SPF Elite Total?

Training Powerlifting
41

[quote]Goldie4545 wrote:
I can see both sides, but Trivium’s arguments make more sense. If you look at any sport at a global level, there are actually many “elite” athletes. It shouldn’t be that uncommon. There are billions of people on earth.

For example, considering how many people play football in America, it would be hard to argue that anyone in the NFL is not an elite football player when considering the sport as a whole. You had to be in the top 99 percentile to even be considered. Same with the NBA, MLB, etc. There are literally hundreds of men I would consider elite athletes in their given sport in America alone. Let’s not even touch soccer, arguably the most popular sport on earth.

Now, if you want to start shooting the shit about who the best of the best is, or who the MOST elite are, then you have a different situation. Then you really start to get into opinions. Those kinds of debates will rage on forever. You are talking about people who will be remembered even by the casual sport fan - the very pinnacle of achievement in their sport, and even then people will argue and the list will be more than a handful. But you don’t have to be THAT friggin’ good to be elite. That’s kind of a ludicrous standard when viewing a sport as a whole. That’s like saying if you aren’t as good as Kevin Durant then you must not be an “elite” basketball player. What knucklehead would tell another member of the Thunder that they aren’t elite because they aren’t as good as Durant?

Just because a lifter won’t win an international championship - that doesn’t mean he or she aren’t elite. Every single player on the Buffalo bills is an elite football player when compared to ALL people who play football, but they haven’t won a superbowl yet and may not ever. Sort of like analyzing a classification system for amateur athletes - an “elite” total isn’t mean to compare you against only the best of the best, particularly pro athletes. It’s supposed to compare you to anyone who ever lifted a barbell on the platform. Are you elite compared to all athletes? The way the opponents are viewing it isn’t really a useful metric for anyone, because if you are already internationally elite by their standards, you probably don’t need guidelines telling you how strong you are.

If someone is already that good, he shouldn’t get his panties in a knot just because, statistically speaking, some other person’s lifts put him in a generic “elite” ranking. If someone’s total is hundreds of pounds better than “elite,” then more power to that person. I would say good luck at worlds, and stop worrying about other people threatening your fragile ego.

And honestly, for two guys who are insanely strong, top-tier powerlifters, who from what I understand have a legitimate chance at competing internationally, to come and shit on the “elite” standard is like Peyton Manning showing up at JV football practice to let all the QBs know they suck. “Sorry Junior, you’ll never be elite like me, now watch this pass.”[/quote]

Exactly.

When you hit elite on the current classifications, you need to go seek out county records as the charts no longer apply to you. When you beat those, look at the state record. When you get those, look at the regional records, and so on…

I agree that ‘big fish in little ponds’ aren’t all that impressive, but if you have a guy that is in that top 1-2 percent of all people who have ever competed and registered their lifts in the last x amount of years, he is elite no matter how you try to skew it.

Another point I want address is that I am not trying to make my own lifts look good, or make elite attainable to everyone. I am not elite by anyone’s standards. I am just looking at what ACTUALLY IS elite.

I remember, on the weekends, playing Halo 3 when I was a kid. There were ranks from 1 to 50. I played a few games with 50s and would get beat terribly. The score to 50 would be like 20-25 to 50 when one was on the other team (teams of 4).

I remember one game in particular where I got matched with another gamer who was sponsored and well known in that community. I had three 50s on my team. It didn’t matter. This guy had like 35 kills himself. He died like 3 or 4 times. It was bad. The score was like 5 to 50 at the end of the game.

When you get to the top, and you are in the ‘big pond’ the ‘big fish’ there are monsters, but that doesn’t mean that if you aren’t a freak of nature you aren’t elite.

42

[quote]Goldie4545 wrote:
I can see both sides, but Trivium’s arguments make more sense. If you look at any sport at a global level, there are actually many “elite” athletes. It shouldn’t be that uncommon. There are billions of people on earth.

For example, considering how many people play football in America, it would be hard to argue that anyone in the NFL is not an elite football player when considering the sport as a whole. You had to be in the top 99 percentile to even be considered. Same with the NBA, MLB, etc. There are literally hundreds of men I would consider elite athletes in their given sport in America alone. Let’s not even touch soccer, arguably the most popular sport on earth.

Now, if you want to start shooting the shit about who the best of the best is, or who the MOST elite are, then you have a different situation. Then you really start to get into opinions. Those kinds of debates will rage on forever. You are talking about people who will be remembered even by the casual sport fan - the very pinnacle of achievement in their sport, and even then people will argue and the list will be more than a handful. But you don’t have to be THAT friggin’ good to be elite. That’s kind of a ludicrous standard when viewing a sport as a whole. That’s like saying if you aren’t as good as Kevin Durant then you must not be an “elite” basketball player. What knucklehead would tell another member of the Thunder that they aren’t elite because they aren’t as good as Durant?

Just because a lifter won’t win an international championship - that doesn’t mean he or she aren’t elite. Every single player on the Buffalo bills is an elite football player when compared to ALL people who play football, but they haven’t won a superbowl yet and may not ever. Sort of like analyzing a classification system for amateur athletes - an “elite” total isn’t mean to compare you against only the best of the best, particularly pro athletes. It’s supposed to compare you to anyone who ever lifted a barbell on the platform. Are you elite compared to all athletes? The way the opponents are viewing it isn’t really a useful metric for anyone, because if you are already internationally elite by their standards, you probably don’t need guidelines telling you how strong you are.

If someone is already that good, he shouldn’t get his panties in a knot just because, statistically speaking, some other person’s lifts put him in a generic “elite” ranking. If someone’s total is hundreds of pounds better than “elite,” then more power to that person. I would say good luck at worlds, and stop worrying about other people threatening your fragile ego.

And honestly, for two guys who are insanely strong, top-tier powerlifters, who from what I understand have a legitimate chance at competing internationally, to come and shit on the “elite” standard is like Peyton Manning showing up at JV football practice to let all the QBs know they suck. “Sorry Junior, you’ll never be elite like me, now watch this pass.”[/quote]

Comparing to football and other sports intuitively seems like a good idea at first. It breaks down a little bit when you consider the population size of the different sports. Like you said yourself, there are many, MANY people who play these other sports. Unfortunately, powerlifting does not have that base.

Another sports analogy that may “better” apply would be the notion of All-Star teams. However, instead of being based on votes from the public and coaching staffs, it would be skill (in powerlifting, total) based. In this sense, you very much would say that some other members on the Thunder (please do not refute with the logic that there are indeed other All Stars on the Thunder, I know there is) are not All-Stars. They are very good basketball players (let’s make this analogous to being Class I or CMS vs Elite or MSIC, etc). They are, however, not All-Stars (they are not elite, in this sense). This, in my opinion, is completely fine to say, and when you consider population sizes of the sports, is equivalent. You shouldn’t dilute the pool and let 12th man on the Thunder be on the All-Star team (which we are assuming is skill based) just because he is a very good basketball player (compared to all other lower level players in the pool).

43

[quote]DaveForner wrote:

[quote]Goldie4545 wrote:
I can see both sides, but Trivium’s arguments make more sense. If you look at any sport at a global level, there are actually many “elite” athletes. It shouldn’t be that uncommon. There are billions of people on earth.

For example, considering how many people play football in America, it would be hard to argue that anyone in the NFL is not an elite football player when considering the sport as a whole. You had to be in the top 99 percentile to even be considered. Same with the NBA, MLB, etc. There are literally hundreds of men I would consider elite athletes in their given sport in America alone. Let’s not even touch soccer, arguably the most popular sport on earth.

Now, if you want to start shooting the shit about who the best of the best is, or who the MOST elite are, then you have a different situation. Then you really start to get into opinions. Those kinds of debates will rage on forever. You are talking about people who will be remembered even by the casual sport fan - the very pinnacle of achievement in their sport, and even then people will argue and the list will be more than a handful. But you don’t have to be THAT friggin’ good to be elite. That’s kind of a ludicrous standard when viewing a sport as a whole. That’s like saying if you aren’t as good as Kevin Durant then you must not be an “elite” basketball player. What knucklehead would tell another member of the Thunder that they aren’t elite because they aren’t as good as Durant?

Just because a lifter won’t win an international championship - that doesn’t mean he or she aren’t elite. Every single player on the Buffalo bills is an elite football player when compared to ALL people who play football, but they haven’t won a superbowl yet and may not ever. Sort of like analyzing a classification system for amateur athletes - an “elite” total isn’t mean to compare you against only the best of the best, particularly pro athletes. It’s supposed to compare you to anyone who ever lifted a barbell on the platform. Are you elite compared to all athletes? The way the opponents are viewing it isn’t really a useful metric for anyone, because if you are already internationally elite by their standards, you probably don’t need guidelines telling you how strong you are.

If someone is already that good, he shouldn’t get his panties in a knot just because, statistically speaking, some other person’s lifts put him in a generic “elite” ranking. If someone’s total is hundreds of pounds better than “elite,” then more power to that person. I would say good luck at worlds, and stop worrying about other people threatening your fragile ego.

And honestly, for two guys who are insanely strong, top-tier powerlifters, who from what I understand have a legitimate chance at competing internationally, to come and shit on the “elite” standard is like Peyton Manning showing up at JV football practice to let all the QBs know they suck. “Sorry Junior, you’ll never be elite like me, now watch this pass.”[/quote]

Comparing to football and other sports intuitively seems like a good idea at first. It breaks down a little bit when you consider the population size of the different sports. Like you said yourself, there are many, MANY people who play these other sports. Unfortunately, powerlifting does not have that base.

Another sports analogy that may “better” apply would be the notion of All-Star teams. However, instead of being based on votes from the public and coaching staffs, it would be skill (in powerlifting, total) based. In this sense, you very much would say that some other members on the Thunder (please do not refute with the logic that there are indeed other All Stars on the Thunder, I know there is) are not All-Stars. They are very good basketball players (let’s make this analogous to being Class I or CMS vs Elite or MSIC, etc). They are, however, not All-Stars (they are not elite, in this sense). This, in my opinion, is completely fine to say, and when you consider population sizes of the sports, is equivalent. You shouldn’t dilute the pool and let 12th man on the Thunder be on the All-Star team (which we are assuming is skill based) just because he is a very good basketball player (compared to all other lower level players in the pool).
[/quote]

I can see the point in this post, however it still isn’t valid because it leaves out the rest of the body of evidence. It is not based on what EVERYONE does, it is only based on what a few people do. It does not have enough statistical “power” to be valid when looked at in a study. Nobody is going to use a bell curve based off of 5 to 10 guys who are outliers (in our case sponsored athletes). Those guys are probably, in some cases multiple standard deviations away from the mean.

They are so freaky that they are not even statistically relevant to anything but their own lifts and world records.

At some point, you have to look at the bell curve and say, “ok this is the point where humanity hits a brick wall.” THAT IS WHERE ELITE IS FOUND.

For instance Einstein had an IQ that was estimated to be 160. This is almost 4 standard deviations from the mean of 100. While he is included in establishing what elite intelligence is, he is not the sole data that gets looked at.

There have been people with estimated IQ’s well into the 250 to 300 range, and proven IQ’s into the 230s. If you only looked at those numbers, not even Einstein would be elite, which is silly.

Mensa (the elite IQ organization) takes people who are 130 and above on some tests I believe.

That is like 2 standard deviations from the mean.

The current standards are statistically sound given that you are already eliminating the general population by looking at only the population of powerlifters.

44

[quote]DaveForner wrote:

[quote]Goldie4545 wrote:
I can see both sides, but Trivium’s arguments make more sense. If you look at any sport at a global level, there are actually many “elite” athletes. It shouldn’t be that uncommon. There are billions of people on earth.

For example, considering how many people play football in America, it would be hard to argue that anyone in the NFL is not an elite football player when considering the sport as a whole. You had to be in the top 99 percentile to even be considered. Same with the NBA, MLB, etc. There are literally hundreds of men I would consider elite athletes in their given sport in America alone. Let’s not even touch soccer, arguably the most popular sport on earth.

Now, if you want to start shooting the shit about who the best of the best is, or who the MOST elite are, then you have a different situation. Then you really start to get into opinions. Those kinds of debates will rage on forever. You are talking about people who will be remembered even by the casual sport fan - the very pinnacle of achievement in their sport, and even then people will argue and the list will be more than a handful. But you don’t have to be THAT friggin’ good to be elite. That’s kind of a ludicrous standard when viewing a sport as a whole. That’s like saying if you aren’t as good as Kevin Durant then you must not be an “elite” basketball player. What knucklehead would tell another member of the Thunder that they aren’t elite because they aren’t as good as Durant?

Just because a lifter won’t win an international championship - that doesn’t mean he or she aren’t elite. Every single player on the Buffalo bills is an elite football player when compared to ALL people who play football, but they haven’t won a superbowl yet and may not ever. Sort of like analyzing a classification system for amateur athletes - an “elite” total isn’t mean to compare you against only the best of the best, particularly pro athletes. It’s supposed to compare you to anyone who ever lifted a barbell on the platform. Are you elite compared to all athletes? The way the opponents are viewing it isn’t really a useful metric for anyone, because if you are already internationally elite by their standards, you probably don’t need guidelines telling you how strong you are.

If someone is already that good, he shouldn’t get his panties in a knot just because, statistically speaking, some other person’s lifts put him in a generic “elite” ranking. If someone’s total is hundreds of pounds better than “elite,” then more power to that person. I would say good luck at worlds, and stop worrying about other people threatening your fragile ego.

And honestly, for two guys who are insanely strong, top-tier powerlifters, who from what I understand have a legitimate chance at competing internationally, to come and shit on the “elite” standard is like Peyton Manning showing up at JV football practice to let all the QBs know they suck. “Sorry Junior, you’ll never be elite like me, now watch this pass.”[/quote]

Comparing to football and other sports intuitively seems like a good idea at first. It breaks down a little bit when you consider the population size of the different sports. Like you said yourself, there are many, MANY people who play these other sports. Unfortunately, powerlifting does not have that base.

Another sports analogy that may “better” apply would be the notion of All-Star teams. However, instead of being based on votes from the public and coaching staffs, it would be skill (in powerlifting, total) based. In this sense, you very much would say that some other members on the Thunder (please do not refute with the logic that there are indeed other All Stars on the Thunder, I know there is) are not All-Stars. They are very good basketball players (let’s make this analogous to being Class I or CMS vs Elite or MSIC, etc). They are, however, not All-Stars (they are not elite, in this sense). This, in my opinion, is completely fine to say, and when you consider population sizes of the sports, is equivalent. You shouldn’t dilute the pool and let 12th man on the Thunder be on the All-Star team (which we are assuming is skill based) just because he is a very good basketball player (compared to all other lower level players in the pool).
[/quote]

I do understand your view point, but I think we are seeing this from two different perspectives. My perspective is that an “elite” classification isn’t meant to capture only the “All-stars,” though. It just isn’t.

Maybe a better comparison would be IQ. Let’s say average IQ in the world is 100, with a standard deviation of 15, with 140-145 generally being considered the threshold for “genius.” 3 SD is 99.7th percentile. That means 24 million people in the world are “geniuses” if there are 8 billion people in the world. However, when you ask someone for an example of a “genius” he will often give you names like Hawking or Einstein. These men, of course, are or were far far beyond the genius IQ threshold. However, it doesn’t change the fact that there are literally millions of other geniuses by definition at any given time, many of whom will never be recognized for their intelligence. Again, it’s like, if were to have a 150 IQ and Steven Hawking rolled in here to tell me how I’m not really a “genius.” What’s the point? So he can feel better about himself?

Now, as you pointed out, powerlifting is not as popular of a sport as basketball, football, etc. This is definitely true. But the essence of the argument remains the same. These feds have developed classifications for a reason. From their observations, they’ve determined what is an “elite” cutoff when comparing a given lifter to ALL lifters, not just the all-stars of the sport.

Maybe its arbitrary or a case of semantics, but I don’t see the merit in decrying elite rankings in any fed just because you are or happen to know people who well exceed those rankings. It all just seems like poor sportsmanship. I definitely don’t see it as diluting anything. But I do think ultimately, it’s a matter of opinion, so it’s not something that will likely be resolved in this thread.

45

[quote]Goldie4545 wrote:
I can see both sides, but Trivium’s arguments make more sense. If you look at any sport at a global level, there are actually many “elite” athletes. It shouldn’t be that uncommon. There are billions of people on earth.

For example, considering how many people play football in America, it would be hard to argue that anyone in the NFL is not an elite football player when considering the sport as a whole. You had to be in the top 99 percentile to even be considered. Same with the NBA, MLB, etc. There are literally hundreds of men I would consider elite athletes in their given sport in America alone. Let’s not even touch soccer, arguably the most popular sport on earth.

Now, if you want to start shooting the shit about who the best of the best is, or who the MOST elite are, then you have a different situation. Then you really start to get into opinions. Those kinds of debates will rage on forever. You are talking about people who will be remembered even by the casual sport fan - the very pinnacle of achievement in their sport, and even then people will argue and the list will be more than a handful. But you don’t have to be THAT friggin’ good to be elite. That’s kind of a ludicrous standard when viewing a sport as a whole. That’s like saying if you aren’t as good as Kevin Durant then you must not be an “elite” basketball player. What knucklehead would tell another member of the Thunder that they aren’t elite because they aren’t as good as Durant?

Just because a lifter won’t win an international championship - that doesn’t mean he or she aren’t elite. Every single player on the Buffalo bills is an elite football player when compared to ALL people who play football, but they haven’t won a superbowl yet and may not ever. Sort of like analyzing a classification system for amateur athletes - an “elite” total isn’t mean to compare you against only the best of the best, particularly pro athletes. It’s supposed to compare you to anyone who ever lifted a barbell on the platform. Are you elite compared to all athletes? The way the opponents are viewing it isn’t really a useful metric for anyone, because if you are already internationally elite by their standards, you probably don’t need guidelines telling you how strong you are.

If someone is already that good, he shouldn’t get his panties in a knot just because, statistically speaking, some other person’s lifts put him in a generic “elite” ranking. If someone’s total is hundreds of pounds better than “elite,” then more power to that person. I would say good luck at worlds, and stop worrying about other people threatening your fragile ego.

And honestly, for two guys who are insanely strong, top-tier powerlifters, who from what I understand have a legitimate chance at competing internationally, to come and shit on the “elite” standard is like Peyton Manning showing up at JV football practice to let all the QBs know they suck. “Sorry Junior, you’ll never be elite like me, now watch this pass.”[/quote]

The thing that differentiates Powerlifting from other sports is that the “pro” level simply doesn’t exist. Because of this the very best should be elite because that would be the highest classification achievable. Why this is important is that people that actually want to compete at the highest level want things to shoot for just like beginner lifters wanting to bench 225 or achieve their class 1,2 or 3. The fact is these standards probably mean more for “elite” lifters because they actually need hypothetical things to strive for when lots of times at local regional or state competitions don’t provide fair challenges alot of the times. People will argue that “Powerlifting watch World Rankings” are what you compete with, but quite frankly those are a joke for numerous reasons which can be debated in a whole other thread. While these “elite” lifters should compete at the world level or as used in a previous example RUM for fair competition, the fact a pro level doesn’t exist makes this a challenge alot of the time. No one is argueing that lesser ranked lifters aren’t worthy of a classification, we’re saying that in general people’s expectations are low and lifters as a whole are capable of achieving alot more than the current classifications, so why limit what is considered elite. The world of raw lifting is only growing and every year it is getting more and more competitive. I don’t think that more “elite” lifters are around, I think more people are realizing what is capable now in classic lifting.

46

[quote]clutz15 wrote:

[quote]Goldie4545 wrote:
I can see both sides, but Trivium’s arguments make more sense. If you look at any sport at a global level, there are actually many “elite” athletes. It shouldn’t be that uncommon. There are billions of people on earth.

For example, considering how many people play football in America, it would be hard to argue that anyone in the NFL is not an elite football player when considering the sport as a whole. You had to be in the top 99 percentile to even be considered. Same with the NBA, MLB, etc. There are literally hundreds of men I would consider elite athletes in their given sport in America alone. Let’s not even touch soccer, arguably the most popular sport on earth.

Now, if you want to start shooting the shit about who the best of the best is, or who the MOST elite are, then you have a different situation. Then you really start to get into opinions. Those kinds of debates will rage on forever. You are talking about people who will be remembered even by the casual sport fan - the very pinnacle of achievement in their sport, and even then people will argue and the list will be more than a handful. But you don’t have to be THAT friggin’ good to be elite. That’s kind of a ludicrous standard when viewing a sport as a whole. That’s like saying if you aren’t as good as Kevin Durant then you must not be an “elite” basketball player. What knucklehead would tell another member of the Thunder that they aren’t elite because they aren’t as good as Durant?

Just because a lifter won’t win an international championship - that doesn’t mean he or she aren’t elite. Every single player on the Buffalo bills is an elite football player when compared to ALL people who play football, but they haven’t won a superbowl yet and may not ever. Sort of like analyzing a classification system for amateur athletes - an “elite” total isn’t mean to compare you against only the best of the best, particularly pro athletes. It’s supposed to compare you to anyone who ever lifted a barbell on the platform. Are you elite compared to all athletes? The way the opponents are viewing it isn’t really a useful metric for anyone, because if you are already internationally elite by their standards, you probably don’t need guidelines telling you how strong you are.

If someone is already that good, he shouldn’t get his panties in a knot just because, statistically speaking, some other person’s lifts put him in a generic “elite” ranking. If someone’s total is hundreds of pounds better than “elite,” then more power to that person. I would say good luck at worlds, and stop worrying about other people threatening your fragile ego.

And honestly, for two guys who are insanely strong, top-tier powerlifters, who from what I understand have a legitimate chance at competing internationally, to come and shit on the “elite” standard is like Peyton Manning showing up at JV football practice to let all the QBs know they suck. “Sorry Junior, you’ll never be elite like me, now watch this pass.”[/quote]

The thing that differentiates Powerlifting from other sports is that the “pro” level simply doesn’t exist. Because of this the very best should be elite because that would be the highest classification achievable. Why this is important is that people that actually want to compete at the highest level want things to shoot for just like beginner lifters wanting to bench 225 or achieve their class 1,2 or 3. The fact is these standards probably mean more for “elite” lifters because they actually need hypothetical things to strive for when lots of times at local regional or state competitions don’t provide fair challenges alot of the times. People will argue that “Powerlifting watch World Rankings” are what you compete with, but quite frankly those are a joke for numerous reasons which can be debated in a whole other thread. While these “elite” lifters should compete at the world level or as used in a previous example RUM for fair competition, the fact a pro level doesn’t exist makes this a challenge alot of the time. No one is argueing that lesser ranked lifters aren’t worthy of a classification, we’re saying that in general people’s expectations are low and lifters as a whole are capable of achieving alot more than the current classifications, so why limit what is considered elite. The world of raw lifting is only growing and every year it is getting more and more competitive. I don’t think that more “elite” lifters are around, I think more people are realizing what is capable now in classic lifting.

[/quote]

As per the data that we have at the moment, we statistically have no reason to expect that the elite totals should be higher. If over time, the sport gets bigger, I think that we will just find out that the bell curve may actually get weaker. This is actually my prediction as well.

That is right, I believe that over time, with more people joining the sport, the average will become weaker. Look at 5ks for instance. Yes new records are set for each course as it got more popular, but for every course record that falls, there are 100 totally pathetic fat people just walking 5 kilometers.

AND, if the average on the bell curve gets higher, I am sure that the people who make the classifications will bump them to accurately reflect it.

I could develop my own standards, but even those would be controversial.

47

[quote]trivium wrote:

[quote]clutz15 wrote:

[quote]Goldie4545 wrote:
I can see both sides, but Trivium’s arguments make more sense. If you look at any sport at a global level, there are actually many “elite” athletes. It shouldn’t be that uncommon. There are billions of people on earth.

For example, considering how many people play football in America, it would be hard to argue that anyone in the NFL is not an elite football player when considering the sport as a whole. You had to be in the top 99 percentile to even be considered. Same with the NBA, MLB, etc. There are literally hundreds of men I would consider elite athletes in their given sport in America alone. Let’s not even touch soccer, arguably the most popular sport on earth.

Now, if you want to start shooting the shit about who the best of the best is, or who the MOST elite are, then you have a different situation. Then you really start to get into opinions. Those kinds of debates will rage on forever. You are talking about people who will be remembered even by the casual sport fan - the very pinnacle of achievement in their sport, and even then people will argue and the list will be more than a handful. But you don’t have to be THAT friggin’ good to be elite. That’s kind of a ludicrous standard when viewing a sport as a whole. That’s like saying if you aren’t as good as Kevin Durant then you must not be an “elite” basketball player. What knucklehead would tell another member of the Thunder that they aren’t elite because they aren’t as good as Durant?

Just because a lifter won’t win an international championship - that doesn’t mean he or she aren’t elite. Every single player on the Buffalo bills is an elite football player when compared to ALL people who play football, but they haven’t won a superbowl yet and may not ever. Sort of like analyzing a classification system for amateur athletes - an “elite” total isn’t mean to compare you against only the best of the best, particularly pro athletes. It’s supposed to compare you to anyone who ever lifted a barbell on the platform. Are you elite compared to all athletes? The way the opponents are viewing it isn’t really a useful metric for anyone, because if you are already internationally elite by their standards, you probably don’t need guidelines telling you how strong you are.

If someone is already that good, he shouldn’t get his panties in a knot just because, statistically speaking, some other person’s lifts put him in a generic “elite” ranking. If someone’s total is hundreds of pounds better than “elite,” then more power to that person. I would say good luck at worlds, and stop worrying about other people threatening your fragile ego.

And honestly, for two guys who are insanely strong, top-tier powerlifters, who from what I understand have a legitimate chance at competing internationally, to come and shit on the “elite” standard is like Peyton Manning showing up at JV football practice to let all the QBs know they suck. “Sorry Junior, you’ll never be elite like me, now watch this pass.”[/quote]

The thing that differentiates Powerlifting from other sports is that the “pro” level simply doesn’t exist. Because of this the very best should be elite because that would be the highest classification achievable. Why this is important is that people that actually want to compete at the highest level want things to shoot for just like beginner lifters wanting to bench 225 or achieve their class 1,2 or 3. The fact is these standards probably mean more for “elite” lifters because they actually need hypothetical things to strive for when lots of times at local regional or state competitions don’t provide fair challenges alot of the times. People will argue that “Powerlifting watch World Rankings” are what you compete with, but quite frankly those are a joke for numerous reasons which can be debated in a whole other thread. While these “elite” lifters should compete at the world level or as used in a previous example RUM for fair competition, the fact a pro level doesn’t exist makes this a challenge alot of the time. No one is argueing that lesser ranked lifters aren’t worthy of a classification, we’re saying that in general people’s expectations are low and lifters as a whole are capable of achieving alot more than the current classifications, so why limit what is considered elite. The world of raw lifting is only growing and every year it is getting more and more competitive. I don’t think that more “elite” lifters are around, I think more people are realizing what is capable now in classic lifting.

[/quote]

As per the data that we have at the moment, we statistically have no reason to expect that the elite totals should be higher. If over time, the sport gets bigger, I think that we will just find out that the bell curve may actually get weaker. This is actually my prediction as well.

That is right, I believe that over time, with more people joining the sport, the average will become weaker. Look at 5ks for instance. Yes new records are set for each course as it got more popular, but for every course record that falls, there are 100 totally pathetic fat people just walking 5 kilometers.

AND, if the average on the bell curve gets higher, I am sure that the people who make the classifications will bump them to accurately reflect it.

I could develop my own standards, but even those would be controversial.[/quote]

I assume the Arnold and RUM qualification standards will also go down as well as the total to win worlds. That’s the current trend anyways.

48

[quote]trivium wrote:
As per the data that we have at the moment, we statistically have no reason to expect that the elite totals should be higher. If over time, the sport gets bigger, I think that we will just find out that the bell curve may actually get weaker. This is actually my prediction as well.

That is right, I believe that over time, with more people joining the sport, the average will become weaker. Look at 5ks for instance. Yes new records are set for each course as it got more popular, but for every course record that falls, there are 100 totally pathetic fat people just walking 5 kilometers.

AND, if the average on the bell curve gets higher, I am sure that the people who make the classifications will bump them to accurately reflect it.

I could develop my own standards, but even those would be controversial.[/quote]

So, to counter this I will be making the assumption that media will not play a role in powerlifting. It hasn’t been shown to, and it doesn’t seem to be coming into play in the near future. Without the media causing “pathetic fat people” to join in droves, my argument is this:

Increase in population would actually only serve to increase all areas of the curve in a proportionate amount. The number of lifters in the world is definitely a large enough sample size to approximate a normal distribution. Unless we have managed to recruit all of the top level powerlifters already, the population sitting between all of the standard deviations will grow in proportionate amounts. The population mean will not change when you are using sample sizes as large as we currently have to approximate it. If anything, the mean will stay the same, the median will shift to the right, and the range will increase.

49

Sorry for the double post, but my thing hasn’t been editing.

I would like to make it explicit that shifting the median to the right and increasing the range only provides further support that the standards for elite should not be lowered. If you’re increasing the records and the number of people near the records (world records, that is – and I don’t mean SPF “World records”), why on earth would you decrease the standards?

To Goldie, I think (like you said) we just have a fundamental disagreement on what should constitute elite. To me, having even the top 2% is a lot of people to have in an “elite” category. Heh, that even further devalues my side of the all-star argument, but so be it! This is not an issue of anyone being better than anyone else. It’s simply that the elite powerlifters should be just that – elite (better than basically everyone else).

50

I like the Russian standards myself because they’re actually defined by something rather than an arbitrary percent. That is, at what level will a certain total be competitive.

51

[quote]Reed wrote:

[quote]PJS2010 wrote:
how is 1471 elite lol[/quote]

1471 is a elite total for 198 recognized by all feds.
220 is 1552
242 is 1601
275 is 1650 something

Thwse are not International Elite numbers as those numbers are usually 30-50lbs heavier.[/quote]

Not in my fed. There is no 198 class, but it would be around 1700.

52

[quote]Goldie4545 wrote:
I can see both sides, but Trivium’s arguments make more sense. If you look at any sport at a global level, there are actually many “elite” athletes. It shouldn’t be that uncommon. There are billions of people on earth.

For example, considering how many people play football in America, it would be hard to argue that anyone in the NFL is not an elite football player when considering the sport as a whole. You had to be in the top 99 percentile to even be considered. Same with the NBA, MLB, etc. There are literally hundreds of men I would consider elite athletes in their given sport in America alone. Let’s not even touch soccer, arguably the most popular sport on earth.

Now, if you want to start shooting the shit about who the best of the best is, or who the MOST elite are, then you have a different situation. Then you really start to get into opinions. Those kinds of debates will rage on forever. You are talking about people who will be remembered even by the casual sport fan - the very pinnacle of achievement in their sport, and even then people will argue and the list will be more than a handful. But you don’t have to be THAT friggin’ good to be elite. That’s kind of a ludicrous standard when viewing a sport as a whole. That’s like saying if you aren’t as good as Kevin Durant then you must not be an “elite” basketball player. What knucklehead would tell another member of the Thunder that they aren’t elite because they aren’t as good as Durant?

Just because a lifter won’t win an international championship - that doesn’t mean he or she aren’t elite. Every single player on the Buffalo bills is an elite football player when compared to ALL people who play football, but they haven’t won a superbowl yet and may not ever. Sort of like analyzing a classification system for amateur athletes - an “elite” total isn’t mean to compare you against only the best of the best, particularly pro athletes. It’s supposed to compare you to anyone who ever lifted a barbell on the platform. Are you elite compared to all athletes? The way the opponents are viewing it isn’t really a useful metric for anyone, because if you are already internationally elite by their standards, you probably don’t need guidelines telling you how strong you are.

If someone is already that good, he shouldn’t get his panties in a knot just because, statistically speaking, some other person’s lifts put him in a generic “elite” ranking. If someone’s total is hundreds of pounds better than “elite,” then more power to that person. I would say good luck at worlds, and stop worrying about other people threatening your fragile ego.

And honestly, for two guys who are insanely strong, top-tier powerlifters, who from what I understand have a legitimate chance at competing internationally, to come and shit on the “elite” standard is like Peyton Manning showing up at JV football practice to let all the QBs know they suck. “Sorry Junior, you’ll never be elite like me, now watch this pass.”[/quote]

Two problems with this:

  1. far more people play football than do powerlifting. As such, there should be more elite level athletes.
  2. There are many different weight classes in powerlifting that dilutes the talent even further. Finishing 10th in a weight class doesn’t make you the 10th best lifter in the country, but perhaps the 60th or 70th best. Furthermore, there are many different federations (in the USA at least, not so much elsewhere). This lifter may actually only be the 200th best when you factor in lifters in other feds.
53

[quote]DaveForner wrote:

[quote]trivium wrote:
As per the data that we have at the moment, we statistically have no reason to expect that the elite totals should be higher. If over time, the sport gets bigger, I think that we will just find out that the bell curve may actually get weaker. This is actually my prediction as well.

That is right, I believe that over time, with more people joining the sport, the average will become weaker. Look at 5ks for instance. Yes new records are set for each course as it got more popular, but for every course record that falls, there are 100 totally pathetic fat people just walking 5 kilometers.

AND, if the average on the bell curve gets higher, I am sure that the people who make the classifications will bump them to accurately reflect it.

I could develop my own standards, but even those would be controversial.[/quote]

So, to counter this I will be making the assumption that media will not play a role in powerlifting. It hasn’t been shown to, and it doesn’t seem to be coming into play in the near future. Without the media causing “pathetic fat people” to join in droves, my argument is this:

Increase in population would actually only serve to increase all areas of the curve in a proportionate amount. The number of lifters in the world is definitely a large enough sample size to approximate a normal distribution. Unless we have managed to recruit all of the top level powerlifters already, the population sitting between all of the standard deviations will grow in proportionate amounts. The population mean will not change when you are using sample sizes as large as we currently have to approximate it. If anything, the mean will stay the same, the median will shift to the right, and the range will increase.[/quote]

I really hope that this would be the case, but I am thinking that if powerlifting goes commercial it is going to be a disaster for the average strength of an athlete within the sport. I can just see the participation medals now.

Statistically speaking though, this would raise the power of the numbers being calculated and either further solidify the current standards, or give clear cause for revision.

54

I was thinking about this while I was lifting tonight. Here are my own proposed standards if we are not going to use the current ones based off of 2%.

This is just me playing with a few ideas in my head/having fun, so be easy haha.

Here are my proposed standards if we do not want to do 2%. These are to be updated every 4 years.

WR x .9 = Elite
WR x .8 = Candidate for Elite
WR x .75 = Master

Lets do one for 198 without wraps just for a comparison to the actual charts in question.

WR = 1899
Elite = 1709
CfE = 1519
Master = 1424
Everyone Else = 1423 and below

This however does not take into account any sample sizes or any real statistics.

I’ve done these for a few weight classes (181 and 220) and they seem to work out pretty well.

55

[quote]jonalderson85 wrote:
I’m not Jesse Norris… Not claiming to be… That will come with time![/quote]
You know what man I would like to see you and Jesse compete against each other in strongman. Have you looked at his training much? He’s a big fan of log press and farmer’s walk.

56

My own standard is binary

A. Top 5 IPF World Classics Raw (or singleply IPF) in your weight class
B. Shit otherwise

Done.

57

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
My own standard is binary

A. Top 5 IPF World Classics Raw (or singleply IPF) in your weight class
B. Shit otherwise

Done.[/quote]

Except that IPF is shit, treats the lifters like subjects, and is trying desperately to crush all competition (other feds). It is a top-down organization that tells the lifters what they want, rather than the other way around.

So, anything but IPF. rawunitymeet.com/Rule-14.9.html

58

Classic internet powerlifting drama. I doubt anyone eking their way to the standard elite total (soon to be me at the meet from the OP :)) thinks they are on a par with Jesse Norris or Ernie lilliebridge. To me elite was a number I looked up and set in my sights, and it will be a number I put many tens of pounds on between Beast of the Bluegrass and the next meet I do. It’s really not that meaningful of an issue to me otherwise.

59

[quote]trivium wrote:
I was thinking about this while I was lifting tonight. Here are my own proposed standards if we are not going to use the current ones based off of 2%.

This is just me playing with a few ideas in my head/having fun, so be easy haha.

Here are my proposed standards if we do not want to do 2%. These are to be updated every 4 years.

WR x .9 = Elite
WR x .8 = Candidate for Elite
WR x .75 = Master

Lets do one for 198 without wraps just for a comparison to the actual charts in question.

WR = 1899
Elite = 1709
CfE = 1519
Master = 1424
Everyone Else = 1423 and below

This however does not take into account any sample sizes or any real statistics.

I’ve done these for a few weight classes (181 and 220) and they seem to work out pretty well.[/quote]

I don’t know how the percentiles would be established fairly, but for being arbitrary this makes way more sense and seems pretty accurate to me.

60

[quote]clutz15 wrote:

[quote]trivium wrote:
I was thinking about this while I was lifting tonight. Here are my own proposed standards if we are not going to use the current ones based off of 2%.

This is just me playing with a few ideas in my head/having fun, so be easy haha.

Here are my proposed standards if we do not want to do 2%. These are to be updated every 4 years.

WR x .9 = Elite
WR x .8 = Candidate for Elite
WR x .75 = Master

Lets do one for 198 without wraps just for a comparison to the actual charts in question.

WR = 1899
Elite = 1709
CfE = 1519
Master = 1424
Everyone Else = 1423 and below

This however does not take into account any sample sizes or any real statistics.

I’ve done these for a few weight classes (181 and 220) and they seem to work out pretty well.[/quote]

I don’t know how the percentiles would be established fairly, but for being arbitrary this makes way more sense and seems pretty accurate to me.
[/quote]

I’ll dub them the T-lite standards.