PDA

View Full Version : IPF weightclass changes?



IronDiggy
11-08-2010, 06:03 PM
This is what I hear


it's been confirmed that effective January 1st, 2011 the IPF will shift it's weight classes to:

Women: (kg) 43 47 52 57 63 72 84 84+
Men: (kg) 52 58 66 74 83 93 105 120 120+

I have no idea what exactly they plan to do about records but it's assumed that they will be retired and be starting with a fresh slate on January 1st.

Not a fan. I dunno if I should drop to 105 or eat till 120... only 5kg away from 120...

BloodandThunder
11-08-2010, 06:53 PM
Yea I saw that. I really feel they're moving toward a RAW IPF Worlds and dropping the single-ply and thus, want to start a clean slate. If it was about cleaning out the records of the past, why do it now? This is evidenced even more by the whole RUM-IPF clash all of a sudden. They want their Raw worlds to be timed at the beginning of the year and don't want lifters doing Eric's meet. I believe they might sacrifice their gear approval costs to open the sport internationally to more lifters, since gear is expensive, raw lifting is easier to promote and to get into than equipped.

I don't have a problem with restructuring classes. I'll conform as long as there is competition on big stages. The only thing that bugs me is that no other federations will do this, and the PWatch/PUSA rankings now become a mess.

But until you see an official statement on the IPF site or the IPF general assembly minutes with this in place, don't make any drastic changes.

IronDiggy
11-08-2010, 07:06 PM
Yea I am currently dropping a little bit of weight as is. But I didn't really wana drop down to 105. My gear is gunna be baggy hah. I think I'm gunna have to compete in january so I can set a bunch of national records for a short while haha.

BloodandThunder
11-08-2010, 07:10 PM
http://www.powerlifting-ipf.com/fileadmin/data/Congress/Agenda_GA_2010.pdf

This is the Agenda from the General Congress. Many of these proposals are raised every year, only to get turned down. You have country contigents that want to get rid of equipment period. You also then have contigents that want to allow a more general definition of "sternum," which would open up to allowable belly benching. It seems half want to get rid of equipment, half to keep it and embrace it.

chris mason
11-08-2010, 10:00 PM
**** the IPF. No, not the lifters, the ferderation. **** em!

pricedtosell
11-08-2010, 10:25 PM
**** the IPF. No, not the lifters, the ferderation. **** em!

I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to the politics related to the different federations, but I think I pretty much know what the IPF is all about. What's the reasoning behind this comment?

Cmanuel
11-08-2010, 10:53 PM
**** the IPF. No, not the lifters, the ferderation. **** em!

Wow, angry much there Chris? Sheesh, chill out. As the owner of the site, you should show a bit more class, especially considering there are probably quite a few IPF lifters here.

BloodandThunder
11-09-2010, 06:56 AM
The other factor in play is this may be a last ditch effort to cater to the IOC. The World Games are great, but I'm not sure re-writing history is a good way to go about things for a chance at the olympic stage. I don't care what anyone says, PLing, untested or tested, raw/single/multi, will never be in the Olympics. I think the EC feels that Raw Lifting + new weight classes + erased generation and affiliation with failed tests = recognition. The IPF does put on a professional meet atmosphere, similar to what you'd find in the IWF (judges with suits, strict adherence to rules, WADA compliance, OMT testing), but I don't think the IOC wants another weightlifting discipline period.

I understand that the international IPF scene has a different weighting as far as lifters in each weight class across populations. The US in total (not just USAPL) is very heavy, as most lifters are say above the 90kg class. This is not the case with international affiliates, many of whom only have IPF-based orgs in their countries.

It just seems that 30 or 40 voters at the Congress took the history of the sport into their hands. I'm very interested to see the minutes and see what changes come about.

IronDiggy
11-09-2010, 08:39 AM
It is rather sad to see some of the records set by legends be reset but I guess that just means that new lifters will just have to come in and re set them.
On the upside its forcing me to drop to 105kg's and be less of a fatty haha, also being that pl in Canada is so small, combining weight classes is nice and will make it more competitive for a lot of lifters. However I can see how USAPL weight classes are going to become over saturated by the sheer numbers of lifters they have.

Also looks like bench rules have lightened up a bunch. Also banned lifters lose world records and can never set another WR.

BloodandThunder
11-09-2010, 10:50 AM
I'm very surprised they lightened up on the bench rules. They do make sense in the grand scheme of things. Especially since I've lifted at nationals that didn't have non-slip flooring and lots of people got red-lighted for feet movement.

I like deeper classes. I've wanted an excuse to hang up the equipment for awhile and cut weight, and 93 kgs is alot more tempting than 90 lol. Either way, I don't think I'll be getting any new equipment for a while. My equipment fits perfectly at 100 kgs. 105kgs is pushing it and 93 kgs the equipment will be real loose. What's to say they don't change the classes again in a year haha.

IronDiggy
11-09-2010, 10:59 AM
I'm in the same boat. My gear fits me near perfect where I am, to gain to 120 would be just too tight. 105 might be too loose, but I'm sure still usable for the time being.

AdamBAG
11-09-2010, 11:40 AM
Isn't this just a proposal? Are we getting worked up about nothing?

BloodandThunder
11-09-2010, 11:50 AM
Adam,

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=no&tl=en&u=http://www.styrkeloft.no/nyheter/arkiv/1612-vm-oppdatering-dag-1&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhhpzNq9-D0KYHYwNxgVSPNX-ZMwyw

AdamBAG
11-09-2010, 11:53 AM
Adam,

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=no&tl=en&u=http://www.styrkeloft.no/nyheter/arkiv/1612-vm-oppdatering-dag-1&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhhpzNq9-D0KYHYwNxgVSPNX-ZMwyw

Well, I guess it isn't just a proposal then. I saw in other places that this was believed to be a proposal, but that information must be wrong according to this.

BloodandThunder
11-09-2010, 12:26 PM
Yea, I'm taking it with a grain of salt until I read it on the IPF congress minutes or an official statement is made.

However, I have kids that need to qualify for College Nationals who are doing a January meet. So they're in limbo right now. Also have kids that are qualified, but have no idea if their totals will be honored for a 2011 national meet.

IronDiggy
11-09-2010, 12:33 PM
^ I just qualified for nationals next year so I guess we will see what I qualified for lol.

AdamBAG
11-09-2010, 12:44 PM
It seems like a really strange rule change. I can't remember anyone complaining about it.

I can understand changes on the bench rules, but there have been a lot of disagreements on the "sternum" rule.

There just doesn't appear to be any issue with the weight classes...so why change it?

IronDiggy
11-09-2010, 12:58 PM
It seems like a really strange rule change. I can't remember anyone complaining about it.

I can understand changes on the bench rules, but there have been a lot of disagreements on the "sternum" rule.

There just doesn't appear to be any issue with the weight classes...so why change it?

Because they are the IOC's bitches.

AdamBAG
11-09-2010, 01:20 PM
Because they are the IOC's bitches.

Would these new weight classes somehow line up with what the IOC uses for weight lifting?

BloodandThunder
11-09-2010, 01:52 PM
Would these new weight classes somehow line up with what the IOC uses for weight lifting?

No, they don't. In IWF, a heavyweight is 105kg (231) and plus.
IWF also restructured their weightclasses twice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_records_in_Olympic_weightlifting

However, the IOC would like fewer weight classes than the original 10/11. This ensures more balanced teams and enables smaller countries to stay competitive. The new classes basically came about because of the drug scandals at the 88 games where a few teams pretty much failed. The IOC even wanted weightlifting out of the games at that point. http://www.dynamic-eleiko.com/sportivny/library/farticles006.html

AdamBAG
11-09-2010, 02:02 PM
No, they don't. In IWF, a heavyweight is 105kg (231) and plus.
IWF also restructured their weightclasses twice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_records_in_Olympic_weightlifting

However, the IOC would like fewer weight classes than the original 10/11. This ensures more balanced teams and enables smaller countries to stay competitive. The new classes basically came about because of the drug scandals at the 88 games where a few teams pretty much failed. The IOC even wanted weightlifting out of the games at that point. http://www.dynamic-eleiko.com/sportivny/library/farticles006.html

So the thought is that the IPF is decreasing the # of weight classes in order to further the goal of getting into the olympics?

BloodandThunder
11-09-2010, 02:37 PM
So the thought is that the IPF is decreasing the # of weight classes in order to further the goal of getting into the olympics?

Yea, if you look at Joe Marksteiner's numbers on the PWatch post, around only 4 percent of the IPF population is above 120 kg. Hence consolidating 125 and SHW. Contrast the USAPL and the IPF percentages, it shows the American influence on powerlifting, in gaining weight until your Wilks or DL suffers. This was also done per suggestion when looking at the Wilks formula per the agenda. From an administrative/television standpoint, fewer classes would work better. Means you can test more people per weight class for the same price.

I still liked the WPO Light/middle/heavy weight class breakdown and really wish they did that.

martin
11-10-2010, 02:23 AM
I still liked the WPO Light/middle/heavy weight class breakdown and really wish they did that.

Yeah fewer classes is a good thing.

They've got it all wrong though - we dont need fewer middle heavyweight classes - just fewer lightweights!

The 90-125kg seem to be the most competitive classes for men so it would make sense to keep them and consolidate the lighter classes to cut down numbers.

Really do we need 4 classes under 165 lbs - these are supposed to be men aren't they?

NASAKYCHAIRMAN
11-10-2010, 07:12 AM
I support the rule change 100%! I plan to do my first IPF meet in 2012.

Wednesday, 10. November 2010 IPF Website
2010 IPF General Assembly-excerpt of some decisions
Category: World

Here are some information regarding the decisions of the 2010 IPF General Assembly

* Johnny Graham (USA) was elected as IPF Vice President

* New weight classes beginning 1st of January 2011 on international and regional level

Women: up to 43 kg (Sub-Junior/Junior); 47 kg; 52 kg; 57 kg; 63 kg; 72 kg; 84 kg; +84 kg

Men: up to 53 kg (Sub-Junior/Junior); 59 kg; 66 kg; 74 kg; 83 kg; 93 kg; 105 kg; 120 kg; +120 kg

* In connection with the new weight classes new world and regional standards will be introduced and the current record list will be frozen 31st of December 2010

* World and International records can only achieved on World or Regional championships. To achieve World and International records on national championships it is not longer valid.

* The current approved list is frozen until 31st December 2014. No new equipment will be approved.

* Decisions about Technical Rules will be made by the Executive Committee together with every 2 members of the Technical Committee, Women Committee, Athletes Commission and Coach Commission. A 2/3 majority within this group is necessary for changes.

* Bench Press:

- It was deleted: Any pronounced and exaggerated uneven extension of the arms during the lift.

- Feet movement flat on the floor/block/plates are allowed

- Impairment form is deleted.

* Probably July 2012 we host in Sweden an IPF/Eleiko World Powerlifting Classics Championship. This is an unequipped event. Information will follow.

More decisions you will find then in the Minutes, which will be published soon.

BloodandThunder
11-10-2010, 08:07 AM
I like the feet movement flat rule and the uneven extension rule. Just makes the competitor worry more about bench pressing the weight than "OMG did I move my foot or OMG I locked out 1/10 second faster with my right arm." The IPF Raw Worlds is in July, interesting since many IPF national meets are in the early summer time frame to allow competitors to peak for November's Worlds.

Bench handoffs are still in play, thankfully some contingents had common sense.
Setting WR's only at World and Regional meets puts more pressure on competitors to go to World meets to up the quality of each class. Makes sense. The approved list is frozen which means that whole issue doesn't come into play. It's nice the old records are frozen, like IWF did. Alot of hard work went into those records, many of them by clean lifters and their efforts will still be listed.

IronDiggy
11-10-2010, 09:03 AM
I like the bench rule changes, I use my squat shoes for bench and my feet have a tendency to slip when I get leg drive. I've missed a couple attempts this way....

ScottYard
11-10-2010, 09:10 AM
Good news is that if you don't like the new rules you can choose not to lift in the ipf.

Phillip Wylie
11-10-2010, 09:46 AM
I guess I will have to drop a few pounds. I compete 242 and I am currently at 238lbs. This change will be good for guys that are weighing light in there current weight class. It is great to hear they are going to have a raw worlds.

IronDiggy
11-10-2010, 12:26 PM
I guess I will have to drop a few pounds. I compete 242 and I am currently at 238lbs. This change will be good for guys that are weighing light in there current weight class. It is great to hear they are going to have a raw worlds.

Lucky you. I sit around 250 and cut water for meets... I was planning on cutting weight to 240ish anyway, Now I just gotta drop more lol.

JK1
11-10-2010, 09:45 PM
Good news is that if you don't like the new rules you can choose not to lift in the ipf.

Thats the best part of all of this.

I haven't been a fan of the IPF for the last few years for various reasons. These rule changes just prove me correct in my mind.

pricedtosell
11-11-2010, 06:30 AM
So, the IPF are a single ply federation right? Are they having unequipped events now too? Or have they always done that?

Also, I agree on less weight class = better, but it's ****ing powerlifting and the weight classes need to be distributed accordingly. They aren't distance runners, get some heavier weight classes. I really do think there should be another weight class somewhere around 300lbs, 265lbs is just too low to say that anything above that is a SHW, IMO.

I like the new bench rules, and honestly I'd like a "no handoff" rule but that's just me. It's not something I'd want in all feds but it makes perfect sense for the IPF. If you have to walk out your squats, why not have to unrack your own bar to bench?

Sidenote: The other day the thought of inventing a bench mono lift popped into my head. Good idea or bad?

BloodandThunder
11-11-2010, 07:53 AM
Actually, the monolift came about from a self-spotting bench prototype.
As long as there is single-ply gear, the IPF will have a handoff. If not, say goodbye to a lot of lifters.
http://www.powerliftingwatch.com/node/17076

According to Marksteiner, around 73% of the USAPL will be in the top four weight classes lol. If you look at the SHW class, only 2% of the current IPF population falls under that 120+ guideline, yet in the USAPL that number is near 15%. American lifters are just heavier period, which is probably why we're the only country complaining about that lol.

I also have no idea why they dropped the lowest subjunior/junior weight class for women when the 114 class for men didnt drop. There's barely anyone in those classes period. As much as the people (cough gear companies cough) don't want to admit, unequipped is the only way the IOC wants to see powerlifting. And at an international level, more lifters can get into the sport due to simplicity of training, cost, etc. IF all these changes were just to appease to the IOC, then this was a mistake, because it simply isn't going to happen.

mastermonster
11-12-2010, 08:30 PM
Yea, if you look at Joe Marksteiner's numbers on the PWatch post, around only 4 percent of the IPF population is above 120 kg. Hence consolidating 125 and SHW. Contrast the USAPL and the IPF percentages, it shows the American influence on powerlifting, in gaining weight until your Wilks or DL suffers. This was also done per suggestion when looking at the Wilks formula per the agenda. From an administrative/television standpoint, fewer classes would work better. Means you can test more people per weight class for the same price.

I still liked the WPO Light/middle/heavy weight class breakdown and really wish they did that.

I agree. The old WPO weight class format would be good if all the feds would go to it. But it will never happen. Too many people like thin classes and easy 1st place trophies. With all of the divisions and weight classes you'll have like 32 or more 1st place trophies at a lot of state meets. When everybody in the meet gets 1st, it might as well be a T ball awards banquet; where everybody on the team gets an MVP trophy. I got a few people stirred up at PLWATCH on this same topic by suggesting starting weight classes at 165s and doing away with Jr. divisions (20-23) and starting Masters at 50+.