Likes Likes:  20
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 92

Thread: New weight classes thread

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    1,264
    Post Thanks / Like

    New weight classes thread

    When are the new weight classes being decided?

    Phil Andrews!

  2. #2
    Member deeby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    563
    Post Thanks / Like
    Phil Andrews! Phil Andrews! Phil Andrews!

    (You have to say it 3 times)

  3. Likes Blairbob liked this post
  4. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    317
    Post Thanks / Like
    Pretty sure its July 2018.

    10 weight classes per gender and 7 for the Olympics. When I first heard that it made no sense, however the more I think about it the more I'm coming around to the idea. I think it is ultimately tied to the multi-factorial approach to limiting doping in weightlifting.

    The announcement of limiting countries to 4 entries per gender in the Olympics stops sate-sponsored doping programs from blanket dominating.
    The announcement that lifters will have to compete 6 times in the 2 year qualifying period before the Olympics thwarts the opportunity to dope in isolation away from independent testing.
    More weight classes spreads out the impact of state-sponsored doping during the qualifying period.

    All those changes together will have an impact.

    For men I like 60, 66, 73, 80, 88, 96, 103, 112, 125, 125+ the weight jumps are 6kg, 7kg, 7kg, 8kg, 8kg, 9kg, 13kg

    For the Olympics my 7 for men would be 66, 73, 80, 88, 96, 112, 112+

    For women I like 50, 54, 59, 64, 70, 76, 83, 90, 100, 100+

    For the Olympics the 7 for women would be 50, 54, 59, 64, 76, 90, 90+

    I'm less certain about my feelings for the female classes than the men's.

  5. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    519
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkpeter View Post
    Pretty sure its July 2018.

    10 weight classes per gender and 7 for the Olympics. When I first heard that it made no sense, however the more I think about it the more I'm coming around to the idea. I think it is ultimately tied to the multi-factorial approach to limiting doping in weightlifting.

    The announcement of limiting countries to 4 entries per gender in the Olympics stops sate-sponsored doping programs from blanket dominating.
    The announcement that lifters will have to compete 6 times in the 2 year qualifying period before the Olympics thwarts the opportunity to dope in isolation away from independent testing.
    More weight classes spreads out the impact of state-sponsored doping during the qualifying period.

    All those changes together will have an impact.

    For men I like 60, 66, 73, 80, 88, 96, 103, 112, 125, 125+ the weight jumps are 6kg, 7kg, 7kg, 8kg, 8kg, 9kg, 13kg

    For the Olympics my 7 for men would be 66, 73, 80, 88, 96, 112, 112+

    For women I like 50, 54, 59, 64, 70, 76, 83, 90, 100, 100+

    For the Olympics the 7 for women would be 50, 54, 59, 64, 76, 90, 90+

    I'm less certain about my feelings for the female classes than the men's.
    Where did you read that about the 10-7 weight classes, and the requirement to compete 6 times in the qualifying period? I missed those somehow.

    Also you have another 7kg jump in your men's classes from 96 to 103, and I'm not sure I would agree with increasing the minimum weight class by 4kg and then adding two classes at the top end of the men.

  6. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    317
    Post Thanks / Like
    Can't even read my own god damn writing.... I'm losing it. That should be 104 then.

    If I'm not mistaken, Mr Andrews already mentioned some of this on reddit recently. 10 classes seems like a lot, but it makes sense in a multi-factor method of confronting doping with things central management can actually control...... how many classes? how many people from each can qualify? how often do they have to be exposed to independent testing?

  7. #6
    Member jockomoron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Fremont, CA
    Posts
    246
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkpeter View Post
    If I'm not mistaken, Mr Andrews already mentioned some of this on reddit recently.
    For reference.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/weightlifti...fting/dqw4nfg/

  8. Likes Hawkpeter liked this post
  9. #7
    Member Blairbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    2,488
    Post Thanks / Like
    10 and 7. Weird. I could 7 base classes whereas 10 divvy it up more with closer weight gaps but this seems just odd.

  10. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    519
    Post Thanks / Like
    Missed that thread on Reddit. And seeing as I have much more important things to do, I did some mathing on what 10 weight classes could look like.

    In a thread back in June (here: http://wlforums.com/forums/showthrea...weight+classes) people were speculating what 7 weight classes would look like and mb_here came up with some equations (based on minimal changes at the upper and lower limits and assuming current classes are reasonable), and using those equations with lowest classes of 47 for the women and 55 for the men, 10 classes would look like:

    Women - 47, 51, 55, 60, 65, 70, 76, 83, 91, 91+ (changed 90 to 91 to avoid reusing the class)
    Men - 55, 60, 65, 70, 76, 82, 89, 97, 106, 106+ (changed 105 to 106 to avoid reusing the class)

    Then I used the same equations, but changed where we would end at (to around 95 for the women and around 115 for the men), and that looked like:

    Women - 47, 51, 56, 61, 67, 73, 80, 87, 95, 95+
    Men - 55, 60, 66, 73, 80, 87, 95, 104, 115, 115+ (fudged two of these by a kilo to avoid reusing the 105s while keeping the increases nice)

    Then I used the current sinclair coefficients to calculate a projected WR total for a new lowest class, and determined classes based on a constant proportional increase (came out to ~5%) in projected WR total up to the WR superheavy totals used to calculate the coefficients (473 and 348 for men and women, respectively), and that looked like:

    Women - 47, 50, 54, 59, 64, 70, 78, 88, 104, 104+ (changed 58 to 59 to avoid reusing the class)
    Men - 55, 59, 63, 68, 74, 81, 90, 102, 119, 119+

    I went with 47 and 55 as starting points mostly as a pushback to all the people who seem to think we should do away with the smaller lifters, even if we're adding classes. That's crazy to me.

    No idea how any of these would drop from 10 classes to 7. I'm actually not sure what the fairest way to do that would be.
    Last edited by TheJonty; 12-13-2017 at 03:47 AM.

  11. Likes Blairbob, Hawkpeter, mb_here liked this post
  12. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    816
    Post Thanks / Like
    10 is too many imo, especially in regards to the women. We end up with the risk of there being some very uncompetitive classes and having very little clear differences in the weights lifted between the classes.

    It will result in worlds/etc. having to be two days longer than they are currently which will make it even harder to find countries willing to host them.

    Personally I think the goal should be to make the sport as competitive, exciting and spectator friendly as possible and for me expanding to 10 classes would be a backwards step in that regard.

  13. Likes Blairbob liked this post
  14. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    599
    Post Thanks / Like
    Simple solution for worlds would be to combine the two or three closest categories and run them at the same time. This wouldn't work for all classes but definitely useful for the three that eventually would be dropped for the Olympics.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •