Announcements => Announcements => Topic started by: kris on June 26, 2008, 09:39:15 pm

Title: Basic meet stats available
Post by: kris on June 26, 2008, 09:39:15 pm
The meets page ( has been upgraded to include some basic aggregated statistics on our meets.

Besides the obvious general meet statistics, it also includes a list of the faults given for lifts that were not passed (i.e. lifts red lighted by two or more judges). This should give a useful bird's view of what the most common faults for each lift are. For example, on the squat the most prevalent issue is lack of depth which accounts for 69.7% of all faults given by the judges with double bouncing at 12.1% and the failure to properly lock out at the top at 7.6%.

Out of all lifts, only 56.3% have passed to date; this figure is somewhat deflated by the number of otherwise good lifts called for bad attire (long pants) in the May 2008 Bench Press meet ( Indeed, bad attire (32.4%) leads the fault rankings before insufficient pause (22.2%) and failure to lockout (18.5%) on the bench press.

A more basic version has also been added to the front page ( to give first time visitors a better idea of what the site is about.

The statistics will be updated every time a meet is released.

Enjoy!  :)

Title: Re: Basic meet stats available
Post by: kris on June 27, 2008, 11:36:38 pm
The statistics ( have been changed to also include red lights for which no technical fault was given. These represent obvious failures to lift the bar and are the equivalent to a judge in a traditional meet red lighting a lift without then raising a card to indicate the reason for failure.

The percentages of attempts that failed for each lift have also been added.

As an example, the statistics for the squat now tell us that 40% of all squat attempts were turned down by the judges; out of those, 44.5% were failed without giving a reason (i.e., the lifter did not manage to lift the weight) and 38.7% because the lifter did not achieve proper depth. 

I believe this way of reporting is more meaningful than just showing the distribution of technical faults given, especially as it is often a matter of opinion whether to cite a technical fault or not (for example, when a lifter is not strong enough on the bench press this could be called without a reason or as a failure to lockout).

If anyone has any thoughts on the statistics, I would love to hear about them!