The use of fomulas in competitions...

[elizabeth talbot]

Jason,

I believe you have hit the nail on the head.

It is much more fair to have people of like weight and gender compete against each other and use the *actual* weights they lifted to determine who wins

I agree. But we don't have enough people. When we do, I'm sure the contests will be run differently. As it is, these formulae, which are NOT random, are the closest we can come to generating that similarity of weight and gender.

My third place trophy is not hollow, either. I worked hard for it, and feel that I earned it. I didn't lift my best on every event, but overall I do not believe I have ever been stronger. Truly, do you believe that an eighteen year old girl is qualified to compete on an open field with experienced men? And don't say I should compete in a class of my own, or not compete, or come last. Because I know my lifts are worth more than that, a man should be able to significantly outlift me. If he can't outlift me well enough, then he doesn't deserve my trophy. But that's just my opinion.

You're right Jason, it is never-ending, and it is interesting. I just wish we could have had some model other than our contest.

I apologise for repetition in these posts, I just feel that, right or wrong, I have something to defend.

[elizabeth talbot]

Brian,

I wrote my post before I read yours. I think it is evident that I agree.

By the way, it was great to meet you and have you over for the contest. I hope you can make it again another year.

[bseedot]

Hehe.  I wrote my post before I could read yours too, Liz  We must have been writing at the same time.

It was nice to meet you too.  You're very strong already and you have a helluva lot more potential there waiting for you.  You'll do yourself very well in the future!

I'd like to come over there next year, too...uhhh... formulas and all    because I love the competition.  

BC.

[Guest OoklaTheMok]

Liz-

I agree with you, and believe me I am most sympathetic to your plight.  My wife has competed in strongman competitions and now in Olympic lifting.  Last year she 'won' the lightweight class at the York Barbell Strongman Spectacular in the women's division.  The first thing she said afterwards?  'Well, I wish I at least would have had someone in my class to push me..."

And to me, if I were her or you, it would not even be that much of an issue of competition, but training.  I have to admit that for me, the overriding human instinct for laziness is there.  The best thing about competing is that I know, in X number of weeks, that I have to stand on a platform and compete, and I am going to look stupid if I lift less than I did the last time, or let people beat me who should not.  SO, if I knew that I would show up and win every time, I don't know where I would get the motivation to train.  Not knowing you personally, I am going to assume that you are like my wife, and say that for the most part, your reason for training has to be intrinsic motivation and that you love to do it, for yourself.  That is all totally just an 'aside', but I wanted to point out that I understand and acknowledge that fact.  I know that it would be easy for me to just start skipping workouts if there was noone to lose ground to...

And, as for what Brian said, that is in fact the intention.  I only used the recent Championships as an example because as I said, David actually went to the trouble to put all the numbers up here for us all to see, so it was easy to look at.  That is why I changed the example to one of *myself*, as I think it could be easy to see my post and think it is some attempt at undercutting.

My real motivation is that this year Brian was going to promote a grip contest.  I was going to judge.  It is an *actual* consideration for us, not just hypothetical and blowing smoke, like some people.  Brian asked me about it when we started.   I basically told him that I didn't want any part of a contest that used formulas.  But the thing is, I want to know what the *majority* of people think, because if 55% of possible competitors like it, then I will subvert my opinion and say "let's use a formula".  I just wanted to know what others think, cause I was not really in on the prior discussion here.

I guess to me, it boils to down to a utility thing.  Obviously, for someone like Liz it makes perfect sense.  Like she/I established, otherwise there is no 'class' for her to lift in.  She is left out in the cold.  So there is definitely a 'pro' for the formula.  On the other hand, look at Faheem, who gets knocked from first to fourth.  That sucks for him, so that is a big 'con'.   What I wanted to know was, which outweighs the other?  

I know how I answer, but I wanted to hear from others.  I think Liz makes the good case for doing it the other way.  quite honestly, the only other people I have ever heard try to make an argument for the formula before were the skinny guys who usually have opportunities to compete in a 'lighter' weight class anyway, and just have a chip on their shoulder and want to show that they are 'just as tough as the big guys'.   Liz makes the first valid case/example of it I have ever seen.

Also, that said, I have WAY less of a problem using a formula to account for differences in sex (and even bodyweight) than I do age.  I am not a big fan of the age thing at all.   I am only 25 myself, and I am all for 'paying your dues'.

[Guest OoklaTheMok]

P.S. --  Let me also interject here, Liz, that in no way is my attack on 'formula using' implying that in your recent contest you were an 'underserving woman winner'.

If you look at the results WITHOUT any formulas, like I did, you finish ahead of like 60% of the men there (in all classes).  So kudos to you.

[elizabeth talbot]

Jason,

Thank you. I apologise for being defensive and am glad that  you appreciate my point. As someone who will very soon be on the 'con' side of the age formula, I may well be moving onto your team pretty soon...

Elizabeth

[Guest OoklaTheMok]

Liz-

Don't worry about it.  I don't think you were being defensive, and you did not come off as being defensive.  I think adults can discuss differing points in a friendly manner.  That is the only way anything useful ever gets accomplished.  Nothing ever goes anywhere if we're all a bunch of sycophants and yes-men.  Different strokes and all that...

And actually, as a lawyer by trade, I am used to people calling me a liar, or saying 'this despicable man would have you believe...', so actually I thought you were treating me quite kindly.  :^)

Good luck with your training.

Later...

JFK

[Roark]

So you would like an opinion on the book entitled 'Stuff'.

Each of three people is available to offer an opinion on the

book.

A- has not read the book, indeed has never heard of it.

B- read it ten years ago

C- has read the book repeatedly, actually finished reading it

   a couple days ago, and plans to read it again.

If you really want to become informed about 'Stuff', whose

opinion would you seek?

[Guest]

Interesting and disgusting all at the same time!

Anyone who has never competed should really back off. You don't know what your talking about. The formulas used in David's competition are on the whole good and what you all forget is that this is David's competition and he can run it how he likes. Kevin runs his competition differently and that's his perogative - same with the swedes.

I am running my competition this year the same as all IAWA competitions and the same as David. This is a BIG disadvantage for me. With Bruce White and Vince Basile having over 30% age allowance on me I have my work cut out. Without that I would feel more confident. Infact I believe to win I have to set records in EVERY lift! It's doubtful.

However, the only way I could get more competitors was to include IAWA Australia and thus run it under their rules. In a perfect world we would have this:

                Juniors (under 18)

                Womens

                Open (18-35)

                Masters (35 plus)

This takes the age and sex allowances out of it and makes it an even plane. Unfortunately, this would leave us with a huge open section and one or two competitors in the other catagories. Not ideal I think you'll agree. That said it might be the way to go. I prefer it for two reasons. This is how most other sports are run and it works for them. Infact every sport almost has these type of catagories. And two, we would really know who the best is. You'd win on maximum weight lifted.

I haven't addressed the bodyweight issue as it's one I am personally undecided on. For me I don't think it makes much difference unless a lift is contested where bodyweight plays a part (eg thick bar deadlifts). I suppose though that a super lightweight against a super heavyweight lifter would be at a big disadvantage.

My next competition will be run this way. 4 classes, Junior, Women, Open and Senior. No bodyweight restrictions. Highest lift wins the event. A points system similar to WSM. Most points at the end wins.

I'm sure we'll get it right one day! Keep supporting the competitions and introducing new talent. And those that don't support and still comment should mind their own business.

Nick

[Kevin Fulton]

Here is my insight on this topic:

I won't argue that using formulas is an ideal situation and someone will no doubt always feel cheated when they are used.  But it is pretty hard to justify weight classes when there are a small number of competitors in a contest.  We could have 3,4 or more weight classes in our competition and have multiple "champions" but it gets pretty watered down that way.  In our contests we have gone with formulas and without over the years and last year we didn't use the formula on all events.  We have used the Lynch formula which seems to be the fairest in my opinion.  We try to make it fair for everybody.  Last year we had people ranging from 138 lbs. to three people who wer well over 300 lbs.  THe range was nearly 200 lbs!!!  Age range was 16-45.  It would be hard for us to get some of these people to enter if there not some way to level the playing field.

As far as gaining 30-40 lbs. of bodyweight for the sake of increasing one's lifts by a small percentage, I don't think I would consider that as "becoming stronger", at least in relative terms.  If you are competing in "strongman" competitions then it may be a necessity.  In most all-round strength competitions that I have competed in, the best lifter based on formula is the athlete that is considered the overall champion.  And I think this also applies to grip contests to a certain degree if you are using leverage and deadlift type events.  Since I am not a small person myself, the formula usually works against me.  Because of that I think I can make the following statement without offending others.  If you are only concerned about attaining the highest possible absolute strength level then you should probably compete in sports where there are no weight classes or formulas like WSM or sumo wrestling, etc.

Over the years I have competed in about 100 strength competitions.  There have been times that I have won my weight class being unopposed.  As others have said, that is somewhat of a hollow victory.  In some of those cases I won the "best lifter" award when compared to all competitors who were present.  Now that type of award is special and has much more meaning.  In some cases I also had the highest absolute total which also is nice, BUT I really wouldn't take much pride in that IF my total was only a few pounds more than someone who is 50 pounds lighter or by beating a 14 year old or 70 year old athlete by a slim margin!!  .  I would consider them a "better lifter" and  the formulas would verify this.

Lastly, I don't have a problem and I'm not afraid to compete when no formulas are used even though I'm older (42).  I was planning on competing in Brian's US championships and didn't really care if he was using a formula or weight classes or whatever.  I think what it really boils down to is that some of you are afraid to compete unless you think you can win.  Not to burst anyone's bubble but for some of those people, it would not really matter if a formula was used or not, they would not compete well because they always have an excuse.  That certainly does not apply to everyone, I'm sure you know who you are.   As was noted with the British competitions, the first few placings generally woulld not change whether using a formula or not, and the same holds true with our competitons.

Kevin

[OldGuy]

People are not being told how to run their competitions. It is simply a discussion on the pros and cons of using formulas. So there is no need to be disgusted , to tell people to back off or to mind their own business. This board has moderators

let them do the moderating. This is becoming personal and emotional.

[Roark]

If we remove Nick, David, Kevin from this discussion,

what contests are there to discuss?

Personally I do not care for formulas, but these men are the ones who take the activities we discuss and put them into

action, giving us another occasion to discuss.

On the other hand, we should not be told to remain commentless if we have never staged an event, because then

this topic would include only Nick, David, and Kevin. That would be similar to only Mark Henry be allowed to discuss how

to clean the Inch.

While I certainly am not in a position to compete, there are

some here who are, and they perhaps should jump in even if last place is their reward at first try.

Again, the sparsity of competitors may require formulas. As participation increases, perhaps formulas can become un-needed. But let's realize the forces these promoters are up

against. So far no chartered planes have been required to

transport competitors.

[Guest]

Nick, "You started it!"

Old Guy, "No I didn't it!"

Nick, "Yes you did!"

etc, etc, etc.

This is silly , right?!

Oh yeah one more thing. Mark Heny cleaning the Inch is NOTHING like the same thing. He trained specifically for that ONE challenge. It wasn't a grip competition it was a feat of strength.  Plus I was only telling people to shut up if they hadn't competed not if they hadn't arranged a competition

And those that don't support and still comment should mind their own business

Competition is for EVERYONE, no matter what your strength levels.

Nick

[Guest OoklaTheMok]

I think it is interesting to hear everyone's opinion on this.  All bring valid and thought-provoking reasoning to the table.  

One thing Roark said that I want to reiterate is that there is no money to be made in grip contests, and it is not like there is a World Grip Federation or Frito Lay as the corporate sponsor who the promoters are beholden to.  So ultimately, whatever Kevin and David want IS and SHOULD BE 'the law'.  It quite literally is 'their' competition that they are hosting just out of their own benevolence.   So let them do exactly as they please.  Nobody else has an stake, so nobody else really has any say.  This again, is as far as criticizing past contests go, or telling *them* what they should do.  

That, however was not my intention, so I again try to steer this thread to the left, towards a clear goal.

If an attempt to remove any personal visceral involvement here, what exactly is the basis on which these formulae are based that they are used for grip contests?  Is there objective scientific evidence behind them?  Or are they out-dated and misapplied?  'Cause honestly, I don't have a clue.  I don't even know exactly what formulas people are using.

Maybe the answer is not to get rid of formulas, but to try and get some grip-friendly mathematician to derive some NEW formula that is actually based on grip results or something.

And maybe I am just too tired.  

[Nathan Say]

I'VE GOT THE DEFINITIVE FORMULA!!  :crazy  Take the biggest lift/total of the contest, & for each person who didn't have the biggest #, multiply their total by the ratio p/q where p=biggest # of the contest & q=person's #, so that everyone's lift/total gets cancelled out & then everyone's a winner!!   Then the only thing that matters is that everyone has a nice time!  

[Paul A Marsland]

I think people are getting a little over emotional here. Why does one have to compete to "know what thier talking about?"

I've competed in a records day contest which had no %/B/W age formulas and the SAME people who either win the Grip Champs or place high are the same one's who pulled the highest lifts and set new records. Needless to say I wasn't one of them ???

Take Elizabeth Talbot for example. Forget about her age, gender etc for moment. I've personally witnessed her perform a Table Top wrist curl hold with 200lbs for over a minute and she made it look easy! She humbled quite a few of the men (including me) who she was competing against WITHOUT a % basis.   Elizabeth is strong in terms of grip by ANY standard. However, should we then take into account and penalise her for the fact she has been training her grip specifically for many years? Where does it stop?

Paul.

[Paul A Marsland]

I forgot to add is that the downside of using formulas is that in order for some to be competitive they are losing b/w. This IMO is wrong. If you JUST want to be strong on your grip and grip only then fine. But for many people the idea is to get bigger and stronger, hence increase b/w.

The use of formulas creates a "one step forward two steps back" situation. Why train hard all year JUST to lose b/w to make you more competitve on the day. If that is the case then b/w's should be recorded and the next year the compeitors should have their b/w's compared to see if they are simply losing weight to gain an edge. I know of one competitor is lost b/w for this very reason, and who can blame him?

Paul.

[Guest StrongerthanArne]

If I entered the Brittish Championship I would use the rules to my advantage. I compete to win and even if I do not agree with David and Elizabeth on the merits of having a formula I would surely do my best to place well on the competiton day. I have a long term goal of competing in 2004 (at the age of 42). If I do, I will enter the comp. ripped to bone at a bodyweight of no more than 77-78 kg (aiming at a 100 kg+ two hand pinch). I would also not hesitate to drop heavy squats a couple of months prior to the comp in order to gain extra points. This is what will happen when competitive people are faced with a set of rules. They use them to the fullest, and who can blaim them.

[Roark]

Nick,

My analogy about Mark Henry cleaning the Inch was

intended to illustrate that if only those who have

performed a feat (whether cleaning the Inch, or

promoting a grip contest, or running a four minute mile)

are allowed to discuss those feats, progress would be

slowed.

In bodybuilding in America, many people criticize the

Weider's pro system, but no one competes against the

IFBB.

In grip competitions you, and the other promoters have

been criticized, but hordes are not lining up to offer

competitions with or without formulas.

Criticism comes easier than craftsmanship. So, carry on!

[bseedot]

This may be straying a bit from the topic but, then again, it may have some relevance.  One can get numbers to say whatever one wants them to say- I'm an accountant so I'm fairly certain of this    It's easy enough to overlook the mathematics of this, but I think it's important to point out.

"A recent study that we have seen (I can't remember by whom at the moment, but could find it out if necessary) indicates that a woman's upper body strength is approximately 66% of a man's. Therefore the formulae that we used are pretty much exact."

If we take this percentage as accurate then a 33% gender allowance is actually not enough!  For the sake of example, if a man can hammer curl 100 pounds then it follows, from this study, that a woman can hammer curl 66 pounds.  Providing a 33% gender allowance will only get the female lifter to 88 pounds (66*1.33=88).  In order to accurately approximate the results of this study the gender allowance should be 50% (66*1.5=99).

As counter-intuitive as this may seem, a gender allowance of 50% is not stating that women have 50% of the upper-body strength of a man.  If that were indeed the case, the gender allowance would need to be 100%.

BC.

[Paul A Marsland]

Precisely.

Formulas or numbers are just one of the variables that can manipulated in terms of competition both in favour and against the competitor.

If one wishes to use such formulas in competition then that is thier choice, you don't HAVE to compete in it. However one cannot ingnore the fact the idea of competiton ( in this case grip strength) is to lift the most weight or have the strongest grip.

To me the if I were to move up a couple of places or even win in competiton due to being lighter , on the basis,  that at the last competiton I was 30 lbs heavier and STILL lifted the same weights. Simply defeats the object of training to improve one's strength. I've simply used the formulas to offset and negatives against me, that being my age. Also on the basis of the formulas, one could work out, just what "type" of competitor it would take to win.  For example a young female who weighs no more than 65 kilos, do the math and you could simply base you training goals on these %'s.  

Paul.

[Guest OoklaTheMok]

Brian-

What you said was getting to the heart of the question I asked.  At this point I am putting aside whether or not formulas should be used or not, because I think the first question to answer is 1) whether there is any reliable scientific basis for them, and 2) whether the math is being done correctly.

As you know I did my 4-year honors track at Iowa State in health and human performance, and this is one of the areas I looked at a lot.  Both you and Liz were spot on with the 2/3 figure.  Here are two references:

1-Hettinger J: Physiology of Strength, Springfield, IL, Charles Thomas, 1961

2-Holloway JB: Individual differences and their implications for resistance training, in Baechle TR (ed): Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning, Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics, 1994, pp 151-162

HOWEVER, we need to look at what this information has to say to us.  The average woman is 2/3 as strong as the average man.  We know that.  Has anyone looked at *why* that is the case?  Yes, they have.  Let me post an abstract/article from "Physician and Sportsmedicine Journal":

++++++++++

"Research (1,2) on male and female strength potential reveals that women possess about two thirds of the strength of men. However, the measurement of strength in absolute terms fosters misconceptions about the strength of women, how women see themselves, and the way they exercise.

What causes this strength difference? Are there ways to conceptualize strength that affirm women's potential and encourage their development?

**Most significantly, if the amount of lean body mass is factored into the strength equation, the relative strength difference between men and women is less appreciable. Based on a strength-to-lean-body-mass ratio, women are about equal in strength to men, and when strength is calculated per cross-sectional area of muscle, no significant gender difference exists. For example, a 15 cm2 cross-sectional area of an arm flexor has about 19 kg of force for both women and men (6). **

Measuring strength in this way suggests that muscle at the cellular level has a force development capability independent of sex and that women benefit from strength training at least as much as men. Hence men and women should follow strength training procedures that include periodization--variations in the resistance training program that are implemented over a specific time--and exercise performed at intensities and volumes suited to physical ability and level of strength conditioning. Ultimately, each athlete should be assessed as an individual, and training programs should meet individual needs and goals, rather than those based on preconceived ideas about gender"

6- Ikai M, Fukunago T: Calculation of muscle strength per unit cross sectional area of human muscle by means of ultrasonic measurement. Int Z Angew Physiol 1968;26:26-32

++++++++++

Take a look at the paragraph that I starred.  What does all this information say to me?

1) The 'average' woman is 2/3 as strong as the 'average' man.

2) Why?  Apparently because the average woman weighs about 2/3 of the average man, because

3) Once bodyweight or cross-section is controlled for, the strength of men and women is equal.

What that all REALLY says to me is that you need NO gender formula if you are already using the Lynch formula.  If you apply a formula based on bodyweight, you have already made a correction for the difference in men and women, and therefore if you make a *another* correction you are double-dipping.  Essentially, controlling for bodyweight and gender is doing the same thing, because the only scientifically demonstrated gender difference (with regards to strength) is the average difference in size and bodyweight.

And that is not me making that up or speculating, but the actual research that is out there to date.

JFK

[mobsterone]

Yes, yes, yes,would this mean I'd have got a trophy? :p

[jimwylie1]

NO!  :p

[mobsterone]

I will give a lovely round and shiney pound coin to the first of the posters here who comes up with a formula which enables me to get a trophy.

Otherwise its all....

he he