Monthly Archives: October 2010

What Goes Around….

Arthur Saxon would probably be considered "cutting edge" with most of his training techniques today!

by Thom Van Vleck

Recently, I had a young guy come out to my place to try out the Highland Games.  He was in his early 20’s and had done some weight training at the local YMCA and in high school, but was not a hard core lifter or iron game follower.  What was funny was I gave him a tour of my gym and he started pointing to things I had like they were new and cutting edge.  As if my gym was equipped with “all the latest”.  In particular, he pointed to my Kettlebells and said, “Wow, you have some kettlebells, I would like to try training with those, I’ve heard they are really good to train with”.

This was in contrast to when my Uncle Wayne Jackson saw the Kettlebells right after I had bought them.  Wayne gained the bulk of his training knowledge from reading S&H, MD, and Ironman in the 50’s and 60’s.  He said, “So what are you going to do with those old things”.  As if I had raided the York Barbell museum!   Wayne’s comments leaned towards how Kettlebells were never us used in his day and you couldn’t find those for years and he wasn’t sure what good they were going to do me.

In 2009, I got to go to the Arnold Fitness Expo.  It was there I found out just how “popular” Kettlebells had become again. They were having a competition that centered around doing all kinds of different maneuvers with the kettlebells, some of which I could see a lot of benefit, some….not so much…but hey, I swing a hammer in circles and flip telephone poles in my spare time….so who am I to judge.

I have a lot of stuff in my gym, most of it is pretty old or “well used”.  It is funny to me how things go in and out of style.  It got me to pondering “WHY”?  A lot of times exercises and equipment get run out of town by the “latest thing”.  Usually being sold by some guy looking to make a buck more than he’s trying to “revolutionize” the fitness industry.  He tells us that the old stuff is dangerous, useless, or inferior and enough people buy into it that it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy and the old stuff falls to the wayside.  But form follows function and eventually, what works is rediscovered and comes back again.

Now, this wasn’t intended to be an article on the benefits of Kettlebells, they are just an example.  I’m not trying to sell you on the and I don’t sell them!!!  Just remember, in our effort to get better (whether that be bigger, faster, stronger at lifting, throwing, team sports, whatever) we need to gain a broad understanding of what’s out there.  We need to know our history, we need to know what works and what doesn’t and filter what comes from the so called “experts” so that we may find the tools we need to achieve our goals.  We need to constantly look at what’s been used, what’s on the “shelf” (so to speak) and how can it be used to freshen up our training and lift us to victory!  (no pun intended!).

World Postal Challenge

by Al Myers

RESULTS of the 2010 IAWA

WORLD POSTAL TEAM CHALLENGE

Scott Tully, of the Dino Gym, posted the highest Individual Total in the IAWA World Team Postal Challenge in helping the Dino Gym to a first place finish.

The 2010 World Team Postal Challenge was a huge success.  Ten teams entered the competition, which consisted of  each team providing three lifters whose scores were added together for a team point total.  The USA had 5 teams, England had 4 teams, and Scotland provided 1 team.  This competition is one of three major IAWA events (the World Championships and the Gold Cup being the other two) held each year.  The credit for this competition needs to go to our IAWA President Steve Gardner for organizing it and compiling the results.  Without Steve’s commitment to the IAWA, we wouldn’t have the opportunities we have and the IAWA wouldn’t be near as strong as it is.  We need to give him the thanks he deserves – often the leadership he provides us does not get enough recognition.  Thank you Steve for everything you do on behalf of the IAWA!!

RESULTS

Meet Director:  Steve Gardner

Officials:  three certified officials were used on all lifts

Lifts:  Snatch – One Arm, Pinch Grip – 2 hands, Bench Press – Feet in Air, Deadlift – Ciavattone Grip

1.  Dino Gym 1 (USA) – 1112.1 points

Lifter Age BWT Snatch Pinch Bench Dead Total Points
A Myers 44 115.7 72.6 R 62.2 154.3 200 489.1 403.3
C Ullom 38 108.4 68.1 R 57.6 120.2 210 456.0 370.2
S Tully 34 156.1 52.2 R 75.8 167.9 200 495.9 338.6

2.  Powerhouse 1 (England) – 1039.4 points

Lifter Age BWT Snatch Pinch Bench Dead Total Points
M Price 45 97.1 47.5 R 50 155 140 392.5 358.0
J Gardner 26 89.8 52.5 R 65 105 180 402.5 361.7
S Gardner 53 129.7 37.5 R 60 110 170 377.5 319.6

3.  Ambridge VFW (USA) – 1034.8 points

Lifter Age BWT Snatch Pinch Bench Dead Total Points
A Montini 83 81.8 18.2 L 25.4 54.4 102 200 307.3
J McKean 64 74.8 24.9 R 45.9 58.9 146 275.7 345.2
S Schmidt 57 114.3 50 R 70 105 185 410 382.3

4.  Dino Gym 2 (USA) – 975.1 points

Lifter Age BWT Snatch Pinch Bench Dead Total Points
C Cookson 40 124.8 59.0 R 57.6 127.0 210 453.6 346.6
D Barnhart 43 131.6 43.1 R 75.8 136.1 200 455.1 349.0
R Bletscher 74 98.9 20.4 R 44.0 50.0 113.4 227.8 279.5

5.  Willies Warriors (Scotland) – 973.8 points

Lifter Age BWT Snatch Pinch Bench Dead Total Points
A Tomlin 43 94.8 47.5 R 55 95 170 367.5 333.2
C Ross 26 92.7 50 L 65 105 160 380.0 335.2
G Dick 61 130.0 42.5 R 40 105 150 337.5 305.4

6.  Granby Grippers (England) – 968.1 points

Lifter Age BWT Snatch Pinch Bench Dead Total Points
D Andrews 14 58.8 22.5 R 29.5 37.5 75 164.5 232.8
S Andrews 51 70.5 50 R 49.5 85 130 314.5 366.4
F Allen 68 89.1 35 R 39.5 85 150 309.5 368.9

7.  Habeckers Gym (USA)  –  917.1 points

Lifter Age BWT Snatch Pinch Bench Dead Total Points
D Habecker 67 86.0 30 R 50 92.5 140 312.5 371.3
K Hess 16 136.0 40 R 87.7 80 145 352.7 281.7
A Hess 46 140.6 35 R 87.7 82.5 140 345 264.1

8.  Powerhouse 2 (England) –  877.9 points

Lifter Age BWT Snatch Pinch Bench Dead Total Points
G Saxton 48 113.6 37.5 R 55 115 160 367.5 317.5
W Smith 18 134.3 45 R 67.5 125 170 407.5 306.5
K Gardner 51 73.2 15 R 40 32.5 85 172.5 253.9

9.  Tiverton WL Club (England) – 701.1 points

Lifter Age BWT Snatch Pinch Bench Dead Total Points
G Ell 39 85.0 42.5 L 46.4 127.5 170 386.4 358.3
M Rattenbury 48 65.0 27.5 L 33.9 85 140 286.4 342.8

10.   Frank’s Gym (USA)  – 598.2 points

Lifter Age BWT Snatch Pinch Bench Dead Total Points
F Ciavattone 55 125.0 40 R 77.5 115 215 447.5 392.4
F Ciavattone Jr 16 108.0 25 R 40 50 115 230 205.8

NOTES:  BWT is bodyweight in kilograms.  All lifts are in kilograms.  Points are adjusted for bodyweight and age.

World Postal – Individual Ranking List

1.    403.3  Al Myers
2.    392.4  Frank Ciavattone
3.    382.3  Scott Schmidt
4.    371.3  Denny Habecker
5.    370.2  Chad Ullom
6.    368.9  Frank Allen
7.    366.4  Steve Andrews
8.    361.7  James Gardner
9.    358.3  Gary Ell
10.  358.0  Mark Price
11.  349.0  Darren Barnhart
12.  346.6  Chuck Cookson
13.  345.2  John McKean
14.  342.8  Mark Rattenbury
15.  338.6  Scott Tully
16.  335.2  Chris Ross
17.  333.2  Andy Tomlin
18.  319.6  Steve Gardner
19.  317.5  Graham Saxton
20.  307.3  Art Montini
21.  306.5  Wade Smith
22.  305.4  George Dick
23.  281.7  Kohl Hess
24.  279.5  Rudy Bletscher
25.  264.1  Andrew Hess
26.  253.9  Karen Gardner
27.  232.8  Daniel Andrews
28.  205.8  Frank Ciavattone Jr.

Team Match Winners – Top 5

1.   Dino Gym 1 – USA

2.   Powerhouse Gym 1 – England

3.   Ambridge VFW – USA

4.   Dino Gym 2 – USA

5.   Willies Warriors – Scotland

Overall Best Lifters – Top 5

1.   Al Myers – USA

2.   Frank Ciavattone – USA

3.   Scott Schmidt  – USA

4.   Denny Habecker – USA

5.   Chad Ullom – USA

Best Ladies Lifter

Karen Gardner – England

Best Junior Lifter

Wade Smith – England

Best Open Lifter

Chad Ullom – USA

Best Masters Lifter

Al Myers – USA

World Title Winners listed by Class and Age Divisions

LADIES

Karen Gardner – 50+75 kilo class winner

JUNIORS

Daniel Andrews – 14/15 yrs 60 kilo class winner
Kohl Hess – 16/17 yrs 125+ kilo class winner
Frankie Ciavattone – 16/17 yrs 110 kilo class winner
Wade Smith – 18/19 yrs 125+ kilo class winner

OPEN DIVISION

Gary Ell – Mens 85 kilo class winner
James Gardner – Mens 90 kilo class winner
Chris Ross – Mens 95 kilo class winner
Chad Ullom – Mens 110 kilo class winner
Scott Tully – Mens 125+ kilo class winner

MASTERS 40+

Andy Tomlin – Mens 95 kilo class winner
Al Myers – Mens 120 kilo class winner
Chuck Cookson – Mens 125 kilo class winner
Darren Barnhart – Mens 125+ kilo class winner

MASTERS 45+

Mark Rattenbury – Mens 65 kilo class winner
Mark Price – Mens 110 kilo class winner
Graham Saxton – Mens 115 kilo class winner
Andrew Hess – Mens 125+ kilo class winner

MASTERS 50+

Steve Andrews – Mens 75 kilo class winner
Steve Gardner – Mens 125+ kilo class winner

MASTERS 55+

Scott Schmidt – Mens 115 kilo class winner
Frank Ciavattone – Mens 125 kilo class winner

MASTERS 60+

John McKean – Mens 75 kilo class winner
George Dick – Mens 125+ kilo class winner

MASTERS 65+

Denny Habecker – Mens 90 kilo class winner
Frank Allen – Mens 90 kilo class runner up

MASTERS 70+

Rudy Bletscher – Mens 100 kilo class winner

MASTERS 80+

Art Montini – Mens 85 kilo class winner

Strength, Speed, and Age

by Thom Van Vleck

Larry Ventress has been a top Highland Games athlete for many years and has had to deal with his share of injuries.

Here’s a good quote I read recently:

“You might not get faster when you’re older, but you can get stronger.” (NFL Running Back Lorenzo Neal who said he added years to his NFL career when he “lost a step” by doing sets of 20 on the squat AFTER his regular workouts to make up for the speed loss with strength).

I agree, you might not get faster with age, as a matter of fact, you WILL PROBABLY get slower, but you can offset that with strength. Strength gains can come for a LONG time in my opinion. I remember my grandfather writing out his work out routine in his 80’s…he had max attempts written in those goals!!

I was at the McPherson Scottish Highland Games recently and was talking to my good friend Larry Ventress. Larry was a top “A” thrower years ago and has been a top masters thrower for years and he and I have competed against one another for many, many years and have become good friends. We were talking about guys coming out to train with us that were big deadlifters who wanted to try the Weight Over Bar event (you throw a 56lb weight, or 42lb if you are a master, over a cross bar for height with one hand…greatest height wins like in the high jump) and how they failed miserably. They were extremely strong…..but slow. However, we both agreed if they worked at it some, they would be great once they got the speed going. I have also found guys that were quick, that could generate a lot of speed, do well in the WOB, but couldn’t lift much at all. Because in Highland Games, to be a good thrower, you either have great speed or great strength. To be a great thrower you need SPEED & STRENGTH. Larry and I were discussing that if you are losing speed with age….you need to amp up the strength levels to compensate.

Lifting is no different in my opinion and especially so in the quick lifts. So, if you feel like you are losing a step….don’t worry, just get stronger! It CAN be done!!!!

Is the Lynch Formula Fair??

by Al Myers

There has been “lots of talk” regarding the Lynch Formula recently.   Most of this centered around the fact that the Lynch Formula has just been expanded to contain factors for lifters that weigh over 138 kilograms.  Now the Lynch Chart goes to 180 kilograms.  The Lynch Formula has been the “adopted formula” of the USAWA and the IAWA since the early 90’s to calculate adjusted points in determining weight lifted to bodyweight comparisons in scoring.  The Lynch Formula creator, Ian Lynch, developed and modified his formula to apply to the lifts done in All-Round Weightlifting.  As far as I know, no other lifting organization uses the Lynch Formula.  So, you could say, that we have a Formula that tailors to our specific lifting sport – All Round Weightlifting!   I have never really heard the reasons how the Lynch Formula was derived.  Most other weightlifting formulas are derived from a data set of numbers, usually records or performances of lifters of different bodyweights.  I know this is how the Sinclair Formula was derived  in Olympic Weightlifting.  It has even been changed and modified over time when it is “re-evaluated” using new data, and new factors are created to maintain the fairest formula possible.  However, this is easier to do when you are analyzing only two lifts (the Snatch and Clean and Jerk) than when you are looking at over 200 lifts, like we have in All-Round Weightlifting. I find it hard to believe that Ian Lynch used any data involving All-Round Lifts when he developed his formula.  Afterall, what data involving All Round Lifting was available 20 years ago?

The big question always arises, is the Lynch Formula fair?  I have several larger lifters in my gym who feel that it isn’t, and that the Lynch Formula favors the lighter lifter.  But then I hear from light lifters who say it favors the heavier lifters.  And when the fact is pointed out that the  past several years  the Overall Best Lifter at the IAWA World Championships has weighed over 105 kilograms,  they have a good argument.  I always try to be as open-minded as possible, and I like to have the FACTS before I form a hard opinion on something.  This is why I performed my own self-study on this – to answer that question to myself.   In no way is this information I am presenting you a scientific study that has any statistical significance.  I am making that disclaimer LOUDLY, so my statistics friends like Tom Ryan (who is way smarter than me in matters like this)  won’t point out my deficiencies in the methods of my study.  This study is entirely just a compilation of data that must be taken on surface value.  But it is still VERY INTERESTING and should provide the best factual support  regarding the fairness of the Lynch Formula that has ever been available.

Study – Determining the Fairness of the Lynch Formula

Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate the fairness of the Lynch Formula in regards to correction factors for bodyweight adjustments.

Design: The USAWA Record List will be used as the data source of information that will be evaluated.  The USAWA record list has accumulated information on records in various lifts for over 20 years.  Twenty lifts will be selected (the Heavy Lifts will be left out).  The lifts selected will be the ones that have the most records established in them through all weight and age classes. Three weight divisions will be arbitrary selected – lightweight lifters (80 kilogram class and below), middleweight lifters  (85-100 kilogram classes), and heavyweight lifters  (105 kilogram class and above).  The best record according to Lynch Formula will be selected from each weight division.  These three divisions will then be ranked according to the best lifts according to the Lynch Points, and all points will be added up to determine which weight division has the best ranking, and thus assumed to receive the biggest advantage from the Lynch Formula.

Assumptions: Since individual bodyweights are not known from the USAWA Record List, the weight of the weight class will be used in calculating Lynch Points.  Lifters in the 125 kg plus class will be assigned the Lynch Correction for 130 kilograms bodyweight. This may be an underestimate of the actual bodyweights of superheavyweight lifters, and if so, would provide numbers that would artificially elevate the lifts of SHW  lifters in regards to Lynch Points (NOT an advantage for heavy lifters).   Also, the assumption is made that the record lifts are representative of the average lifting ability of all lifters in these bodyweight classes. By picking the 20 lifts with the most records, it is assumed that these are the 20 all-round lifts that are performed the most, thus providing the best data base of numbers available from the Record List for evaluation.

Results:

Lift Lightweight

(80 K class and below)

 Middleweight

(85 K to 100 kg class)

 Heavyweight

(105 K class and above)
Bench Press

Feet in Air

 320# – Smith

(70K)

LP – 320.0 points

 480# –  Succarote

(100K)

LP – 406.6 points

 441# – Meek

(125+K)

LP – 327.2 points
Clean&Jerk

Right Arm

 132# – Zaremba

(75K)

LP – 132.0 points

 160# – Bryan

(85K)

LP – 148.4 points

 175# – Burtzloff

(125+K)

129.8 points
Clean&Press

Heels together

 226# – Hirsh

(80K)

LP – 217.2 points

 248# – Bryan

(85K)

LP – 230.0 points

 300# – Meek

(125+K)

LP – 222.6 points
Cont Snatch 220# – Waterman

(70K)

LP – 229.9 points

 248# – Bryan

(85K)

LP – 230.0 points

 265# – Ciavattone

(125+K)

LP – 196.6 points
Continental

to Chest

 325#- Waterman

(70K)

LP – 339.7 points

 380# – Anderson

(90K)

LP – 431.1 points

 385# – Conners

(125+K)

LP – 285.6 points
Continental

Clean&Jerk

 287# – Waterman

(70K)

LP – 299.9 points

 320# – Bryan

(85K)

LP – 296.8 points

 369# – Anderson

(105K)

LP – 304.6 points
Cheat Curl 190# – Gazda

(60K)

LP – 220.8 points

 235# – Anderson

(90K)

LP – 210.9 points

 260# – DelSignore

(105K)

LP – 214.7 points
Deadlift

2 bars

 463# – McKean

(80K)

LP – 445.0 points

 610#- Schrock

(100K)

LP – 516.7 points

 600# – Myers

(115K)

LP – 473.3 points
Deadlift

Heels together

 560# – Hirsh

(75K)

LP – 560.0 points

 605# – Schrock

(100K)

LP – 512.5 points

 650# – Myers

(125K)

LP – 491.5 points
Deadlift

Rt Arm

 369# – McKean

(70K)

LP – 385.6 points

 402# – Ullom

(100K)

LP – 340.5 points

 562# – Ciavattone

(125+K)

LP – 416.9 points
Deadlift

TrapBar

 600# – Hirsh

(80K)

LP – 576.7 points

 635# – Schrock

(100K)

LP – 537.9 points

 661# – Myers

(115K)

LP – 520.9 points
Hack Lift 670# – Hirsh

(80K)

LP – 644.0 points

 605#- Anderson

(90K)

LP – 543.0 points

 620# – Schrock

(105K)

LP – 511.9 points
Jefferson

Lift

 702# – Hirsh

(80K)

LP – 674.8 points

 601# – Schrock

(95K)

LP – 523.5 points

 601# – Spayd

(105K)

LP – 496.2 points
Pullover

& Press

 287# – Hirsh

(80K)

LP – 275.9 points

 275# – English

(90K)

LP – 246.8 points

 352# – Myers

(115K)

LP – 277.4 points
Pullover

& Push

 331# – Crowe

(80K)

LP – 318.2 points

 446# – Anderson

(90K)

LP – 400.3 points

 474# – Burtzloff

(110K)

LP – 382.0 points
Snatch

Rt Arm

 127# – Waterman

(70K)

LP – 132.7 points

 160# – Bryan

(85K)

LP – 148.4 points

 171# – Burtzloff

(110K)

LP – 137.8 points
Front

Squat

 355# – Fleischer

(80K)

LP – 341.2 points

 441# – Bruner

(95K)

LP – 384.1 points

 495# – Meek

(110K)

LP – 398.9 points
Steinborn 325# – Monk

(70K)

LP – 339.7 points

 375# – Schmidt

(100K)

LP – 317.7 points

 441# – Ullom

(110K)

LP – 354.6 points
Swing DB

Rt Arm

 120# – Smith

(75K)

LP – 120.0 points

 120# – Schrock

(100K)

LP – 101.7 points

 150# – Ullom

(110K)

LP – 120.9 points
Zercher 504# – Hirsh

(80K)

LP – 484.4 points

 500# – Anderson

(90K)

LP – 448.8 points

 529# – Moore

(120K)

LP – 408.1 points

NOTES:  LP stands for Lynch Points.

Summary: Overall points were scored on placings with 1 point given for first, 2 points for second, and 3 points for third.  These points were then “added up” to give total points for the 20 selected lifts, which would give the low overall score  as being  the best.  The lightweight division had 40 points, the middleweight division had 38 points, and the heavyweight division had 42 points.  The lightweight division had 6 “firsts”, the middleweight division had 8 “firsts”, and the heavyweight division had 6 “firsts”.  Also, the Lynch Points were added for each division to give another comparison.  The lightweight division had 7057.7 points, the middleweight division had 6885.7 points, and the heavyweight division had 6671.5 points.

What can be interpreted from all this??

The “total points” are really not that much different.  A couple of points either way could easily be said to be an “acceptable tolerance”.  All it would take is one of those records broken and it could “sway” back slightly the other way. The differences between the divisions (in regards to points)  are not enough that anyone could make an argument one way or the other.

My opinion is that Ian Lynch was pretty much “right on” in regards to fairness to all bodyweights using his formula.  Whether he did this using  scientific calculations, or merely having “luck” in picking the right correction factors doesn’t really matter.  The evidence of comparing the Lynch Formula to over 20 years of collected data in the form of USAWA records prove to me that his formula is very fair and one we should remain using.   Of course, it is easy to pick out certain lifters that obscure the data due to their very exceptional lifting within their class.  Bob Hirsh is a prime example as he greatly distanced himself from the others in the Hack Lift and Jefferson Lift.  His Jefferson Lift record outscored the next lifter by over 150 Lynch Points, the biggest variation of all the lifts recorded in this data set.  But there are other lifters in the middleweight and heavyweight classes who are  “in a class of their own” also.  Everything averages out.  I was also concerned that the weight classes on the fringe of the lightweight and heavyweight classes (the 80 K and the 105K) would be overly represented, and thus tend to discredit the ranges I picked for this study.  However, this was not the case as you can see from the results  that the lighter lifters (70K and 75K), as well as the heaviest lifters (the 125+ lifters) were often represented as having the BEST lifts within their division. Only one 60K lifter made the list (this is not a largely represented class at meets), and he ended up having the BEST Lynch corrected Cheat Curl.  Geoff Gazda’s 190# Cheat Curl in the 60K class outscored Antonio DelSignore’s 260# Cheat Curl in the 105 K Class, 220.8 points to 214.7 points.  One 125+ K class lifter had the TOP Lynch Score among all divisions.  Frank Ciavattone and his 562# One Arm Deadlift ranks above all the others.

I welcome any comments regarding this study of mine.  You can either address them on the USAWA Discussion Forum or you can email me directly.

Is the USAWA a “Retirement” Sport?

Wilbur Miller is a guy that had a LONG career in lifting, thanks in part to the USAWA!

by Thom Van Vleck

A USAWA member once told me that the USAWA is a good “retirement” sport.  You have to admit….there are a lot of guys that are pretty old in the USAWA!  I pondered why that was and what it meant (especially since I’m one of them!).

I was at a USAWA meet at Al’s one time and the great Wilbur Miller was there.  We were visiting and he was talking about all the options the USAWA offered to demonstrate strength.  We were also talking about Highland Games and Strongman as well.  He told me that back in his day you either Olympic lifted or powerlifted (he did both and was very GOOD at both, probably one of the best all time at both sports at the same time).  As we watched the lifters doing the lifts Wilbur said, “I wish we would have had this kind of stuff around when I was young…..I think I would have been pretty good at it”.  I don’t think…I KNOW he would have been!  Wilbur must have been inspired, because he came back after that and did some pretty amazing lifting at the same USAWA meet the next year and he’s a CURRENT USAWA member now!

Now, I know some of the old timers will point out that Wilbur and the rest were doing “odd lifts” back in the day, but today’s USAWA has many, many more contested lifts.

Most of us started in more mainstream strength sports.  I started as an Olympic lifter (and was an abysmal failure but I did learn how to power clean and squat….two lifts that have served me well!).   I then became a powerlifter (and was moderately successful).  Then came strongman & Highland Games (which I found I was even better at, with Highland Games being my greatest success relative to world class competition).   And with those, also came injuries.  Some of those have kept me from doing certain movements and if those were the only lifts on the table….then you are OUT!  But with the USAWA comes  hundreds of lifts.  If you can’t do one, pull out the rule book and search until you can find one you CAN do!  How great is that!

Of course, having all the age brackets and age adjustment formulas attract masters lifters, but that is, in my opinion, NOT why there’s so many masters in the sport.  Most athletes don’t retire because they are done, they retire because they are injured.  The desire is usually still there, the body just unable to perform.  That is why there are so many masters involved in the USAWA because it allows them to find lifts they can still do and compete at!   That’s a great thing in my opinion!  It also attracts guys like it attracted Wilbur Miller….the challenge of doing so many things and doing them well and finally finding a place to do it!

….and one last thing…..I ain’t RETIRED!  I’m just getting started!

1 2 3 4 5