• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Gainsdalf the Whey

Normalizing Sinclair

Recommended Posts

This thread is for the discussion of how to handle the overall weightlifting champion for our tri-annual lifting competition. Unlike Wilks in powerlifting, Sinclair does not normalize between men and women. How do we want to handle finding an overall champion? I know the Sinclair coefficient is adjusted annually, can we come up with a coefficient that normalizes the two if the curves for men and women's classes are the same shape?

 

I'd like us to decide this as a community, this is open to everyone. Please post any suggestions and discussion here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The longer I thought about it (which admittedly wasn't very long) after that thread the more I came to believe there is no good way to do this with the Sinclair. It's just not built to objectively compare women to men and I don't think you're going to find a bridge between that doesn't involve novel and rigorous statistical analysis of world totals across genders. Something that's outside my pay grade for sure.

 

As it is now I think I'd prefer stealing the USAW World/OG team selection and stipend procedure. The men and women are still separate but compete on the same standard - how close they are to the best of the best in their weight class. Folks are thus ranked based on the percentage of the world standard they lift, which is a pretty decently objective indicator of how "good" a lifter's total is. There are some drawbacks but it's probably the best alternative failing some massive data analysis operation. Also worth mentioning that MDUSA (RIP) used pretty much the same system to determine their team and stipend levels. 

 

I had started collecting the requisite data but due to various inconsistencies in the published team rankings I hit a small roadblock and didn't have time to go back and finish. If everyone (or at least most everyone) is on board with this I can dig back into this and provide all the details. This time I'll probably go at it from the stipend track which is published by the USAW. A fringe benefit of doing this is everyone would be able to see how they stack up compared to our best lifters (and if they should be strapping on a singlet and going out there to claim their rightful USAW money, ha).

 

Edit: The stipend data was a lot easier. Here's the breakdown of the totals from the USAW's Direct Athlete Support doc.

1cA1dni.png

 

The 95% for senior international elite totals are what we care about. All we'd have to do is build the lookup table to calculate everyone's percentage based on this, their respective 95% "NCS" total. Juniors and kids could even be thrown in the mix if it ever comes up (jdanger jr will be around in about 14 years to smoke every last one of you, hahaha).

 

So yeah, that data is valid until Aug at which point the USAW will release a new matrix and any values that need to be can be updated. For formalities sake any virtual comp would be subject to the published NCS matrix valid at the time the comp is held.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exactly what I was going to suggest once the conversation got going. Was going to call it Percentage To Elite, or PTE. Awesome that you've already done some of the leg work in case we go this way.

 

Thoughts competitors? You're the ones I really want votes from as to how we go.

 

Looking forward to danger junior. He snatching yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen this used in some CrossFit competitions to normalize scores across weight classes.  Something like this could also work for ours, but I noticed something weird about the strength-to-weight ratio. 

 

I ran some comparison numbers for this and found that the lighter a person is, the more they will have to lift pound-for-pound to match or exceed the heavier person.  For men, say that someone in the 56 kg class and the 105 kg class both put up a double body weight total.  The 56 kg lifter would have a coefficient of 0.4135, while the 105 kg lifter would have 0.5376.  This pretty much means that lighter men would be at a disadvantage because the world class lifters have a higher strength to body weight ratio.  Small guys are freakishly strong, and I believe that that is why Sinclair was created.

 

Comparing across the genders, take a 75kg woman and 105 kg man doing double body weight totals.  The woman would have a coefficient of 0.5866, while the man would have a coefficient of 0.5376.

 

Using the ratios could be an approximation, but it will not be a level playing field.  Heavier men would have an advantage over lighter men, and almost all women would have an advantage over men. 

 

Totally up for thoughts or discussion on these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen this used in some CrossFit competitions to normalize scores across weight classes. Something like this could also work for ours, but I noticed something weird about the strength-to-weight ratio.

I ran some comparison numbers for this and found that the lighter a person is, the more they will have to lift pound-for-pound to match or exceed the heavier person. For men, say that someone in the 56 kg class and the 105 kg class both put up a double body weight total. The 56 kg lifter would have a coefficient of 0.4135, while the 105 kg lifter would have 0.5376. This pretty much means that lighter men would be at a disadvantage because the world class lifters have a higher strength to body weight ratio. Small guys are freakishly strong, and I believe that that is why Sinclair was created.

Comparing across the genders, take a 75kg woman and 105 kg man doing double body weight totals. The woman would have a coefficient of 0.5866, while the man would have a coefficient of 0.5376.

Using the ratios could be an approximation, but it will not be a level playing field. Heavier men would have an advantage over lighter men, and almost all women would have an advantage over men.

Totally up for thoughts or discussion on these.

The whole reason for the existence of Wilks in powerlifting is that percentages of bodyweight aren't a good way to manage equalizing across weights and genders.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is what wilks does too. What you're missing is that because of this, 2x bodyweight for a smaller person is less impressive than it is for a bigger one. They should be scored lower. It's called the ant law if you want to google it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the Sinclair coefficient is adjusted annually, can we come up with a coefficient that normalizes the two if the curves for men and women's classes are the same shape?

First, thanks for this. I need to go update my Google doc for the Leaderboards if that's true. :)

Second, besides the fact we get low participation typically in the Oly lift portion, is there a reason not to just do a Female Champ and a Male Champ? It seems simple, and I usually like simple.

EDIT: I now see that that the titles will be Men's and Women's but the shirt is why we discuss normalizing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eddie Hall weighs 180ishkg and his world record deadlift is 465kg, a little over 2.5x his bodyweight. A 50kg woman set a new world record deadlift of 180kg today. There's no way a 180kg guy is deadlifting 3.6x his bodyweight, but I wouldn't say that makes him weaker.

Anyway, digression... I think the USAW scale is a good suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of Wilks, it's not that far off Kimberley Walford or Eddie Hall. I hadn't realised how close.

Aside.. (squirrel!!) I saw Kimberley lift at the US Nationals.  Wow.  Package of dynamite that woman is.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this