Tag Archives: USAWA

Meet Reminder – The World Team Postal

by Al Myers

IAWA President Steve Gardner taking a big squat down deep!!

This is the time to start thinking about “getting your team around” for the World Team Postal Meet promoted by the IAWA President Steve Gardner.  Last year this postal meet was a huge success for the IAWA.  For those of you that are new to the USAWA, the IAWA (International All-Round Weightlifting Association) is the international organization the USAWA belongs to.  The IAWA oversees the international competitions such as the World Championships and the Gold Cup.  This IAWA World Team Postal Meet gives us (the USAWA) the opportunity to compete in a World competition without ever leaving the confines of our own gym!  There really is no excuse not to enter this one.  The format is for teams of three to enter, but Steve has opened it up to individuals as well to enter.  The results will contain both  the placings of the 3-person teams and the individual rankings.  So, even if can’t find two other team members, compete and send in your results. I want to remind you of some “differences” between this meet and other USAWA meets:

1.  You MUST have two USAWA certified officials (who both pass your lift) judge your lifts instead of just one official.

2.  You are allowed FOUR attempts instead of the typical three attempts allowed.

3.  Scoring age adjustments will be done according to the IAWA age allowances, which is slightly different from the USAWA age allowances.

All of the lifts Steve picked for this postal competition are easy to perform without much specific training.  All you got to do is line up a training day where everyone in your group can be present, and DO the lifts!  The specific entry information is located in the section “USAWA Future Events “.  The deadline for submission is the last day of September.

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!!!

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!

Who Holds the Oldest Record in the Record List?

Quiz of the Week

by Al Myers

Who holds the oldest record in the USAWA Record List?

USAWA Patch

This should be an easy quiz – all you have to do is look through the USAWA Record List and find the answer.  It shouldn’t take long – since there are  just slightly over 9000 records to look through! I only need the name of the lifter who has the record (not the lift or exact date the record was set).  So if you want to guess – go ahead!!

Winner receives a new USAWA Patch.

Rules:  Only one entry per day.  First correct answer sent to me at amyers@usawa.com wins.

We have a winner!

Dave Beversdorf, of Columbia Missouri, correctly gave the correct answer to the Quiz of the Week.  The answer is Steve Schmidt, who on September 20th, 1987 performed a 270 pound Pullover and Press with wrestler’s bridge at a record day in Clark’s Gym.  Steve was in the 100 kg weight class.  That is a record that will probably withstand the “Test of Time” – no one has came close to it since!  Dave also pointed out the OLDEST COMPETITION  to me that is in the Record List.  On October 11th, 1987 records where recorded from the Backbreaker Meet that contained such legendary names as Bill Clark, Ed Zercher I, Ed Zercher II, and Ed Zercher III.

1 23 24 25 26 27 45