Weight does correlate extremely well with strength and OL totals. But so does height, since weight and height are pretty tightly correlated as well. Should we not then give the tie to the taller lifter? After all, naive physics says that the taller man has done more work on the same weight (the actual situation is more complicated I know).The problem here is that at this level you often are faced with lifters who are pretty close on just about every conceivable body measure. It would seem to me that the only way to break a tie based on anthropometry would be if there were a sum of several measures that clearly leaned in favor of one of the lifters. For instance, weight, height, lever lengths, etc. could be combined into a metric for tie-breaking. Sorry, but 1 extra decagram on the scale doesn't convince me one lifter is worse than another at the same total. What if it's just fat or water? What if it's a more developed ear twitching muscle? 5kg would convince me, but how often does this happen within a class (and does it even matter for the supers?)? Besides, if we believe THAT strongly in body weight then we would use Sinclairs to adjust totals in all competitions, not just qualifications!The fact is that the relationship between body weight and total is a) statistical, and thus prone to variation; and b) correlative, so that there may be other things (e.g. genetics) that increase both the total and body weight at the same time. A rule that uses precise body weight as a tie-breaker is assuming extremely small variations among total for a given precise weight, and I don't see how this could be the case.
IF ANYTHING owl deserves more medal how about snatch and total golds? for total of 90 medals
Page created in 0.25 seconds with 35 queries.