of the other lifters I associate lift are stronger than me. But, they are also juiced out of their minds and use knee wraps. I just have to get my strict curl up to become a more well rounded athlete. Does that number factor in a curl vest?

Just kidding.[/quote]

New lifting standards for untested, unequipped (wraps but no shirt/suit) lifters? But this of course leads to the “too many standards/feds/classes so everyone can be a winner” debate.

[quote]grettiron wrote:

[quote]StormTheBeach wrote:

[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:

[quote]LiquidMercury wrote:

[quote]grettiron wrote:

[/quote]

I wouldn’t be surprised if we see how many people totaled elite it would be much more than 10 lifters per weight class, in America alone.[/quote]

You can verify this very easily via powerliftingwatch.com and looking at the rankings. I explained the procedure in the FAQ on that page but I took the 5th through 9th best numbers in each weight class for the years 2008, 2009, and 2010 and averaged them per year and then averaged those 3 numbers and that was the basis for how these numbers came about. I did have to exclude results from feds that don’t test and/or don’t enforce strict rules (which are usually the same feds). So did more than 10 PEOPLE in American total more than elite, likely yes. Did more than 10 people do it in raw, drug free, strict feds? Maybe in a few weight classes but likely not on a regular basis.

Thanks for the post and the feedback, I understand everybody’s operational definitions are different.[/quote]

That makes a little bit more sense. Under those standards, I’m still considered elite. That is just strange to me because most of the other lifters I associate lift are stronger than me. But, they are also juiced out of their minds and use knee wraps. I just have to get my strict curl up to become a more well rounded athlete. Does that number factor in a curl vest?

Just kidding.[/quote]

New lifting standards for untested, unequipped (wraps but no shirt/suit) lifters? But this of course leads to the “too many standards/feds/classes so everyone can be a winner” debate.
[/quote]

Don’t forget about the ‘Amount of Smiling to Wilkes Ratio.’

I kinda see both sides myself. I just started powerlifting, two meets in (one push-pull, one full meet) and definitely am not a fan of the “Everybody’s a winner” thing. I’ve yet to not place “1st” in any given lift/total, and I’ve yet to lift anything impressive. It seems to me though, this mindset of “not good enough” doesn’t go away as the numbers go up. LM: aren’t you lookin at breaking some world records for raw squat/dead? STB: aren’t you lookin at a 2k raw total? Sounds to me like the term Elite isn’t entirely out of place here.

As for old standards: obviously I wasn’t around the sport, but aren’t there more people competing now, than in the 80s? If so, shouldn’t the same percentage of competitors be called Elite?

Where it kinda breaks down there is when the population gets too big. For instance, if anyone has heard of Mensa: top 2% IQ score. That means on any given night in a crowded bar of 600 people, there’s 12 drunks that qualify for this “Elite” group.

And where this really breaks down is when you add in a million feds/weight classes/age brackets/police&fire/gender/gear/tested vs untested/judge strictness. This chart is only applicable to one combo, not all.

My 2 cents.

[quote]LiquidMercury wrote:
Fair enough. I suppose I just don’t consider myself “elite” though my squat/deadlift are in both the 165/181 classes. Just goes to show that when you train with people way stronger than you (as well as much larger) your aspirations are much higher than if one were training alone (started training at a PL gym with multiple WR holders and now just believe I’m weak).[/quote]

It definitely pays to surround yourself with stronger individuals and set your goals as high as possible. If you are “elite” according to our standards I don’t think anybody could call you weak but that doesn’t mean you should be satisfied either :). Once you are at that level start looking at the National and World record and use them for goals.

[quote]tom63 wrote:
I think back in the day app 4-10 guys in the plusa top 100 hit elite in a weight class. May e less than 5 in the very light classes. Of course everyone used equipment and there was no accounting for anabolics . Well, most used equipment but it was maybe fifty pounds on a total for light guys and maybe a little more for the heavier guys.

These drug free standards annoy me. Some guys might exceed them easily but decide to use to compete in other Feds. What I mean or am trying to say is they would easily exceed these naturally but want to lift differently . I don’t know if I’m being clear here, but I think they set them low.[/quote]

I agree it would be ideal if all lifters lifted under the same circumstances and then we could have a more fair and accurate comparison. I also agree it is not great to lower the standards but one has to account for steroids and gear somehow. Even the old stuff, while not great, might give one lifter 20 lbs and another one 100 lbs on the total, it throws a monkey wrench into the whole thing. Juice can do the same thing. That is why we just went with actual results instead of predictions. I also agree it might suck if a lifter who is natural and uses good form competes in a non tested fed, his/her numbers don’t count in this ranking. But on the flip side if one “only” competes in non tested feds and does well it does beg the question - why not go to a tested fed and show everybody what you can do? To me records are made to be broken, if somebody can do it they should do it - that is my .02 cents on that topic. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Tim

[quote]StormTheBeach wrote:

[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:

[quote]LiquidMercury wrote:

[quote]grettiron wrote:

[/quote]

I wouldn’t be surprised if we see how many people totaled elite it would be much more than 10 lifters per weight class, in America alone.[/quote]

You can verify this very easily via powerliftingwatch.com and looking at the rankings. I explained the procedure in the FAQ on that page but I took the 5th through 9th best numbers in each weight class for the years 2008, 2009, and 2010 and averaged them per year and then averaged those 3 numbers and that was the basis for how these numbers came about. I did have to exclude results from feds that don’t test and/or don’t enforce strict rules (which are usually the same feds). So did more than 10 PEOPLE in American total more than elite, likely yes. Did more than 10 people do it in raw, drug free, strict feds? Maybe in a few weight classes but likely not on a regular basis.

Thanks for the post and the feedback, I understand everybody’s operational definitions are different.[/quote]

That makes a little bit more sense. Under those standards, I’m still considered elite. That is just strange to me because most of the other lifters I associate lift are stronger than me. But, they are also juiced out of their minds and use knee wraps. I just have to get my strict curl up to become a more well rounded athlete. Does that number factor in a curl vest?

Just kidding.[/quote]

You are strong dude my friend, you are going to be elite in some categories for sure. Something to be proud of, of course one can always do more work and improve no matter how good they are.

[quote]tom63 wrote:
z suit, knee wraps and first generation inzer blast shirt didn’t give a whole lot.[/quote]

I still have a Z suit and a cotton/poly inzer bench shirt. Things weren’t better then, but they were different. I remember walking miles in the snow to the gym to train, uphill both ways.
The standards strike me as a bit low, perhaps they are trying to encourage more raw lifting.

[quote]grettiron wrote:

New lifting standards for untested, unequipped (wraps but no shirt/suit) lifters? But this of course leads to the “too many standards/feds/classes so everyone can be a winner” debate.
[/quote]

One could actually do this if you wanted. Instead of looking at the raw and drug free feds on plwatch.com you look at raw and non tested feds, use the same standards and calculate the numbers. My guess (off the top of my head) is that the bench and deadlift numbers would go up about 15%, and the squat up about 30% (because the untested feds tend to be loose with squat depth). Total probably up about 20%. While nobody knows how juice will affect a certain individual, most people say it raises performance on average about 10-15% in the strength sports so for me the numbers align pretty closely.

[quote]mkral55 wrote:
I kinda see both sides myself. I just started powerlifting, two meets in (one push-pull, one full meet) and definitely am not a fan of the “Everybody’s a winner” thing. I’ve yet to not place “1st” in any given lift/total, and I’ve yet to lift anything impressive. It seems to me though, this mindset of “not good enough” doesn’t go away as the numbers go up. LM: aren’t you lookin at breaking some world records for raw squat/dead? STB: aren’t you lookin at a 2k raw total? Sounds to me like the term Elite isn’t entirely out of place here.

As for old standards: obviously I wasn’t around the sport, but aren’t there more people competing now, than in the 80s? If so, shouldn’t the same percentage of competitors be called Elite?

Where it kinda breaks down there is when the population gets too big. For instance, if anyone has heard of Mensa: top 2% IQ score. That means on any given night in a crowded bar of 600 people, there’s 12 drunks that qualify for this “Elite” group.

And where this really breaks down is when you add in a million feds/weight classes/age brackets/police&fire/gender/gear/tested vs untested/judge strictness. This chart is only applicable to one combo, not all.

My 2 cents.[/quote]

You raise some good points. I also don’t like the “everybody win’s” mentality at a PL meet, something you can do (if you are not doing this already) is only register in the open division for a weight class, don’t do one of the specific age or special categories which tends to make you the only competitor in that class. IMO all lifters should automatically be entered into the open division unless they specifically opt out of it.

Second point, if there were more people lifting now than in the 70’s and 80’s and we used a percentage, then the standards should have gone up. They have gone down instead compared to the real old standards, but those standards were not tested and sometimes allowed light gear so it is a tough comparison. I am not sure if there are more people lifting now vs then, probably more now but the top talent is more diluted among the different feds. It does seem as though in the late 70’s early 80’s there were a disproportionate amount of powerlifting bad asses out there but that might just be a perspective.

Thanks for the post and the feedback - Tim

[quote]LiquidMercury wrote:
Too low. In my opinion there should be only 5 lifters or so in a year capable of hitting elite in a given weight class. Elite should truly be the elite.[/quote]

Keep in mind these are for drug free lifters…you dont qualify there…the standards were based on 1% of lifters hitting them in a given year…

[quote]tom63 wrote:

These drug free standards annoy me. Some guys might exceed them easily but decide to use to compete in other Feds. What I mean or am trying to say is they would easily exceed these naturally but want to lift differently . I don’t know if I’m being clear here, but I think they set them low.[/quote]

The same thing can be said for raw standards in general…isnt the big geared vs raw debate centered around the opinion that raw isnt as respectable because all the really strong guys compete in gear anyway? Total rubbish…

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

The standards strike me as a bit low, perhaps they are trying to encourage more raw lifting. [/quote]

Since I’m sure you read through the entire link and each weight class and compared them to old standards, I’m sure you noticed that some weight classes had the elite qualifications go lower, while other weight classes (mostly the heavier weight classes) go higher…

So do you think they are trying to encourage more raw lifting for lighter weight classes but less raw lifting for heavier weight classes? Im very interested to hear your opinion.

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]LiquidMercury wrote:
Too low. In my opinion there should be only 5 lifters or so in a year capable of hitting elite in a given weight class. Elite should truly be the elite.[/quote]

Keep in mind these are for drug free lifters…you dont qualify there…the standards were based on 1% of lifters hitting them in a given year…
[/quote]

I don’t qualify? Please do explain. I have to get drug tested regularly and anytime I submit national team times for rowing (powerlifting is more a fun passion that helps with rowing for me).

[quote]LiquidMercury wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]LiquidMercury wrote:
Too low. In my opinion there should be only 5 lifters or so in a year capable of hitting elite in a given weight class. Elite should truly be the elite.[/quote]

Keep in mind these are for drug free lifters…you dont qualify there…the standards were based on 1% of lifters hitting them in a given year…
[/quote]

I don’t qualify? Please do explain. I have to get drug tested regularly and anytime I submit national team times for rowing (powerlifting is more a fun passion that helps with rowing for me).[/quote]

VT can speak for himself but I think he meant in your post you didn’t qualify (or specify) that the person was drug free or not, I don’t think he was making any implications about your personal status.

[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:

[quote]LiquidMercury wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]LiquidMercury wrote:
Too low. In my opinion there should be only 5 lifters or so in a year capable of hitting elite in a given weight class. Elite should truly be the elite.[/quote]

Keep in mind these are for drug free lifters…you dont qualify there…the standards were based on 1% of lifters hitting them in a given year…
[/quote]

I don’t qualify? Please do explain. I have to get drug tested regularly and anytime I submit national team times for rowing (powerlifting is more a fun passion that helps with rowing for me).[/quote]

VT can speak for himself but I think he meant in your post you didn’t qualify (or specify) that the person was drug free or not, I don’t think he was making any implications about your personal status.[/quote]

Cold weather is making my reading comprehension terrible today.

For the record I think there should only be about 5 drug free people capable of making those numbers in a given year in a given weight class.

I will admit though that my logic may be skewed/flawed. When I think of olympic athletes I would say anyone able to go to the olympics (except in curling) is “elite” and there may be 30+ athletes in a field in any given event.

I’d like to see an event where the only people that can compete have elite totals.

[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:

[quote]LiquidMercury wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]LiquidMercury wrote:
Too low. In my opinion there should be only 5 lifters or so in a year capable of hitting elite in a given weight class. Elite should truly be the elite.[/quote]

Keep in mind these are for drug free lifters…you dont qualify there…the standards were based on 1% of lifters hitting them in a given year…
[/quote]

I don’t qualify? Please do explain. I have to get drug tested regularly and anytime I submit national team times for rowing (powerlifting is more a fun passion that helps with rowing for me).[/quote]

VT can speak for himself but I think he meant in your post you didn’t qualify (or specify) that the person was drug free or not, I don’t think he was making any implications about your personal status.[/quote]

Yes, I mean that you didn’t qualify your statement…sorry for the confusion…I had knocked a few back and was dealing with the tragic Sugar Bowl loss…

[quote]mkral55 wrote:
Where it kinda breaks down there is when the population gets too big. For instance, if anyone has heard of Mensa: top 2% IQ score. That means on any given night in a crowded bar of 600 people, there’s 12 drunks that qualify for this “Elite” group.

My 2 cents.[/quote]

for some detail:

IQ has a bell curve if you were to chart all 600 peoples results. so to be in the top 2% maybe only 2 people will be at that level. maybe even just one, as at least someone will need to be at the top.

i havent looked at the details of this rating, but if it does the same then im good with it. i do know i do not have near enough information to figure out something like what they did whether it is good or bad.

[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:

[quote]mkral55 wrote:
I kinda see both sides myself. I just started powerlifting, two meets in (one push-pull, one full meet) and definitely am not a fan of the “Everybody’s a winner” thing. I’ve yet to not place “1st” in any given lift/total, and I’ve yet to lift anything impressive. It seems to me though, this mindset of “not good enough” doesn’t go away as the numbers go up. LM: aren’t you lookin at breaking some world records for raw squat/dead? STB: aren’t you lookin at a 2k raw total? Sounds to me like the term Elite isn’t entirely out of place here.

As for old standards: obviously I wasn’t around the sport, but aren’t there more people competing now, than in the 80s? If so, shouldn’t the same percentage of competitors be called Elite?

Where it kinda breaks down there is when the population gets too big. For instance, if anyone has heard of Mensa: top 2% IQ score. That means on any given night in a crowded bar of 600 people, there’s 12 drunks that qualify for this “Elite” group.

And where this really breaks down is when you add in a million feds/weight classes/age brackets/police&fire/gender/gear/tested vs untested/judge strictness. This chart is only applicable to one combo, not all.

My 2 cents.[/quote]

You raise some good points. I also don’t like the “everybody win’s” mentality at a PL meet, something you can do (if you are not doing this already) is only register in the open division for a weight class, don’t do one of the specific age or special categories which tends to make you the only competitor in that class. IMO all lifters should automatically be entered into the open division unless they specifically opt out of it.

Second point, if there were more people lifting now than in the 70’s and 80’s and we used a percentage, then the standards should have gone up. They have gone down instead compared to the real old standards, but those standards were not tested and sometimes allowed light gear so it is a tough comparison. I am not sure if there are more people lifting now vs then, probably more now but the top talent is more diluted among the different feds. It does seem as though in the late 70’s early 80’s there were a disproportionate amount of powerlifting bad asses out there but that might just be a perspective.

Thanks for the post and the feedback - Tim[/quote]

Guys worrying over knee wraps, a belt, or god forbid, that guy is wearing under armor. Try competing against guys 30 years younger than you, (actually it’s kinda fun.) I guess I don’t understand the problem. The only numbers I care about are the ones I haven’t hit yet. Be it a masters class,(guys over 50 and under 200# are as rare as unicorns) or in the open, I compare numbers anyway.

I guess this is a young mans game, as the elite numbers look pretty stout to me.

[quote]asooneyeonig wrote:

[quote]mkral55 wrote:
Where it kinda breaks down there is when the population gets too big. For instance, if anyone has heard of Mensa: top 2% IQ score. That means on any given night in a crowded bar of 600 people, there’s 12 drunks that qualify for this “Elite” group.

My 2 cents.[/quote]

for some detail:

IQ has a bell curve if you were to chart all 600 peoples results. so to be in the top 2% maybe only 2 people will be at that level. maybe even just one, as at least someone will need to be at the top.

i havent looked at the details of this rating, but if it does the same then im good with it. i do know i do not have near enough information to figure out something like what they did whether it is good or bad.[/quote]

Or if its a particularly smart crowd, there will be 50 people that qualify. (Quite possible at the bar I work at which was the model for this analogy)

I simply was using this as an example of the term “elite” in general. What happens in a crowd of 600 is certainly gonna be variable, but if you take the entire world of 7 billion, that gives you 140,000,000 people in the top 2%, by definition.

So what this boils down to: what % should be called elite?