Talk:Olympic weightlifting

Chalk

Is the chalk used for the grip magnesia or magnesium carbonate or calcium carbonate? I had always bars of little weight which looked more like magnesium oxide (magnesia usta) than anything else. Stone 15:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

>The chalk I have used at my gym has always been magnesium carbonate.

Spam

I removed the spam heading by the link at the bottom because the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) is the governing body internationally for the rules and procedures of the sport of weightlifting. They are not out to sell products, though they do display links to the manufactures of weightlifting equipment approved for competition.

"Olympic style"?

Is it really proper to add "Olympic style" at the beginning? What other weightlifting is there? Lifting weights in a gym is weight training, not weightlifting. Weightlifting is not just an olympic sport either. Jack Daw (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Weightlifting as a term refers to the sport, not gym go-ers, just as how hockey refers to the sport and not the puck that it is played with. If there are variations, such as street hockey (powerlifting), they could be mentioned, but it is not the official sport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.134.158 (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You guys must be joking. 'Weightlifting' as used in the USA means any type, including your personal workouts. I am very surprised to see it limited to Olympic lifts here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykral (talk • contribs) 14:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard personal workouts called "weightlifting" unless it's by the elderly. The contemporary term is weight training. The large majority of people who go to commercial gyms do not refer to themselves as "weightlifters".--Yankees76 (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

'Do you lift weights' is a very common question. By simple American grammar and logic, you can answer 'Yes I do weightlifting.' The sectio0.n should just be called Olympic lifting.

Nobody who's native language is English would answer that way. It's "Yes, I lift weights" or even more common "Yes, I work out". Do a google search for weightlifting [1], and you see most of the returned results are centered around Olympic weightlifting - the two terms are synonymous.--Yankees76 (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between Weightlifting (the sport being discussed here) and weight lifting, which is refer to strength training were weights are lifted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.153.223 (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree, Weightlifting in English, refers to weight training as well. I think this article should be called Olympic weightlifting (it is quite confusing to those without knowledge in the subject). I do not go and weight train, I go and lift. I actually did do a Google search, and I know I will hurt many peoples feelings, but check theses sources. I know that there are sources that refer to Olympic Weightlifting as Weightlifting, but there are many that don't. Go ahead and undo the change if you disagree, but discuss with a compelling argument (again this is me being bold.

http://dictionary.babylon.com/weightlifting

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/weightlifting

http://stronglifts.com/weight-lifting-101-the-definitive-guide-to-weight-lifting/

Aaron mcd (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Image of "A weightlifter about to jerk 180 kg[1]"

Regarding the image in hte main article: If you look carefully the guy has 4X25kg + 15kg + 10kg on each side, this, plus the bar does not equal 180kg. Sadly the link is dead so I can't check it out further. Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.77.4.129 (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If you look closely you will see:

1 No. Bar = 20kg 4 No. Red Discs (25Kg) = 100Kg 2 No. Yellow Discs (15kg) = 30Kg 2 No. Green Discs (10kg) = 20Kg 2 No. White Discs (5kg) = 10Kg

Total = 180kg —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiraculousMilo (talk • contribs) 09:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Comparisons of Weightlifting vs Powerlifting

Original research and chatting

I think it is completely inaccurate to compare powerlifting to weightlifting in many terms. Powerlifting seems to be misunderstood by most weightlifters and the converse seems to be true as well.

First in terms of power. In powerlifting events a participant must control the weight in the down-stroke in both the squat and the bench press and then wait for the judge to get the okay to lift. Specifically, force is being applied to the barbell in a "controlled" eccentric movement. For example, a 500 lb barbell must have somewhat less force applied to it in a controlled manner in the 2 foot downstroke of an extended bench press. At which point it must stop for decision and audible command of the judge (more force being applied). The judge will audible with "rack" or "press" and the lifter attempts to explode under the bar to apply more than 500 lbs of force across the distance of the up-stroke.

In weightlifting the participant starts the barbell in a seated "squat" position, pulls the bar to his chest (or waist high before he assumes another squatted position), and then commences the up-stroke to the final position. There is virtually no control in the down-stroke. The bar is allowed to plummet to the floor while the lifter moves out of the way.

To conclude. Powerliftering includes the additional eccentric force of a down-stroke being applied in two of the three events, whereas in both the clean-and-jerk and snatch there is no appreciable force being applied in the down-stroke other than getting out of the way.

Second in terms of time. The amount of time for the actual lifts in powerlifting starts as soon as the lifter leaves the extended "locked out" position (this does not include the walk-out from the squat rack). I think if you investigate some time in watching actual squats and bench press attempts with the above knowledge you can acknowledge that the events take a few more seconds than Olympic Weightlifting (at the very least 1 more).

The snatch lift rarely goes beyond 3 seconds (on average 2 seconds) and the only reason the clean-and-jerk does is the pause (in a locked-out position) in the middle of the lift.

In both cases, there is a certain amount of time waiting for the judgement. The powerlifter waits for judgement at the bottom of the down-stroke in the squat and bench in an eccentric postion, and the olympic lifter waits for judgement at the top of the up-stroke in an extended "locked out" position.

I think if you compare the amount of time involved in all lifts involved you'll see that the powerlifter is exerting more force (heavier weights) over longer periods of time.

Third in terms of weight. I don't think it needs to be said that obviously powerlifters have shorter stroke distances and deliberate paths that allow greater weights. Much greater weights. In fact in some instances twice the workload.

Olympic lifters employ ballistic movements that involve the whole body to some extent. However, the legs and erectors are not only the primary movers in both lifts but constitute the greatest movers. As such, greater weights can be moved upward at the expense of most upper body utilization. As a result, lesser weights are moved because of the extreme whole body ballistic movement and emphasis on lower body development.

I think if you compare the deadlift to the beginning stages of the snatch and clean-and-jerk, you'll see the primary emphasis of both sports. One being maximum weight over a controlled deliberate distance and the other being smaller weights being controlled over a longer distance with a ballistic movement.

Fourth in terms of accessories. Powerlifting associations can allow gear such as bench press shirts, squat suits, knee wraps, wrist wraps, etc, etc, etc. However, there are associations that don't.

Olympic lifting does not allow majority of these except in the case of injury where I've seen knee wraps and wrist wraps.

Fifth in terms of systemic response. Since powerlifters deal more in the realm of tests of limit strength, there is more of a stress in the systemic response. Since the lifts take slightly longer, are more arduous, and more taxing anaerobically, there is more depletion on blood sugar levels (more expended energy, more stores required), more stress on the nervous system (requiring more neurons to fire under maximum loads), and slightly more stress on the joints.

I whole heartedly agree that weightlifting requires greater dexterity and mobility, but it nowhere matches the amount of stress on the joints in situations where they are required to perform under absolute maximum loads and compression.

Sixth in terms of drug testing. In powerlifting, there are drug-free associations and drug-tested associations with lapses in both. The records in the drug-free associations do seem to be lower.

I can't speak intelligently about the Olympic drug testing, only to say that it is not perfect either if news headlines indicate.

Seventh in terms of lifts and lifting methods. The differences in lifting techniques is so varied there just isn't enough room to go into it.

Thus I conclude that many of the terms used in these articles are completely inaccurate and unfair agendized/politicized descriptions. The term "power" can't be used as differentiating factor because it's oblivious to the true nature of Powerlifting lifts. Also, it seems that the article does not describe the full lift constraints as outlined by the IPF rulebook.

Additionally, I think the only way to compare these two training methods and competitions is on an empirical level (what happens) and a philosophical nature as briefly touched on above, Powerlifting attempts to move maximum weight over a controlled deliberate path (sometimes with an up and downstroke) and Olympic lifting attempts to move lighter weights over a longer distance in a ballistic whole-body movement.

Darakom (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)darakomDarakom (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum and not a place to post original research. Adding information to mainspace requires reliable sources and talk pages are meant to be used to discuss improvements to mainspace pages, not for discussing a topic in general. WLU (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

weightlifters hold the bar up fpr 3 seconds —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.90.144 (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed renaming (2009)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus. GrooveDog (oh hai.) 23:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

---

{{movereq|Weightlifting (sport)}}

Olympic weightlifting → Weightlifting (sport) — I realize that I'm late to this discussion but may I suggest changing to Weightlifting (sport). It seems odd to me that the sport at the Pan American Games and other non-olympic events is called Olympic weightlifting. J04n(talk page) 13:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I think so; Powerlifting is also a sport, but this is the one referred to much more commonly in Wikipedia articles, and it appears to be the more worldwide sport. The sport's governing body seems to consider "Weightlifting" to be the official title, and it would certainly be better to have a title that doesn't imply this is only done at the Olympics. Dekimasuよ! 14:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well they are Olympic lifts, and I have in the talk ,a few sections up, some sources, however if you want to rename it to Weightlifting (sport), go ahead, but Weightlifting was simply to confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron mcd (talk • contribs) 22:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:UCN and the lack of a need to DAB per WP:DAB.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  Upon reading the policy, I would have to agree. The current title is "most common English". Aaron mcd (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  I don't know what "lack of a need to dab per WP:DAB" means. The plain title, Weightlifting, is not available, so a disambiguator would be required if the "Olympic" were to be removed. The issue appears to be that the current title is too narrow. If this sport is done in venues that aren't the Olympics, and it's called "weighlifting" in them, then I can't consider "Olympic weightlifting" to be the common name for the sport. Dekimasuよ! 06:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  By the way, WP:UCN and WP:DAB are "guidelines", which are different from "policies"–you can read about the distinction at WP:PG. Dekimasuよ! 06:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  I've stricken the part about WP:DAB, as I somehow missed the existing DAB page. WP:UCN still very much applies however, and was the primary decision maker for me regardless. The wikilawyering is just not something that I'll address or even consider.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  That was unnecessary. I was replying to Aaron mcd's comment that he had "read the policy". I was trying to be informative. Dekimasuよ! 04:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  I don't see how WP:UCN applies to "Olympic weightlifting". Folks don't say "John Doe participated in Olympic weightlifting in the Pan AM Games", or even "John Doe participated in Olympic weightlifting in the Olympics". The WP:UCN defense would hold water if the title was simply "Weightlifting", but based on the previous thread(s) that was also problematic. J04n(talk page) 11:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  OK, but all of the current content and (most importantly) the current references are all about Olympic weightlifting. At least, that's the way it appears to me, as a laymen to this topic. The way that I see it either a new topic could be created/split out in order to cover the whole sport, or this article could be expanded to cover more then just the Olympic weightlifting aspects. I'm guessing that option 2 is what started this movereq, which is fine, just shape the article up and I'll be happy to change my !vote.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support - the sport is called "weightlifting", that title is already in use, makes perfect sense. --208.38.59.163 (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Move back to Weightlifting. This is unnecessary precision. There is no other article on the dab page using the title "Weightlifting" except Weightlifting (album), so no need for any type of qualifier in the title. The dab page should be moved to Weightlifting (disambiguation). Station1 (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

While it is true it is called weightlifting, so is weight training. A few sections up, I list some sources that call both O-lifting and weight training the same thing. That title is incorrect accoutering to those sources, so that complicates things. Thanks Aaron mcd (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Don't confuse topic with article title. "Weightlifting" and "weight training" were two different topics that had two different titles, each of which was the best title for that topic. The titles were not in conflict. The fact that "weight training" is also sometimes called "weightlifting" and that might cause confusion for some readers, calls for a hatnote directing them to the article they're seeking, such as the one already on this article. But there's no need to send everyone to a dab page because a few might want a different article; those readers can get where they want in one click as easily from the hatnote as from a dab page. An example of an article title in conflict would be Weightlifting (album), but in this case this article is the primary topic between those two titles. Station1 (talk) 07:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

While that is true, than under that thinking, shouldn't that album be called Weightlifting? I think it is best to rename the article is Weightlifting (sport). Wikipedia should be accessible by everyone, the only reason I changed it is because I am no expert on the topic, and was reading the article and got confused, other have as well, as discussed a few time before (pretty sure I wrote a run on sentence:) ). Thanks Aaron mcd (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move to current DAB title? (2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Olympic weightlifting → Weightlifting — Maybe I've missed something, but I can't really see why this article shouldn't be at plain weightlifting. It is the more common and more accurate title of the topic discussed here. Weight training is more accurately titled where it currently is and the current hatnote is enough of a pointer for readers. Again, I may be pointing out the obvious but Powerlifting is called powerlifting, not weightlifting, so again there is no obvious reason against a move on that issue. Surely another hat note or a link to the disambiguation would cater enough for Weightlifting (album) too (I sincerely doubt that any reader or editor would expect that topic to rest at the primary weightlifting page). Similarly, anyone looking for bodybuilding will most likely type "body building" not "weightlifting".

The current arrangement would make sense if Weightlifting was a historical article which followed the creation and history of the related sports which involve the lifting of heavy weights (which sections dedicated to the training/Olympic/Power sub-topics). However, no such article exists and more to the point such a topic would most likely be better dealt with at the Strength athletics article (after all, strongman competitions are the historical root of both weightlifting and powerlifting). I strongly suggest that this article be moved to the title Weightlifting, or at the very least Weightlifting (Olympic sport), and that strength athletics be better incorporated within this related field. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 16:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose there are non-Olympic forms of weightlifting, like setting the Guiness world record, or what's used in the World's Strongest Man competition, etc. Weightlifting (Olympic sport) seems OK, but the article says it's also called Olympic-style weightlifting, which seems even better. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Given a brief google search Olympic-style weightlifting gets significantly less hits than the current Olympic weightlifting, so it's probably better here than there. Which Guinness records are you referring to? I thought they just listed the Olympic and Powerlifting records? Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 11:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removing Non-Informative Opinions

I am removing the sentence "Additionally, the sport demands both intense mental focus and competitve toughness in order to succeed." for two reasons: 1. It is a subjective opinion that is very likely true but not really a verifiable piece of information. 2. The same can be said for virtually any sport. People do not come to this page to learn if it is a tough sport; they read the relevant facts and form their own interpretation. Heymon32 (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing confusing "human progress" note with no support in citation

The section on rules links to the rulebook after talking about "a rule with an intentional design on 'human progress'". I was sufficiently curious to go look up to find out what exactly this trying to say, but couldn't find anything. There certainly isn't anything in the rulebook in the vicinity of the rules for tie-breakers that clarifies this. I'm removing this clause. If there is something interesting in the origin of the tie-breaker rules, perhaps someone can put it back with a little more explanation and a link to a source (not just for the rule, but for the rationale). Kevinpet (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 23 June 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

---

• Olympic weightlifting → Weightlifting
• Weightlifting → Weightlifting (disambiguation)

– Primary topic and common name. Related category named simply Category:Weightlifting. NickSt (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose. The primary topic for weightlifting is weight training. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 04:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Olympic weightlifting is merely one form of weightlifting. It isn't even the one found in Strongman competitions, which is more popular in television sports. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I dispute the claim that Olympic weightlifting should be the primary topic. That article generates less traffic[2] than the Weight training page. [3] I actually prefer that there should not be any primary topic between the Olympic sport (Olympic weightlifting) and the form of exercise (Weight training). Dictionaries and other similar sources like this and this and this list "exercise/activity or in a competition/sport" equally in their definitions of the search term "weightlifting". Thus both seem to have long-term significance in their own right. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Weightlifting § Dab page or not

The problem, as I see it, is that weightlifting is WP:DABCONCEPT. I have initiated a draft at Draft:Weightlifting to resolve this. bd2412 T 14:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC) @BD2412: I agree with your statement, given the fine line between all of these terms. For example, between the articles Olympic weightlifting and Powerlifting, the main and only major difference is that one is performed in the Olympics, and the other is not. Steel1943 (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC) Olympic weightlifting and Powerlifting are subtopics of a missing topic article on the general competitive sport (which can include forms not covered by these two articles), and that is in turn a subtopic of the human practice of lifting weights for any number of purposes. bd2412 T 14:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC) @BD2412: I noticed that Draft:Weightlifting is essentially an old version of the Weightlifting article (with a few modifications) that you had edited/returned to a concept article prior to an editor reverting it to a disambiguation page ... after it was reverted to a disambiguation page from a concept article a few days prior. (For anyone else reading this, look at the edit history of Weightbuilding around June 2012 for details.) However, I support the look of the concept article: it looks a lot cleaner. Steel1943 (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC) Yes - it's a draft because it still needs expansion and citations. bd2412 T 18:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• (I've moved the above discussion to the section of Talk:Weightlifting that directly correlates with the above collapsed discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, the primary topic of the term is the generic concept, not one specific expression of it. bd2412 T 19:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is not the primary topic for the term "weightlifting", and none of the examples on the disambiguation page could be considered the primary topic either. Steel1943 (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

First picture

I believe that athlete was found positive for PEDs, and stripped of that medal she won in that very same lift. Maybe use another picture of a different lifter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.212.217 (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

"🏋" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 🏋 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 21#🏋 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Bonoahx (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Communication Studies

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 2 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MaxCohen01, ZDavid3122 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: J.White3, GreatGreenGuardian.

— Assignment last updated by CommDocBDS (talk) 12:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)