REGISTER AN ACCOUNT
Who's Online - 1 member and 132 guests

GBPF; new weight classes

Users viewing topic: & 1 Guest

123456

PearceIcon...08-11-2010 @ 11:44 
Member 930, 160 posts
SQ 280, BP 195, DL 282.5
757.5 kgs @ 134.4kgs UnEq
What tz said. Ye they gotta get tested to have record (they didnt before testing tho and soem of those records still stand)and the record that belong to people who have been suspended for life.

This isnt my personal opinion...i do believe anybody who is banned should have all their records stripped of them and the record should go to the previosu holder tho.
IainKendrickIcon...08-11-2010 @ 11:49 
Avatar
some nice relaxing jazz.
Member 77, 12599 posts
SQ 265, BP 165, DL 280
710.0 kgs @ 93kgs UnEq
Post Edited: 08.11.2010 @ 11:49 AM by IainKendrick
Pearce said:

This isnt my personal opinion...i do believe anybody who is banned should have all their records stripped of them and the record should go to the previosu holder tho.


That sounds pretty sensible to me. Off course someone else may have lifted more than the old record in the interim? Wouldn't be that hard to chase up though.
tz1127Icon...08-11-2010 @ 11:59 
Avatar
Member 1419, 2281 posts
SQ 175, BP 105, DL 240
520.0 kgs @ 82kgs UnEq
It’s a reasonable thing to remove all trace of a lifetime suspended member's records, titles etc… However, it would be an administrative nightmare to have to permenantly keep every obsolete record on file and to track down everyone he/she has beaten in the pass and re-award the titles and medal etc.
PearceIcon...08-11-2010 @ 12:00 
Member 930, 160 posts
SQ 280, BP 195, DL 282.5
757.5 kgs @ 134.4kgs UnEq
Yes good point i wouldnt think it would be too difficult but i am not IPF admin, im sure the lifter would speak up however and provided the scoresheet can be provided as evidence (as it would in the IPF) then that would be the record, if the records registrar kept a list of say top 10 lifts per weight class, easy enough really using an excel spreadsheet or whatever cant be difficult then when someone is banned there wouldnt be any fuss???
PearceIcon...08-11-2010 @ 12:04 
Member 930, 160 posts
SQ 280, BP 195, DL 282.5
757.5 kgs @ 134.4kgs UnEq
I didnt say titles only record lifts/totals, i agree if that were the case it would be a nightmare, if just records i would say easily manageable. But then i spose people done out of titles would spark up and want the same to happen with titles...
BarlowIcon...08-11-2010 @ 22:21 
Member 1815, 4 posts
SQ 230, BP 120, DL 250
600.0 kgs @ 74kgs Eq
Does anybody happen to know the qualifying lifts for under 66kg, cheers Happy
mozIcon...08-11-2010 @ 22:27 
Avatar
Feasting on humble pie.
Member 51, 1692 posts
SQ 227.5, BP 185, DL 272.5
685.0 kgs @ 90.4kgs UnEq
Barlow said:Does anybody happen to know the qualifying lifts for under 66kg, cheers Happy


Pete I'll let you know in due course in the gym mate. I'm sure the weights your pushing for your age and weight class will more than qualify you for sub-junior comps Happy
dr_hazbunIcon...08-11-2010 @ 22:31 
tabbouleh and fattoush salads were very refreshing
Member 267, 8548 posts
SQ 220, BP 165, DL 250
635.0 kgs @ 90kgs Eq
this is all quite interesting. Thanks for posting these details.

The 105 and 120 classes are going to have some beasts in them.

All the 100 boys will beef up to 105 and the 110 boys have a choice of cutting or bulking depending on how full they were as 110ers.
ianshawIcon...08-11-2010 @ 22:33 
Avatar
StretchArmStrong
Member 97, 328 posts
SQ 320, BP 170, DL 322.5
812.5 kgs @ 88kgs Eq
WHAT bo***cks IS THAT IM 87K FIND IT HARD TO LOOSE WEIGHT AND WILL FIND IT HARD TO GET TO 93K WILL BE A FAT BASTERD
AdamCIcon...08-11-2010 @ 22:39 
Avatar
Member 1519, 1476 posts
SQ 320, BP 260, DL 320
900.0 kgs @ 117kgs Eq
The U93 class would actually benefit me as i go as heavy as 100kg out of comp, how ever i don't see the point in playing about with the classes and would prefer them to remain as they are
dr_hazbunIcon...08-11-2010 @ 22:40 
tabbouleh and fattoush salads were very refreshing
Member 267, 8548 posts
SQ 220, BP 165, DL 250
635.0 kgs @ 90kgs Eq
ianshaw said:WHAT bo***cks IS THAT IM 87K FIND IT HARD TO LOOSE WEIGHT AND WILL FIND IT HARD TO GET TO 93K WILL BE A FAT BASTERD


You're quite lean at 87 aren't you ian? I'd lift in the 93 class if I were you. Don't think you'll be facing any more competition to be honest. The big lifters in the old 100 class are more likely to end up lifting in the new 105 class.
ianshawIcon...08-11-2010 @ 23:03 
Avatar
StretchArmStrong
Member 97, 328 posts
SQ 320, BP 170, DL 322.5
812.5 kgs @ 88kgs Eq
yea maybe your right will have to see what happens hope they do move upto the 105 class.
tz1127Icon...08-11-2010 @ 23:09 
Avatar
Member 1419, 2281 posts
SQ 175, BP 105, DL 240
520.0 kgs @ 82kgs UnEq
Given that this is a matter of concern for many members, and that GBPF will have a vote and say on it; I am suprised that the GBPF executives have not consulted their members on this issue.
BarlowIcon...08-11-2010 @ 23:11 
Member 1815, 4 posts
SQ 230, BP 120, DL 250
600.0 kgs @ 74kgs Eq
Cheers moz Happy Im not genna worry about ma weight, If I'm under 66 then no worries but if I'm under 74 then it's a bigger challenge Happy
tonyjb72Icon...09-11-2010 @ 09:01 
Avatar
abs by summer 2011? Experts opinions vary
Member 290, 2552 posts
tz1127 said:Given that this is a matter of concern for many members, and that GBPF will have a vote and say on it; I am suprised that the GBPF executives have not consulted their members on this issue.



I would have thought that this has come from the IPF, so maybe the GBPF wouldn't have much of a say??

123456

© Sugden Barbell 2024 - Mobile Version - Privacy - Terms & Conditions