Tim,
I don’t think it’s been mentioned yet, which feds fell into the “chosen ones” for your sampling from powerliftingwatch?
[quote]maraudermeat wrote:
Tim,
I don’t think it’s been mentioned yet, which feds fell into the “chosen ones” for your sampling from powerliftingwatch?[/quote]
Scott - good question. Before I list them I do want to point out that I respect all lifters, geared or not, using or not, for wanting to push the limits under a barbell. But in order to make these type of standards useful we had to compare apples to apples. The feds were:
USAPL, AAU, 100% RAW, ADAU, WNPF. There might be one or two others but this is off the top of my head and those certainly compromised the bulk of the lifters.
BTW I met a guy at Tyson’s today that is training for the Brute Strength meet, he is using single ply gear and wants to find a hardcore powerlifting gym with a monolift, etc, I told him about your place and the meet in Jan, would you want me to put the 2 of you in touch with each other?
[quote]maraudermeat wrote:
Tim,
I don’t think it’s been mentioned yet, which feds fell into the “chosen ones” for your sampling from powerliftingwatch?[/quote]
I like where this thread went after the OP
I think Tim here is in the right direction, this is more real world base than what some guys on the internet says should be elite. We tend to get into an Ivory Tower-esque delusion of what constitutes drug-free raw numbers. If you guys are grumpy about the standards… well get better and they will go up. Simply as that.
[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:
[quote]maraudermeat wrote:
Tim,
I don’t think it’s been mentioned yet, which feds fell into the “chosen ones” for your sampling from powerliftingwatch?[/quote]
Scott - good question. Before I list them I do want to point out that I respect all lifters, geared or not, using or not, for wanting to push the limits under a barbell. But in order to make these type of standards useful we had to compare apples to apples. The feds were:
USAPL, AAU, 100% RAW, ADAU, WNPF. There might be one or two others but this is off the top of my head and those certainly compromised the bulk of the lifters.
BTW I met a guy at Tyson’s today that is training for the Brute Strength meet, he is using single ply gear and wants to find a hardcore powerlifting gym with a monolift, etc, I told him about your place and the meet in Jan, would you want me to put the 2 of you in touch with each other?[/quote]
sure thing… PM me his info. and i’ll get in touch with him.
thanks.
I’m master in Squat and Deadlift, but on Class 3 in bench for 198lb class. feelsbadman. I’m only 190ish though and 23 yrs old.
[quote]patrick4588 wrote:
I’m master in Squat and Deadlift, but on Class 3 in bench for 198lb class. feelsbadman. I’m only 190ish though and 23 yrs old. [/quote]
I’m the other way around, wanna guess who has the higher total? 
[quote]maraudermeat wrote:
[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:
[quote]maraudermeat wrote:
Tim,
I don’t think it’s been mentioned yet, which feds fell into the “chosen ones” for your sampling from powerliftingwatch?[/quote]
Scott - good question. Before I list them I do want to point out that I respect all lifters, geared or not, using or not, for wanting to push the limits under a barbell. But in order to make these type of standards useful we had to compare apples to apples. The feds were:
USAPL, AAU, 100% RAW, ADAU, WNPF. There might be one or two others but this is off the top of my head and those certainly compromised the bulk of the lifters.
BTW I met a guy at Tyson’s today that is training for the Brute Strength meet, he is using single ply gear and wants to find a hardcore powerlifting gym with a monolift, etc, I told him about your place and the meet in Jan, would you want me to put the 2 of you in touch with each other?[/quote]
sure thing… PM me his info. and i’ll get in touch with him.
thanks.[/quote]
I am still waiting for his info so that is why I have not sent anything to you.
I forgot to include the ADFPF, WDFPF, and the WABDL feds in my previous list
My bench sucks it is Class IV, and my squats and Deadlifts are Class II:(
[quote]asooneyeonig wrote:
[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[/quote]
The top 2% of the population is 2% of the population. The fact that IQs are normally distributed (your bell curve) has nothing to do with this.
There are fewer members in Mensa because few people who qualify actually bother sign up.
[quote]OBoile wrote:
There are fewer members in Mensa because few people who qualify actually bother sign up.
[/quote]
As far as the analogy goes, this can only equate to people who train but don’t compete. I expect the ratio is far less drastic though, as smart people have no need to join a club, but most “elite” level lifters are probly competing at something.
But yeah, as far as qualification goes, 2% is 2%.
Anyways, I reread some of that little side debate, and realized I never gave my opinion. I think the top 2% is way too much. 1% is even maybe pushing it a little, imo. I agree with VT that a percentile is the only way to do it, but I’d have to see a lot more data to make my opinion on what percentages to use.