Newcomer of the Year – Dave Glasgow

by Al Myers

Dave Glasgow (on left) receiving the USAWA Newcomer of the Year Award from Al Myers (on right) at the Ledaig Record Day.

I was very glad to see Dave Glasgow promote his first USAWA event, the Ledaig Record Day, this past weekend.  It also gave me the opportunity to “officially” award him the USAWA Newcomer of the Year Award, which was announced at the USAWA National Meeting last month.  I have known Dave a long time through the Highland Games.  He has attended several competitions (both Highland Games and All-Round Events) held at my place throughout  the past years.  And now, I FINALLY got the chance to make it to his place for a competition.  I now know where Rainbow Bend is located  (but don’t expect a GPS to get you there! ). Dave hosted a weekend affair, with a Highland Game competition on Saturday and the Record Day on Sunday.  Both days were a huge success. The Record Day had 7 competitors, which is the highest attendance at a record day since February of 2009.  Dave and the Ledaig Heavy Athletics Club are a great addition to the USAWA.

The Hoffman/Paul Formula

by Thom Van Vleck

Ok, so we’ve been overload on the formula’s lately, but I was perusing one of my old Ironman mags last night and came across a story.  This was the April-May 1974 issue and on Page 43 there’s a story on the “new” Hoffman/Paul Formula.  The original Hoffman formula was used for years in determining the best lifter at Olympic lifting meets.  As the weight classes expanded (the original gap was 198lbs to Heavyweight, then a 242 class was added, and a 220lbs class) there was evidently a need to alter the formula.  This article talks about the new “Hoffman/Paul formula” being accepted at a recent AAU convention.  Some professor named Joseph Paul had “improved” upon the Hoffman formula and evidently was given second billing to Hoffman with this second version.  Who knows, maybe he came up with the original!

No one is credited with writing the article so I have to assume Peary Rader wrote it.  In the article he makes a comment that the new formula was unchanged from the old thru the 198lb class, but changes were made above that.  I’ll assume to make it more “fair” as the old formula may have been found to be flawed relating to heavier lifters as the article says the new formula was the result of the new weight classes.  Interestingly, the author notes that no formula can be completely fair, but this one is an improvement.

I do know that Lyle Schwartz once commented that he developed his formula when it was determined that the Hoffman Formula, for whatever reason, did not work as well with the powerlifts and more specifically, the bench press.  I also recall Schwartz stating the Malone formula was a better indicator for women and that when comparing men to women, it was basically a factor of men being 30% stronger on average, but women generally carrying more bodyfat across all weight classes seemed to be an issue in coming up with a reliable formula and comparison.

It is also interesting that the “improved” Hoffman formula ends at 260lbs and that for ever pound after that you were to and 1 point to the coefficient.  Again, the conspiracy theorist in me feels like the little guys are always out to shaft the big guys because they can’t lift as much.  But you have to admit, adding a “point” per pound after that would have to cause some issues once you hit 350lbs or even more.

In highland games at the Masters World’s this year they are using the decathlon scoring system which is based on percentages of the world record.  This is the first time they are using this system and it will be interesting to see if it changes the results.  But I would almost bet that it would be like Al’s analysis recently, you might see one or two changes but the vast majority will remain in their same placings.  This has not stopped a heated debate that has already arisen regarding the pros and cons of the decathlon system.

My intent is not to point out flaws, but just offer another piece of the formula history here.  Sounds like even in the earliest days of the formula format, everyone knew it wasn’t perfect, but still could be a decent indicator of who the better lifter was.  I have been reading more on how Schwartz developed his formula, but have had to dust off the old stat class book from college…..and that will be for another day and might end up more boring than Al’s article on the formulas!!!

Ledaig Record Day

Results from the Ledaig Record Day

by Dave Glasgow

Group Picture from the 2010 Ledaig Record Day. Pictured left to right: Mike Murdock, Dave Glasgow, Scott Tully, Amber Glasgow, Darren Barnhart, and Chad Ullom. Not pictured because he was taking the picture, Al Myers.

Seven strength athletes thumbed their noses at high humidity and higher temperatures to battle gravity in the first annual Ledaig Heavy Athletics record breakers day. This event was the first hosted by the Ledaig (pronounced ‘led-chig’) Heavy Athletics club, Rainbow Bend, KS., one of the newest clubs in the USAWA.  It will not be the last time this club will hold an event!

Meet Director Dave Glasgow looking over the Record List.

A total of 46 records were established, some new, some old. Leading the charge was Chad Ullom, long time veteran of team Dino Gym. His nine records showed an overall strength that tells what a well rounded strength program can do for it’s practitioner.

Close behind in the record race was the venerable Al Myers, who tied with Dave Glasgow, with eight new records for the books. It was because of Al’s persuasion that this event was staged. Thanks, Al!  Al’s knowledge of the lifts and lifters of the past really added to the event! Very informative!

Next came Darren Barnhart, who set seven new marks and pulled a most outstanding 300# in the Bent Over Row, one of the newest lifts in the USAWA.

Close behind was the USAWA’s newest member, Amber Glasgow, who had six records.   Her Turkish Get Up and Over head Squat being the highlight of her record day. Good job, tink!!

Mike Murdock showed us, again, that age is no restriction to being strong.  Mike set 5 records that will be tough to break! Great job, Mike!

New USAWA member Amber Glasgow, of the Ledaig Heavy Athletics Club, made her mark in the USAWA Record List.

Rounding out the ‘record race’ was Scott Tully, who put three marks up that were most impressive. His nonchalant effort with 245# in the Maxey Press  was very attention getting.  There is more in the tank , for sure! Outstanding, Scott!

It should also be mentioned that five of these lifters, Chad, Mike, Al, Amber and Dave, were all coming back from the day before, when they participated in the Ledaig Highland Games, where searing temps and brutal humidity ruled the day.  Needless to say, there were some tired folks come Sunday afternoon!!

Finally, I would like to thank those who came to this gathering.  Most came some distance to participate and I am very appreciative of it! Please, plan to be at this event next year, as it has become, now, and annual event!!

Results:

Ledaig Record Day
Ledaig Heavy Athletics Club
Rainbow Bend, Kansas
July 18th, 2010

Meet Director:  David Glasgow

Officials (three certified USAWA officials were used on all lifts):  Al Myers, Scott Tully, Chad Ullom, Dave Glasgow, and Darren Barnhart

Amber Glasgow – 31 years old, Female, 140 pounds, 65K Class

Bent Over Row: 115 pounds
Press – Dumbbell, Right Arm: 35 pounds
Press – Dumbbell, Left Arm: 35 pounds
Turkish Get-Up: 35 pounds
Push Press – From Rack: 100 pounds
Squat – Overhead: 85 pounds

Scott Tully – 34 years old, 341 pounds, 125+K  Class

Rectangular Fix – Fulton Bar: 95 pounds
Press – Dumbbell, Left Arm: 105 pounds
Maxey Press: 245 pounds

Chad Ullom – 38 years old, 238 pounds, 110K Class

Bent Over Row: 275 pounds
Clean and Press – Alternate Grip: 185 pounds
Judd Clean and Jerk: 155 pounds
Press – Dumbbell, Left Arm: 95 pounds
Turkish Get-Up: 70 pounds
Clean and Jerk – Fulton Bar: 250 pounds
Deadlift – Fulton Bar, Right Arm: 165 pounds
Deadlift – Fulton Bar, Left Arm: 165 pounds
Rectangular Fix – Fulton Bar: 95 pounds

Darren Barnhart – 42 years old, 290 pounds, 125+K Class

Bent Over Row: 300 pounds
Rectangular Fix – Fulton Bar: 95 pounds
Deadlift – Fulton Bar, Left Arm: 180 pounds
Deadlift – Fulton Bar, Right Arm: 160 pounds
Maxey Press: 160 pounds

Al Myers – 43 years old, 258 pounds, 120 K Class

Bent Over Row: 255 pounds
Turkish Get-Up: 53 pounds
Deadlift – Fulton Bar, Right Arm: 165 pounds
Deadlift – Fulton Bar, Left Arm: 165 pounds
Maxey Press: 190 pounds

Dave Glasgow – 57 years old, 250 pounds, 115 K Class

Bent Over Row: 225 pounds
Press – Dumbbell, Left Arm: 75 pounds
Rectangular Fix – Fulton Bar: 80 pounds
Turkish Get-Up: 53 pounds

Mike Murdock – 70 years old, 232 pounds, 110 K Class

Bent Over Row: 205 pounds
Push Press – From Rack: 130 pounds
Deadlift – Ciavattone Grip: 275 pounds
Press – Dumbbell, Right Arm: 55 pounds
Press – Dumbbell, Left Arm: 55 pounds

For a complete listing of records from the Ledaig Record Day – Ledaig Record Day 2010

Close Enough to Get the Job Done

By Thom Van Vleck

As I read Al’s recent story on the history of formulas several things come to mind. First, it made me think of a “formula” I used to use to calculate my one rep max. (.0333 X weight lifted X reps) + weight lifted = one rep max. I swore by that, but the reality is that it just gave a “probable” one rep max and obviously has a lot of flaws (such as going high reps not being a strong an indicator). I can’t remember where I got it, or why I came to “believe” in it…..but I did and used this to calculate contest openers and goals. I believed it was right and somehow that made it a good formula. But how often did it work? Not work? How often did I stop at that max and validate my own belief and not try more?

The reality is that the FIRST lesson I learned in Physics 101 in my freshman year in college was that every measurement is flawed. The real question is: “Is it close enough to get the job done!” I recall doing an experiment where we measured a long metal rod, then heated it and cooled it and got different measurements. We then discussed the nature of matter and that it’s made up of atoms which are dynamic, etc. Finally, the instructor took the rod and bent it and said, “Now, how far apart are the ends and how do you measure it, point to point, or along the length”?! Formula’s are like measurements, NO formula would be perfect. But his real lesson was, is your measurement “close enough to get the job done”.

I was at a ball game last night and there were two umpires. At one point, one called a guy safe and the other over ruled him and called the baserunner out. I thought the base runner was safe from my vantage point. There was a groan from the crowd….but the game went on. There was a recent major league game where a picture had a perfect game into the last out and the ump blew the call and the pitcher lost his perfect game. Television revealed his error, but the flawed call was upheld….because that’s the rule! The umpire makes the call and “calls it as he sees it”. Just like judges at meets calling depth on squats, or knee kick on a strict press. If we want to compete, we accept those human failings. The real question becomes: Are they good enough to get the job done?

Then there is the equipment. Recently, Dave Glasgow got us started on the subject of how much barbells weigh. I had actually weighed ALL of my stuff and come to realize that a 45lb plate rarely weighs 45lbs. I have a set of Ironman 50lb plates that are unmilled and they weigh 57.5lbs!!!! I should point out that they were sold that way, back in the day you could get cheap weights if you would be willing to take them “unmilled” or milled to the exact weight. However, I have milled plates and they are off, too. But not nearly as much. However, they are “close enough to get the job done”.

So, we have a flawed formula, developed by flawed people, using flawed equipment, in a flawed world. We can’t have perfection so to me, the real question is: Is it accurate enough to get the job done. I think one thing Al’s article showed was that the formulas do seem to have some decent reliability. There is some variability. I doubt there’s been a lot of testing on the validity of these formulas, so where are we?

Here is where we are at in my opinion. The USAWA is an organization like no other. I think we should continue to use the formulas but I hope that we would be open to having contests that don’t use them. I would think ideally, we do both. If I competed in the Nationals and I lifted more than anyone in my age group and weight class….I’m the winner. I also get the added BONUS of being ranked in an overall. We need to look at the formulas as a way to add another layer of competition to the meet. We either accept they are “close enough to get the job done” or we don’t compete.

Dave Glasgow and I compete in Scottish Highland Games. This is a unique sport like the USAWA. There is no central governing body and often meets are open to having their own rules and standards. For example. the Braemar Stone event (like a shot put) will have stones that vary 10, 20, even 50lbs in weight from meet to meet. Or in some meets you can spin and throw the Weight Over Bar, and another meet may only allow to throw from a stand. Each style will fit different athletes better, giving advantages and disadvantages. This is often debated and Dave delivered the best quote on it I can recall (which he said he actually got from Mike Smith), “You know the rules, either go and throw or stay home, don’t complain about it”.

Maybe someday, we’ll have so many lifters, the formula’s will be more like the “best lifter” award stuff, but right now we need them to make the meets more competitive. Otherwise, just lift in your gym and go buy a trophy. I have a buddy that owns a trophy shop and he’ll help you out….as a matter of fact he told me he makes trophies for non existent contests all the time! Or lift in the USAWA and have a good time and don’t expect perfection from a formula, like you don’t expect perfection from a judge, weight, or weather man!

Middle Atlantic Postal Meet

RESULTS OF THE MIDDLE ATLANTIC POSTAL MEET

by Al Myers

Mark Mitchell, of the Dino Gym, performing a 220 pound Reverse Grip Curl in the Middle Atlantic Postal Meet. This is the top ALL-TIME Reverse Grip Curl in the USAWA Record List.

Meet Director: John Wilmot

Ending Date: June 30th, 2010

Lifts: Jerk – from Rack, Curl – Reverse Grip, and Hack Lift – One Arm

Lifters using certified officials:

Al Myers:  Officiated by Mark Mitchell, Darren Barnhart, Scott Tully

Scott Tully:  Officiated by Al Myers, Darren Barnhart, Mark Mitchell

Darren Barnhart:  Officiated by Al Myers, Scott Tully, Mark Mitchell

Mark Mitchell:  Officiated by Al Myers, Darren Barnhart, Scott Tully

Kohl Hess:  Officiated by Denny Habecker

Lifters using an official who is NOT certified:

John Wilmot:  Officiated by Kay Wilmot

Denny Habecker:  Officiated by Kohl Hess

Results:

Lifter Age BWT BWT Class Jerk Curl Hack Total Points
Al Myers 43 254 120 kg 300 200 352 – R 852 697.52
Scott Tully 34 341 125+ kg 300 176 264 – R 740 526.07
Denny Habecker 67 185 85 kg 175 75 200 – R 430 514.35
Mark Mitchell 49 365 125+ kg 240 220 135 – R 595 465.28
Darren Barnhart 42 295 125+ kg 210 132 264 – R 606 456.71
John Wilmot 63 213 100 kg 145 125 130 – R 400 428.10
Kohl Hess 15 288 125+ kg 185 75 200 – R 460 391.46

BWT is bodyweight in pounds.  Total is total pounds lifted.  Points are total points adjusted for bodyweight and age.

BEST OVERALL  LIFTER – Al Myers

BEST MASTER LIFTER – Al Myers

BEST JUNIOR LIFTER – Kohl Hess

1 434 435 436 437 438 496