Re: Domination by Russian Powerlifters

[Guest guest]

Jan Baggerud Larsen [JBL@...] wrote:

<Would anyone care to comment on why the Russians and others from the former

Soviet Union now totally dominate powerlifting in the IPF?>

That is a real easy one...the USA just isn't sending its best. The best have

chosen not to compete in the IPF.

[it would be interesting to compare the totals of the best Russians with the

best

Americans, irrespective of whether or not they compete in the IPF. Any offers?

Mel Siff]

Tom McCullough

............. USA

[Guest guest]

> Jan Baggerud Larsen [JBL@...] wrote:

>

> <Would anyone care to comment on why the Russians and others from the former

> Soviet Union now totally dominate powerlifting in the IPF?>

>

> That is a real easy one...the USA just isn't sending its best. The best have

> chosen not to compete in the IPF.

>

> [it would be interesting to compare the totals of the best Russians with the

> best

> Americans, irrespective of whether or not they compete in the IPF. Any

> offers? Mel Siff]

>

> Tom McCullough

> ............ USA

The original question by Jan had some good potential to discuss the possible

impact of different training approaches, culture, etc., but instead has

assumed a hint of petty organizational differences.

For those not too familiar with powerlifting, the IPF is the

founding/original world governing body of the sport. Over the years they

have voted to institute certain rules/policies that weren't popular with

all. Rather than allowing the democratic process take its course, certain

lifters in the United States felt that they " didn't need to take it " and

formed their own organizations. Along with these new organizations came

different rules that govern the fundamentals of the sport, such as how a

lift is executed, but also what sort of equipment is allowed and how doping

control is instituted, if at all. As a consequence the sport has become

diluted in the United States and a fair comparison between totals isn't

possible between U.S. Lifters, and obviously IPF lifters.

Now to the original question. There was a time when the United States

dominated the IPF as many world team titles in a row can testify. This

dominance has pretty much disappeared. There could be many reasons for this,

not to overlook the clear and obvious loss of talent to various U.S.-based

organizations not affiliatated with the IPF. Another reason that's a bit

unfortunate, has to deal with doping.

The IPF has adopted the strictest of doping control methods almost identical

to the process employed by the IOC. Further, they have instituted

out-of-meet testing, meaning that any lifter can be approached for a sample

at any time. A few nations, among them the U.S. (USA PL) take this very

seriously and have instituted the strictest of out-of-meet testing.

Essentially, a national champ isn't afforded an opportunity to take drugs

and get away with it. Other nations haven't adopted such stringent rules,

which may have absolutely nothing to do with wanting to cheat, but may

simply be cost prohibitive. Consequently, an athlete could take a banned

substance such as an AAS and cease use between 1-3 months prior to a tested

event and come up clean, while possibly retaining a bit of a performance

enhancing benefit.

This is not a level playing field, though the IPF organizations are trying

to do their best. Also, this particular scenario is nothing new, as USA WL

and several other sports & nations dedicated to eliminating drug use are

competing against nations that for whatever reason lack the same commitment.

So am I suggesting that the Russians dominate because of doping? No.

Clearly, that could be a reason. But then again most of their athletes come

up negative in doping control, so there must be something else going on.

Quite possibly, the answer may lie in their lifters not being diluted among

several different organizations. So for purely statistical reasons, they are

more likely to send their best. Then again, since in the US lifters are

diluted, there is something like natural selection occurring where only

those willing to abide by IPF rules compete at that level. So maybe dilution

theory is a false theory.

--

Dan Wagman, Ph.D., C.S.C.S.

" The idea is to die young, as late as possible. "

Montagu

[Guest guest]

Tom McCullough wrote:

> Jan Baggerud Larsen [JBL@...] wrote:

>

> <Would anyone care to comment on why the Russians and others from the

> former Soviet Union now totally dominate powerlifting in the IPF?>

>

> That is a real easy one...the USA just isn't sending its best. The

> best have chosen not to compete in the IPF.

>

> [it would be interesting to compare the totals of the best Russians

> with the best Americans, irrespective of whether or not they compete

> in the IPF. Any offers? Mel Siff]

I'm sure you realize that it would be very difficult to do this in a

meaningful fashion, since the IPF is essentially a drug-tested, raw

competition, while many of the best US lifters are in non-tested

competition and/or with gear. Here's a smattering of data:

In the recent IPF Worlds in Japan in November, in the 198 lb class,

Tarasenko of Russia posted lifts of

771 lbs in squat,

540 lbs in BP, and

738 lbs in DL

to win the division with a total of 2050 lbs (falling short, BTW, of

Mike Bridges' venerable record total of 2066).

Shuffling through the same issue of Powerlifting USA that had these

results, I find their Top 100 list for the 198 lbs class, with the

top 100 results in each lift posted by US lifters in all federations

between November 1999 and October 2000:

Top Squat: T Carnaghi 865 lbs 10/28/2000

Top BP: G Halbert 650 lbs 9/9/2000

Top DL: C Terry 749 lbs 11/20/1999

Top Total: J Kellum 2138 lbs 11/20/1999

These numbers all compare favorably with those of Tarasenko, but I

wouldn't jump up and say that they're necessarily 'better', because

of the potential for drug and gear assistance (not to mention the

different interpretation of rules by different federations or even at

different meets). I don't have a list of raw, drug-tested results to

provide a decent basis for comparison.

Tom McCullough's point is well taken. Many of the American IPF

competitors were very young, so their modest showings in the

competition are understandable. The best results by Americans in a

given class were typically around 4th, while Brad Gillingham won the

SHW class. Perhaps most telling, there were no US representatives in

2 classes (123's and 242's). The situation for the American team was

further muddled by the soap opera surrounding Mauro DiPasquale's

bizarre attempt to combine the IPF in the US with his own PAPF, which

certainly didn't help attract athletes. To say the least, we're not

putting our best foot forward in IPF.

-Wayne Hill

Westborough, MA

[Guest guest]

Dan Wagman [namgawd@...] wrote:

>The original question by Jan had some good potential to discuss the possible

>impact of different training approaches, culture, etc., but instead has

>assumed a hint of petty organizational differences.

>For those not too familiar with powerlifting, the IPF is the

>founding/original world governing body of the sport. Over the years they

>have voted to institute certain rules/policies that weren't popular...

Actually, Dan, looks like you are the one who has gone into the petty

organizational differences. Sorry you didn't approve of either my response or

Mel's, which did not focus on organizational issues at all.

Tom McCullough

....USA

[Guest guest]

> >

> > <Would anyone care to comment on why the Russians and others from

the

> > former Soviet Union now totally dominate powerlifting in the IPF?>

> >

> > That is a real easy one...the USA just isn't sending its best.

The

> > best have chosen not to compete in the IPF.

> >

> > [it would be interesting to compare the totals of the best

Russians

> > with the best Americans, irrespective of whether or not they

compete

> > in the IPF. Any offers? Mel Siff]

>

> I'm sure you realize that it would be very difficult to do this in

a

> meaningful fashion, since the IPF is essentially a drug-tested, raw

> competition, while many of the best US lifters are in non-tested

> competition and/or with gear. Here's a smattering of data:

>

> In the recent IPF Worlds in Japan in November, in the 198 lb class,

> Tarasenko of Russia posted lifts of

>

> 771 lbs in squat,

> 540 lbs in BP, and

> 738 lbs in DL

> to win the division with a total of 2050 lbs (falling short, BTW,

of

> Mike Bridges' venerable record total of 2066).

>

> Shuffling through the same issue of Powerlifting USA that had these

> results, I find their Top 100 list for the 198 lbs class, with the

> top 100 results in each lift posted by US lifters in all

federations

> between November 1999 and October 2000:

>

> Top Squat: T Carnaghi 865 lbs 10/28/2000

> Top BP: G Halbert 650 lbs 9/9/2000

> Top DL: C Terry 749 lbs 11/20/1999

> Top Total: J Kellum 2138 lbs 11/20/1999

>

> These numbers all compare favorably with those of Tarasenko, but I

> wouldn't jump up and say that they're necessarily 'better', because

> of the potential for drug and gear assistance (not to mention the

> different interpretation of rules by different federations or even

at

> different meets). I don't have a list of raw, drug-tested results

to

> provide a decent basis for comparison.

>

> Tom McCullough's point is well taken. Many of the American IPF

> competitors were very young, so their modest showings in the

> competition are understandable. The best results by Americans in a

> given class were typically around 4th, while Brad Gillingham won

the

> SHW class. Perhaps most telling, there were no US representatives

in

> 2 classes (123's and 242's). The situation for the American team

was

> further muddled by the soap opera surrounding Mauro DiPasquale's

> bizarre attempt to combine the IPF in the US with his own PAPF,

which

> certainly didn't help attract athletes. To say the least, we're

not

> putting our best foot forward in IPF.

>

> -Wayne Hill

> Westborough, MA

One correction on the IPF Worlds is that the lifters do not

lift " raw " , they lift with gear.

[Guest guest]

wshill@... wrote:

>Do you have a feel for what fraction of the super-heavy lifts in the States

>are done with multi-layer, or multiple, or denim suits? I read that Garry

>'s first 2500 total was done with single-layer equipment.

All I know is that is using equipment that would have been legal in

the IPF.