Records Question

[dwagman]

So USAWA has a Senior age category that’s for individuals aged 20 through 39. Why are there no Senior records listed in the records list?

—
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

[Al Myers]

When the record list first started, it keep records for the junior divisions, the open division, and all masters divisions (not senior). The difference between the open division and senior division is the open division is for all 20+ lifters (juniors not included) while the senior division is 20-39. The record list then evolved to the open records being called “overall records” because many times junior lifts were put into the “open” listing and it became impossible to go back and get it corrected. Plus in the early days the open division was contested more often, and now its the senior division contested more at meets along with masters. This came about because (and Dan you would like this) some senior lifters felt like they were at a disadvantage to older more experienced master lifters “stealing their awards” (meaning the open lifters award) at meets and wanted their senior division recognized.

Now we are at the point that it is next to impossible to “go back” through meet results and establish a senior record listing.

[dwagman]

Al, thanks for sharing the historical context of this. It seems to me that this needs to change back so that the records list includes Seniors (and Open); how many competitors there may be in each division is of no real consequence.

So according to the Rule Book, Senior (and Open) lifters can only break an All record whereas anyone 40 and over can break 2 records; All and in the age group of their weight class. That’s unfair. Moreover, USAWA makes a big deal over lifters who have broken 100+ records. Naturally it’s much easier for a 40+ lifter to accomplish that than a Senior. That’s unfair.

Since the Rule Book calls for Junior, Senior, Open, and Master age groups, all ought to therefore be represented in the record list. Anything less is nonsensical and, you guessed it, unfair.

There’s an economic aspect to this, too. How can this organization expect to grow or even stay alive if it discriminates against people aged 20 to 39…the next generation?

Not keeping Senior records is an arbitrary discrimination and the Rule Book ought to be changed to include Seniors (and Open) in record keeping beyond just the All category. So let’s get this going. What’s the next step?

—
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

[KCSTRONGMAN]

Dan-
Are you suggesting adding the senior level to the rulebook without eliminating the open? I am not sure how we would go about doing this retroactively. I, personally was more about winning meets than setting records, but I do get the allure of it.
ET

I'm the lyrical Jesse James

[John Strangeway]

I have no real answer, I agree it is unfair to the 20-39’s as far as record keeping goes for everyone to be equal.

The thought process could be that 20 through 39’s is the peak range (I know you don’t agree Dan), the young are just getting into the groove with their potential while the 40+ are dealing with possible injuries, family life etc, its not that black and white but its the gist.

With the 40,45,50++++ groups added because its harder as you age to compete in the ALL group, they have an opportunity to still advance. If a 46 year old manages to take an ALL record also, that’s more impressive than a 25 year old IMO, and I can’t argue they deserve two counts for that. While that 25 year old, if the senior groups exists, gets two records while he’s in his prime; less impressive.

From that point of view, if they want to start climbing the record charts they have to commit to staying in the organization for the long haul to obtain the double record opportunity.

Just some random thoughts I had about it..

[dwagman]

ET, the Rule Book already has the Seniors listed as an age group but not listed as it’s own category for records, too. So I’m suggesting that we change the language in the Rule Book to be all-inclusive, meaning that all age groups are equally eligible to set records in their respective age group AND in the All category.

Of note, back in 2011 Al highlighted Chad’s accomplishment of hitting over 100 All records while in the Open/Senior group and how that was such an immense accomplishment because lifters 40 or over are automatically eligible for 2 records; all called that “double-dipping.” So clearly Chad’s accomplishment was infinitely more significant than that of a 43-year old who reached 100+ records and Chad was in a sense discriminated against due to the accident of his birth date.

At any rate, the Rule Book isn’t written in stone as lifts get added to it and rule changes get incorporated. So the same can be done here.

John, while I see your point I think the opposite of each argument for each age category can be made as well. My records argument, however, is not based on any of that. I’m simply arguing that the Seniors (and Open) should receive equal opportunities in the record book as any other age group. That is not the case and I’m arguing that is unfair, regardless of what reasons those who wrote the Rule Book had in mind.

Look at it this way, John…say we accept the belief that a lifter is in his prime between 20-39 and from 40 on he declines. Shouldn’t that then also mean that we give the 40+-year old other breaks? How about letting them just hit parallel in a squat instead of breaking it, how about allowing a press out in a one-armed snatch, etc., etc.

So you see, I’m just arguing from the basis of basic fairness in our sport. If you’re a Junior or 40+ and eligible to set 2 records, then all other age groups should be allowed to do so as well.

—
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]

So, you’re just saying add a senior division to the record book from this point forward.

[dwagman]

Yeah, that’s right Chris, start a Senior group in the records list from this point forward. Like Al said, it would be nearly impossible to go back and do that as the All category represents all ages.

—
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

[Abe Smith]

I can see where Dan is coming from. I never thought about it when I was in the Open group – now officially in the 40+ age. I just felt like if someone had enough time and wanted 100 records you could find those attempts in the USAWA out of all the lifts available. There are still lifts with very little records attached to them or lifts with very little records that could be easily reached. If interest persists I can see this change passing a vote of the executive council.

On a tangent note, I think growth of the USAWA will be helped by the virtual official training. Also added social media presence will also benefit the group. I mean if we see videos/pics of Eric’s neck lift with Dan’s middle finger Jefferson Lift it just reflects really well on the group because it is so awesome to see. I will begin to record myself and various others doing all around lifts going forward and post them to both IG and Facebook sites.

[Al Myers]

I pretty much agree with Dan’s assessment of this. I’ve always thought it wasn’t fair for the senior age group lifters to not have their own portion of the record list, especially considering how all other age groups are represented. Even with the addition of the senior age group in the record list, I still like the idea of the OVERALL RECORD being there. It’s like the ultimate record to shoot for within any bodyweight division.

When I was doing the record list (which I did for about 10 years) I contemplated adding the senior division many times to it. However, I’ll tell ya what will happen if you do this – the record keeper (meaning YOU JOHNNY) will be bombarded with lifters asking for their prior lifts done when they were senior lifters to be retroactively added to the list. We have already done that many times for master lifters who’s records were inadvertently left off the record list. A precedent has been set for that – and BTW is the right thing to do anyways since it’s not like being left off the list is the lifters fault. Just a oversight by the record director which is an easy mistake to make when updating the list with thousands of line items. This applies to senior lifters as well – its not their fault their senior record wasn’t recorded at the time. You will get backlash if you want to just record senior records going forth and not giving acknowledgement to past senior lifters who SHOULD have the record.

I went back to establish National Records (meaning records set at the National Championships) in the record list and that was a big job for me. I had to find all past Nationals results and then spent MANY hours imputing the new listings. It was obvious to me by doing that job that NO ONE would want to do this will all past results of senior lifters. That’s why I never pushed to add the senior lifters to the record list.

Ultimately if you go forth with this as an organization, just make sure the record director is on board with it or you may run him off and that’s not a job for anyone. It’s easy to sit back and look at the record list and think you could do that job, but its constant work and you can’t make ANY MISTAKES or you will be called out on it. We are very lucky to have Scottish Johnny as records director and it would be nice to keep him happy at his job.

[Lance Foster]

Here’s my .02. If it’s important enough to bring the records idea to fruition, then Dan can write it up, and let the Executive committee decide if it warrants inclusion on the agenda at the 2022 National meeting.

The Gloved One

[John Strangeway]

Valid points by Al. Being familiar with Excel, initially started helping Al update the records because I could see how the sheet work and knew what he was needing to do to keep updating was a lot of work and extremely tedious. Props to anyone who thanked Al as you are sure told if something is messed up.

For those unfamiliar with the process I’ll give an outline so you can see why there’s some resistance, and why Al was hesitant in doing this in the past as its not as simple as some may think. You are checking multiple ages groups and weight classes back and forth, adding a senior line, or two or three in 5 year jumps doesn’t sound like much but as it stands right now each lifts has the ability to have 336 records. The more popular the lift, the more records exist, thus the more changes need made.

Every time we go through the results of a meet, we have to prep the data because everyone submits this differently.
* actually, creating a procedure for a standardized result posting would go a long way.

-The weight class has to be double checked and converted to KG
-The age category has to be double checked and rounded,
-If its World, the KG has to be converted to LBS
-The wording of the lift has to be changed to match the official lift name in the record list.
-The lifter name has to be formatted to match their name already listed in the record list, e.g. Rich Smith needs to be changed if his previous records are under Richard Smith.

Working through the results, we start with the first lift + first lifter and scan the record list to see if its either a new record or an updated record in their class.
This means checking the Open and Jr/Masters categories for the appropriate age and weight class.

New records are few, but easy, after finding none exists for that age and weight class, the data is simply keyed into a free row.
If its a Jr/Master lifter, another row must be created for their age group too.

Updated records are more work.
You have to filter the sheet by age and class to find it, then make sure the weight beats it, then either delete the row and recreate a new one or edit the existing row making sure to update all information (easy to miss a cell!)

If its a jr/master lifter, this is repeated for their age group and weight class.

Now this process repeats for every lifter, for every lift contained in the meet. The math for how many checks you are making is basically lifts x lifters, if they are masters or juniors that’s an extra check each.

So competitions are usually 4-5 lifts, maybe 8-10 lifters, isn’t terrible.
Postals are usually larger competitor wise.
Record days are even larger with more lifters and an inconsistent span of lifts.
Deadlift dozen and meets like that have a LOT of checks. The last one was 13 lifts with 5 lifters, including masters and a record day after it.

Excluding the task of having to back fill existing records I hope this explains why adding more groups creates a lot more work going forward. If anything, I would like to reduce Master groups by jumping in 10 year increments, not going the other way of adding 😉

[dwagman]

Al, I don’t disagree with anything you stated but would like to point something out.

Regarding the potential for Johnny getting bombarded by lifters who want their records retroactively added, while none of us can predict how lifters may or may not respond to adding the Senior group to the records list, their request would be in violation of the rules (and it would be easy for Johnny to turn down all such requests with a standardized answer…Copy, Paste, Send, Done). Here’s why…

The Rule Book specifically and incontrovertibly denies the Senior group from having their age group represented as a category for records. Therefore, if the organization decides to add the Senior age group to the records list, then that represents a change in the rules that must become part of the Rule Book (minor rewording of Section V.9). Once that occurs, you can’t go back to add old records; that’s nonsensical. That would be like taking records away from lifters who set more than 5 records on a Record Day BEFORE the 5-records limit took effect in 2015.

So Johnny, I don’t think you need to worry about having an insane amount of work added to your record-keeping task. But if it is too much work—and I hesitate to make yet another recommendation—why not split up the records list in to women and men and add an individual to the record-keeping task so that each person does one? Masters could be separated out, too, and another person put in charge of that. Separating men from women would take all but 5 seconds. Just a thought.

At any rate, it seems that overall those of you who have followed this thread seem to understand how unfairly the Seniors have been handled. How do we go about changing this? Are Abe’s and Lance’s thoughts on the right track?

—
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

[Lance Foster]

I can honestly report that my thoughts, et alia, have been on the right track for a majority of my 55 years.

The Gloved One

[John Strangeway]

I did not include the Women in the process above, yes they do add yet another set of filter checks but there are so few women competing that updating their data doesn’t even register compared to updating the men.

I’m not sure you understand how updating a record works and why its not straight forward. Which surprises me to tell the truth. At times you also go to a bit of an extreme to argue points, such in my first post about lifters in there prime vs masters, you took that and suggested masters should then be allowed to break rules and cheat because they are old. Such a suggestion is, well, never mind.

Also I did agree it was unfair but as the one currently doing it I wanted to clarify its impact.

To reiterate, for every lift you must check every lifters weight class and age group in the list. This is a VERY large list, currently at 15,305 lines. The fastest way is to filter by lift/ ALL and age/sex/weight group. See if it beats the record. reset the filer, filer again for the next lifter. Then do all this again for the next lift. If we add one more group, that’s another 21 possible filter checks per lifter under 40, per lift, per meet. I don’t understand why you think that isn’t a significant increment.

Having the sheet in Excel is very powerful. You can filter for any data you like including your own records as well as plan your next record lifts, even quickly find lifts with no records.

If we expand this (and maybe even if we don’t) I will be pressing to move away from the list and track the records the way Chris Bass does on the Worlds database. (This is where I got the idea for sheet 2, it takes the data from the list and populates into the grid). Chris keeps no such list, he opens the grid for the lift and hard codes the data into the grid. This is simple, fast and easy. The only searching you do is with your eye on the page, no filters, no scrolling but the ability to make custom queries or play with the data yourself.

Copy and paste is never your friend for long lol

I initially started this to help Al as he had a busy workload already, I am fine if someone wants to take the reigns. If someone is more excel savvy and can streamline it, all the better!

• This reply was modified 3 years, 2 months ago by John Strangeway.

[KCSTRONGMAN]

Well Al, you are correct. I truly had no idea how much work this entails. Maybe creating a standardized method for results reporting would be a start. SJ, do you have an idea of what that would look like? At first, if we were not doing so retroactively, I thought “well, why not?” After reading al and SJs posts (both gentlemen who have done the job) I am quite hesitant to do anything that would add to the job.

I'm the lyrical Jesse James

[KCSTRONGMAN]

Hey SJ, is there any reason NOT to merely use the grid only, and not use the spreadsheet? I guess that would potentially make tracking the century club much more difficult perhaps?

I'm the lyrical Jesse James

[John Strangeway]

Hey ET, I don’t really know, this may be a case of “that’s how its always been done so that’s why we do it..”
I would like Al’s input on changing this and also it may need to be put to a vote incase other members utilize Excels capabilities for their own meet/record planning. I used it a lot.

Yes I believe that would make the CC harder to track, you’d have to keep a separate running list maybe, which adds margin for error, and there’s already a big margin of error updating/adding them in the first place.

I am unsure how Al tracked the century club members, Al???

If I was to do it I would add a column using the COUNTIF formula; =COUNTIF(column containing names, name in adjacent on row) on all records. This would give the total of occurrences of each name.

ET, I’ll email you a copy of the sheet with this formula added

*If this counting column is something everyone would like added I can put it in the next update. *

I’m in two minds, the grid would be far easier especially if we are planning to expand it, but by having a list in Excel you have the ability to manipulate the data which is also nice.

[dwagman]

Fundamental to this thread is fairness. If fairness dictates a certain progression of the rules, then just because implementing it may be time consuming, that should not be a reason not to proceed. Fairness is, after all, the bedrock of sport.

I also think that this thread is veering a bit away from its original purpose, the unfairness of not keeping records for Seniors. But to address Johnny…

I’d go a step farther than Johnny in saying that he is not only absolutely correct that a standardized means of informing the record-keeper would “go a long way” and add that it is absolutely essential.

So why not develop a standardized form specifically for that purpose? Why not also make it the responsibility of the lifter to submit his/her record(s) with that form and within a specified time-period such as 15 days post meet? If the lifter doesn’t do that, or the lifter doesn’t follow the specified format, there will be no record added to the list. That standardized form should be on the website to fill out, which they could even do on their phone at the meet site. Pulldown tabs could have the correct name of the lift that the lifter selects, along with all other pertinent information. That would then allow Johnny to import that data directly in to Excel after having just a quick look at the meet director’s results for confirmation. Conversions from kg to lbs, vice versa, could also be automated via formulae within Excel.

I think we should be thankful that Al and Johnny have taken on the records and there are most definitely ways to simplify the task. Excel and website technology allows for this and USAWA should take full advantage of that. Yes, it takes some time to set up the code and to test it before going live, but every hour invested in doing that will save the record keeper days worth in the future.

Check out some very cool examples:

https://usapl.liftingdatabase.com/records

http://www.gripsport.org/lists.htm

Johnny makes another good point regarding the Masters age groupings. Not only does the present grouping system not share any exercise science research support, but it could represent a nightmare for the record keeper. So let’s go ahead and change the increments from 5-years to 10-years, better still, start Masters at 50 or 55 (randomly chosen), better still 60 or 65 (evidence-based). Any concerns about existing records would be ameliorated by keeping them “alive” and available to download on the website via a link called something like “Masters Records up to 2022.”

—
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

[dwagman]

Oh, one more thing…Johnny is also correct about the women probably not taking up that much time because there are much fewer women competing than men. The same thing holds true for Seniors as there are significantly fewer Seniors competing than Masters, both on the women’s and men’s side of the equation.

Notwithstanding that observation, and the issue of fairness, as an organization we should collectively look to the future and what we can do to attract new talent to our great strength sport. Allowing 20 to 39-year olds to set records just like any age group would, at least in my mind, go a long way.

—
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

[dwagman]

Getting back to the main theme of the thread, USAWA’s Bylaws offer consideration regarding the Senior age category and why it should be added to the Record List.

USAWA Bylaws Article 2.E calls for the organization “To maintain a current Record List of the USAWA official lifts.” It therefore follows that if the organization offers different age groupings for all official lifts, that naturally all age groupings must be represented in the Record List.

Since the Bylaws govern the organization and Rule Book, they rank superior to the Rule Book. Since the Rule Book has omitted the Senior age group from record-keeping, that represents an oversight that is easily corrected, indeed must be corrected in an effort to conform to the Bylaws.

Therefore a change to the Rule Book V.9., first sentence, is necessary From:

“Records will be kept for men and women in all weight classes within subgroups of the Junior and Master age groups.”

To:

“Records will be kept for men and women in all weight classes and age groups.”

—
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

[RJ]

If you wish, I can do women. My Excel is old version 15.29. Data entry only.

[Al Myers]

Dan, The Rulebook line V.9 was put into place at a later date so the rules would accommodate the way the records had been kept prior. It was not written to “deny” records to the senior age group. In reading that line I don’t see that it even implies that you can’t – just states that records are kept for the junior and masters age group.

Johnny, For your information I MANUALLY counted the records of each lifter to get absolute count for the century club. Was effective – but not efficient. haha I’m not near as excel savvy as you.

Again my opinion here. If you start adding Senior records you better as an organization be willing to add senior records from past years results.

[KCSTRONGMAN]

I am opposed to doing anything retroactively. That would be a huge amount of leg work, and not even feasible, I doubt, unless one kept every issue of Clark’s newsletter.

I'm the lyrical Jesse James

[Al Myers]

Been thinking more on this during my morning workout –

In all 10 years of me doing the record list I don’t remember ONCE that a senior age group lifter asking why there weren’t senior age group records. I assume that was because most senior age lifters thought the “ALL” grouping were for them.

I made MANY corrections for other age group lifters (mainly masters) who wanted their prior records added or changed to make them correct . Some of these requests were as far back as records set 10 years ago!!!! Gotta wonder why the lifters didn’t ask earlier for the change – but I always made the correction as I felt it was the right thing to do. If you notice a mistake has been made in the record list updates PLEASE make the change request right away. Don’t wait a year before you do it. At that point it becomes “old news” to the record director who is busy trying to get the new updates done.

[Denny Habecker]

I think if you would check, the majority of the ALL records were set by senior lifters.

[John Strangeway]

From what Al said and Denny, it seems senior lifters having their own group all along, just titled ALL instead of an age.
And if a Master is strong enough, they can dip in and “steal” a spot.

[dwagman]

Al, you WORK OUT? WHAT THE…

Athletes TRAIN, fitness enthusiasts “work out.” Oh, the shame of it!

So Al, perhaps “deny” is a bit too strong a word and “exclude” would be sufficient to accurately describe what Rule V.9. does to the Senior age group.

I’m wondering if you might explain your reasoning for why you’d want to add Seniors retroactively. I explained earlier why I’m against that, but in addition and to be frank, from a lifter’s perspective and someone who most recently competed in the Open Division at the 2019 Worlds, I don’t see by what stretch of the imagination I would contact USAWA to have my records retroactively recognized if there’s a rule change. I’d consider making that request inane. Maybe that’s just me.

From a purely organizational perspective, ET’s on the money with his assessment. Nevertheless, I would like to have a chance to consider your reasoning.

As to you not receiving Senior questions/requests, the reason for that is simple: The Rule Book doesn’t allow it and nobody wanted to rock the boat.

Johnny, what you just mentioned is the whole point of this. Anybody can set an All record but only the Senior/Open guys/gals don’t get their own records, have to go up against everybody else for the All glory, don’t get to have their records count in the All and Senior group, and therefore don’t get to “double dip” the records count like everybody else as Al so astutely observed some time ago. This is just so unfair and…but no need to circle back to the obvious points already made.

—
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 don’t think anyone is saying its fair as it is. Seems we are talking in circles. From what I see people are not disagreeing, those who deal with it are giving reasons why its the way it is. This just may be a case of; yes it isn’t perfect but its something.

I must admit when I first started in the USAWA from Strongman I was pleasantly surprised how inexpensive meets and dues were in comparison. ET can speak more on the behind the scenes of that but for what we pay here, compared to what we receive, there’s no comparison for value for money.

So it’s important to note everyone one of us putting in work behind the scenes for this organization, website and record book etc. does not receive a paycheck to do so, and sacrifices their own personal time to do these things for everyone.

Speaking of Worlds, another hitch in this is we are trying to alight our organization with the IAWA, they don’t track senior records either.

Nothing wrong with bringing up a topic for discussion but you also have to accept other insights.

[Lance Foster]

While I had offered a potential, albeit non-scientific, solution in an earlier post, it is the best way to achieve a consensus of the membership.

The Gloved One

[dwagman]

Lance and Abe have been correct, of course. I was hoping to get more detail from Al, but I’ll go ahead and write up a rule change proposal for the membership to consider.

I’d like to thank y’all for contributing your thoughts on this topic; they will prove instrumental in me being able to present something coherent to the members.

—
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

[Al Myers]

To Dan –

Workout instead of train? That gave me a good chuckle as working out is about all I seem capable of now! I used to train – always knowing what I wanted to achieve with the weights every session. Now I don’t know what my ole joints are going to allow any given time, but I still give it my all, but I can’t bring myself to call it training anymore. Before long I will be to the next phase of lifting, when just saying you’re “going to the gym” and you consider it a good session if you work up a good bowel movement.

I’ll try to explain why I think you must add senior records retroactively if you start keeping them as a separate record listing in the record list.

First of all – Everyone seems to agree that NOT having a senior listing is unfair to senior age group lifters. But if you add the listing, but NOT allow lifters in the past to have their senior age group records added that is unfair as well as the bylaws have always allowed it (and of which you pointed out). Resolving one unfair situation while you create a new unfair situation is not a good solution in my opinion.

Second point – This puts the records director in an awkward situation having to tell lifters that their senior records would not be added at a later date. Lots of older lifters would be upset as they had been in the same situation with records when they were seniors and had to “battle it out” for open records (which are now overall records, which is different but that’s another discussion). I know for myself that I would have many more records as I was lifting in the USAWA before I became a master. Plus considering a precedent has already been set as records have been retroactively added for years (if mistakes occur or records left out accidentally). This doesn’t give the records director much ground to stand on except to say “its not allowed, but if you have a masters record that needs added I can do that”. All it would do is make the records director look like the “bad guy” having to be the enforcer.

Thirdly – I might add, as Johnny pointed out, that senior records are not kept in the IAWA World record listing as well (they list open records). If we add a senior record listing in the USAWA record list expectations would soon happen that the World Record list should have them as well. I’m all for trying to have consistency between IAWA and the USAWA. We got enough issues with rules being different between the USAWA rulebook and the IAWAUK rule book as it is. We don’t need to create another one.

Hope that explains my final thoughts on this subject.

[dwagman]

Al, you just ruined my day. I was just trying to be funny with my workout vs. training comment. I had no idea that’s where you’re at. Well, there’s aways bodybuilding…

Thank you for sharing your view. Please consider that this is not a bylaws issue, rather a Rule Book one. And here, the Rules have never allowed for Senior records. Regarding the remainder of your reply, I do believe it has already been addressed. I don’t believe, however, that the Records Director would look like a bad guy for simply pointing out that, “…back then, the rules didn’t provide for a Senior record category; we can’t go back now and add records that occurred before the rules have been updated.” But I’m sure there would be some unreasonable individuals out there. I don’t believe decisions should be based on the few that might lack reason and thus maintain a fundamentally unfair rule that affects all in the future.

As to USAWA vs. IAWAUK, on one hand I certainly agree that there are differences in the rules. But then again everybody knows that if you compete in an IAWAUK meet, those rules apply. So if you want to enter that meet, read up on the rules. Not a big deal. Also, in sport we see that local organizations of a particular sport want to maintain a certain degree of autonomy over the world-governing body. That’s pretty natural and not much different from KS’ gun laws being different than CO’s.

Thanks again, Al. And if you’re a good boy, I’ll make you a wheelchair for your trips to your “workout” with bumper 55 kg’s as back wheels and regular York 10’s for the front. And if you’re REALLY good, I’ll make the hand controls out of Captain’s of Crush that have to be crushed first, before you can manipulate the chair.

—
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