Post by RichHutchison on Jun 19, 2008 13:24:44 GMT -5
OK, this post is probably more self serving than most, but I also have an intellectual curiosity about Best Lifter calculations.
I'm familiar with the way the AAU calculates what it calls the AAU Product Number, which is used to determine the winner of their Best Lifter awards in the Masters category. They use the Schwartz factors for weight, and the McCullough factors (which they refer to as the MAM or Masters Age Multiplier) for age. McCullough seems a better choice to me because it gives a smoother curve than the Schwartz age coefficients, which seem to be skewed in favor of those around the 65 to 68 y/o range (there’s a weird bulge in the curve there). Not sure exactly what 100% Raw uses for age factors, but they apparently use the Schwartz Bodyweight Coefficients.
It seems to me that these numbers are rather ephemeral in that they’re used at the end of a meet to pick the best lifter, and then they more or less go unrecorded and disappear. Also, since records are not routinely kept as to a lifter’s exact weigh-in weight and age at the time of a meet (as opposed to the more general weight class and age group) , it would be impossible to go back over old records and accurately recalculate. That’s a little disappointing, because we seem to not have the ability to compare different masters results over time.
I haven’t seen many AAU Product Numbers (or their equivalents) at the 1,000 level in drug tested and raw meets. Some of the best that I have seen at the AAU World’s were Don Levesque’s 1,027 and 1,013 in 2002 and 2006 respectively, and Jack Roten’s 1,021 in 2003. So… I can’t help wondering what some of the top – raw and drug tested - performances of all time were in terms of these types of calculations. Does anyone know?
Now the reason that I’m asking is that I’ve lifted in several high level raw AAU and ADAU meets over the years, and my score of about 1,111 at the 100% Raw Maryland States was the best I’ve ever seen, and by about a 10 percent margin. So I (and my ego) can’t help but wonder – where does that stack up against the some of the better performances? I’ve gotta believe that some of the elite masters like Robert Cortes and Richard Flores have done better, but there are issues like my impression that those two lift equipped much more often than raw. Can anyone help me out here?
PS
I have an Excel spreadsheet with the Schwartz and McCullough coefficients plotted against one another.
I would be happy to email it to anyone who wants to take a look at it. I also have an Excel sheet that will automatically calculate AAU Product Numbers if you plug the lift results (totals) into a list. It’s a little crude, but it works.
Rich Hutchison
7623 Nutwood Court
Derwood MD 20855
Rich.Hutchison@Comcast.Net
I'm familiar with the way the AAU calculates what it calls the AAU Product Number, which is used to determine the winner of their Best Lifter awards in the Masters category. They use the Schwartz factors for weight, and the McCullough factors (which they refer to as the MAM or Masters Age Multiplier) for age. McCullough seems a better choice to me because it gives a smoother curve than the Schwartz age coefficients, which seem to be skewed in favor of those around the 65 to 68 y/o range (there’s a weird bulge in the curve there). Not sure exactly what 100% Raw uses for age factors, but they apparently use the Schwartz Bodyweight Coefficients.
It seems to me that these numbers are rather ephemeral in that they’re used at the end of a meet to pick the best lifter, and then they more or less go unrecorded and disappear. Also, since records are not routinely kept as to a lifter’s exact weigh-in weight and age at the time of a meet (as opposed to the more general weight class and age group) , it would be impossible to go back over old records and accurately recalculate. That’s a little disappointing, because we seem to not have the ability to compare different masters results over time.
I haven’t seen many AAU Product Numbers (or their equivalents) at the 1,000 level in drug tested and raw meets. Some of the best that I have seen at the AAU World’s were Don Levesque’s 1,027 and 1,013 in 2002 and 2006 respectively, and Jack Roten’s 1,021 in 2003. So… I can’t help wondering what some of the top – raw and drug tested - performances of all time were in terms of these types of calculations. Does anyone know?
Now the reason that I’m asking is that I’ve lifted in several high level raw AAU and ADAU meets over the years, and my score of about 1,111 at the 100% Raw Maryland States was the best I’ve ever seen, and by about a 10 percent margin. So I (and my ego) can’t help but wonder – where does that stack up against the some of the better performances? I’ve gotta believe that some of the elite masters like Robert Cortes and Richard Flores have done better, but there are issues like my impression that those two lift equipped much more often than raw. Can anyone help me out here?
PS
I have an Excel spreadsheet with the Schwartz and McCullough coefficients plotted against one another.
I would be happy to email it to anyone who wants to take a look at it. I also have an Excel sheet that will automatically calculate AAU Product Numbers if you plug the lift results (totals) into a list. It’s a little crude, but it works.
Rich Hutchison
7623 Nutwood Court
Derwood MD 20855
Rich.Hutchison@Comcast.Net
?? Holy Crap, Rich, that make me a phenom and you the best ever. I LOVE this system!