Which Coefficient Formula Do You Agree With?

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]StormTheBeach wrote:
Whoever lifts the most should win the most. Regardless of body weight. [/quote]

I couldn’t disagree with this more.

If this were the case, only the heaviest guys would be competing and the sport would appeal to even fewer people than it already does.

Actually, I think the sport should get rid of weight classes and base placement totally on wilks. So instead of everybody winning a trophy at meets (which really annoys me), only the strongest men and women would place, regardless of their BW. To me, if you lift more as a percentage of BW, then you’re stronger. Period.

No one mentioned the McCullough formula, which takes into account age in addition to BW.

And, yes. I’m small.[/quote]

It doesn’t seem to hurt the popularity of world’s strongest man. Once you get to that level there are only 2 weight classes, LW and HW. Same with world’s strongest women (which is less popular but still has more prize money than the top 10 money powerlifting meets combined). They don’t mention anything about coefficients. There is just a winner and everyone else is a loser.

$0.02 worth. Why not use just Relative strength. Sure I am impressed when a guy can deadlift 600# but at a BW of 315 he still has a lower power to weight ratio than I do with a 405 dead @ 190. Think Pocket Hercules !

[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
$0.02 worth. Why not use just Relative strength. Sure I am impressed when a guy can deadlift 600# but at a BW of 315 he still has a lower power to weight ratio than I do with a 405 dead @ 190. Think Pocket Hercules ![/quote]

My sentiments exactly.

Sorry, but I find strength-to-weight ratio to be the most impressive and accurate indicator of strength.

I’ll respectfully agree to disagree with those of you who say whoever lifts the most weight is the strongest, regardless of BW.

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
$0.02 worth. Why not use just Relative strength. Sure I am impressed when a guy can deadlift 600# but at a BW of 315 he still has a lower power to weight ratio than I do with a 405 dead @ 190. Think Pocket Hercules ![/quote]

My sentiments exactly.

Sorry, but I find strength-to-weight ratio to be the most impressive and accurate indicator of strength.

I’ll respectfully agree to disagree with those of you who say whoever lifts the most weight is the strongest, regardless of BW.[/quote]

If I may, what do you guys think of this example?

[quote]jerkwad55 wrote:
Benny’s 1015lbs deadlift @ 380lbs is a 2.66x lift… If you compare this to the WABDL in 2010, there are 34 lifters, just in the 148lbs category, with higher bw% lifts… Overall, the man with the strongest pull ever would probably not even rank in the top 100 at the WABDL nationals meet.
[/quote]

Do you not think that it provides a pretty strong example against what you’re saying?

( Not taking any shots, just trying to provoke discussion. I agree with whoever said that there isn’t a great formula to determine these things…yet.)

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
$0.02 worth. Why not use just Relative strength. Sure I am impressed when a guy can deadlift 600# but at a BW of 315 he still has a lower power to weight ratio than I do with a 405 dead @ 190. Think Pocket Hercules ![/quote]

My sentiments exactly.

Sorry, but I find strength-to-weight ratio to be the most impressive and accurate indicator of strength.

I’ll respectfully agree to disagree with those of you who say whoever lifts the most weight is the strongest, regardless of BW.[/quote]

We can agree to disagree, but here is my point for the relative strength debate. Benni deadlifted 1015 at around 375lbs for a relative strength ratio of 2.7. Last year, I deadlifted 615 at 198 for a relative strength ratio of 3.1. So you are saying that I am better than Benni? You are more impressed with me?

EDIT: Apparently Ghost beat me to it…

[quote]ajweins wrote:

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
$0.02 worth. Why not use just Relative strength. Sure I am impressed when a guy can deadlift 600# but at a BW of 315 he still has a lower power to weight ratio than I do with a 405 dead @ 190. Think Pocket Hercules ![/quote]

My sentiments exactly.

Sorry, but I find strength-to-weight ratio to be the most impressive and accurate indicator of strength.

I’ll respectfully agree to disagree with those of you who say whoever lifts the most weight is the strongest, regardless of BW.[/quote]

We can agree to disagree, but here is my point for the relative strength debate. Benni deadlifted 1015 at around 375lbs for a relative strength ratio of 2.7. Last year, I deadlifted 615 at 198 for a relative strength ratio of 3.1. So you are saying that I am better than Benni? You are more impressed with me?

EDIT: Apparently Ghost beat me to it…[/quote]

I’m impressed with you.

I think most formulas attempt to address the fact that strict body weight ratios aren’t good comparisons given that the larger one is, the lower the actual strength to weight ratio is.

However, I often rely on wilks as a decent comparator for the level of a lifter and it is used for ranking purposes in our national and provincial associations.

Basically yes, I am MUCH more impressed with those who have a higher power to weight ratio. There are just to many variables to be taken into account formulatically speaking. Indulge for a moment someone who has arms six inches longer than they are tall, or someone with long arms-short torso and shorter legs. Would he not have an advantage in the Deadlift ???

Sure…Fabian Cancellara is the 5X world time trial champion who can put out Massively more total watts but he weighs 180#. Cadel Evans has less Total wattage but a greater Strength to weight ratio thus enabling him to win his first Tour de France Title… again my $0.02 worth

[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
Basically yes, I am MUCH more impressed with those who have a higher power to weight ratio.[/quote]

So, to be clear, you consider our own Ajweins is a better deadlifter than Magnusson? ( No shots at Ajweins, either. He’s got a very impressive deadlift).

[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
Sure…Fabian Cancellara is the 5X world time trial champion who can put out Massively more total watts but he weighs 180#. Cadel Evans has less Total wattage but a greater Strength to weight ratio thus enabling him to win his first Tour de France Title… again my $0.02 worth[/quote]

You compared powerlifting to cycling, I’m wondering if perhaps you’re relatively new to this sport? Perhaps your background is in something else. I would think ( or I would like to) that most people in this sport have a certain respect for both those who excel in relative strength, as well as those who excel at absolute strength.

One thing that needs to be pointed out when comparing relative strength between weight classes is that guys like Bolton and Magnusson walk around at their listed weights (I’m assuming to be honest, since there is no limit to how much they can weigh). Lighter weight classes are chock full of guys cutting water weight, sometimes ridiculous amounts, for a weigh in, and then gaining it right back before lifting.

To truly compare apples to apples, it should all be “walking around weight”. My < .02.

Does anyone have any insight on my original question? If I didn’t word it clearly in my first post, I was asking if anyone knew the process of how coefficients were made, any science there may be behind them?

[quote]GhostOD wrote:

[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
Basically yes, I am MUCH more impressed with those who have a higher power to weight ratio.[/quote]

So, to be clear, you consider our own Ajweins is a better deadlifter than Magnusson? ( No shots at Ajweins, either. He’s got a very impressive deadlift).
[/quote]

That’s right Ghost. I rule, lol. And STB put up around 800 at 230. H4M has done 675 under 200. Mine was even with a morning weigh in (extra hardcore). Bolton and Benni must be really overrated to the relative strength crowd. Only on T-Nation…

And sorry hijacking the thread, but I am pretty sure no one has much for answers on how the they calculate coefficients.

[quote]S.Fisher_47 wrote:
Does anyone have any insight on my original question? If I didn’t word it clearly in my first post, I was asking if anyone knew the process of how coefficients were made, any science there may be behind them? [/quote]

A google search revealed the following:

"The formula is:

reduced total = total lifted 500/(a+bx+cx^2+dx^3+ex^4+fx^5)

Where x is the body weight of the lifter in kilograms

The coefficients for men are:

a=-216.0475144
b=16.2606339
c=-0.002388645
d=-0.00113732
e=7.01863E-06
f=-1.291E-08

The coefficients for women are:

a=594.31747775582
b=-27.23842536447
c=0.82112226871
d=-0.00930733913
e=0.00004731582
f=-0.00000009054"

and the following q&a @ http://www.isu.edu/~andesean/wform.htm

"Questions and Answers Regarding Wilks and Other Handicapping Systems:

Q: What research and physiology science is there behind these handicapping systems such as the Schwartz, Malone, and Wilks formulae?

***Generally, all that these folk have done is to use various regression methods to fit a curve to the world’s records for all bodymass divisions, with no attempt to explain any underlying physiology.

Q: Are there published and peer-reviewed studies that explain the methods used to construct the Wilks system? Where is the evidence that the other systems are biased and that the Wilks corrects them?

***Siff’s regressions and those of Sinclair have been published in academic journals.

Q: How can USAPL (USA Powerlifting) meet directors and referees explain coherently to second or third-placing lifters why the Wilks coefficients were used to rank them as they did?

***Robert Wilks was a member of the International Powerlifting Federation at the time the Wilks formula was adopted. The formmula developed of the late Mel Cunningham Siff, a South African professor of civil engineering who had a passionate interest in Olympic weightlifting and other strength sports, had a coefficent of correlation between the actual data and the values of the Siff formula values of better than 99.6 percent which is far better than the other formulae, hence it has led to far fewer conflicts…"

…“***The problem here is that the Wilks vales were developed for t-o-t-a-ls and not for individual lifts. Therefore it is even more inappropriate to use any of the systems for ranking anything but what they were determined for - namely TOTALS. Therefore when the Wilks coefficients are applied to single lifts different effects occur. Bench increases most with body weight so when the Wilks coefficients are used to rank bench press meets this greatly favors the heavier lifters. When the Wilks coefficients are used on a single lift deadlift meet it greatly favors the lighter lifters since deadlifts alone do not increase as fast with body weight as total does. It may be appropriate for squats but it probably favors the lighter lifters again if it is applied to single lift squats. A fit to individual lift data is what is needed if individual lifts are compared…”

Basically the formula was made by taking top lifts from people in various weight ranges. You can map these numbers out on a graph using points, obviously the heavier the person the higher their top lifts are going to be. Connecting the points will NOT form a straight line AKA linear formula (which is why lift as a multiple of bodyweight is not a fair measure). I completely agree with the fact that it should have a separate formula for each lift.

[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
I still don’t get why it’s not just your total divided by bodyweight to see how many times BW they lifted.

[/quote]

This would heavily favour the lighter lifters. Animals don’t scale proportionally so smaller animals are generally stronger relative to their bodywieght than bigger ones.

[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
Basically yes, I am MUCH more impressed with those who have a higher power to weight ratio. There are just to many variables to be taken into account formulatically speaking. Indulge for a moment someone who has arms six inches longer than they are tall, or someone with long arms-short torso and shorter legs. Would he not have an advantage in the Deadlift ???

Sure…Fabian Cancellara is the 5X world time trial champion who can put out Massively more total watts but he weighs 180#. Cadel Evans has less Total wattage but a greater Strength to weight ratio thus enabling him to win his first Tour de France Title… again my $0.02 worth[/quote]

A) Your ape-man would suck in the bench, eliminating any benefit he has in the deadlift.

B) Cycling has fuck-all to do with powerlifting.

There are thousands of people including females and high schoolers pulling triple bodyweight. There are 2 that have pulled 1000lbs. Neither one can pull triple bodyweight. Who knew Benni and Bolton were such poor deadlifters?

I can only speak for the Wilks formula.
It’s not a formula per se, it is simply a bunch of coefficients that were derived from lifters performances. There was a lot of data crunched for it, but there are issues with it as with everything. The cliff notes are:

  1. It’s not a formula, it’s a table that says if you weigh x, multiply your total by y to get your Wilks
  2. It’s based off totals, not individual lifts. Don’t expect it to work, and it’s why the bench Wilks are crazy high comparatively.
  3. It was made from a study of people. People are messed up, so there’s some messed up sections that people will disagree with. One example is that 500lb lifter with the same total as a 480lb lifter will have a HIGHER Wilks.

[quote]jerkwad55 wrote:

[quote]S.Fisher_47 wrote:
Does anyone have any insight on my original question? If I didn’t word it clearly in my first post, I was asking if anyone knew the process of how coefficients were made, any science there may be behind them? [/quote]

A google search revealed the following:

"The formula is:

reduced total = total lifted 500/(a+bx+cx^2+dx^3+ex^4+fx^5)

Where x is the body weight of the lifter in kilograms

The coefficients for men are:

a=-216.0475144
b=16.2606339
c=-0.002388645
d=-0.00113732
e=7.01863E-06
f=-1.291E-08

The coefficients for women are:

a=594.31747775582
b=-27.23842536447
c=0.82112226871
d=-0.00930733913
e=0.00004731582
f=-0.00000009054"

and the following q&a @ http://www.isu.edu/~andesean/wform.htm

"Questions and Answers Regarding Wilks and Other Handicapping Systems:

Q: What research and physiology science is there behind these handicapping systems such as the Schwartz, Malone, and Wilks formulae?

***Generally, all that these folk have done is to use various regression methods to fit a curve to the world’s records for all bodymass divisions, with no attempt to explain any underlying physiology.

Q: Are there published and peer-reviewed studies that explain the methods used to construct the Wilks system? Where is the evidence that the other systems are biased and that the Wilks corrects them?

***Siff’s regressions and those of Sinclair have been published in academic journals.

Q: How can USAPL (USA Powerlifting) meet directors and referees explain coherently to second or third-placing lifters why the Wilks coefficients were used to rank them as they did?

***Robert Wilks was a member of the International Powerlifting Federation at the time the Wilks formula was adopted. The formmula developed of the late Mel Cunningham Siff, a South African professor of civil engineering who had a passionate interest in Olympic weightlifting and other strength sports, had a coefficent of correlation between the actual data and the values of the Siff formula values of better than 99.6 percent which is far better than the other formulae, hence it has led to far fewer conflicts…"

…“***The problem here is that the Wilks vales were developed for t-o-t-a-ls and not for individual lifts. Therefore it is even more inappropriate to use any of the systems for ranking anything but what they were determined for - namely TOTALS. Therefore when the Wilks coefficients are applied to single lifts different effects occur. Bench increases most with body weight so when the Wilks coefficients are used to rank bench press meets this greatly favors the heavier lifters. When the Wilks coefficients are used on a single lift deadlift meet it greatly favors the lighter lifters since deadlifts alone do not increase as fast with body weight as total does. It may be appropriate for squats but it probably favors the lighter lifters again if it is applied to single lift squats. A fit to individual lift data is what is needed if individual lifts are compared…”

[/quote]

Ok thanks, I get the gist of it, more or less.

You relative strength people need to take into account that strength does not scale linearly with increased bodyweight.

to GhostOD and ajweins : I am impressed with BOTH relative and absolute strength. Please make no mistake about it. They both have their merits. Ghost is correct in that my backround is in competitive cycling thus the Evans/Cancellara reference ALTHOUGH I have been using powerlifting as my main lifting mode for the last three years… OK I get it. I am a “nube” when it comes to this but am proud of where I came from and where I will eventually end up…so thank all for your time and insight.