View Full Version : A Basic Weightlifting Competition Question

Pete Gordon

11-19-2010, 05:01 PM

I was reading Greg's book last night, mostly about competition rules.

I just want to clarify something...

Let's say that there are two liters in a weight class. Sure there could be 20, let's just keep it at two. They're names are 'A' & 'B'. Their lifting in the 69kg class.

At weigh in 'A' weighed 67.5 & 'B' weighed 68.5.

Let's also say that at the end of the competition the total for 'A' is 160kg with 'B' having a total of 175.

Who would win in this example? I'm under the impression that if 'A' lifted more at a lighter weight, he'd win. Which leads me to think that 'B' would be awarded first place with 'B' being heavier & moving more.

Is this when the sinclair formula would come into play?

Andrew Wilson

11-19-2010, 05:55 PM

I was reading Greg's book last night, mostly about competition rules.

I just want to clarify something...

Let's say that there are two liters in a weight class. Sure there could be 20, let's just keep it at two. They're names are 'A' & 'B'. Their lifting in the 69kg class.

At weigh in 'A' weighed 67.5 & 'B' weighed 68.5.

Let's also say that at the end of the competition the total for 'A' is 160kg with 'B' having a total of 175.

Who would win in this example? I'm under the impression that if 'A' lifted more at a lighter weight, he'd win. Which leads me to think that 'B' would be awarded first place with 'B' being heavier & moving more.

Is this when the sinclair formula would come into play?

B would win, body mass only comes into play if the two lifters have the same total, which is when the lifter with the lower body mass wins. (this where the sinclair formula comes into play which indicates "pound for pound" the strongest lifter, the lower body mass lifter is actually lifting more mass than the heavier body mass lifter, though they are both lifting the same total. Same applies across weight classes, 56kg are "pound for pound" stronger than superheavies, though they're lifting smaller mass). Check out the 85kg at the 08 olympics

Pete Gordon

11-19-2010, 06:23 PM

Does that explain why in this competition, competitors body weights could be..

67.5

68.3

66.2

68.1

67.3

65.0

68.7

Bigger (heavier) is better? Obviously fighting lighter in some examples is better, ie if 'A' weighed 65kg (with the same total) & B has the same weight & total.

I"m toying with the idea of going up a class. i've been in the late 60kg area for about 2 years now. Going up to mid 70's would be new ground.

Andrew Wilson

11-19-2010, 07:46 PM

Does that explain why in this competition, competitors body weights could be..

67.5

68.3

66.2

68.1

67.3

65.0

68.7

Bigger (heavier) is better? Obviously fighting lighter in some examples is better, ie if 'A' weighed 65kg (with the same total) & B has the same weight & total.

I"m toying with the idea of going up a class. i've been in the late 60kg area for about 2 years now. Going up to mid 70's would be new ground.

Sure is, if the 65kg is competitive with the higher mass in the class and can't cut to 62, sounds like a good plan.

Don Stevenson

11-20-2010, 04:37 AM

In weightlifting the order of precedence is always

1. Highest weight lifted

2. If weights lifted are equal then the lifter with the lighter body weight wins

3. In the event that the weights lifted AND body weights are exactly the same then the lifter who achieved the total first is the winner.

At national level and above lifters are weighed to the nearest 10 grams so it's rare (although not unheard of) for two lifters to be exactly the same weight.

The rationale behind the third rule is that if you achieve a certain total and then your opponent still has a lift left to attempt to beat it then in order to win they must nominate a higher weight instead of just equaling your lift.

Sinclair is used to compare lifters of different weights for things like best lifter at a competition or when you have a comp that is small and there are only a couple of lifters in each weight class but you still want to rank people.

Sinclair is never used to decide the outcome of a tie for place because the 3 rules above take care of it.

Pete Gordon

11-20-2010, 09:48 PM

Fellas, I'd love to hear of some realistic examples of when choosing to go from the 69kg class into the 77's (for example).

Obviously a tactic like this would be appropriate for a competition where the athlete was wanting to qualifying for something, or something similar.

Don Stevenson

11-20-2010, 11:33 PM

There are a few main reasons for changing weight class.

1. Young athletes will obviously tend to progress through heavier weight classes as they grow older.

2. Older novice weightlifters will tend to put on muscle and will often end up in a higher weight class over time or they'll start out fat and lose some weight and go down a class or two.

3. If there are a limited number of spots to qualify for something like nationals or the Olympics athletes on the borderline between two classes might choose to compete in the weight class where they have a better chance of winning. For example if you were at a comp and there were 10 people in the 69s and 2 people in the 77s then anyone stepping up to the 77s is going to be guaranteed a third place and a trophy.

4. For similar reasons if a team has two strong athletes in one weight class and a gap in the next class up or down someone might get sacrificed slightly to try and place in the other class.

Mostly this sort of stuff happens in countries where there are few weightlifters and you can gain points and places by shuffling around. In places with plenty of weightlifters your chances of pulling of this sort of thing are greatly reduced.

With beginner weightlifters we never worried about their weight category and if they got heavier we'd just let them put on muscle to a certain point. Once they showed some potential we'd then assess their chances in each division a bit more closely and take into account their height etc in determining where they should probably lift.

vBulletin v3.6.2, Copyright ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.