chewybaws wrote:
It's a good idea but you can't just divide the total by bodyweight. There's a system already;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilks_CoefficientQuote:
set up to address the imbalances whereby lighter lifters tend to have a greater power to weight ratio ... lighter lifters tending to lift more weight in relation to their own bodyweight. This occurs for a number of reasons relating to simple physics, the nature of the makeup and limitations of the human skeletal and muscular system and, the shorter leverages of smaller people.
There's calculators online as well you just pop in a few details and it'll give you the points out.
Hey thanks for the info, and I would also love to add a 'Coefficient' column to the table, but I take a personal issue with it, only because the variables used in the formula don't seem to have an up-to-date scientific basis. An FAQ page says, "Generally, [what he has] done is to use various regression methods to fit a curve to the world's records for all bodymass divisions, with no attempt to explain any underlying physiology." This is fine, but how long ago did he do this, and with how many worlds records, and over what time period? Of course I know that no measurement is perfect, I just think that a simple relative strength page is a great way to measure personal progress over time. Also, I wasn't suggesting we RANK the table by relative strength, only that we include it in the table!
So I am up for including both, but keeping overall total weight as the ranking column is fine by me....
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
