Update 05.07.2018: No More guessing. Here are the 10 new weight categories for worlds (and 7 for the olympics). (via)
IWF executive board approved these. Now the IWF congress will have to ratify them.
Men |
Women |
||||
| IWF Categories | Olympic | IWF Categories | Olympic | ||
| 55 | 61 | 45 | 49 | ||
| 61 | 67 | 49 | 55 | ||
| 67 | 73 | 55 | 59 | ||
| 73 | 81 | 59 | 64 | ||
| 81 | 96 | 64 | 76 | ||
| 89 | 109 | 71 | 87 | ||
| 96 | +109 | 76 | +87 | ||
| 102 | 81 | ||||
| 109 | 87 | ||||
| +109 | +87 | ||||
Youth Bodyweight Categories:
| Men | Women |
| 49 | 40 |
| 55 | 45 |
| 61 | 49 |
| 67 | 55 |
| 73 | 59 |
| 81 | 64 |
| 89 | 71 |
| 96 | 76 |
| 102 | 81 |
| +102 | +81 |
To me it does make sense because 56kg is not applicable for most of the countries anymore.it is so difficult to find boys to fit in this class.
But fir super heavy i would think to sed something like + 120 or +125.
61, 72, 84, 97, 109, 123, 123+ for the Olympics. No repeat of past weight classes and gives very large lifters who are not giants to be competitive.
Nah, brah, too small. 160, 200, 250, 300, 400, 500, 600+ LOL
Perhaps in your neck of the woods, but it’s just blatantly wrong for East Asia and South America.
Personally I would like to see
MEN:
Worlds
65
72
79
86
93
100
107
114
121
121+
Olympics
65
72
79
86
93
107
107+
WOMEN
Worlds
47
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
80+
Olympics
47
52
56
64
72
80
80+
The men absolutely need more separation between 105 to 105+, Massive weight differences between those competitors in the supers category. The majority of the talented lifters I know all want to compete up, the more weight classes above 85kg the better…..
Just my .02
How many 105+ are lifting more than Ilyin’s 246?
You are suggesting linear bodyweight increases when the lifts increase geometrically.
Yes. Weight categories need to be proportional in percentages, not absolutes. The underlying reason is the square cube law which the human strength/bodyweight ratio also submits to.
5kg means a lot when you weigh under 60 and little if you’re 120.
Do you have a link to this literature? This is the first time I am hearing the “square cube law.”
I’m a little nervous that the three extra classes at Worlds will just bookend the six non-super Olympic classes (e.g., 54, 110, 122). Would be cool if they were tweener classes that allowed middleweights to not have to cut weight so drastically during Olympic macrocycles (e.g., 72, 90, 100 with the current setup). All in all it’s too bad they’re getting rid of medals.
What is the reason for changing classes this time?
The previous changes were nothing but pathetic attempts to cover up the IWF’s impotence and incompetence in PED detection.
The inescapable embarrassment for the IWF is that Leonid Taranenko lifted the heaviest clean and jerk in an official competition. No matter how many times they change the superheavyweight class this won’t change. He will remain the world record holder above ground, while the Iranian guy will be the record holder for those with their heads in the ground (or up their ….. ).
Cycling suffers the same PR disaster. Lance Armstrong might be gone but today’s winners are riding just as fast.
You are right on brother. Man who rides tiger must go where tiger goes.
I heard Dr Tam’as Aj’an’s interview by the radio during the Spring. He pointed out that Asians want more weight classes downstairs, while the others want more weight classes upstairs.
The weight class of 94kg seems satanic by the olympic disclosures.
I add my nostagies towards the ‘very old’ classes, so the men’s classes, to my opinion’ should look like
51, 56, 62, 68, 75, 82, 90, 100, 110 , 110+
The classes above are subjected to the 10% (in fact exponential) rule, i.e. the jump between consecutive classes is always of appr. 10%.
And for those just doing regular competitions, which weight classes would we follow? The current ones or the ones announced in July?
My preference for the men is 58, 63, 68, 74, 80, 87, 95, 103, 112, 112+ and then for the Olympics use 63, 74, 80, 87, 95, 112, 112+.
If you compare the depth of the 56 class vs the 105, the 56 class falls away in depth on every continent, even the 2017 Asian Games only had 7 competitors at Senior championships. Leave the lighter class as an outlier then cluster the middle classes and introduce a true heavyweight class at 112.
Crikey, if we get enough replies, we should be able to cover every number beteeen 50 to 120!!!!
Seriously, and this is merely opinion, 60 is about as low as is needed and maybe a starting point . One possibility would be to then increase +1 or 2kg per division. So, 60,66, 73, 81,90,100, 112, 112+. Eight divisions like the old days.
Whatever may be decided, can this please be the last time?
Great lifters are expunged from the rcord books on a whim. This is not reasonable.
We know the reason, to pretend that the IWF is doing something about PEDs.
If I am wrong about that then include old records where applicable, eg. Blagoev IS the snatch record holder in the 94kg class.
I like straight forward weight categories so most people can relate to them.
For example foe men: 55, 60, 65, 70, 80, 90, 100, 120, 120+ . 60 and 65 can be combined as 62 kg for Olympics (eight divisions).
For example foe women: 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 80, 90, 90+ This is eight divisions . 65kg and 70 can be combined as 62 kg for Olympics (seven divisions).
The trouble is most people do not relate to Weightlifting in any way. So pandering to an uninformed disinterested poulation by dumbing down the weight classes should not be part of the IWF’s agenda. I do not feel that having categories divisible by 5 or 10 would increase spectator numbers.
The weight classes should represent a specific number of the weightlifting community. The bell curve distribution of bodyweights should be inversely proportional to the category spread. That would mean a smaller range in the middle, say 67 -80 kgs and larger spread above 100kgs.
Just my take on it, all opinions welcome.
Crikey, if we get enough replies, we should be able to cover every number beteeen 50 to 120!!!!
Seriously, and this is merely opinion, 58-60 is about as low as is needed and maybe a starting point . One possibility would be to then increase +1 or 2kg per division. So, 60,66, 73, 81,90,100, 112, 112+. Eight divisions like the old days.
Whatever may be decided, can this please be the last time?
Great lifters are expunged from the rcord books on a whim. This is not reasonable.
We know the reason, to pretend that the IWF is doing something about PEDs.
If I am wrong about that then include old records where applicable, eg. Blagoev IS the snatch record holder in the 94kg class.
I don’t think any class between Superheavyweight to 115kg is necessary, there are simply too few population fit in that category.So is the class below 55kg.
However we could have a transtion class set up like 120kg, so the players could increase their weight slowly yet still be competitive
There are a ton of American men that are athletic build in 225-250 maybe even 275.
The list on http://www.iwf.net/2018/07/05/new-bodyweight-categories-approved-iwf-executive-board/ differs from the one on this page. Anyway, it is going to be a bit confusing with fewer catgegories at the Olympics, and some athletes will be forced to gain or lose a lot of weight in time for the Olympics in the future.
For new Women’s Olympic Categories of Distance between weight 64 kg and next weight 76 kg ( 12 kg !!!!) – this absolutely Nonsense (Absurd). Even between weight 76 kg and next Olympic weight 87 kg difference only in 11 kg !!!!!! What for Need new women’s Olympic weight 55 kg (weight 49 kg + 6 kg ( 1-Step), 55 kg + 4 kg ( Step 4 kg), and next weight 59 kg) ????? Optimal ( Best) 7-seven new Olympic weight categories for Women : 49 kg ( or 50 kg) ; 58 kg ( or 59 kg) ; 63 kg ( or 64 kg) ; 69 kg (or 71 kg) ; 75 kg ( or 76 kg) ; 87 kg ; and last + 87 kg !!!!!!!!!! Assholes-Morons ( from IWF) deleted 1 European ( American) weight (between categories of 63 kg and 75 kg) and leave absolutely useless weight 53 kg (Old Olympic weight in 53 kg = this is now will as New Olympic weight in 55 kg). Absolutely Nonsense !!!!!
http://www.iwf.net/2018/07/05/new-bodyweight-categories-approved-iwf-executive-board/
What a waste of time!
One of the best things about sports with records are comparing athletes from decades ago to the current ones. Now we lost another recent generation of great lifters comparison to this decision. What kind of reasoning is behind jumping from 81 kg to 96 (15 kg difference) for Olympics but only 13 kg from 96 to 109! Women weights are even worse. The weight goes from 64 to 76 (12 kg difference) but only the next category increases by 11 kg to 87!
This is so discouraging and I think there is a good chance that weightlifting may be replaced after 2028 (Los Angles) Olympics all thanks to bunch of 80+ yer old ruining the sport.
Totally agreed
To me still Vardanian is the best ever weightlifter who set awesome records with less than 90kg body weight.
Agree. See how they wipe Yuri’s achievements ( and Zlatev) by taking 1.5 kg off his 82.5kg category. A jump from 81 to 96 kg is absurd. Also 3 of 7 Olympic medals will go to men over 95kg!! Not remotely representiing the lifting population.
A sad reflection on the IWF’s inability to tackle the PED problem.
I looks to me as if anyone competing in the 55, 89 and 102 Kg will be basically giving up on the Olympics. The 55Kg seems particularly pointless.
The reduction in classes for the Olympics seems to have been dictated by an unspoken need to shorten the program.
Having said that, Scarantino has finally an excuse to move up a class 🙂
IPB
Can’t figure out why they even set 102kg, so pointless. 6kg above 96kg and 7kg below 109kg.Anyone would attend this categoriy?
So 105s can either go up to 109 pr down to 102? That is doubling the medals for the current 105s. The top 3 94kg lifters at the world juniors in Tashkent out lifted their counterparts in the 105s!!
I think the IWF officials need to be tested for mind altering drugs!
With this style of “leadership”, weightlifting is heading for Olympic oblivion.
I really dont know why we dont have 7 weightclass for both world and olympic competition.
The 3 classes 55 89 102 are totally pointless
My comments relate to the men’s classes , but the principles are likely valid for women’s as well.
1- the ‘jumps’ of either 6 or 7 kg between classes imply a much bigger and disproportionate jump between the lower bodyweights ( 9-10%) compared to the heavier classes (6-7%) , making it a hard trial to move up/down in class .
2-The highest limited weight class (109) is too low . The upper 5 classes should have been stretched with 10-12kg jumps to produce a 120kg top limited class and a 120+ for the giants that have dominate the ‘super-heavy’ since the 90s.
The reduction in classes for the Olympic Games is as we know partly punishment for doping history , and partly to make way for western/commercially orientated leisure ‘sports’ like wall-climbing , shuffle-boarding or whatever **** they are foisting on us.
There is an endless listc of western oriented leisure sports . Weightlifting finally will be eliminated and we enjoy watching indoor wall climbing in 10 types and 20 figures with 90 medals in total for nice and firendly guys and girls!
It would be very sad to se that happen, but who knows.
With medals awarded for best looking outfits!!
The jury is IN with the completion of the World Champs using the new classes.
As expected, a 50% allocation of medals to men weighing over 88kg resulted in a predictable dilution of quality. The 89kg and !02kg classes were an abject embarassment for the IWC. Seems the more the IWC tries to cover its shame, by re-jigging weight categories to hide their abysmal drug detection record, the more incompetent they appear.