Hey Tim, was wondering what the numbers would have looked like had you used the 5th through 20th places instead of the 5th through 9th. Would there have been a dramatic drop in the weights listed ? thanks for the input !
Very interesting thread.
Being a small, master’s level competitor, I hate that I win every meet just because I show up and am uncontested. So I get first place even when I suck. I’ve long thought that medals should go to contenders based on wilks. Then a medal (or trophy or photo or what-have-you) would actually mean something.
I, too, sometimes wonder why people choose to compete in non-tested feds when they’re clean. Just seems like you’re setting yourself up for an unfair contest.
I really appreciate you posting this link, Tim. I, too, think the numbers are a bit low for my weight class.
[quote]mkral55 wrote:
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?
[/quote]
http://www.mensa.org/about-us#members
according to that link on the official mensa site there are 110,000 members. i show that to be about 0.00157% of the population. but still about 2% of the top IQs in the world. that to me is how a bell curve works.
if we were to use that as an example bell curve in your bar example of 600 people then 0.009428571 people are in mensa from that crowd.
/beating dead horse
As an older guy, I have to compete in untested feds. I am perscribed TRT. I don’t use anything but what the Dr. says. Getting older sucks, not ready for it, but decisions have to be made.
[quote]greystoke wrote:
As an older guy, I have to compete in untested feds. I am perscribed TRT. I don’t use anything but what the Dr. says. Getting older sucks, not ready for it, but decisions have to be made.[/quote]
This isn’t necessarily true…there are a few feds that will grant you a Therapeutic Use Exemption for your TRT…unfortunately the USAPL does not as far as I know…I know for a fact that 100% RAW and its affiliates do…
[quote]asooneyeonig wrote:
according to that link on the official mensa site there are 110,000 members. i show that to be about 0.00157% of the population. but still about 2% of the top IQs in the world. that to me is how a bell curve works.
if we were to use that as an example bell curve in your bar example of 600 people then 0.009428571 people are in mensa from that crowd.
[/quote]
Your logic is…odd
You do realize there are millions of people in the world that have never heard of, but would qualify for, Mensa due to other factors (language barrier, poverty, living in the jungle, whatever) right?
So their MEMBERSHIP is not representative of the top 2%, however their ENTRY CRITERIA (an IQ in the top 2%) is…its an organization–its not like they set out to get all the 140,000,000 people worldwide that qualify so they can list them on the homepage roster…
2% of the world qualify for membership, that doesnt mean they joined…
This thread got very derailed…
I’m of the opinion that elite should represent the Top 1% of each weight class of people who compete in Powerlifting…I could go as high as 2% I suppose.
But you HAVE to think of it in percentages…to say that its only the “Top 3” or whatever is heavily flawed thinking…because that depends on the number of competitors…there are FAR more competitors in the men’s 198 class than the mens 105 or whatever the lowest one is…therefore there should be more elite lifters in the 198 class than the 105s…
If the method described was used properly, and I have no reason to believe it wasn’t, then I think the way the lifter classifications were determined was the best possible model.
[quote]heavythrower wrote:
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]
Yep, it gets frustrating seeing everyone try to finagle their way into becoming " elite".
I know guys who have used, but before they did they were very strong and would have totaled elite/master under the old standards. but now they’re out of the raw, drug free sample size so to speak.
Just lift more and look at the plusa top 100 or Powerlifting Watch and try to climb the ladder. Do better for yourself and improve and sop trying to put tag on it, especially with some rigged standards.
I doubt here are more people competing. There are more feds, big difference. I once competed in the Region 2 Collegiate championships in the USPF. We had 23 guys in the 148s. That’s not a typo.
[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]
They might have been stronger and then used. This is the problem. I knew guys totaling master in college in the old uspf standards. Some of these fellows totaled elite and were tested. And tested means tested, no drug free. so you never really know. I like the standards high personally.
[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:
[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]
Could be true. But a guy might compete drug free in a non tested fed. He won’t be meeting the other feds standards due to the fed difference, but he might be drug free.
As for gear vs raw. I’m able to roughly translate since I’ve seen both. I’ve seen first generation powerlifting gear. It’s a different animal of lifting in gear now and is starting to translate less and less well.
I own a monolift and love it, but it makes a difference in squat totals compared to walking it out. but the biggest change is allowing the wide stand setups you now see that super restrictive gear thrives with. It’s a different lift. Is Don Reinhoudt’s 930-935 with crappy ace bandages better than a monolift multiply 1300 with crazy new knee wraps and super tight multi ply suits. Maybe??
I jsut call it a different animal and live and let live.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[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]
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[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]
I’d say standards were tougher. Judging was more consistent with only three feds, APF, USPF and ADFPA. But lifter have more options now, so that’s a good thing.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
I doubt here are more people competing. There are more feds, big difference. I once competed in the Region 2 Collegiate championships in the USPF. We had 23 guys in the 148s. That’s not a typo.
[/quote]
You are the king of bro knowledge…oops, I mean “anecdotal evidence”…are able to substantiate any of the generalizations you make, or do you just like throwing random tidbits out for fun?
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Could be true. But a guy might compete drug free in a non tested fed. He won’t be meeting the other feds standards due to the fed difference, but he might be drug free.
[/quote]
I can vouch for this. I compete in whatever is local mainly so I don’t have to travel for cost issues. Meet I’m doing in April will be the same issue - non drug tested federation, but it’s only a 30 min drive for me.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]tom63 wrote:
I doubt here are more people competing. There are more feds, big difference. I once competed in the Region 2 Collegiate championships in the USPF. We had 23 guys in the 148s. That’s not a typo.
[/quote]
You are the king of bro knowledge…oops, I mean “anecdotal evidence”…are able to substantiate any of the generalizations you make, or do you just like throwing random tidbits out for fun?
[/quote]
Maybe I’m just old enough to remember it? I remember when Jesse Kellum was a 148 lber. You see this stuff, you remember this stuff. Heavy thrower is around my age and agrees. We’ve seen AAU to USPF. Reinhoudt to Kaz. Crain to Gaugler to Bridges to Coan. With one fed you had more competition . All the rules were the same . With monolifts, squats change. It’s easy to see.
If you had a z suit and lifted in one you can see the difference between that a metal king squatter . You can compare super wraps to metal blacks. 2 m to 2.5. Two hour weigh ins to 24 hours . It’s not anecdotal, it’s history. It’s all written down. This is not rocket science , it’s lifting heavy stuff.
[quote]LiquidMercury wrote:
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Could be true. But a guy might compete drug free in a non tested fed. He won’t be meeting the other feds standards due to the fed difference, but he might be drug free.
[/quote]
I can vouch for this. I compete in whatever is local mainly so I don’t have to travel for cost issues. Meet I’m doing in April will be the same issue - non drug tested federation, but it’s only a 30 min drive for me.[/quote]
I’m going to pull in the ipa states in York . It’s 90 minutes away. With 100$ or more to enter a meet I lift local . Add in cost of good a travel for a hobby ? I’m keeping it as cheap as possible.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Your logic is…odd
[/quote]
in this case, yes it is. i am responding to a particular post and trying to keep things similar in my response.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
You do realize there are millions of people in the world that have never heard of, but would qualify for, Mensa due to other factors (language barrier, poverty, living in the jungle, whatever) right?
So their MEMBERSHIP is not representative of the top 2%, however their ENTRY CRITERIA (an IQ in the top 2%) is…its an organization–its not like they set out to get all the 140,000,000 people worldwide that qualify so they can list them on the homepage roster…
2% of the world qualify for membership, that doesnt mean they joined…
This thread got very derailed…[/quote]
totally agree that there are more people that could be in mensa. my example was an extreme representation of the bell curve that is the IQ and how the top 2% of the IQ is not the same as 2% of the total population.
i did that as IQ is not graded on a linear path. it does get progressively harder to move up. to me that means a bell curve is appropriate representation of how many are at any one level. from my memory of bell curves about 75% of everyone will fall into about 25% of of measured variables, or average IQs in this case. and as you go further away from the center you have less people per IQ level in a factored manner not a linear manner.
i only push this part on IQ as a continuing analogy that i agree that what is elite for each weight class may be from 3 people to 50 or more people (only more random examples here) as the number of people in each weight class and therefore the number of actual people will vary with each weight class. and also that if what is elite is based upon a percentage of results that it can be best representative by using a bell curve to chart the number of people at each level. therefore the number of people in the top percentage is less then the actual number of total people if using the same percentage divided by total people. and this can also account for how varying weight classes with varying degrees of performance variables can produce a varying amount of total elites that do not necessarily reflect the total number of competitors.
in shorter terms, what is the top 5% on one weight class my actually be the top 1% of total competitors while in another weight class it may be the top 3% and another the top 8% or some other percentage not mentioned.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
I’m of the opinion that elite should represent the Top 1% of each weight class of people who compete in Powerlifting…I could go as high as 2% I suppose.
But you HAVE to think of it in percentages…to say that its only the “Top 3” or whatever is heavily flawed thinking…because that depends on the number of competitors…there are FAR more competitors in the men’s 198 class than the mens 105 or whatever the lowest one is…therefore there should be more elite lifters in the 198 class than the 105s…
If the method described was used properly, and I have no reason to believe it wasn’t, then I think the way the lifter classifications were determined was the best possible model. [/quote]
and as we continue down it appears you may be trying to say the same thing i am meaning to imply but in different words. yay! at least i hope so? 
[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
Hey Tim, was wondering what the numbers would have looked like had you used the 5th through 20th places instead of the 5th through 9th. Would there have been a dramatic drop in the weights listed ? thanks for the input ![/quote]
I can’t say for sure, that would involve another 50 hours of work 
But my guess it would be between Master and Elite, probably a little closer to elite.
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
Very interesting thread.
Being a small, master’s level competitor, I hate that I win every meet just because I show up and am uncontested. So I get first place even when I suck. I’ve long thought that medals should go to contenders based on wilks. Then a medal (or trophy or photo or what-have-you) would actually mean something.
I, too, sometimes wonder why people choose to compete in non-tested feds when they’re clean. Just seems like you’re setting yourself up for an unfair contest.
I really appreciate you posting this link, Tim. I, too, think the numbers are a bit low for my weight class.[/quote]
I don’t like that aspect either. Two things I would do would be to always enter in the open division (at least as crossover) and not the just master division and then check out the rankings on plwatch.com to see where you stand (there is a charge for that but it is well worth the 25 bucks IMO). If you have the time you could also Wilks formula everybody but that could be pretty tedious.
Thanks for the feedback - I am assuming from the avatar you are talking about the female numbers?
[quote]greystoke wrote:
As an older guy, I have to compete in untested feds. I am perscribed TRT. I don’t use anything but what the Dr. says. Getting older sucks, not ready for it, but decisions have to be made.[/quote]
It is possible (not necessarily likely) that you could get a TUE (theraputic use exemption) if you have a doctors note to compete in tested feds. Just a brainstorm but again not promising that would work.
I think a good way to start would be the old uspf standards minus 100lbs if you’re belt no knee wraps, minus 50 lbs if you’re using wraps. I guess I got app 50 lbs at 148 from an inzer z suit, knee wraps, inzer blast shirt at the most. Some guys estimated 75+, but they were a little heavier . Trying to factor in drug free is just to much of a SWAG. It just can’t be quantified well enough to say this or that much IMO .