Topic: Slotgate revisited

[Jim Hooper]

Our system, designed on the "likely to place highest" model, assumes that one can predict what "likely to place highest at the Olympics" is going to be, based on recent Worlds placings.

Well . . . was it predictive of what it purported to predict?  How does it square with reality?

1.  In the 77's, the pertinent Olympics results were:

13th-341
14th-329
15th-325

Looking at Chad's average total in majors 2006-2008 (about 326) and his Trials total (333), he'd have placed in this shot group lifting in that range.  If he had a stunning performance and put 7 kilos on his best recent total (which, unless I am mistaken, was that 333 at the Trials), he'd have finished 14th, a kilo behind the 341. 

2.  In the 85s, the pertinent Olympics results were:

7th-367
8th-362 (Kendrick)
9th-361
10th-356
11th-346

Looking at Kendrick's average majors 2006-2008 (about 348) and his Trials (355, equal to his best total to that time), he would have placed 11th if he had lifted within that range.  Of course, he lifted off the hook and hit that 362 and took 8th, with 5 kgs of ground between him and 7th and 18 kgs out of the medals.  (Our top ranked lifter vastly exceeded reasonable expectations and got a great result, which is a great credit to him, but which in no way validates the formula, but instead suggests that it errs in both directions.)

3.  In the 105+ class, the pertinent results are:

7th-419
8th-413
9th-386
10th-385
11th-366

Looking at Casey's majors average 2006-2008 (about 389) and Trials result (404), he'd have placed 9th lifting in that range, and in that same spot even if he'd had a Kendrick type day and hit 410ish.  Pretty consistent with his WC performance in 2007.  It seems very likely to me he'd have hit that 10th place total (385) on a 4 for 6 type day.  He'd have hit the 11th place total in the warmup room.

My point is not to argue about which two of these three lifters "should have gone."  I think anybody who knows me knows that I think these guys are three of the very best weightlifters on the planet, for reasons I won't belabor, and I ain't ever going to get over SlotGate.  My point is that the assumption behind the current system -- that one can apply the formula and meaningfully optimize Olympic placings -- seems bogus. 

I'd prefer a selection system that ranked contenders based on a more certain "hard target," established years in advance, so they all know what they are shooting for -- be it GS, % of ARs or WRs, whatever -- but not a percentage of a floating total that waxes and wanes year to year based on events happening with other lifters in other environments, and that appears to have poor predictive value anyway.

We don't pick marathoners based on trying to predict "who will finish the least far behind the Kenyans" based on average top three times among the Kenyans year to year.  We send the fastest American marathoners.  They have the simplicity of a time clock and don't have to deal with weight class issues, but a more objective "merit" type standard could nonetheless be used in our sport.

   

[Paul LaDuke]

I'd prefer a selection system that ranked contenders based on a more certain "hard target," established years in advance, so they all know what they are shooting for -- be it GS, % of ARs or WRs, whatever -- but not a percentage of a floating total that waxes and wanes year to year based on events happening with other lifters in other environments, and that appears to have poor predictive value anyway.

Jim,

Great post and well stated!  I agree that the QTs should be set early in the Quad and left alone!  The 2008 Olympic QTs were changed every year during the quad, and even worse from what I understand were revamped completely halfway through the quad!  Ridiculous! 

I really like the idea of using the Golden Standard. But using the GS doesn't establish a QT for each weight class and therefore there isn't a total to work towards.  I am not sure if that is a bad thing as the GS seems to be the fairest and most objective formula out there, but there still isn't that hard number for the motivated athlete to hang up in his locker, write on the wall of his room, tattoo in his mind, etc.  That is the only drawback I see of using the GS.

I think the biggest point to learn from this whole fiasco is to do everything we can to ensure our best athletes are in their best shape and highly motivated to lift well at international competitions.  There is no reason for us to be ranked 28th in the world with the quality of lifters we currently have.  The USAW needs to ensure that these athletes are at the points competitions earning us a Top 20 ranking and qualifying more lifters for the 2012 Olympics.  It would be insanity to be in this same position in 4 years!

[mikeburgener]

i know i am dad, but in this situation i am a coach.  the world championships are critical to our qualifying our athletes.  had kendrick had his 362 day at the wc we would have probably taken 4 people. had cody gibbs totaled i am sure we would have 4 athletes in the olympics.   chad has never been a good international competitor, kendrick has not lived up to his potential in the past but he really came thru at the games.....i hope this will be the case for future teams.   my suggestion is that the coach/athlete be super conservative for openers at the worlds to get in as many pure totals as possible.   you never know at the end of the day where you will be left standing.....in 03 greg schouten and chad bombed.....had they totaled pete kelly, and casey would have gone to the games in athens!!!   personally giving chad's international experience and results why start him heavy at all.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

But using the GS doesn't establish a QT for each weight class and therefore there isn't a total to work towards.

Its really hard to get across ALL of the advantages and possibilities involved in embracing the GS. But, this statement is another example of its power. Qualifying totals could very simply be set, with incredible fairness and accuracy for placement, by simply establishing a benchmark GS%. So, you could set the qual total for worlds at 90% of the GS for each class or 95% or 100%. In the end, it wouldn't matter however what % you went by in the least though because the entire point of the GS is that it accurately reflects performance compared to the best results in the world over the entire relevant timeperiod. In other words, go ahead ahead and use the GS (100%) and just take the highest percentages, whatever they are, and you will get your best lifters- not only in quality but in terms of where they will place. Of couse, nothing is perfect and if you had an unusually weak class one year the GS might not predict that (that is what alternates are for) or might not predict 5 bombs in a class, or predict an American bombing, but its the best thing to bet on- by far.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

I think I wasn't entirely clear- complex subject. You could use the procedures described to select squads. But, what I meant regarding qualifying totals is that the USAW could set the maximum number of competitors they want in a given meet and then just pick the highest GS percentages- the top 10 (or whatever) GS percentages for each weight class, or the top 300 percentages overall with no more than 10 or whatever per weight class, or whatever variation they wanted. The possibilities are endless as is the increase in consistency, fairness and amount of time saved constantly revamping an utterly broken and corrupt system.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Sorry for the triple post, but new thoughts coming to me as I think about it...

More advantages of going to this system include better tracking of progress- average GS percentage by weight class and age group at schoolage, national jrs, sr nationals, Jr Worlds, Sr. Worlds, World University Games, Olympics, money earners on incentive/subsistence programs, residents at Olympic Training Center (best total in 6 months/year), etc, etc, etc.

[Dave Chiu]

I agree that USAW seems "stuck on stupid" when it comes to submitting to the IWF's ridiculous system that allows so many UNQUALIFIED lifters into the Games when we supposedly have some number restrictions from IOC.

It seems like the greatest tragedy of the Titanic disaster -- only half of the people who could have been saved actually found seats on the lifeboats.  There weren't enough for all, but there were hundreds more than were used.

If they are so stuck on letting in lifters who wouldn't be competitive in even an "F" session, at least cap it at a certain number, and give all the tiny and/or undeveloped countries a lottery chance.

It is CRIMINAL to see lifters from countries of less population than WY get slots when they would not even qualify for US Nat'ls (if they were Americans).

Any country of more than 100 million population should get a full 6+4 slots if their lifters have met an "A" standard like in T&F.

The smaller countries can also get in full teams based on an "A" standard, and if they don't meet that, then they should be grouped into cumulative 100 million populations for picking of a total 6+4 slots for their less qualified lifters by lottery.  If Tonga wins a slot for a non-A lifter, then they're out of the next round, and have to decide btwn the lifters they have as to who should go.

[Paul LaDuke]

Dave,

The problem with just allowing Olympic entries based on country population is that there would be no national incentive to do well at the world championships.  I like the current IWF system of basing Olympic slots on international competition points.  This gives every country the incentive to do well at all international competitions in order to earn prestigous slots for the Olympic games when the world is watching!  Countries must earn their slots, small countries who work hard are rewarded. 

Only the hardcore fan pays attention to the sport of weightlifting until the Olympic games.  If the IWF were to base a system on country population, the international competitions would not be nearly as competitive or as good.  The IWF system sets up drama, incentive and reward for doing well at all levels of competition. 

The USAW just needs to step up this quad and do everything it can to improve the international competitive environment for our lifters and their supporters (coach, the place they train, nutrition, etc.).  We need to EARN more spots!  It is our own fault if we don't.