Thanks for taking the time to post a new comment or a reply to one! First scan these quick notes, if you please:
General
* Currently, previewing a post is optional; you're welcome to preview or post immediately.
* You should see plain text input by default; click "enable rich text" for fancy formatting tools. (Some people love that and some don't. Be aware that formatting tool performance may vary by browser.)
* With apologies to all, I have to use a simple "captcha" question for unregistered posters. Otherwise, the spam flow will dwarf the Nile.
Registration and login
* Registration is available! Sign up here. Chief benefits at present include the ability to edit your own comments and manage subscriptions (newsletter, threads, etc.).
* If you'd prefer to post as an unregistered visitor, that's welcome too. Just leave "Your name" as the default "Esteemed Visitor", or type in some other name. (But if you happen to type in a name used by a registered user – say, "tbone" – you'll get an error telling you so when you hit "post comment". And while your post text should still be there, waiting for a revised user name, there's a chance it could disappear.)
* If you're a registered user but haven't logged in and want to post a quick comment as Esteemed Visitor, that's fine; see above.
* If you're a registered user but haven't logged in, and enter your user name under "Your name" when posting, you'll get an error saying that's the name of a registered user. That's a good thing; it means strangers can't make posts under your user name! But as above, there's a chance of losing your post text. It's best to log in first here, and then start your posting.
Final
All the above is standard stuff for community web sites, but reminders are good; I hate post-related glitches, and hate to see people run into them on this site. On this or any site, it's a good practice to do a quick "Select All" and "Copy" on your post text before hitting "Preview comment" or "Post comment" – just in case.
For more on the whole topic of interaction with the site, please see User Interaction (opens in new window).
Re: Eighteen, or maximum human strength
Thu, 2006-11-30 01:24 — tboneAhoy, DW! Lots there to chew on; sorry, RL kept me from biting in these couple of days.
Sifting through the numbered paragaphs:
1. Things look good. Though re "This suggests that ST is a dervied attribute of mass", I would prefer to say that it simply suggests the two have the correlation noted, not that ST is a derived attribute of mass. Or do I miss a key point there?
2. So far so good... That is, I can't say that the assumption about how much extra Lifting ST a weightlifter can reasonably add is a "correct" assumption, but it's not jumping out as objectionable either. And any assumption of the "neither good nor bad" persuasion starts falling on the side of "good" when backed by a reasonable-sounding rationale like yours. : ) So forging onward:
3. Man, it's always hard to turn the hodge-podge of weight-lift info out there into game bits, but that never stops us from trying... I too have some Snatch vs Clean & Jerk vs Double-Spasm Quadra Heave ratios that I came up with. Let me dig those up, and see whether they match yours.
4. Glad to see that you're considering both Lifting and Extra Effort. And I agree: the RAW allow bonuses to really pile up, so for a realistic consideration, it's best to choose some flat +X% as the probable standard bonus for record-setting lifts. Until we know better, the arbitrary +25% is as good as any other shot in the dark.
And on to the example: yes, your assumptions do work out nicely for that example.
The upshot of the post, as I see it, is: we now have a nice formula setting a minimum reasonable weight for a given lifting ability in humans, based on some defensible assumptions.
But I'm missing something regarding the main point: the max ST of 18. Is that just working backward from the top weightlifting records? Or are you drawing this conclusion of 18 from human body weight? Something's not registering with me.