Chit-chat thread

[Hawkpeter]

That's a good point about Wang Guoxin and Chen Wenbin - such a nomination for a coach to the HOF would probably require the right kind of political push and I'm not familiar with how Chinese Weightlifting likes to operate in that world. Not that I would have much perspective as an outsider, but it seems that China is not particularly active on the weightlifting politics front.

China's 40th Gold of the Paris games was Li Wenwen, which drew them equal with the US, weightlifting is an important sport. Weightlifting gave them 5 Gold medals, and almost a 6th. for perspective, Athletics (1), Swimming (2) and Gymnastics (2) only gave them as many.

China won its Gold medals in Paris via:
Diving 8
Shooting 5
Weightlifting 5
Table Tennis 5
Boxing 3
Artistic Swimming 2
Swimming 2
Gymnastics 2
Badminton 2
Canoe Spring 2
The rest with 1

[strapping]

Some topics that I've buzzed around in my head the last few days.
1-5

• As mentioned, we thought Shi had a guaranteed 3rd after Tokyo. There are no certainties in sport nor life. The women's divisions are all uncertainties due to the categories themselves changing, alongside Chinese women's weightlifting being what it is. PRK on its shit could win if they're not banned as well. Some of the names you listed are good enough to be #1 currently. However, they have not shown a level of performance that truly makes them an era defining lifter (e.g. Deng Wei, Lasha, Lyu tier).
• In Liu's case, the 102 category is still relatively weak compared to historical standards. Reeves/Koanda could be beaten by China. Li Wenwen injury problems. Nasar and Luo are the only ones who have demonstrated a clear domination of a category. In Luo's case, that 59kg category has now shaped up to be equal to historical standards more or less. Highly impressive given the difference in circumstances. Nasar is in a category that is still a bit weaker than the past 85kg category but by dominating by an enormous margin.
• As mentioned, Wang Guoxin and Chen Wenbin are more accomplished. The Chinese women are better. However, head coach is a political appointment in all countries. I'm not sure that I'd particularly care unless said coach has done something to really uplift a nation or continent, or to have contributed to the development of coaching significantly. That being said, I guess that is perfectly appropriate for the hall of fame. See - Tamas Ajan in 1992 and various other officials well known for corruption.
• Li Wenwen is not super young but young enough to recover from injury if given the chance to do so. We will have to see if Li Yan (2004 super, not the 53kg) continues to improve. The risk of elbow injury is not so much the heavy attempts themselves but whether or not she can stay healthy as an athlete, which depends on the coaching.
• WADA anti-doping figures for 2023 should come out fairly soon.
• China is politically active, just not directly on the IWF EB. There is some pull on Asian fed level. The AWF is the reason why we got the current unscientific weight classes chosen after the 10+10 was decided. If weightlifting gets removed from the Games, I expect China to lead the forefront of trying to get it back in.

[Hawkpeter]

Bring out all of your weight class speculation!!!

On the men's side I have heard so many variations.

Cutting to 8 seems the most universal element of agreement.

Lopping 45 and 55 also seems quite universal.

61, 67, 73, 81/82, 89/90, 97/98, 108, 108+ have been kicked around the last month.

[Elle]

Do you think some categories will be kept (61,67,73)? Or will they change all of them?

[erpel]

Use the (old) old classes from 60 to 110. Done, you have eight.

[strapping]

As far as I know, 0.0% progress has been made on the decision of what the weight categories will be. It will be more difficult to finalise now too, because it has to get approved by the Athlete's Commission.

[strapping]

https://osf.io/8x3nb/wiki/home/

This has been reworked. The majority of limitations below still apply. They have changed their previous incorrect assumption that Sinclair favors heavier males. However, there are still a number of unproven, unprovable assumptions being made. Subjectively, I think the fact that Lasha scores lower than Li Fabin based on Lasha being fat is a bit silly.

Pre-print article here.

I don't have a huge amount of statistical know-how, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
A few things stand out, having just now read the article and having sent it to a friend with a bigger and wrinklier brain than myself.

• Comparisons to the Robi system doesn't really make sense. The Robi system was purely a qualification ranking system, not an allometric scaling system. The Robi point system didn't exactly do it's job well either.
• They haven't mentioned this discussing the limitations of the study but the data set of 2017-2022 is both good and bad. The good part is that there's likely less drug stuff than the prior quad(s). The bad part is there are two post-Olympic WWC (2017, 2021), with lesser participation.
• They have misrepresented the Sinclair formula and its assumptions, strengths/weaknesses etc. The Sinclair formula uses the World records as an absolute base for what is "possible". This is, as the authors state, a potentially confounding variable given that drugs help you lift more, which is definitely a weakness.
• However, using all* (* = not all) results brings with it other confounding variables. For example, not every WWC is created equal (as above) and not every weight category is created equal.
• The comparison of using zero-positive results in comparison to Sinclair is a pink herring. The Sinclair formula doesn't use redacted results from competitors who've tested positive. Now, let's be frank, not everyone who has set world records is lifetime clean, but they haven't justified that using a whole competition data set is necessarily any cleaner.
• The authors state that the current Sinclair formula favours heavier men and lighter women, and take issue with arbitrary cutoffs. I would have to look back and see, but historically the highest Sinclair totals have appeared to be primarily lightweight and middleweight men. In that article, they argue that Lasha would be ranked fourth. Really? The only current lifter who is far and away the best in his weight category, historically and absolutely? I guess superheavyweight scoring should be scaled by weight, just like the competition results.
• As for the women, I'd have to look at the results but off-hand, I think that quite frankly the heavier women's categories (especially 2018-current) are usually just uncompetitive. W87kg is an ad-hoc category that suits very few women's frames. There are exceptions of course (e.g. Koanda NOR) but overwhelmingly it was/is a shit category for most of its athletes.
• The authors' argument that the smaller standard deviation/spread of results in Q-point analysis vs Sinclair formula analysis of 2017-2022 results makes it superior but this is not true. A larger spread of results doesn't necessarily make the scaling system less valid. So this is kind of a non-point. Additionally, the Q-point system was derived from this data set, whereas the Sinclair formula was derived from the prior quad, giving the Q-point system an "advantage".
• I think there definitely are merits to using a system that takes into account the broader results in weightlifting rather than just the World records, but it's more important that there is clear evidence, rationale and justification for the efficacy of a given system. This paper does not appropriately justify its claims. That doesn't mean that Q-points are bad, but they haven't justified it being a better method than Sinclair.
• I think this is a case of going on stage to perform, without a dress rehearsal. Fundamentally, the ideas behind their proposed scaling system are okay, but they need cleaner, less politically tainted (participation bias) data, and more supporting evidence for the underpinning assumptions of their statistical method (e.g. rates of positives at different performance levels within continental or WWC results).

[strapping]

Use the (old) old classes from 60 to 110. Done, you have eight.

More likely to be 5-6 categories from what I've been hearing.

[Hawkpeter]

How would everyone feel if it turned out they kept the existing classes and dropped 45 and 55 from the bottom end and 81 and 102 at the top end?

Dropping the lightest classes I think is fairly uncontroversial, but 81 and 102 have become some of the most competitive during the most recent Olympic quad and it took long enough for lifters to grow into the class.

[strapping]

How would everyone feel if it turned out they kept the existing classes and dropped 45 and 55 from the bottom end and 81 and 102 at the top end?

Dropping the lightest classes I think is fairly uncontroversial, but 81 and 102 have become some of the most competitive during the most recent Olympic quad and it took long enough for lifters to grow into the class.

"Six, maybe seven categories" is what I've heard, translating from politician-speak to real people speak that means 5-6.

Whilst 8 categories is IMO the ideal number, 6 weight classes is what will fit in the Olympics so 6 is what I want. Non-Olympic categories is a dreadful idea and a waste of money and resources, except for the odd B-tier world champion.

Accepting that, I don't think the distribution of 6 classes would fit neatly from 61 73 89 109 Super - 49 59 71 87 Super. 87 isn't a good category on a competitive basis IMO, even though there are some lifters who are noticeably better at 87 than 81 they are the exception to the rule. 89 to 109 is too big of a jump.

6 categories equitably spaced would be a better solution. The current ones are a result of political meddling anyway.