USAWA

Dan,

First of all great lifting in the postal!!!

There’s nothing wrong in you disagreeing with my opinion that I feel that SOME of the Curl – Reverse Grip lifts were not done by the rules of the lift (but instead probably by the rules of the Curl – Cheat, Reverse Grip). Everyone is entitled to believe what they want – that’s why it’s just an opinion and not a fact.

Let’s look at the “numbers” in comparing the Curl – Reverse Grip and the Curl – Cheat, Reverse Grip and use mathematics to give my opinion credibility. An informed opinion is based on an analysis of hard facts and forming an educated belief and not an unsubstantiated “feeling”. A careful review of the record lists demonstrate that between 55% and 65% of the max weight can be lifted in the Curl – Reverse Grip compared to the Curl – Cheat, Reverse Grip. That’s not my opinion – but is a fact proven by data in the record lists. IAWA does not have the lift Curl – Cheat, Reverse Grip (that’s a USAWA lift only), but it does have the Rectangular Fix. Since the Curl – Reverse Grip follows the rule of the Rectangular Fix this makes a good comparison in the IAWA record list. Looking at all the numbers in the IAWA record list you can see that around a 10% gain is made in the Curl – Reverse grip compared to the Rectangular Fix in records. That’s also a fact. The reason for the slight increase in performance is because the momentum can be carried upwards in the reverse curl, while the rectangular fix must be held in a horizontal plane motionless. So by following this line of reasoning, a Reverse Grip curl of 180 pounds would equate to a Curl – Cheat, Reverse Grip of over 300 pounds (taking the 60% figure as an average). Believe what you want Dan – but a 300 pound Curl – Cheat, Reverse Grip is something I would like to see.

You mentioned the Reverse Curl IAWA records of Rick Meldon (137 pounds) and Ian Collins (154 pounds). Both of these guys were World Champs and outstanding lifters, and demonstrated it several times on the big stage of IAWA World Meets. The IAWA record list is loaded with world records set by both of them. I don’t doubt their records at all (I’ve seen Rick do more than THAT in the one arm dumbbell swing!!!). I know you know David Horne, he holds the 90 kg IAWA record in the Rectangular Fix of 70 kg (and is one of the BEST Rectangular Fix record holders). He’s one of the best “grip guys” the world has known, and considering his reverse curl would only be 10% or more better than this, it “casts” doubts in my mind that a couple of lifters in this postal meet could OUTLIFT HIM. But believe what you want.
Also, I know you’ve lifted against the great grip guy Matt Graham, and probably even witnessed him doing his record 130# Rectangular Fix at one of Fulton’s meet. That would only equate to around a 145-150# Curl – Reverse Grip. If you want to believe that a man over 70 years of age and 100 pounds lighter (like in this postal) could be an equal to Matt in his prime – go ahead and believe it. But I don’t. I could go on and on with these examples of others besides Chad’s lift of 60 kgs at the World Championship being an outstanding benchmark for a great lift in the Curl – Reverse Grip.

I would like to respond to your comments that the Curl – Reverse Grip is a poor name and that it should be changed to a different name. Lots of discussion was put into placing this name on this lift to give it the best name to reflect it’s intended purpose. There’s a lot of history behind this lift which I don’t want to get into, but the Curl – Reverse Grip has ONLY been an official USAWA lift since the 2012 meeting!!! Before that the USAWA performed the Reverse Curl using the rules of the Cheat Curl while the IAWA(UK) used the rules of the Rectangular Fix, and BOTH with the SAME NAME.. Now that’s what you call inconsistent and confusing – and I know has led to some records being added to the IAWA Record List that shouldn’t have from USAWA lifters. Since the USAWA has always followed the rules of the Cheat Curl when doing this lift, that is why the word “cheat” was added into the previous rule name. Pretty self-explanatory to me I would say – as when you see the word “cheat” in the lift name you should realize that it follows the cheat curl. Discussion was made at the time to add the words “stict” in the lift name of the new Curl – Reverse Grip but was not done because it was felt it would add more confusion – meaning that lifters would NOW think the Curl – Reverse Grip should follow the rules of the Strict Curl (up against a wall with paper behind the head and rear). Also, we wanted to keep the name consistent with the IAWA(UK) name of “Reverse Curl”. And who knows, someday we may want to present a new lift, the Curl – Strict, Reverse Grip that would follow the rules of the Strict Curl and would need that name then.

I can present this issue to the executive board for you to propose this change if you wish, but considering we “hashed” over it at length last year and came to a decision I doubt if it would pass. But if you still want me to do it I will as that is the proper protocol as outlined in our rule book.

However, I still stand behind my opinion that I stated in the blog writeup. Al

Well, I an just an innocent bystander in this controversy but I completely agree with Al.

Using Al’s approximation, multiplying 0.9 times the reverse curl numbers listed in the contest report would give the expected poundages for the rectangular fix if that lift had been contest. That would give a top rectangular fix of 180 pounds, and a 71 year-old man would have done 121.5.

Cramer has done very well at all kinds of lifting as a Master’s lifter, but he’s not doing 121.5. And nobody this side of King Kong is going to do a rectangular fix by the USAWA rules with 180! LOL

I have never had an interest in curls, either regular or reverse, but I did train on the rectangular fix at times several years ago and I presently hold three USAWA age-group records in the lift. Therefore, I can certainly relate to poundages in that lift.

I don’t know if Kazmaier ever did a rectangular fix but with his huge forearms I would expect him to exceed 150. What would Savickas, Shaw, and other current top tier competitors in strongman competitions be able to do in that lift? I would expect them to exceed 150 but it would take incredible forearm strength for anyone to do close to 200.

Dale Harder likes to compare performances both within and across sports. From a personal standpoint, I would like to see a ranking list for the rectangular fix, as I did 95 officially at the age of 61. I think Matt Graham was about half my age when he made his big lifts and he also outweighed me by a bunch. So on a formula basis I might be somewhat competitive with him. Whatever. 🙂

Tom

since the Reverse Curl follows the Rectangular Fix guidelines then it may make sense to call the lift in question:”American Fix”? Here we ‘fix’ the weight at the top. That seems to be the only difference.

DAN DAN DAN

After reading your last post, I realize that you have missed the point I was making in my original blog completely! You are fixated on a single statement and not on my entire argument. My argument has not changed AT ALL since my writing of the original blog. Let me repeat it again here verbatim as it was written in the original blog:

“I don’t want to “point fingers” here – but there seemed to be some big weights lifted in this lift in this meet for using the rules of the Rectangular Fix. Chad did 132 pounds in the Curl – Reverse Grip at the World Championships last fall, and that currently stands as the top Curl – Reverse Grip poundage in the USAWA Record Book. Five lifters lifted more than Chad did in this meet (hic, hic…. I call BS).”

My argument has always been that I am suspicious (by calling BS) of some of the lifts done in the postal meet in the Curl – Reverse Grip for being done using the rules of the Rectangular Fix, and I suspect that a Curl – Cheat, Reverse Grip may have been performed instead. My statement regarding Chad was simply a line within the argument that was used to show that several of the lifters performed lifts that exceeded that of the overall USAWA record, and NOT the argument itself. Saying I’m using “one lifter’s performance as a benchmark to place other lifters’ accomplishments into question” and “I believe that represents a dangerous precedent.” are preposterous comments that I would hope others would not take seriously and believe that was the context in which I made in the original blog .

I’ve defended my argument completely in my previous post, which I don’t care to repeat again, as my mathematical assessment of the record list for comparative analysis is “fraught with error”. I’m done debating with you on this as we are NOT on the same “wavelength” with our arguments. Al

PS Now it’s time to go fishing the rest of the day!

We have far too many lifts to memorize all the rules for. I am currently retaking my officials test, and whilst doing so asked myself “WTF is a Mansfield lift? When was the last time I needed to know the finer points of a Mansfield lift?” With that being said, anytime I lift, or any time I officiate, I take a look at the rule book to ensure that I am doing the correct lift under the correct guidelines or officiating them under the correct rules. If I try to rely on my memory of all the lifts, I will fail miserably on both sides, as a lifter and an official. There are an assload of lifts in the book that I could be confused by their names. The Ziegler clean, the Carter lift? Their names do not lend themselves to me understanding the lift based on the name. However, a fart by any other name still smells crappy. So I go to the book. Pretty easy fix. Whether anybody did the wrong lift or not, I was glad Al said it, as it was something we need to remind ourselves about. The Postals is one of the things that makes the USAWA cool and unique. But we need to maintain the integrity of the lifts and meet procedures when doing them, otherwise they have lost their function.

I noticed this thread when looking up the rules test. I completely agree with Eric’s comments. There’s no way I can remember what all the lifts are, let alone the complete rules, without frequently referring the the rule book. For me, it’s all a reminder to refer to the rule book frequently, and ask questions if it’s not clear.

Randy

GOOD POSTS, ET AND RANDY!

Well – I’m back from my fishing trip. I had a great time and caught a lot of BIG Blue Catfish. The time spent relaxing on the water has brought my blood pressure back down. And I didn’t think of Dan Wagman once the entire time! Hahaha Dan and I will settle our dispute at my meet next month – face to face, with our favorite sidearm strapped on, and a cold beer in hand!!! LOL

I do want to respond to a couple of OTHER points brought up in this discussion.

I appreciate ETs and Randy comments about the importance of having your record book “close at hand”, as it is impossible to remember every rule in detail for the over 200 official lifts. That’s why the test is open book and not closed. No one is expecting anyone to memorize the entire rulebook, just know how to look stuff up in it when needed. I always carry mine to meets and read each rule to myself before judging or giving a rules meeting – and I’ve read that darn book cover to cover at least 100 times in review and editing!! Look at guys like Denny Habecker. Denny is as seasoned an official as the USAWA has and you will notice that he always has his rulebook by his side when sitting in the chair.

I’ve always said that the main purpose of having the Rules Test is to insure that every official has at least looked at the rulebook once in their life! The rules test is not intended to “weed out” those wanting to be officials. Joe and I have worked the questions like this: 50 easy ones that you should be able to answer without even looking up, 30 hard ones that you can get the answers to easy if you look them up, and 20 that might make you think a little in your answers. It is nothing like the original rules test that Clark wrote (over 100 ESSAY questions that took me around 10 hours to complete!) Anybody should be able to complete this test now in under 3 or 4 hours. I consider that a pretty minimal requirement, and if that is too much time demand for you, your level of commitment in becoming a USAWA official should be questioned. I do welcome comments to me as to how long the test took you to take, and any possible “trick” questions you think you encountered. We make changes to the rules test every couple of years and take these comments into consideration in future tests.

Now back to the postal meet. I was very careful not to single any one person out with my suspicions that a rule might not have been followed correctly. I named no names as I have no proof of anything. You may ask why I didn’t contact anyone? Well let me tell you. I am NOT the postal meet director. The procedures of the submissions were followed correctly, and the results of the meet were already sent out individually before I received them for website publish. The ship had already sailed on that one. And who would I ask anyways? The lifters in question? If I did that I would be “calling them out” and that is not my style without any proof of wrongdoing. The appropriate person to contact would be the official who judged the lifts as they are the ones truly responsible that the lift was performed correctly. But when we DO NOT require certified officials for USAWA postal meets, the usawa has no jurisdiction over unofficial judges in requiring that they know the rules any better than any lifter. A certified official can be placed on probation for failing to follow the USAWA rules (yes that’s in the rulebook).

Now more on this point of letting anyone “witness” or “judge” postal meets for participation. I KNOW the general consensus is that we think that is a good idea as that encourages new members to the USAWA, but there are trade offs to this as suspected here. I want to point out that NO WHERE in the USAWA rulebook does it state that postal meets can be officiated without a certified official. That concept was established prior to our recent rulebook as the “way it was done” and continued in that fashion with a disregard to the rules. The USAWA rulebook is very clear in that all competitions and/or events require proper officiating. It would not take much executive action to enforce that. Maybe Postal meets should go to having an “official division” (those with certified officials) and a “unofficial division” for those just entering without proper officials?

Comments?? Al

I don’t know if that is necessary. The fact that they don’t count for records is good enough in my opinion. This is the first time I can remember something like this coming up where someone may have used the wrong lift or rules, but I could be wrong about that too.

I am with Chad. I do the postals for shits and giggles and to support the USAWA, so I lose no sleep if I lose to someone who was judged by an uncertified official. I believe that it is worth it to help get people involved. However, if there is a group who continually lifts being judged by uncertified officials (multiple people in the same group), it would seem like a small thing to ask that one or a couple get certified to continue on judging each other. I am for the furthering of the cause of the USAWA, but I am also for preserving the integrity of our meets.

GEEZ DAN – we’ve found a topic of discussion that we are in agreement on!!!

I would not be opposed to including a second set of criteria for postals in the rule book.