You often see comments in the form of “Lifter X would be a perfect fit for the old Y Weight Class”.
But what would be a good distribution of weight classes?
Below is a comment by reader “aed939” that was left on Julia Konovalovas 190kg Front Squat Post. He/she took a look at the World Record Totals and proposed the following categories:
- Men: 56, 62, 69, 77, 86, 96, 108, +108
- Women: 48, 53, 59, 65, 72, 80, +80
Your opinions in the comments. The more you take into account actual data of past competitions, the better.
Original Comment:
The lightest weight class should be the best pound-for-pound total (total divided by bodyweight). If the second heaviest weight class can lift more pound-for-pound, then the first weight class is too low. Actually, this is not the case for both men and women in the current weight classes, so it is OK on the low end.
There should be significant increase in totals (both record and sub-record performances) between consecutive classes, and the percentage difference between the superheavyweight and the 2nd heaviest class should be in line with the differences between other consecutive classes.
The men’s current classes are pretty good. The two weight classes that are most close together are 77 and 85, with a bwt difference of 10.39% and a WR total difference of 3.68%. The % difference between the SHW and next heaviest wt class WRs is 8.26%, which is on the high end. The optimal men’s weight classes would probably be 56,62,69,77,86,96,108,+108. But not significant to change on their own.
However, the women’s weight classes are very compressed, and should be more spaced out. The worst is 58 to 63kg, which is an increase of only 8.62%, and the WR total only increases 3.98%. Almost as bad is 69 and 75kg classes, which are 8.70% apart and the total increases only 3.50%. Also the increase in total between 75 and +75 classes is 12.84%, which is way out of line. Therefore, I propose the revised weight classes for women to be 48,53,59,65,72,80,+80. When the women’s classes are changed, might as well tweak the men’s at the same time.
The issue with using current WRs is that some are set by freak outliers. The OP said the difference between the 69 and 75 WRs is too close, that’s becuase Liu Chunhong is a one of a kind freak outlier (128/158). Her total would have won the 75 category at Beijing. The closest anyone has approached her total (in international competition) since is Xiang Yanmei, who did 123/148 at Wroclaw. Using average top 3 results would give a better view of the trend of results of a weight class.
Same as people looking at the 85/94 snatch WRs. No one at 85 has snatched over 180 except Rybakou and Dimas.
I agree that the women’s weight classes need to be more spaced out. 48, 54, 60, 67, 75, 85, 85+ would be a good spread as I feel there should be a weight class between 75 and supers because you get some supers competing around mid 80s to low 90s who aren’t competitive at SHW, plus some 75s who don’t have the build to gain enough weight to be competitive at SHW.
Asanidze did 180 at 85 as well.
Last time I checked 180 is not over 180.
Otherwise I agree wity the outliers statement!
He did 181@EWC2000, which was the WR until Rybakou came along.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnR2JoCDfXs
This is a very interesting topic!! I am looking forward too see the suggestions. I would raise both first weight classes at least with 2 kgs because those small lifters cut the most weight and that’s cruel. Erasing the 52 kg weight class in the first place happened exactly because of that. So for me the women 48 kgs would become 50 kgs and the man’s 56 kgs would go up to 58 or 59 kg. It could adjust almost all classes by 2-3 kilos but between the first and the heavyweight classes they seem about OK for me. Both the men and the women heavys should go up to 80-82 kgs and 108-110 kgs. I can imagine an additional weight class between 105 and +105 like 115 kg but the old 108 or 110 kgs cat would be the best.
The issue with raising the lowest categories is that’s a very Eurocentric notion. Over here the best in those were (borderline?) midgets (Suley, Mutlu), while in Asia that’s just a muscular bodyweight for a short, but still normally proportioned man.
Take the crazy 2013 National Games of China as an example. The 56kg was one of the most competitive classes ever, with five guys doing 290+. To compare this to our “large guys”, there has never been a comp where five guys did 420+@105. So while “we” don’t have the numbers down there, they do and vice versa. Local populations represent in WL as well.
Europeans/Russians/Americans see everything through the lenses of what a “normal” muscular man is like for them, i.e. roughly 77-105. In Asia that’s different. Watching CHN WL coverage it’s dawning quickly that e.g. Wu Jingbiao is a star over there and gets more airtime than the big guys while he’s a mnor name in the English speaking world.
The number of 56-77 lifters world wide is likely higher than those 77-SHW.
Maybe you are right. 56 kg is probably good enough for lowest weight class. Good perspective – I was thinking just like you said and it’s wrong.
in 105+ there is no athletes between 105 and 130kg almost all of 105+ guys have weight over 130kg.
There are plenty of guys competing as SHW without being fat, it’s just that most of them apart from Marchokov and Chigichev aren’t on the podiums.
IWF are proposing a new female weightclass to the IOC for implementation at 2017 in prep for the 2020 olympics. Only thing I could find was a proposed new 93kg weightclass.
http://www.reddit.com/r/weightlifting/comments/2hj07x/zhou_lulu_chn_new_womens_75_cj_wr_192kg/cktjayy
Source and quote for reading ease:
“12 Bodyweight Categories – Review
The Committee after deliberation and with counseling from Dr. Ajan agreed that the review and possible introduction of an extra bodyweight category for female and the review of all bodyweight categories should aim for inclusion in the 2020 Olympic Program as it is impossible to achieve this result by 2016. The new version of bodyweight categories should start implementation as from 2017 after receiving an assurance from the IOC that such will be accepted.
This item was deferred to the next meeting but in the meantime a composite Commission should be appointed with 3 persons from each of the 3 Committees with assistance from the IWF staff and the President who would choose the Chairman and determine the timeline for
meetings and places.”
http://www.iwf.net/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/11/2013.1-TC-MEETING-REPORT-WROCLAW.pdf
There are two more interesting points in the document.
Firstly, it seems that oscillating of the bar will be allowed in the future. I didn’t understand if they have agreed on it or just agreed on evaluating the change.
Secondly, this was an interesting read: “CRC is considering a recommendation to the TC regarding the elimination of the press out rule based of further discussions and analysis.”
At least in the clean and jerk, I think press-outs should be allowed. The press itself was dropped in 1972, and since then there is really no need to disallow press-outs in the jerk. They are more of a way to save a jerk gone wrong than a way to lift heavier pundages, as I see it.
re: pressout rule > that document was from 2009 and in other pdfs (2012 > http://www.iwf.net/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/12/2011.1-TC-MEETING-REPORT-PENANG.pdf ) this was brought up again and denied.
re: oscillation rule > that was implemented into the 2013-2016 rule book ( http://www.iwf.net/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/10/IWF-TCRR-September-2013.pdf ) unfortunately the first google result for “weightlifting rules” is the draft so it keeps getting spread around that you must wait for the barbell to stop oscillating.
The current rule is:
“2.5.4.2 Any deliberate oscillation of the barbell to gain advantage. The athlete
must become motionless before starting the Jerk.”
There are some other interesting things from the minutes like Kahki wanted 4 attempts per lift and larger diameters of discs. Also they’re doing a study on crossfit (apparently the report comes out in November).
Didn’t notice that the document was old, thanks for clearing that up.
Second quote:
“Mr. Jones’s suggestions: submitted a proposal: modifying body weight categories men/women based on different progression between categories.
Equalize the body weight categories between men and women.
Motion by Mr. Jones: The body weight categories men and women should be changed based on a increment progression presented in the attached document. It is also the recommendation of the CRC that an additional body weight category (93, +93) for women be introduced following the progression outlined.”
http://www.iwf.net/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/05/SofiaJWC_2010_CRC.pdf
If anyone has the paper that Mr Jones presented that’s be pretty interesting.
93 is way too high though. Kashirina would diet down a bit and her records would probably end up being 148/185, which again would make the categories look daft.
I agree, the gap from the -75kg class would be too large.
Sorry for the spam, I did some further digging and most of the other reports I found were simply reiterating those two, this one did give reasons for why they are thinking about doing it though.
Third source:
“Discussion of Mr. Coffa’s, Chairman of the IWF TC proposals
1. Consideration of redesign the bodyweight categories
Why should we do it?
1. Compliance with the Olympic Charter and the IOCs modern requirements of gender equity and equality.
2. New changes and dynamics in the bodyweight of world population
3. The irregular standard deviation from the Bell curve of body weight distribution of world population based on age, continent, gender
4. The possibility to bring new world records in the sport .
5. More bodyweight category possible new excitement of the sport itself
6. Harmonious, equitable leveled playing field (???)
How will we go about it?
Proposal by Chairman: Mr. Pierce should return to the Committee a statistical analysis of the world data on population.
Mr. Pierce volunteers to do a search of the World Health Organization data available on world population weight distribution analysis by race, continent, etc and make a report, an analysis and commentary, which will be put on the IWF website. Unanimously agreed by the committee. Criteria based on which the change should be considered.
The committee members define and proposed 8 different criteria: ”
http://www.iwf.net/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/05/GoyangWWC_2009_CRC.pdf
I think the current weight classes are fine, However, I would love to see a 115kg added. I think there are a few lifters who would cut weight for that. Evgeny Chigishev would have fit this weight perfectly.
Came in to post this. Weightlifting is a big man’s sport, and it’s a little silly to have so many small weightclasses and then just end at 105. No reason to change the current classes, however. It’d just wipe all the records, and while some lifters would be happy about it, there would be just as many who would then be at a disadvantage.
And honestly it might should even be 120 or 125.
120 kg would be a bombastic animal weightclass!!! 🙂
powerlifting typically has a 125kg class and its usually filled with beasts
No it isn’t and that’s an ignorant statement.
If you only care about SHW or the current three or so “stars” that US crossfitters know about then that’s fine. But please don’t talk about weightlifting.
Haha, I think you entirely misunderstood me. I didn’t mean that I only cared about heavy lifters. I simply mean that it is a sport where big men can do well. This is actually very rare: almost all Olympic sports aren’t full of huge guys. In WLing strength increases with bodyweight a LOT even after 105. It doesn’t make sense to distinguish between a 94 and a 105, and then not between a 125 guy and a 160 kg athlete.
I am behind everett 100 %, nobody is saying they dont care about lighter classes, but if you are a 1,70-1,80 man you have so many weight classes to “choose” from, while if you are over 1,90 you pretty much have only one choice and one choice only, and it is not even close to where a “healthy” 1,90 m athlete should weigh at (hint: you are not gonna be winning a lot being a 120 kg shw)
I have that problem, dont want to be a FAT LIGHT SHW or a super fat SHW.
That didn’t really come across in your first post. I definitely agree that a class between 105 and super would be a good idea.
Ronnie Weller would have been unstoppable at 125kg. He almost won SHW olympic gold TWICE as a very small (structure I know he was big in bodyweight) SHW.
77kg, 85kg, 94kg, 105kg, 125kg,150kg?
Personally I enjoy the lighter weightclasses as much as the heavier. To see a person clean and jerk three times bodyweight is just mindboggling.
The only changes needed are with the women’s classes but if you change existing weight classes you render all current records obsolete and that would be a tremendous injustice to the lifters who set them. We’d all like, for instance, to see how long Liu ChunHong’s outstanding records will last as they are especially impressive and if the 69kg class were to go, then we’d never know. What is needed is to insert a new class between 75kg and super-heavy to enable those lifters (I can think of a few) who are by nature too big for one and too small for the other. No-one’s records would be eradicated this way. All super heavy figures would still stand as well as the other classes. There’d even be room for two new classes (Say, 83gk and 90kg) and it would still have no effect on existing records.
David Morgan made the point about the old weight classes, that if you competed in a lighter weight class which was then changed into a heavier one, the record should still stand. For example if the new class was 79kg then Lu’s snatch record would stay until someone in the new class broke it. Although, to counter his point, I’ve heard that classes which were changed back in ~1997/2000s were to do with fair sports (doping) also.
May be we can use olympic wrestling classes?
For the lazy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrestling_weight_classes
That is a weird grouping. Some are spaced out quite well (86-97) but others are way too close (57-61)
Why not use the sinclair calculation instead? Suppose we want 8 weightclasses that are equidistant from adjacent weightclasses based on sinclair (The difference between Y-values in the chart below is the same between weightclasses). Starting at Y=0.125 with increments of 0.025 and ending with Y=0.275, the resultant weightclasses would be 60,65,71,80,87,99,119 and 119+kg. Note that the chart tops out at around Y=0.3, x=174kg.
For women, we have 7 weightclasses and an apex at around Y=0.4. Starting at Y=0.19 with increments of 0.035 and ending with Y=0.365, the weightclasses would be 49,54,60,67,78,94 and 94+kg.
I know my choices in Y-values are arbitrary and there are other factors at play but it makes more sense to use sinclair rather than a bodyweight multiplier.
The chart is taken from IWF’s website “Sinclair Coefficients 2013”
Correction: For men it should be 78kg class not 80kg.
I really like this methodology and I think the resulting bodyweight categories are pretty reasonable.
Women: No one can relate to 48/49 kg. Believe it or not 50 kg is a weight that most women around the world understand. Question is how many women watch ladies weightlifting to start with.
On the opposite side of scale -90 and +90kg makes more sense than +75.
And there’s 94 and 105’s WR difference. Thanks Ilya, you sexy beast 😉
I’d like to see what it would look like without any weight classes, but rather essentially “pound for pound” competitors. Only the current data would be used to create an equation that would account for the current non-linear progression of “pound for pound”. Think about it, just the shear awesome show it would be, to see every athlete at their peak weight to ability, and with the freedom to make progress year round without having to limit themselves to a weight class because it would take too long in their limited time frame of a career to get good at the next level?
Right now the men’s classes are separate by 10%. If that were increased to 12% beginning at 57 the rest of the classes would be: 65; 73; 82; 92; 103; 115; 115+. Much fairer to the bigger lifters.