Proposals

[Randy Smith]

Regarding the national meeting proposals and Dan’s mention of the IAWA rules, I just looked up the IAWA rules. It looks like Dan is recommending that we edit the USAWA bench press rule to reflect the IAWA rule (and to apparently better reflect what is happening at USAWA meets when foot blocks are “needed”). Also, IAWA includes Jefferson/straddle finger lifts. USAWA currently doesn’t.

Dan, is my impression basically accurate?

[Al Myers]

Randy, Both of those assessments are correct and in my opinion would be good changes made to the rulebook. The “blocks under the feet” has been allowed before in the USAWA so that’s an “unwritten rule” that should be clarified in the rulebook. As for the Jefferson Finger Lifts that is a IAWAUK lift and a good addition if you are one who wants to add to the 15 finger lifts we already have.
Al

[dwagman]

Randy, I didn’t go by what IAWA-UK does regarding the bench press. It just seemed to me that if blocks of some sort are allowed under a lifter’s feet, the decision to allow it or not should not be up to each individual meet director or judge. That would lead to arbitrary and/or capricious decisions that open the door up to all sorts of potential mischief.

Regarding the Jefferson–fingers, I competed in IAWA-UK’s virtual meet in 2020 and saw that they had that lift (they call it the straddle lift). I chose that lift and had fun with it, noticed that USAWA doesn’t have it, and thought why not put it to the membership to decide on including it or not.

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[Chris Todd]

Something to consider about the record-day limit:
John Strangeway is well into the Century Club after having actively competed in the USAWA for around 4 years.
Aidan Habecker is in the Century Club, and he may still be a teenager!
Both of these recent examples were achieved under a 5-record limit.

[Al Myers]

Good points Chris!

I remember when the “5 lift limit” on record days was passed. It was proposed by the late great Art Montini. At the time everyone was in favor of it at the meeting. The intention of this rule has NOTHING to do with trying to limit records by lifters. Its all about record day meet logistics – ie if one lifter wants to do 100 lifts that pretty much ruins the day for many others as if they are officials they would be required to officiate all those lifts, or in some cases lifters will be loading for it. I’ve seen record day meets at my place in the past where this happened – often putting me in the position that I couldn’t even do any lifts myself. Not that that bothered me that much – its when other officials who were there to lift (and traveled) not being able to do their record day lifts. You need a “wrap time” for meets and the 5 lift limit accomplishes that for a meet director.

Add in the added burden put on the records director for these “unlimited” record days, I see no point in eliminating the 5 lift limit. Sure – you can say lets get more help with the record list but I’ve been there and done the record list for years and thats no easy task. Anyone can talk big about doing it but it’s a monthly task and becomes a burden. The fun soon wears off. Lets not run Johnny off as he’s been doing a great job with it.

[dwagman]

Chris, thank you for sharing your thoughts. Please note that your Century Club examples support my point. You see, without considering double-dipping, only 8 of Aiden’s records come from a Record Day and for Johnny it’s only 13. Heck, as memory serves Al’s done more records prior to the 5-lift limit in one Record Day meet than those two lifters combined and over many years of lifting. So these examples do not eliminate the need to reconsider the 5-lift limit for Record Days because it’s obviously unfair to suddenly change the rules.

Al, though I see your logistics point, that never required a 5-lift limit rule as the Meet Director always had—and still has—the option of limiting the number of lifts for any reason, including those you mention. But as it stands now a highly motivated Meet Director is actually being PREVENTED from putting on a great Record Day event for equally motivated and gifted athletes. That doesn’t even make sense.

As to the “burden” to the Records Director, I believe the first level of thinking ought to go toward—again—THE LIFTERS and how a change might be unfair, as is the case here. All of a sudden limiting the number of lifts a person can do on a Record Day, especially in light of the Century Club, and considering that there are other competitions throughout the year that contest more than 5 lifts, renders that limit obviously unfair but also nonsensical. And think back to the when and why you even started the Century Club. I’d argue that today’s lifters and newcomers deserve the same opportunity as in 2009 when you started that Club.

The second line of reasoning can certainly be the “burden” upon the Records Director. If, for whatever reason, the Records Director becomes overburdened with the task then proposals should be considered to relieve that burden. I offered a few examples which includes some voiced by the current Records Director. There might be others to consider but at no time should anything be incorporated that ends up placing current lifters at a clear disadvantage over past opportunities—such as a 5-lift Record Day limit—especially if it only benefits one person.

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[John Strangeway]

I have only scanned the comments so apologies if I have misunderstood anything.

Regarding RD vs Meets, I too was lucky enough to set many records per meet during my run, but I don’t think Dan is considering not all lifts in a meet generate a new record for that lift. For record days, you are purposely choosing a lift you know you’ll score in (barring any personal challenge to attempt a record set close to your current best). As the records director I can confirm if it’s a record day, or post-meet records, I key in 99% of those lifts to the list (although 84% of all percentages are made up on the spot).

IMO the first level is to the organization to keeping it growing. So, IMO limiting the records to 5 helps the organization by making those wishing to progress in the Century club do more meets and more record days.

I don’t understand why the 5 record limit is a detriment to the Century Club. Limiting the lifts makes the lifters “choose” what they really want. Let’s face it, if you can do 20 lifts at a RD, all we are going to do is pick a few we are good at, pick a few we want, then pick a ton of obscure open slot lifts we probably don’t even like or respect. Just for the sake of the Century club number. So, I feel the opposite- unlimited records would make the Century Club pointless.

Dan, if the first level of thinking is to go towards the lifters, why propose the 10-year jump? With the mentioning of the burden on the records director even I am in favour of the 5 year jumps to allow more aging members to have achievements and goals. Switching to 10 year blocks would cut out half.

I appreciate the thanks and consideration of the records director in changes. Above all I am happy to do what’s best for the organization and agree with any decisions which benefit the growth of the organization. I will continue to do my best until it is unsustainable (for me). My only suggestion would be to retire a lift if we add a lift.

[RJ]

Commenting from the perspective of a female lifter, I am for eliminating the 5-lift limit for the following reasons:

1. There is an unacceptable amount of lifts without records. I believe the lack of women’s records is a strong indicator to anyone checking out USAWA that this is not a sport most women take serious enough to participate in. Therefore, providing women an opportunity to set more records, not less, will only enhance the organization’s credibility and the value of the sport for women.

2. It is far more satisfying to break a record than to set one. It is difficult enough to get women to compete in this sport, let alone have them do extra lifts or compete in a records day, so why would you limit them?

I would be interested if any other women have something to say.

[dwagman]

Johnny, that’s an interesting view, that those who want to progress in the Century Club will do more meets if on Record Days (RD) you can only set 5 records. That would be worth investigating. But a lot of record days follow a regular meet, which I think is a great idea since you already traveled for one meet, why not make it for two and a long weekend of lifting…and not limit the RD to only 5 lifts? But I think Thom’s absolutely correct in his observation that it’s really not worth it anymore to put on a stand-alone Record Day when you can only set 5 records.

You also mention RD vs. regular meets. Please have a closer look at how I already addressed that and that the numbers don’t really support your current perspective. Not like you aren’t allowed to change your mind, but you stated in an earlier post, “Deadlift dozen and meets like that have a LOT of checks.” (9-3-21) I interpret that to mean that they can be more work to the Records Director than a RD and that it therefore logically follows that if you limit RD’s, then you also have to limit regular meets—IF reducing the Record Director’s work-load is the main goal.

Your point about “unlimited records” might be well-taken. That’s why I proposed various alternatives to consider, and there might be others as well. As to not liking a lift or even respecting it, but doing it anyway, I don’t understand the point. Each lifter will have some lifts they like more than others, different motivations, etc. So?

As to the 10-year jump, that was something you proposed and I thought it reasonable and therefore included it in my agenda item for the membership to consider. You stated, “If anything, I would like to reduce Master groups by jumping in 10 year increments…” (Records Question forum thread, 9-3-21; emphasis added).

To me you’re absolutely correct in that, “The first level is to the organization to keeping it growing.” I believe that’s done by, a) making sure that rules don’t negatively impact fairness for the competing membership only to benefit one person such as the Records Director (whoever that may be), and b) INCREASING opportunities.

—
Dan

For Body Intellect Brochure click here: https://www.icloud.com/keynote/0fcsokZWooW_1B1uZmL1AI5fA#BI-DW

Those who are enamored of practice without science
are like a pilot who goes onto a ship without rudder or
compass and never has any certainty to where he is going.
Leonardo Da Vinci; 1452-1519

[Author]

Posts