Opinions wanted on formula?

[carolann]

Bobby would like some feed back on this if you have a little time!
Thank you.

I was talking last week with friend Jon Grove, he mentioned he was interested in a formula so women could compete on equal ground with the men in their Itermural Team meet this year. Also with more and more Pro AM meets today, women could compete on the same platform with the men for cash prizes.


Here’s the CAM Factor!

Here is a formula, that will compare women to men so the women can compete straight up in the Pro Am meets, and in team meets. It seems to be very accurate!
I took the number one men's total, and divided it by the number one female total. I did this for the following weight class.
114, - (1.31)
123, - (1.26)
132, - (1.24)
148, - (1.34)
165, - (1.27)
181, - (1.39)
198, - (1.31)
and men's 242 to women's SHW - (1.28)

I added these numbers together and divided them by 8 and it was 1.30, you take the female total, and multiply it times 1.30, then multiply that number by the same men's formula for their body weight (Schwartz)

Example:

(148 class)
Amy Weisberger best total is 1440 at 147, times 1.3 = 1872 times .7339 = 1373.86
(#1 men’s 148 total is 1930 at 148, times .7294 = 1407.74)

(165 class)
Laura Phelps best total is 1715 at 163, times 1.3 = 2229 times .6720 = 1497.89
(#1 men’s 165 total is 2171 times .6656 = 1445.02)

(SHW class)
Becca Swanson best total is 2050 at 247, times 1.3 = 2665 times .5342 = 1423.64
(#1 men’s 275 total is 2800 at 271, times .5239 = 1466)

Lets hear some feed back from men and women.

[Bud Lyte]

"To be the best, you have to beat the best!"
:: Ric Flair ::

There has never been a truly best powerlifter for many reasons. There's been the best in this faction or that faction, the best at this meet or that meet, but even then, separated by gender. I don't recall a woman ever getting the Best Lifter award, which is just wrong.

With this formula - and WCPP adopting it - we will finally see open powerlifting competition.

Of course, most guys being... well.... GUYS, will run for the hills at the prospect of having their asses handed to them by women. I say BRING IT ON! Let the wusses run and hide while the real men and true athletes come forward to EARN their places among the best!

Sure, the masses will cry out to keep the sport as its been for the last 2 decades, but change is inevitable thus unstoppable. Besides, even the stubbornest mule will follow the right carrot.

I look forward to this formula being accepted and used consistently by all progressives in the sport. I also look forward to a full BMF Sports Powerlifting Team with the likes of Carol Ann and Robyn helping to take this sport out of basements and banquet rooms and into the limelight.

[On a side note, every guy knows there's almost nothing hotter than a woman who can kick his ass at something. ;D]

[bigarm19]

I don't pretend to know the answer to this dilemma. BUT!! It needs to be done. There are some excellent women lifters who will never receive the recognition they deserve with out change. I know all the Brutus's out there will disagree. Thats only because there trinket collectors. Its all about look at me. Heck I don't only want to be in competition with Masters 220 class Men. Bring on the Women too. Or is the ego to big for that?

[jeffwilson]

"Whoooooooo!" - I love it when people quote Ric Flair!!!

Seriously though, if we are talking about truly crowning a champion - about recognizing the best of the best then this formula is a necessity. Feds do it with Wilkes to crown overall men's and women's champs, so why not use this in conjunction to crown the true overall best of the meet - and that will be the lifter that walks away with the biggest check.

If that's how the WCCP will go, then I think you'll see a lot more lifters training their a$$es off to be at the top of their game because they'll have to be better than everyone on the platform instead of just better than the other two dudes in their weight class.

[carolann]

1.3 is a little low, (that was a average of the #1 female to the #1 male in the same weight class). I went back and averaged all the top 20 together and this is what I got:

114 - 1.22
123 - 1.23
132 - 1.26
148 - 1.30
165 - 1.28
181 - 1.41
198 - 1.48
SHW- 1.59 (this won was average with the men's 242 class or this number would have been much higher)
Remember, Laura Phelps is at the top of the 165-181, and Becca Swanson is at the top of the 198-SHW.

Average factor is 1.35 times a females total, times Schwartz coefficients for that lifters body weight!

Recommendations: Would this work better per weight class, or one average for all women?

[Bud Lyte]

Does this formula apply to unequipped as well as equipped or just equipped? We'll sponsor select sanctioned equipped events (as long s there are unequipped divisions), but WCPP will be totally unequipped.

[Deleted]

I dont want to be an ass here but this is over kill.the current formulas are already set up that way. Ill give you the same examples you just listed but Ill use the wilks formula. 1440 @ 147 female is 671 wks and the 1930@148 male is 674. The 165 is 701 wilks for the men and the 1715 by Phelps is 745 wilks. Beccas Total equates to 749 wilks and the 2799 at 271 equates to 726 wilks. To me these numbers seem much more accurate. Beccas total should be better than the 2799 male for one reason. that reason is that no single woman is anywhere close to becca (400 pounds away) and the men are within 200.

[carolann]

That's what this is about, opinions.
Using Laura or Becca is not the best examples, because the are so far ahead of their nearest competition.

The Wilks formula is great, but it very heavily favors larger lifters (as in body weight). That is why Bobby was trying to come up with something a little more accurate (primarily for cash meets)

So after looking at all the formulas, it looked as if Schwartz was the most accurate from bottom to top. Now you have to have a way of comparing men to women, that's where the 1.3 comes in.

Here's an example of how the top male 148 stacks up against the top male 242 using Schwartz :

Schwartz-Malone

#1 Man at 242 - 242lbs 0.5367 2630lbs (1411.521) 100% 1
#1Man at 148 - 148lbs 0.7294 1930lbs (1407.742) 99.73% 2

Less than 4 points separating these two lifters. Using the Wilks formula there were 24.55 points difference.

Now if you multiply the female total by 1.3, and use the Schwartz formula, well it makes the race much tighter. Of course Laura will most likely dominate the light weights, but the heavy weights will still be dominated by the male lifters (because Becca is retired)

Everyone please remember this, No formula is fool proof. All you can do is try to use the most accurate one you can.

[Deleted]

Well I agree that there not going to be perfect. I used the Wilks as an example but you can use the shwartz if you want but thats not what Im talking about (I'll get to that later). What I am saying is that these formulas are already set up to compare men with women. Thats why they have different standards of formulas. example: 1500 at 165 male is 998 shwartz points and 1500 at 165 female is 1084 points. If they werent already set up to compare each sex then both would be 998. For a female 165 to have 998 points she would only have to total around 1380. Now for the reason I used the wilks is this. The shwartz formula was developed in the 1970s and used 1970's criteria. Times have changed and the lighter lifters have become pound for pound much stronger than they were in comparison to the heavy weights in general. The use of a formula in competition is to balance out the current differences. Robert Wilks did talk to Lyle Shwartz before creating the wilks formula and Dr shwartz said his formula was out dated and should have been abandoned long ago. Here is what im talking about, now surely you agree that a 1380@ 165 Female is better than a 1500 at 165 male well using the wilks it is. in fact its way better, its 595 wilks for a woman and 485 points for a male. much more accurate than the Shwartz saying they are both equal. Its because the Wilks is based on todays lifters.

[carolann]

Dec 30, 2008 17:39:48 GMT -5 @jpitbullv said:

Well I agree that there not going to be perfect. I used the Wilks as an example but you can use the shwartz if you want but thats not what Im talking about (I'll get to that later). What I am saying is that these formulas are already set up to compare men with women. Thats why they have different standards of formulas. example: 1500 at 165 male is 998 shwartz points and 1500 at 165 female is 1084 points. If they werent already set up to compare each sex then both would be 998. For a female 165 to have 998 points she would only have to total around 1380. Now for the reason I used the wilks is this. The shwartz formula was developed in the 1970s and used 1970's criteria. Times have changed and the lighter lifters have become pound for pound much stronger than they were in comparison to the heavy weights in general. The use of a formula in competition is to balance out the current differences. Robert Wilks did talk to Lyle Shwartz before creating the wilks formula and Dr shwartz said his formula was out dated and should have been abandoned long ago. Here is what im talking about, now surely you agree that a 1380@ 165 Female is better than a 1500 at 165 male well using the wilks it is. in fact its way better, its 595 wilks for a woman and 485 points for a male. much more accurate than the Shwartz saying they are both equal. Its because the Wilks is based on todays lifters.

I do understand! What Bobby was trying to say is WILKS favor heavy body weight lifters!

Male at 165 - total 1500 with schwartz =998.40
female 165 - 1380 (with 1.3 factor) schwartz = 1194.09 this would be equivalent to a 165 male totaling 1794!

Final post.

[Deleted]

The wilks states that a1380 female is the same as an 1842 male 165. The wilks is just based on todays lifting standards the shwartz is not and thats why you have to include your factor with the shwartz.. Anyway you have my respect for trying to even things out. Todays lifting is so slpintered that its hard to see eye to eye on anything....

[Deleted]

I am going to veer a bit off topic
for the following formula you still need women and men classes but its something to think of

To determine the overall winner with no weight classes in a pro meet
rank each lifter by both heaviest lift and by lb for lb( body weight divided by total) for each lift I.E. squat, bench deadlift

the winner is the person with the most points, say there is 10 lifters and you get #1 out of 10 benchers for the heaviest lift you score 10 points, than you also place 5th at lb for lb best lifter scoring 6 points

you scored a total of 16 points on the bench press

Just a thought I used it once and worked out good lots of figuring though.