A lot of records like bill Russell’s championship are more a snapshot of the time period as opposed to a sign of greatness
[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
[quote]ukrainian wrote:
[quote]TheJonty wrote:
Naim Suleymanoglu is the only olympic lifter to ever have a 500 sinclair total. For those who don’t know, the sinclair total is a means of comparing lifters from different weight classes (similar to the wilks for powerlifting), and is meant to represent what a lifter would lift if they were a superheavyweight of comparable skill.
Back in '88 Naim totalled 342.5kg in the 60kg weight class with a 152.5kg snatch and a 190kg clean and jerk, giving him a 507 sinclair using the current coefficients.
While comments have been made in this thread about how athletes get better over time and performance based records in individual sports are thus likely to get broken at some point, I think the advancements in drug testing and the direct and significant effect of banned substances on weightlifting performance means Naim’s sinclair total is likely to stand for a long, long time, if not indefinitely.
As reference, for someone in my weight class (105kg) to get a 500 sinclair total, they would have to total roughly 458, which is 22kg over the current world record total.[/quote]
Bodyweight and huge lifts like those are impressive, but the fact remains that strength is not linear when measured across body weight.[/quote]
that’s why the sinclair formula exists?
no one has ever come close to him since
[/quote]
I am saying it’s not fair toward heavier lifters by using the Sinclair formula. As a human’s bodyweight increases, eventually their relative strength, as compared to their bodyweight, will begin to decrease quickly. That is why those in super HW decide sometimes to gain around 10 pounds for maybe a two pound increase in their snatch or C&J. The heavyweights are not training with the same mindset as the lower weights who are trying to keep their relative strength up. The heavy weights just want to lift maximal weights. As long as their weight increases will help with their lifts, then they will increase their weight. That is the problem with the Sinclair Formula.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
A lot of records like bill Russell’s championship are more a snapshot of the time period as opposed to a sign of greatness[/quote]
That doesn’t change their chances of being broken(which is beyond minute). Since that’s the point of this thread, I think listing records that are unbreakable almost 100% because of the context in which they were set is pretty fair.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]Teledin wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
Oscar Robertson averaged a triple double for the whole year in 1961-62.
[/quote]
Yeah, that’ll never happen again.[/quote]
I’ve wondered about this a bit. I’m not sure about never happening but I think it could happen sooner rather than later. A guy like LBJ averaging 10-15 a game on good FG% and putting a little more emphasis on rebounding and assists and it may happen again.[/quote]
I don’t know man, Oscar Robertson averaged 30+ points, 12+ boards and 11+ assists a game for an entire season! That’s crazy.
Robertson put up 41 triple doubles that season… Lebron has put up 30 in his entire career. [/quote]
Definitely not compared to Oscar, but the way I look at it is this:
LBJ this season is averaging 27/8/7 on 57% shooting. He really only needs to take 8-10 shots a game instead of his 18-19 to get 10pts or more. 8-11 possessions where he can defer to a team mate for an assist, and likewise get in position for a rebound.
I don’t think it is too far fetched, but obviously a triple double season average isn’t easy lol
It’s probably already been said, but the points/goals/assists numbers of Wayne Gretzky are pretty much unattainable for any other player in the defensively oriented NHL of today. They should stand for as long as all of us.
Emil Zatopek won three gold medals in the Helsinki Olympics of 1952. The 5k, 10k, and marathon. I doubt that accomplishment will ever be repeated.
[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
Emil Zatopek won three gold medals in the Helsinki Olympics of 1952. The 5k, 10k, and marathon. I doubt that accomplishment will ever be repeated.[/quote]
That is a ridiculous range of running ability…
Most grand slams by a player in one inning. Fernando Tatis with 2. I can quite confidently say this will never be broken. If you add to this the most grand slams allowed to one player in an inning by one pitcher, that’d be Chan Ho Park.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
A lot of records like bill Russell’s championship are more a snapshot of the time period as opposed to a sign of greatness[/quote]
So you’re saying that at one point being at the pinnacle of your profession an unprecedented amount of times was not considered great? Tough fucking crowd.
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
Most grand slams by a player in one inning. Fernando Tatis with 2. I can quite confidently say this will never be broken. If you add to this the most grand slams allowed to one player in an inning by one pitcher, that’d be Chan Ho Park.
[/quote]
Two grand salamis in the same inning? Wow
Incline bench press, 495 lbs 6-15 reps
[quote]ukrainian wrote:
[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
[quote]ukrainian wrote:
[quote]TheJonty wrote:
Naim Suleymanoglu is the only olympic lifter to ever have a 500 sinclair total. For those who don’t know, the sinclair total is a means of comparing lifters from different weight classes (similar to the wilks for powerlifting), and is meant to represent what a lifter would lift if they were a superheavyweight of comparable skill.
Back in '88 Naim totalled 342.5kg in the 60kg weight class with a 152.5kg snatch and a 190kg clean and jerk, giving him a 507 sinclair using the current coefficients.
While comments have been made in this thread about how athletes get better over time and performance based records in individual sports are thus likely to get broken at some point, I think the advancements in drug testing and the direct and significant effect of banned substances on weightlifting performance means Naim’s sinclair total is likely to stand for a long, long time, if not indefinitely.
As reference, for someone in my weight class (105kg) to get a 500 sinclair total, they would have to total roughly 458, which is 22kg over the current world record total.[/quote]
Bodyweight and huge lifts like those are impressive, but the fact remains that strength is not linear when measured across body weight.[/quote]
that’s why the sinclair formula exists?
no one has ever come close to him since
[/quote]
I am saying it’s not fair toward heavier lifters by using the Sinclair formula. As a human’s bodyweight increases, eventually their relative strength, as compared to their bodyweight, will begin to decrease quickly. That is why those in super HW decide sometimes to gain around 10 pounds for maybe a two pound increase in their snatch or C&J. The heavyweights are not training with the same mindset as the lower weights who are trying to keep their relative strength up. The heavy weights just want to lift maximal weights. As long as their weight increases will help with their lifts, then they will increase their weight. That is the problem with the Sinclair Formula. [/quote]
Yes, smaller lifters will always have an advantage in terms of relative strength, which results in a nonlinear strength curve as size/bodyweight increases, but that’s why the sinclair formula isn’t linear. I actually believe it’s a quadratic curve, which was statistically determined to be the best fit to the strength curve across the weight classes (I may be wrong there, but it sure isn’t linear).
Also, the only lifters who can sometimes get screwed by the sinclair are the superheavyweights, as that is the only weight class with no limit and for the purpose of deriving the formula an arbitrary (and necessary) upper limit was assigned, and most supers are lighter than that upper limit. Lifters in any other class, from 56kg all the way up to 105kg, have to worry about making weight and thus have to maximize their relative strength.
If you look at the top sinclair totals in the history of weightlifting, in the top 5 there are guys from 60kg all the way up to 110kg. No supers, but nobody from the lightest weight class either, and all the top totals were from the '80s (due to PEDs methinks). Maybe that’s a flaw in the formula, or maybe we just haven’t had that truly exceptional lifter in those weight classes.
The sinclair isn’t perfect but it does give a very good approximation of lifting ability and allow for a reasonably accurate comparison of lifters in different weight classes. I know in Canada and the US when they’re ranking lifters to determine funding or international teams they use the lifter’s total as a percentage of a statistically defined world standard anyways (average of third place finishes at worlds or something like that).
Naim Suleymanoglu is the only man to ever achieve a sinclair total over 500, and has the highest sinclair total ever by a wide margin (15 or so points if I’m not mistaken), and he achieved that total in a time when drug testing was not nearly as effective as it is now. I won’t say it’s impossible for somebody to best him, but I find it incredibly improbable, and I seem to find the sinclair a more valid way of comparing lifters than you do.
When I was about 15 I managed to get the day off school by pretending to be sick. I managed to beat off 12 times in 6 hours before my parents returned from work.
Don’t think I will ever beat that record.
Mike Tyson Heavyweight champ aged 20 no one will ever beat that
[quote]TheJonty wrote:
[quote]ukrainian wrote:
[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
[quote]ukrainian wrote:
[quote]TheJonty wrote:
Naim Suleymanoglu is the only olympic lifter to ever have a 500 sinclair total. For those who don’t know, the sinclair total is a means of comparing lifters from different weight classes (similar to the wilks for powerlifting), and is meant to represent what a lifter would lift if they were a superheavyweight of comparable skill.
Back in '88 Naim totalled 342.5kg in the 60kg weight class with a 152.5kg snatch and a 190kg clean and jerk, giving him a 507 sinclair using the current coefficients.
While comments have been made in this thread about how athletes get better over time and performance based records in individual sports are thus likely to get broken at some point, I think the advancements in drug testing and the direct and significant effect of banned substances on weightlifting performance means Naim’s sinclair total is likely to stand for a long, long time, if not indefinitely.
As reference, for someone in my weight class (105kg) to get a 500 sinclair total, they would have to total roughly 458, which is 22kg over the current world record total.[/quote]
Bodyweight and huge lifts like those are impressive, but the fact remains that strength is not linear when measured across body weight.[/quote]
that’s why the sinclair formula exists?
no one has ever come close to him since
[/quote]
I am saying it’s not fair toward heavier lifters by using the Sinclair formula. As a human’s bodyweight increases, eventually their relative strength, as compared to their bodyweight, will begin to decrease quickly. That is why those in super HW decide sometimes to gain around 10 pounds for maybe a two pound increase in their snatch or C&J. The heavyweights are not training with the same mindset as the lower weights who are trying to keep their relative strength up. The heavy weights just want to lift maximal weights. As long as their weight increases will help with their lifts, then they will increase their weight. That is the problem with the Sinclair Formula. [/quote]
Yes, smaller lifters will always have an advantage in terms of relative strength, which results in a nonlinear strength curve as size/bodyweight increases, but that’s why the sinclair formula isn’t linear. I actually believe it’s a quadratic curve, which was statistically determined to be the best fit to the strength curve across the weight classes (I may be wrong there, but it sure isn’t linear).
Also, the only lifters who can sometimes get screwed by the sinclair are the superheavyweights, as that is the only weight class with no limit and for the purpose of deriving the formula an arbitrary (and necessary) upper limit was assigned, and most supers are lighter than that upper limit. Lifters in any other class, from 56kg all the way up to 105kg, have to worry about making weight and thus have to maximize their relative strength.
If you look at the top sinclair totals in the history of weightlifting, in the top 5 there are guys from 60kg all the way up to 110kg. No supers, but nobody from the lightest weight class either, and all the top totals were from the '80s (due to PEDs methinks). Maybe that’s a flaw in the formula, or maybe we just haven’t had that truly exceptional lifter in those weight classes.
The sinclair isn’t perfect but it does give a very good approximation of lifting ability and allow for a reasonably accurate comparison of lifters in different weight classes. I know in Canada and the US when they’re ranking lifters to determine funding or international teams they use the lifter’s total as a percentage of a statistically defined world standard anyways (average of third place finishes at worlds or something like that).
Naim Suleymanoglu is the only man to ever achieve a sinclair total over 500, and has the highest sinclair total ever by a wide margin (15 or so points if I’m not mistaken), and he achieved that total in a time when drug testing was not nearly as effective as it is now. I won’t say it’s impossible for somebody to best him, but I find it incredibly improbable, and I seem to find the sinclair a more valid way of comparing lifters than you do.[/quote]
Alright. Probably should not have assumed that it was linear. That makes much more sense.