Weightlifting Forums

Since the masters split at the end of last year internationally, it has felt to me that this was a proxy war for how the IWF might end up going should the IOC kick the sport to the curb. Now obviously its very different because Masters has little to no significance in large parts of the IWF family, but some of the elements of this are playing out how I fear a larger split in the sport could occur.

I hope Masters WL gets to the other side of this tumultuous time okay as its a huge part of the sport and its future growth.

There is now a 'weigh in only' option for lifters at World championships.

That's a good move, and the explanation is clear.

Are you ready for Q points.

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).

https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles ... foreigners

Surprising news, but I will wait to see what actually happens before I make a judgement.

If North Korea announced that it was hosting an international competition, and there were decent attendees, I think curiosity would get the better of me and I would consider going to spectate.

I believe it when we see a change, i.e. less insane results or at least 1-2 suspensions. There's a whole layer of political bureaucracy above those affirming coaches.

Some pleasing news, and I hope this isn't Brian Oliver jumping the gun.

"How many medal events?"

Is the question though. That'll decide the new weight categories.

One. Everyone versus Lasha, including Wenwen.