Mr Grice Chris Leaman

Part A
1.
1. From the information given, we can tabulate the data:

Total Weight Lifted (T) Body Mass (M) Log T Log M

592.500 52.000 2.773 1.716
637.500 56.000 2.804 1.748
707.500 60.000 2.850 1.778
807.500 67.500 2.907 1.829
850.000 75.000 2.929 1.875
952.500 82.500 2.979 1.916
937.500 90.000 2.972 1.954
1035.000 100.000 3.015 2.000
1002.500 110.000 3.001 2.041
1045.000 125.000 3.019 2.097

Graphing Log T against M, we see that y = 0.0033x + 2.6525 , where

y = Log T and x = Body Mass .
Log T vs M

3.100

3.050

3.000

2.950
Log T

y =0.0033x + 2.6525
R2 =0.8277
2.900

2.850

2.800

2.750
0.000 20.000 40.000 60.000 80.000 100.000 120.000 140.000

Body Mass

However, we want to express T as a function of M. However, we have

Log T = 0.0033M + 2.6525 . So, rearranging:

Log T = 0.0033M + 2.6525

F ( M ) = T = 100.0033 M + 2.6525

1
Mr Grice Chris Leaman

Graphing Log T against Log M, we see that y = 0.6595x + 1.6749 , where

y = Log T and x = Log M .
Log T vs Log M

3.100

3.050
y = 0.6595x + 1.6749
R2 = 0.9063
3.000

2.950
Log T

2.900

2.850

2.800

2.750
0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500

Log M

However, we want to express T as a function of M. However, we have

Log T = 0.6595 × Log M + 1.6749 . So, rearranging:

Log T = 0.6595Log M + 1.6749

T = 100.6595Log M +1.6749
T = 101.6749 × (10 Log M )0.6595
F ( M ) = T = 101.6749 × M 0.6595

2. The second model, the log-log graph appears to fit the data better. We can see this
from the R2 values on the graph. The closer the R2 value is to +1 or -1, the better
the line of best fit. Since The R2 value is closer to +1 on the log-log graph, we
know that this model fits the data better.

2.
Rank Name Maximum Mass (kg) Total (kg) Reduced Total
1 A. Sivokon 67.5 807.5 622.595
2 A. Tarasenko 90 935 596.898
3 A. Stanaszek 52 592.5 581.407
4 K. Suslov 100 952.5 579.681
5 M.Gurianov 140 1035 578.365
6 V. Ivanenko 110 980.5 577.018
7 D. Ricks 82.5 857.5 574.445
8 K. Pavlov 56 630 573.519
9 M. Podtynni 125 1002.5 912.624
10 S. Bazaev 75 790 562.923
11 G. McNamara 60 660 562.897

2
Mr Grice Chris Leaman

Assumption that each lifter weighed in at the maximum body mass allowable for
his division.

3.
a) Total = a − b × M − c
From the information given, as M → +∞, T → 511.04
Therefore, there must be a horizontal asymptote at 511.04 ∴ a = 511.04
Now, our equation is: Total = 511.04 − b × M − c
Sub in the point (1, -148555.38):

Total = 511.04 − b × M − c
−148555.38 = 511.04 − b ×1− c
−148555.38 = 511.04 − b
−b = −149066.42
b = 149066.42

Now, we have Total = 511.04 − 149066.42 × M − c

From the data in on the table when there is a body mass of 40 kg, the Siff
Squat value is 119.84. This makes (40, 119.84) part of our model:

119.84 = 511.04 − 149066.42 × 40− c

−149066.42 × 40− c = −391.2
40− c = 0.0026243335
−c = log 40 0.0026243335
ln 0.0026243335
−c =
ln 40
c = 1.611038906
= 1.61 to 2 d.p.

From the graph below we can see that if a Siff value must be positive the valid
body masses are greater than the x-coord of the x-intercept.

3
Mr Grice Chris Leaman

Therefore, to calculate the x-intercept, let y = 0. (To ensure accuracy, the full value of
all variables are used)

511.04 − 149066.42M −1.61 = 0

−149066.42M −1.61 = −511.04
M −1.61 = 0.00342827043
M = 33.89 to 2 d.p.

∴ If a Siff value must be positive the body mass must be greater than 33.89 kg.

b) Although it is difficult to see, on the graph below the world record lifts Siff values
and their respective body weights are plotted in white. Plotted in blue are the
given Siff values from the table on the task sheet.

World Records - Squat

Mass (kg) Siff Value
52 254.691
56 283.5403
60 307.4723
67.5 342.6562
75 368.9436
82.5 389.1697
90 405.11
100 421.6473
110 434.3715
125 448.6412

4
Mr Grice Chris Leaman

There are no differences between the Siff values and the world record Siff values
because, by definition, the Siff value calculates the total expected for the world
record. Therefore, one would expect them to be the same.

5
Mr Grice Chris Leaman

Part B

4. The rankings obtained by the two formulas are as follows:

Squat

Wilks Values
Mass (kg) Name Lift (kg) Reduced
Rank Total
1 60 M.Carlsson 320 272.9198
2 52 A.Stanaszek 277.5 272.3048
3 56 M.Carlsson 287.5 261.7251
4 125 K.Karwoski 455 259.2794
5 100 E.Coan 423 257.4332
6 82.5 M.Bridges 379.5 254.2295
7 110 V.Ivanenko 415.5 244.5189
8 90 F.Hatfield 375 239.3978
9 67.5 J.Olech 310 239.0149
10 75 A.Alexander 328 233.7198

Siff Values
Rank Mass (kg) Name Lift (kg) Siff Value Percent of World Lift
1 52 A.Stanaszek 277.5 254.6910 108.96%
2 60 M.Carlsson 320 307.4723 104.07%
3 125 K.Karwoski 455 448.6412 101.42%
4 56 M.Carlsson 287.5 283.5403 101.40%
5 100 E.Coan 423 421.6473 100.32%
6 82.5 M.Bridges 379.5 389.1697 97.52%
7 110 V.Ivanenko 415.5 434.3715 95.66%
8 90 F.Hatfield 375 405.1100 92.57%
9 67.5 J.Olech 310 342.6562 90.47%
10 75 A.Alexander 328 368.9436 88.90%

6
Mr Grice Chris Leaman

Bench Press

Wilks Values
Mass (kg) Name Lift (kg) Reduced
Rank Total
1 52 A.Stanaszek 177.5 174.1769
2 56 M.Carlsson 187.5 170.6903
3 90 M.MacDonald 255 162.7905
4 125 D.Midote 285 162.4058
5 82.5 M.Bridges 240 160.7776
6 100 M.MacDonald 261.5 159.1460
7 60 M.Carlsson 186.5 159.0610
8 110 J.Magruder 270 158.8932
9 67.5 A.Sivokon 202.5 156.1307
10 75 J.Rouse 217.5 154.9819

Siff Values
Rank Mass (kg) Name Lift (kg) Siff Value Percent of World Lift
1 52 A.Stanaszek 177.5 152.7159 116.23%
2 56 M.Carlsson 187.5 170.0268 110.28%
3 125 D.Midote 285 269.3147 105.82%
4 90 M.MacDonald 255 243.0858 104.90%
5 110 J.Magruder 270 260.7107 103.56%
6 100 M.MacDonald 261.5 253.0439 103.34%
7 82.5 M.Bridges 240 233.4930 102.79%
8 60 M.Carlsson 186.5 184.3935 101.14%
9 67.5 A.Sivokon 202.5 205.5271 98.53%
10 75 J.Rouse 217.5 221.3279 98.27%

7
Mr Grice Chris Leaman

Dead Lift

Wilks Values
Rank Mass (kg) Name Lift (kg) Reduced Total
1 60 L.Gant 310 264.3910
2 56 L.Gant 289.5 263.5458
3 52 E.Bhaskaran 256 251.2073
4 67.5 A.Sivokon 316.5 244.0265
5 75 D.Austin 337.5 240.4892
6 82.5 V.Kumpuniemi 357.5 239.4916
7 90 W.Thomas 372.5 237.8018
8 100 E.Coan 390 237.3497
9 110 J.Koc 395 232.4548
10 125 L.Noren 387.5 220.8149

Siff Values
Rank Mass (kg) Name Lift (kg) Siff Value Percent of World Lift
1 56 L.Gant 289.5 226.8808 127.60%
2 60 L.Gant 310 246.0527 125.99%
3 52 E.Bhaskaran 256 203.7801 125.63%
4 100 E.Coan 390 337.6641 115.50%
5 67.5 A.Sivokon 316.5 274.2546 115.40%
6 90 W.Thomas 372.5 324.3754 114.84%
7 82.5 V.Kumpuniemi 357.5 311.5741 114.74%
8 75 D.Austin 337.5 295.3402 114.28%
9 110 J.Koc 395 347.8952 113.54%
10 125 L.Noren 387.5 359.3768 107.83%

8
Mr Grice Chris Leaman

Total

Wilkes Values
Mass (kg) Name Lift (kg) Reduced
Rank Total
1 52 A.Stanaszek 592.5 581.4075
2 56 C.Hu 637.5 580.3470
3 60 J.Bradley 707.5 603.4085
4 67.5 A.Sivokon 807.5 622.5952
5 75 R.Gaugler 850 605.6764
6 82.5 M.Bridges 952.5 638.0860
7 90 M.Bridges 937.5 598.4944
8 100 E.Coan 1035 629.8897
9 110 A.Gankov 1002.5 589.9644
10 125 K.Karwoski 1045 595.4879

Siff Values
Rank Mass (kg) Name Lift (kg) Siff Value Percent of World Lift
1 82.5 M.Bridges 952.5 899.4557 105.90%
2 100 E.Coan 1035 986.6272 104.90%
3 52 A.Stanaszek 592.5 564.9989 104.87%
4 67.5 A.Sivokon 807.5 779.8703 103.54%
5 60 J.Bradley 707.5 692.4435 102.17%
6 56 C.Hu 637.5 634.1629 100.53%
7 75 R.Gaugler 850 846.8078 100.38%
8 90 M.Bridges 937.5 941.7845 99.55%
9 125 K.Karwoski 1045 1062.4190 98.36%
10 110 A.Gankov 1002.5 1021.8971 98.10%

9
Mr Grice Chris Leaman

Graphing the weight and their corresponding rankings gives us the following graphs:

(Note in the analysis, observations are relative in comparison to each ranking system,
if it is said the Siff system favours the light, assume the Wilks system favours the
heavy)

Squat - Weight vs Rank

140

120

100

80
Weight

Wilkes Values
Siff Values
60

40

20

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Rank

From the graph above we can see that the ranks awarded by the two systems are very
similar. The last six ranks awarded are exactly the same.

Weight Rank Change - Wilks to Siff

52 1
56 -1
60 -1
67.5 0
75 0
82.5 0
90 0
100 0
110 0
125 1

From the table showing the change in rankings going from Wilks to Siff, we can see
that the Siff system favours, even though it maybe very slight, the extremely light and
extremely heavy athletes. Moderately light athletes are put at a disadvantage when the
Siff system is used. In conclusion, athletes of weight 52kg and 125kg are favoured by

10
Mr Grice Chris Leaman

the Siff system, and athletes of weight 56kg and 60kg are favoured by the Wilks
system.
Bench Press - Weight vs Rank

140

120

100

80
Weight

Wilks Values
Siff Values
60

40

20

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Rank

From the graph above, there are some features in common and some differences. The
first two and last two placings are the same.

Weight Rank Change - Wilks to Siff

52 0
56 0
60 -1
67.5 0
75 0
82.5 -2
90 -1
100 0
110 3
125 1

Looking at the change in rankings, we can see that the Siff system favours the heavier
competitors as the two heaviest athletes went up the rankings by, three and one places
respectively. The moderately heavy athletes are disadvantaged by the Siff system,
placing lower in rankings. In conclusion, athletes of weight 110kg and 125kg are
favoured by the Siff system, and athletes of weight 60kg, 82.5kg and 90kg are
favoured by the Wilks system.

11
Mr Grice Chris Leaman

Dead Lift - Weight vs Rank

140

120

100

80
Weight

Wilks Values
Sif f Values
60

40

20

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Rank

The only two placings that the ranking systems agree on are the last two.

Weight Rank Change - Wilks to Siff

52 0
56 1
60 -1
67.5 -1
75 -3
82.5 -1
90 1
100 4
110 0
125 0

Here, there are some major changing’s to the ranking system. The moderate to
moderately light in weight are all disadvantaged by the Siff system, while the
moderately heavy are favoured greatly. Extremely light and heavy athletes are not
substantially affected by a change in the ranking system. In conclusion, athletes of
weight 56kg, 90kg and 100kg are favoured by the Siff system, and athletes of weight
60kg, 67.5kg, 75kg and 82.5kg are favoured by the Wilks system.

12
Mr Grice Chris Leaman

Total - Weight vs Rank

140

120

100

80
Weight

Wilks Values
Siff Values
60

40

20

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Rank

The two different ranking systems only agree on the result of forth place.

Weight Rank Change - Wilks to Siff

52 -2
56 -4
60 -2
67.5 0
75 -2
82.5 5
90 -1
100 6
110 -1
125 1

Here, there are some major changing’s to the ranking system. The lightest three
athletes are extremely unfavoured when using the Siff system. However, the some of
the moderately heavy are immensely advantaged, going up five or six places in the
rankings. In conclusion, athletes of weight 82.5kg, 100kg and 125kg are favoured by
the Siff system, and athletes of weight 52kg, 56kg, 60kg, 75kg, 90kg, 110kg are
favoured by the Wilks system.

13