THIS IS NOT A SPIN VS STAND TOPIC 

Nor will I hijack another thread for this.  I have seen two incredible throwers who both hold WOB record throwing 42# weight in action in this event. (one in 190 division and one in the masters division). Their throwing talents far exceed what mine will ever be.   

BUT I BELIEVE SOMETHING NEEDS TO CHANGE

The WOB weight is almost always attached to the handle by at most one link so that standing throwers can throw without hitting the ground. 

I do not know if Throwers Choice was used in Warrensburg, MO and I do not know if the implement was at the full 18 inches or not.  However, the same implement was used in 2005 to set a Master's World Record in WOB at Kirskville, MO game. 

Throwers choice is where the AD provides several certified weights and the thrower gets to choose which one they would like to throw:  D, Triangle or Ring handles -- box, spherical, or conical shaped weights, ....  A very nice way of letting throwers throw what they feel comfortable with. This is not the problem.

The problem is using throwers choice to skirt around the need to shorten the weight in WOB event.  This is a dubious way of setting a world record.  I will agree the Letter of the Law has not been violated.   However, the spirit of the law is laying on the ground withering in agony because she has been badly violated.  

Perhaps the reason that there is not a special length rule (just the usual 18" max length) for the implement in WOB is because:  

#1. the writers of the rules never imagined that someone would spin and throw the weight over bar; and

#2. The writers of the rules if they knew about the spin never imagined "throwers choice" being used in such a vile manner. 

The below pictures do far better in demonstrating what I am saying.

World Record Weight Used in Kirksville, MO -- Note the nice long chain!   (Picture taken at 2005 Kircksville Games by Kevin Veit http://www.midwestsportsphotos.com/ - http://www.midwestsportsphotos.com/  -- Cropped down to fit here)

The below weight is the 42# Weight used in Ancient Athletics' Events.  Issaic Burchett used this weight to set the then 190# World Record at 17' 6.5" which I believe was broken later in 2005.  (Picture taken at this years Shamrock Games by Kevin Veit http://www.midwestsportsphotos.com/ - http://www.midwestsportsphotos.com/   Cropped down to fit here)

No Chain - Weight attached to handle

I think AD's and other rule writers need to review the WOB rules and either limit the overall length to 14" (I have heard talk that this was once a rule but have not found any evidence of this) or state that the WOB weight must be attached to the handle by no more than one length. 

I AM NOT CALLING FOR ANYBODYS RECORD TO BE RESCINDED -- The throws are still amazing, but they are not comparable to other WOB records and violate the spirit of the throwing rules.  

Mark McVey
Athletic Director and 2006 Games President
Celtic Highland Games of the Quad Cities

I agree Adam, spot on! That's the way I was taught that you can practice with anything, but you have to use what the AD leaves for you. If you dont like it it's like I tell my kids, "Take what ya get and dont throw a fit"  Everybody else I hang with has gone by this for years and I think it just makes more work for the AD's to have throwers choice.

 Though it is great when folks want to help out with bringing weights if something isnt availible, but that needs to be weigh'd and checked out to be legit before the games can us what ever the weight is.

We have all had to deal with repairs, but unless is screws up the weight of the impliment used, we all have spare parts to every thing on the field. C rings, chains, bolts, screws, D handles, and extra hammer handles.

Well, unless you were at Tulsa this last year and a certain class of men BROKE the 56# WOB where it was not fixable. Who would have thought that anchore that holds the handle would snap off at the weight! (yikes!)
My posting this will probably make some folks un-happy with me, but I just happen to agree with AGM and in the spirit of folks having an oppinion in this sport, this just happens to be mine so no hate mail.

Have a groovey week ya'll!
Keep us straight McSanta!
Cherie- Rudy 

For easy reference here are the rules from the various regional organizations.

NASGA: The weight shall be made of metal but can be of various shapes and sizes including spherical, bullet or box shaped. The handle can either be attached directly to the weight or attached with a length chain. . . The implement shall not measure more than 18" in overall length but a weight shorter than this is normally used when thrown for height to avoid hitting the ground when swung between the legs.

RMSA:The weight will be thrown with one hand only. The weight shall be made of metal but can be of various shapes and sizes including spherical, bullet or box shaped. The handle can either be attached directly to the weight or attached with a length chain. The handle may also be of various shapes and thickness such as a ring, triangle or "D" shaped. . . The implement shall not measure more than 18" in overall length but a weight shorter than this is normally used when thrown for height to avoid hitting the ground when swung between the legs.

SSAAA: The objective of this strength event is to toss the 56# weight with an attached handle over a horizontal bar of variable height. 

"Don't like that particular type of weight? Too damn bad. Throw it anyway."

YEAH!!!

~Jason

I think this is just like other issues that seem to come up every year on here! Is there anything in the rules that would make the weights none legit? The ones that the Queen posted don’t seem to rule out the weight in question!! If we have rules lets use them, not what we or anyone “Thinks” was the intent of the rule when it was written!

Whether we want to admit it or not, I “Think” this is still all about Stand vs Spin. The wt. in question favors the spin!

This goes to show that we need one governing body and one set of rules to live by.

Damn I wish I could have skipped that throwers choice issue. 

this is NOT a SPIN VS STAND ISSUE or THROWERS CHOICE ISSUE

This is about smaller ball parks, corked bats, juiced balls, bad pitching, dilution of talent, ..... Ops wrong sport but the same idea. 

The one issue I am concerned about is about consistent and creditable records. Thus, in the future, should implements that are attached to the handle by more than one link be allowed in WOB records? 

How can one compare Thom Van Vleck's toss of 20' 6" to Kip Miller's toss of 20' 1" or to anybody else's throw that came before or will come after if there is not some attempt at consistence in equipment?

When a thrower sites the rules to legitimize their throw, it is both logical and proper to consider what was going on when the rules were written. Who wrote the rules? What throwing technique was being used when the rules were written?  What year were the rules written? blah blah blah.  This is not T&F --- Just because throwing rules does not prohibit something does not make it acceptable or right.

McSanta wrote: Just because throwing rules does not prohibit something does not make it acceptable or right.

GEE WHIZ! Then what are rules for?  In my mind, If its not against the rules, its O.K., if its not O.K., make a rule against it! 

I see two options; sit around and complain about it until all the different associations in this country make it against the rules or, get these associations to sit down and form a federation so that there's some sort of continuity going on.

Maybe this Spinning/Standing, ThrowersChoice/ThrowWhat'sThere debate will be enough to kick start a little action.  I've been waiting since the mid-80's.  Could the time be right?

McSanta wrote: Just because throwing rules does not prohibit something does not make it acceptable or right.

Thats exactly what brother Roy said about the spin.

(please don't ban me now)

In all seriousness, I agree about the standardised implent. The only 2 NZ games this yeah had a weight with a thin ring handle and a D handle with chain on a ball. Felt vastly different.

agm_ wrote: This sport is not going to have a national governing body any time soon. But we should put together a national rules committee to look at issues like these and make revisions to the rules where necessary.

wallyworld wrote: Maybe this Spinning/Standing, ThrowersChoice/ThrowWhat'sThere debate will be enough to kick start a little action.  I've been waiting since the mid-80's.  Could the time be right?

Since I am in an area without a regional group, I compared all the rules trying to figure out what should be used at the QC games and why some say there will not be one set of rules.  I discovered that most of the rules are about the same. 

National Rules Committee: All it would take is the AD's of a few influential games in each region to get together and hammer out a set of minimum standards (universal rules) that allow regional and local games variations. Fix some of the broken things, clarify some of the definitions, and remove some of the subjectivity.  With luck when they go back to their region, they spread the news.  This can and has been done on a smaller scale. 

I have a question and then what I think the real issue is:

First the Question:  Let's have a vote on what a "regulation length" for the WOB should be.  If several organizations have 18" max, then let's debate what it should be.  I'll start the debate and say, 16" (bacause several weights made today would have trouble getting under this length i.e. Merl Lawless' weights, which are top notch).  What were the length's of the weights used by spinners recently, Sean Betz in St. Louis in '04, Harrison's record (was that Michigan?), Kip's old record that I broke?  Does anyone have any data on the implements used, I'm not only curious how long they were, but the style and shape used. 

Second, the real issue is this:  A national, or international set of standards would solve this, but if you do that, here is what will happen, people will divide and start their own groups with their own rules and we'll end up like powerlifting.  It is already happening, the RMSA tried to create a stronger set of rules and standards and as we speak a midwest group of AD's that have been a part of the RMSA are creating their own organization with their own rules (one of which is to limit the WOB implement to 14"....which is problematic since most implements already exceed this length and could not be shortened) and are breaking off from the RMSA.  Sean Betz once told me that the reason he loved the games was the challenge of adapting to what you were given at any given games.  I think that would be lost if we went overboard on national rules.  Maybe a solution is to note the implement used for any particular record.  

And the following is just me getting defensive, which I realize that is not the issue, but I can't help myself.  Over the years I have heard of guys taking full advantage of the rules.  I was honest about what I did and now I seem to be the example.  So read on if you like or just stick to the above.

A funny side note to this is that I was a die hard standing thrower until I started getting my butt kicked by spinners who couldn't beat me standing.  It was adapt or die.  Then, as I found I could spin pretty good (and I still say that the best standing thrower will be the best spinning thrower if he or she would take the time to learn the technique) I began to look for any advantage I could have within the rules.  And don't tell me that guys don't do this or it's unsportmanlike.  I have been told other spinning records had longer implements involved, I was not there, but I have been told by reliable sources.  Albeit, admittedly, not as long as the implement I used.   If you want to talk to me directly about the information I am aware of, please PM me and I'll tell you what I know.  Let's just say I'm not the only one to take this advantage, I'm just the guy that made a big deal about it because I felt it NEEDED to be debated.

Also, when I submitted my throw to Bill Scruggs, I insisted he put "spin" next to it because I did not feel that my throw was comparable to what Don Stewart did standing.  I told him exactly how I did it and told him that if he felt it were not legit, then don't post it.  The fact is, I followed the rules.  I also told him that I felt we should have seperate records for standing and spinning, just my opinion and I still have that opinion. We also need to do that now because later there won't be reliable records of who did what. 

Finally, here are my bests.  I've cleared 17ft standing in official competition (KC Games 2005) and 19ft spinning with a Bobby Dodd in official competition (and 20ft in practice in front of witnesses) and I won the WOB Championships at Pleasanton with a Bobby Dodd.  I can throw a "regular" weight.  It is my hope to break that record with a "shorter" implement this year.  Merl Lawless' weights are around 16", my Ironmind WOB weight is 15.5", my Bobby Dodd weights are 15".   

And one last "finally":  The weight I did use was made by Al Myers.  It is a solid lead implement that has a super light chain and handle.  To me, that is the real secret of why it's a flyer.  That is a seperate debate, but one that is an issue.  Do we get down to regulating the composition and design of the weights?  Do we get down to the type of rock used for the Braemar Stone?  Or do we just say, the games are the games and records should be taken with a grain of salt.  I honestly get the impression that Sean Betz could care less that he broke the WOB record, he is more interested in winning.  He never practices the WOB and I'm sure if he did (like I did) he'd go way higher.  It was  choice I made to focus on that one event for the summer and go after that record.  Soon, it won't matter because it will be broken again and again. 

The rules used by the various organizations are very nearly the same. It wouldn't take much to put together a single standard rule set (one that even allows for regional variations). I hereby volunteer my help if the powers that be ever want to all sit down together and hammer something out (I wrote the rules used by SHA and SAAA). In fact, I will fly out on my own freakin' dime anyplace in North America if the major organizations (alphabetically - CSAF, HASA, NASGA, RMSA, SAAA, SHA, and SSAAA) can agree on a place and a time and express the will to get a single rule set together. I'll even buy the first round at the bar.

Oh my god...that weight was used to set a "record" ? quit fu(king up the sport!

Throwers choice? AD' choice?...you have to be kidding me....here is a legal weight throw the thing....STANDING!  The weight should be a weight with one ring that you hold on to.  If its a crappy weight that doesnt fly,,,oh well....The guy who set a record with that weight ,,,does  not have a record of any kind!  I am going to throw the hammer this year but I am going to use a hammer with a 9 ' long handle.

It doesnt say in the rules that I cant tackle someone while they throw so this year if someone is beating me Im going to sack them as they hit a power position....Keith Tice is spinning in his grave looking down on what this sport is becoming.

Before what follows, I totally understand where McSanta is going with the Thrower's Choice.  My .02 is that if there are multiple weights available, one should be selected and used throughout the class' competition.

If not, you would have throwers bringing their "favorite" weights to competitions.

Can you imagine if you had throwers flying to games, bringing a full selection of weights that they liked to throw.  I can see it now in the newspaper headlines, "Airplane Passenger Killed When 56# Weight Falls From Overhead Compartment".

OK --- Carlos, for President.  Here's my input for the Rules!!!

Rules for Scottish Heavy Athletics:

1. Throwing is fun.
2. Throwing should be fun.
3. If it's not fun, then why do it.
4. Diversity, differences, fields, slants, slopes, hills, valleys, knock off bars, fixed bars, space between standards, spinning, standing, Braemar, Open, one spin, two spins, (Gasp) three spins, PVC, 3/4" PVC, 1/2" PVC, Rattan, tape, tacky, chalk, gloves, winged trigs, Cross Bars, various sizes - shapes - weights of stones, Cabers (like trees grow the same), Shapes of handles, "O" rings, "D" rings, Triangle rings, chains, larger, smaller, more weight in handle, more at bottom of implement, shoes, cleats, logger boots, tanels, blades, tennis shoes, football cleats, soccer shoes, neoprene, braces, Icy Hot, Ben Gay, supplements, energy drinks, libations, size of athletes, classes of athletes, size of fields, make up of standards, differing organizations, Clubs, etc., etc., etc. . .
5. Too much structure = Track and Field.
6. Refer to Rule #1!!!!!

That said, our differences make us unique.

Half the fun of these games is going to a new place and meeting new guys and gals, throwing the weights that are there at their field, chatting, eating, drinking, in short, having fun.

Remember, an AD is putting on the game, sometimes as his/her expense.  And, if not at their expense, I promise you some of their personal funds have slipped into the fray!!!

The A.D. is doing the best they can with the weights, budget, etc., that they have.  Follow their rules, Relax and Enjoy!!!

Borges wrote: The rules used by the various organizations are very nearly the same. It wouldn't take much to put together a single standard rule set (one that even allows for regional variations). I hereby volunteer my help if the powers that be ever want to all sit down together and hammer something out (I wrote the rules used by SHA and SAAA). In fact, I will fly out on my own freakin' dime anyplace in North America if the major organizations (alphabetically - CSAF, HASA, NASGA, RMSA, SAAA, SHA, and SSAAA) can agree on a place and a time and express the will to get a single rule set together. I'll even buy the first round at the bar.

I suggest Las Vegas in the off season.  You can get cheap flights, cheap rooms including conference rooms, and a bunch of guys walking around in kilts will barely turn heads if it was not for their average size being much larger than normal.  Include some of the big independent games or throwing organizations such as Ancient Athletics because we in the Midwest are pretty much organization-less. 

Start with Carlos's rules because they are the best starting point.

Through in some topics on:  getting sponsors, recruiting new throwers in your area, strategies for dealing with Games Committees, Intergame cooperation, and Games Marketing

and you have a makings of a national AD's meetings and the formation of a national rules committee. 

I see this as two distinct issues, both of which could be addressed by a rules clarification or change.

1). The Throwers Choice Issue: I am echoing several previous posts when I say Everyone in a given class should use the same implement (stone, weight, hammer,or caber).  If the AD and the Judge wish, the throwers input may be asked before an event starts to decide which implement to use.  For Example: you have three stones that are legal for use in an open stone event, the weights are relatively close (16.5lb, 16.75lb, 17lb)  but each is shaped differently.

2). WOB Implement specifications: These should be specific in regards to handle attachment, shape, and overall length.  For Example: The weight shall be made of metal in one of the following shapes (Spherical, Box, Cylinder, Bullet).  The handle can be Round, Triangle, or "D" shaped, and shall be attached directly to the weight or attached with a single link (no more than 2" in length). The implement shall not measure more than 16" in overall length, measured from top of the handle to the bottom of the weight.

I also would fully support you Carlos, in developing a national set of rules.  I do believe this is realistic and long overdue. 

Valenti wrote: Oh my god...that weight was used to set a "record" ? quit fu(king up the sport! Throwers choice? AD' choice?...you have to be kidding me....here is a legal weight throw the thing....STANDING!  The weight should be a weight with one ring that you hold on to.  If its a crappy weight that doesnt fly,,,oh well....The guy who set a record with that weight ,,,does  not have a record of any kind!  I am going to throw the hammer this year but I am going to use a hammer with a 9 ' long handle.   It doesnt say in the rules that I cant tackle someone while they throw so this year if someone is beating me Im going to sack them as they hit a power position....Keith Tice is spinning in his grave looking down on what this sport is becoming.

Mark is never the type to pull punches!

I echo Carlos' call, it is time to for National Rules Committee 

This should not be a one man effort because of issues relating to big and little games, male and female throwers, regional issues, ...  may get missed. In addition, if you get regional people involved, then they have their say in the development of the rules. This leads into each person buying into the rules and the ability to credibility sell the rules to those in their region that did not attend.  I again recommend that people in each region get involved.  I will help were and when I can but their are better candidates in the Midwest than I.

Some may question whether a group of ADs can get together and accomplish anything.  I know they can because a group of AD's from big games as well as small did get together in the off season last year. They did discuss the rules and other topics (some mentioned in my previous post).  Not all who were invited made it, but I think they support the goal. 

The goal was not to create an organization, the goal was to stop crying about the rules and other problems and do something about it -- well at least on a regional basis.  There was no need to announce this because we are not trying to convert people or hurt other organizations -- We just agreed to follow a given set of rules at our own games and perhaps provide others with the set of rules. The hope was that this effort would standardize  throwing rules in the middle of the country. We further agreed to cooperate with each other and other games in our area.

The point I am trying to make is if you get a group together, you will get a free flowing exchange of information and ideas as we did in the last off season.  Not just on rules but on other issues that ADs struggle with.  I believe this will improve the Highland Games  not just for those who came, but overall.

Since AD's are the ones who spend there time and sometimes money to keep the games going, they generally have a vested interest in what is good for the games in general. This is why when ADs get together something will get done. 

I wish I was more eloquent and could say what I mean in two sentences.

Mark "McSanta" McVey

I would be willing (hopefully with the RMSA's blessing) to meet and tighten up the rules.  I'm the one the modified the latest RMSA rules.  Las Vegas sounds good to me. and plenty of:

Carlos is the man!

Valenti was  classic. 

While you are at this national committee, get rid of the stuupud sheaf toss.  Stuupud event.

I don't even have to read the replies.

I'm even gladder I'm me.

This board is the greatest thing to ever happen to my self-esteem.

~Jason

<What were the length's of the weights used by spinners recently, Sean Betz in St. Louis in '04, Harrison's record (was that Michigan?), Kip's old record that I broke?  Does anyone have any data on the implements used, I'm not only curious how long they were, but the style and shape used.>

Thom,

Hope your training is going well.

If I recollect.......it was an Old Celt (block) with a clevis between the eyebolt and the handle.  I have no idea what the length was.  My Old Celt 42 measures 14.5" set up as described.  G-man had a picture of the actual toss, I believe.

Don Stewarts 20' standing is still the king.

kip miller

Jason Pauli wrote: I don't even have to read the replies. I'm even gladder I'm me. This board is the greatest thing to ever happen to my self-esteem. ~Jason

Jason, I am becoming more concerned about you after everyone of these self "accepting" posts.  What is TRUELY going on here?

You can feel good about yourself (and you should) without a report!

One thing, Making a weight longer when you throw it spinning style is a clear advantage (Physics People) this has to be regulated somehow we need to establish a max, 14" sounds like a good start. 

An 18" weight pulled in the WOB spinning isn't even close to an 18" weight pulled standing.  Nevermind if the standing throw is 14" and the spinning is 18"  Are you kidding me? 

RADIUS!

The only way to avoid someone getting overly clever is basically what the Kaelyne Mowell a.k.a. the Queen said

shall be attached directly to the weight or attached with a single link (no more than 2" in length). The implement shall not measure more than 16" in overall length

IMHO, I think one more stipulation would close even more loop holes: For implements that are larger on the bottom than the top, the bottom cannot be more than X% larger than the top (measured by diameter for circles, diagonals for rectangles......) 

This will stop those who are gifted in a shop from making some pyramid or cone shaped thing that has majority of the weight on the bottom. 

No kidding Mike! This talk reminds me of the story "Harrison Bergeron," for those of you who read Vonnegut.

I think everybody should throw the same weight I guess. We definately don't want anybody to drag a weight on the ground because it has too much chain on it. But you throw your own stuff at a track meet, and if you're at a game out west, 80% are going to be spinning anyway. What if we're at a games where nobody is standing?

K-Monster wrote: What if we're at a games where nobody is standing?

Then your not actually doing the WOB!

Might as well do a Farmers walk!

Had to do it, sorry......

Mike Wills wrote: I actually think that making weights that fly farther while still meeting the weight and length specs is a good idea.  Why wouldn't you want to make a weight that goes as far as possible while still weighing the correct amount and being the right length?

My take is because this is a throwing contest and not an engineering contest.  One could design a weight (like below) which essentially is using the implement to increase the height rather than throwing skill and strength.

The weight is basically a large block on the bottom of a tapered top -- This does about the same thing as a large block on a chain.  Would you feel proud of breaking someone's record that was set using an Old Celt block weight?

As for me, I have only cleared 14' in a contest (who cares what someone does in practice),  I would be proud that I could throw something that high and I would be proud I found a unique design. HOWEVER, I would never submit it for a record. 

The games is about testing oneself against the implement and gravity.  It is about beating another when they are throw their best, which is why throwers help each other.  

This is not cut throat power lifting where people wish for others failure for their success.  Getting cute with the rules is more likely to lead the games down the road to that kind of environment more than any group of AD's getting together and doing something about the problems outlined so often on this board. 

I think they actually have a weight shaped a bit like that in New Zealand. Always thought it would be cool to throw. Then again, at some games in Scotland they still throw the ORIGINAL 56, which has NO link at all and looks like a lunchbox on steroids.

I have no problem throwing differently shaped weights, made out of lead/mercury/duct tape/whatever, as long as it weighs 56 lbs, has no more than one link, and isn't overlong (whatever that means).

I can't help but notice that this problem wouldn't have ever come up if it weren't for a certain spinning Pennsylvanian I'll refer to as "Barrrison Hailey".

Mike your post is well taken and includes many things I did not think about 

A Highland Games Competition is just that, a competition. What matters is who throws the furthest or highest that day on that field with those implements. I don't like 'throwers choice' precisely because it takes away the last part. It works in T&F because of the extremely precise regulations on implements (ever had to change hammers because some over officious prick decides that your handle missed spec by a few millimeters?). Such precise regulation in HG would take away one of the aspects of our sport that I hold most dear, the incredible variety.

The real issue driving the original post and most of the subsequent debate is the puerile fascination with so called 'records'. No amount of debate or regulation will ever put an end to that. Even in an event where there is incredible uniformity it is never ending. As a specific example consider the records in LWFD. Sean's amateur record of 87'6" can't ever be brought up without someone going on about the infamous "Kansas City Flyer" implement. Matt's world record of 94'6.5" can't ever be brought up without someone going on about the cliff they throw off of at Estes Park. Both were absolutely incredible throws, but most important of all, both throws were the furthest on their respective fields with their respective implements on their respective days. There is no arguing that and that is the heart of the matter where rules are concerned.

In 1972 after the Olympics were over Weightlifting went from 3 events to 2 events. The reason was that the technique for the press evolved so much that the judges didn't know how to judge it anymore. It looked like a bench press that's how much it changed. More weight was being lifted, yes. But the lift was compremised. Goodbye Press.

Carlos summed it up - the best throw that day with the same implement wins the competition. Records are fine, but you can never truly compare throws in HG between sites and implements.

The best part of this thread came from kspell:

If I'm speaking out of turn, forgive me and correct me, but I have to agree with AGM that there must be a standard that sets not just the law but protects the spirit and the intent. WOB is a great example, and we all know that different implements will have different flight capabilities so why not go to a standardized set of implements. Once, I believe hammers were just that and not spherical balls. Once sheaf was just that, a sheaf of barley or oats and not a burlap bag. Once wfd's were agricultural weights. Well, I believe we are past the point of introducing "improved" technology (or should be) to prolong the flight of the implement. Nor, should we adding knock-off bars to make things more difficult. Nor spins to what is traditionally done standing. Do you "spin" a Braemar?

These games come out of a cultural heritage that ABOVE ALL values a persons integrity.Not his rank, or his money but his integrity. If records are to be kept they should honor this cultural more and be kept with INTEGRITY! This requires a concise codification that makes the person and thier indivdual ability, not the implement, the point of reference. What would Oldfield or Tice (both of whom I watched) have done with a WOB on a chain 18" long? What a crock. Why would anyone want to compete in an arena where records are "set" and "broken" by contrivance. I couldn't imagine proclaiming myself a record holder over everyone else because I used a superior implement. Not only is this wrong competitively, it's also wrong morally. I want to win when my fellow competitors are "spot-on" and  throwing in the same conditions as me, not because they had a bad day or were hurt and I had a great one. Ryan didn't become 4 time world champ with that attitude. Eric Frasure isn't the best amateur because he takes advantage of "glitches". The AD's are supposed to help maintain the integrity of our sport, not prime the pump for personal or regional prestige, crowd pull or whatever. Who's protecting the guys like me who had to wait years to get started or the 9 year-old kid that watched you throw last week-end  and who will be throwing against your son in ten years?

This does not mean there isn't room for individual AD's or games to have thier own nuances but it shouldn't be in those events where standardization is so easy. 3 forks vs. 2 shouldn't be an argument, standing or spinning shouldn't be an argument, 14" attached vs. 18" with chain shouldn't be an argument. The reason for all of these is somebody's ego...You want ego watch wrestling, be a powerlifter, get big on steroids, run for congress, but don't screw with our sport. 

One of the reasons I got started in this sport is I believe in Integrity, courage, competitive spirit, personal improvment and honoring the culture from which my kith and kin were bred. This manipulation and contrivance smacks too much of all that is wrong in our world today. I Know, I know it's always been such....Just do me and (your sons and daughters) a favor...keep this pure and don't let the biggest ego or the biggest whiner or the biggest spender have the final say.

Hey that is what I wanted to say but my prose skills would not let me. If I tried to include all that, it would have been a 3000 word theme.

Well said.

This is something that needs to be said once in a while because the games draw from a rich background of characters whose experiences maybe from the over regulated T&F, win at all cost power-lifting, strong man contests, heritage background, .... All bring something to the games and that is why they are great but they may not know where the games come from and the rich traditions embedded in them.

On a side note: At a game last year, I was fascinated by a dad with his son.  He pulled me a side and asked astonishingly if it was the norm that throwers help each other.  My response was "Yup, the guys want to beat each other but only if the other brings their best game on the field."  The dad turns to his son and said that is what sportsmanship is. 

You guys make it sound like you have a "lock" on sportsmanship, brotherhood, and the like.  United we stand, divided we fall.  The way things have went on this board, looks like the latter.  I have been insulted beyond words by this thread and I refuse to take part in the debate any further because it seems to me to is all about alienating and not about finding a way to get along as good sports and fellow brothers.   

Alright, enough is enough.  I agree that it is an issue that can be debated as many can be (as with any sport).  Like spin vs stand in HG or clean vs continental in strongman, people have differences of opinion on many things.  Those can be debated in a civilized fashion where no one is attacked, and the integrity and brotherhood of the sport remains intact.  However, a fewe in this post have gone too far.  I would wager that some of you do not even know Thom, let alone know the kinds of things he stands for.  Well, I for one, do.  There is not an immoral bone in his body.  His biggest goal (over any strength or HG goals) is to be a good, honest man and Christian.  He stands by those he cares about, and I choose to stand behind him.  Anybody could have thrown with the implement he used.  If it was against the rules he would have not used it.  I am not saying that it should or shouldnt be legal to throw WOB with such an implement, the fact is, it was a legal record, and the integrity of the man should not be in question.

Eric Todd

How many of you have actully thrown in Scotland, I have been fortunate to  have thrown in 2 games over their and maybe 100 in the states. I have yet to see a game that was the same. And as far as cultural goes that is an American thing of what we believe it to be over there. If you believe in tradition, don't ware gloves don't take pictures of the Queen at Braemar on the field, It's ok not to throw the next event, don't move your back heel on the Braemar stone until the stone leaves your hand, Hammer's have sector lines. We break  many traditions in this country a few more really won't matter in the long run. Don't talk about tradition until you have thrown in other places and we form a sanctioning body. I have thrown with Tom several times and he is a class act and a good man, he has probably done more for the strength world than most of us put together.  

You didn't apoligize either.

I didn't attempt to make an apology, and the traditions I spoke of are cultural not athletic. These cultural ideals were brought to this country and have been  handed down for the last 300 years. I have no romantized notion of how things are "over there", that's not even germain to my statement.  I do agree that no two games are the same. That does not mean that we couldn't prosper with concise standards.

A level field only enahnces everyone's efforts and adds the accountabilty that most fans and spectators would common-sensically expect. It also gives the participants the ability to plan and train in accordance with the accepted standards.  Again I did not impune any individual or individual action nor was there any intention of doing so. My concern is how can a record be a record if what was thrown was not the same type of device as was used to set the previous record? I did challenge those who would hold themselves to be in authority over our sport without any hint of accountability. The amazing thing to me (and the source of the problem) is that a governing body would allow and then proclaim and support a record set with an implement that so stretches the "norms" that most would assume are set. Or that in some area's a certain technique is kosher but in others it is not. It's really no sweat to me, but it does make the legitimacy of "records" of dubious distinction and will in the long run be a detriment and a source of discordance. The individual merits of each particular point of view should be hashed out and an overall set of standards should be codified and adhered too. Perhaps I'm just to naive.

Because one has or has not been involved in the games over a long period or because one has or has not thrown in Scotland has nothing to do with validity of a point.  There are books and other resources to fill in on things that one was not alive to witness or has not experienced first hand.

The shocking thing I found when I decided to become a student of the games is that Highland Games has an embedded tradition of change:  Hammers were once thrown with an approach and are not (safety concerns).  WFD was a standing throw and eventually approach was allowed and the box size slowly grew.

However, to understand why the spirit of throwing rules are so important and why the games are not overly burdened by rules/regulations, I believe one needs to understand the history of the games.  In defense of the variety of the games and the loosely written rules and why the spirit of the rules are so important, I believe Mr. Bob Stewart post was very informative. I did not see or interpret any of it as an attack on any single individual.   This is much bigger than any one person

I AM SORRY THAT I KEEP USING Mr. Van Vleck's record as a whipping boy but it does point out how records are kept and broken in the games. I again state clearly that I believe his record should stand.  It did not violate any set of rules under which the throw was made.

But the question still stands:

In the future, should weights that are not directly connected to the handle by no more than one link (no longer than 2") be allowed in records for weight over bar.  To me this is what the spirit but not the letter of the law desires.

In addition to this, I believe the implement used by Mr. Van Vleck was made of all lead. This brings in another area of controversy with the implement thrown.  In the future, should an implement made from all lead be allowed to set records.  MASA, NASGA, RMSA allow all lead weights.  Borges rules followed by many games, USAD, and other rules require the weights to be made from a metal not softer than brass or encased in a metal not softer than brass.

Endless controversy;  At times I wish I never  started this topic

Conclusion:

I think most throwers want at the very least is that when an AD submits a throw for a record, a certain set of minimum standards to break that record need to be met by that throw.

This is not regulating the various games or what people can or cannot throw, it is just saying that in the future if you want to go after a record, certain things must be meet.  After a period of time when a certain throwing style (example: spin for WOB or Sheaf) changes the sport, then records need to be kept for the new era. 

To do this, AD's have to get together and agree on some minimum guidelines as stated by others earlier in this thread.  Not only that, but they will have to do it periodically.

Mark McVey

Many weights being used at the moment currently exceed the 14 inches.  Earlier in this thread, Kip Miller stated his Old Celt weight was 14.5"  I think overall length would need to be moved out to 15" 

Thom Van Vleck's first post outlined the length of some standard weights. 

If the implement gets much longer than 15", and the rules do not limiting the distance between handle and weight, a creative mad scientist (engineer) will cook up some abomination.

One could have additional rules like:

a. The weight shall be made of metal made not softer than brass, or of a shell of such metal filled with lead or other material and shall consist of a spherical, box, or conical shape.

b. Weights designed purposefully to give a thrower an undue advantage will be considered illegal for record keeping.

c. The smaller diameter of Conical shaped weights and the smaller diagonal of pyramid shaped weights shall not be smaller than x% of the larger diameter.

a. through c are starting to sound a lot like over regulation but it would tighten the rules.  It would be better to keep the rules open and allow innovation and evolution of the games. This would be done under the believe that in the future consensus can be found when ever things change.  

consensus among Celts? pinch me, I am dreaming!

b. Weights designed purposefully to give a thrower an undue advantage will be considered illegal for record keeping.

Too vague.  Too much room for interpretation and arguement, thus it doesnt really solve anything.  The other ones look good, and reasonable.

ET