PDA

View Full Version : Training partner's opener - 880 lbs



chris mason
04-16-2012, 07:36 PM
I am curious what people think of the lift?


d6sNP1HZHJc&feature=youtu.be

Travis Bell
04-16-2012, 07:48 PM
Man Justins legs have gotten HUGE!!

joey54
04-16-2012, 08:08 PM
Moved fast as hell that is for sure.

Lones Green
04-16-2012, 09:21 PM
Looked good.

Chris Rodgers
04-16-2012, 09:22 PM
That got called on depth? That looked perfect from this view, clearly lower than many others I have seen passed from similar angles.

chris mason
04-16-2012, 09:30 PM
It did Chris, yes. That is why I posted it. It was a really bad call. He then took the same weight even deeper and got called on depth again...

He was the only multi-ply lifter in the meet and the judges were obviously not prepared for it. It was extremely frustrating. The meet itself was otherwise well run, but we learned our lesson that you don't do multi-ply lifting in anything but a multi-ply meet.

FYI, I called him up and I was on my hand and knees from behind on the platform... It was a bullshit, bullshit call.

He did smoke the shit out of it, no?

RFabsik
04-16-2012, 10:00 PM
Before, I get booed, let me say I'm more like a bystander who only knows the sport of poewerlifting from the internet and reading the rules of the federation, and share my opinion so those in the sport can understand an outsiders perspective.

From this angle it might be just a tad high, a side angle would clarify it. And maybe when he dipped he might have made depth, but from this angle it is tough. So for judges not experience with multi-ply I can see why they failed it.

Now if on the next attempt he went deeper, I would think it was pretty clear he made depth, because the one you showed is damn close.

I also wonder in the single ply feds if they are used to narrower squatting, so then when they see a wider squat they don't know how to watch the the proper angles of the hip to knee.

larsen540
04-16-2012, 10:00 PM
Looks good Chris not sure what the judges looking at...

April Mathis
04-16-2012, 10:00 PM
If they were looking for convincingly deep (some meets I have done are looking for 2 inches below) then it is not. But I think that is a good parallel or just breaking parallel squat. I would have to view from the judge's chair on the side for sure, but I believe I would have white-lighted that and I tend to be fairly strict on depth compared to most people.

joey54
04-16-2012, 10:11 PM
Impossible to tell depth from that angle. Strong as hell for sure.

chris mason
04-16-2012, 10:19 PM
April and Robert, a point you are sorely missing is you simply cannot get much deeper in multi-ply equipment of that type. That is about as good as it gets. I defy you to show me a lifter in briefs and a canvas suit getting much deeper than that.

The rules of powerlifting have to be relative to the equipment or it makes no sense. THAT is the point and one that so many seem to miss.

JK1
04-17-2012, 12:05 AM
Chris, that camera angle just isn't a good one. He handled the weight very, very well (damned fast squat), but I don't feel comfortable making any comment on depth from that video angle other than to say he was close for sure.

As far as equipment, I've seen deeper squats in multiply. I've also seen much, much higher. The bottom line is you need to get a camera angle from the judges chair or ask the judges the day of the meet (ideally right after the attempt) why they gave reds. If they can't give a concise, to the point answer as to why they gave a red light, then they shouldn't be in the judges chair.

joey54
04-17-2012, 04:52 AM
Jack, great points.

RFabsik
04-17-2012, 07:27 AM
April and Robert, a point you are sorely missing is you simply cannot get much deeper in multi-ply equipment of that type. That is about as good as it gets. I defy you to show me a lifter in briefs and a canvas suit getting much deeper than that.

Let me qualify some issues. I'll emphasize from this angle it looks a just high, a side angle would make it extra clear. I would also agree that multiply can be tougher to judge because the lifters usually squat wide, lift more upright and often just break parallel and start to drive out--so depth might be reached for only a moment--but it still made depth (with Justin these judges might not have the experience to catch his full depth due to his explosiveness). I think these issues give an appearance that depth may not be made at times when it is because it doesn't look like a narrower, leaning over squat.

Regardless of gear, don't most powerlifting federations define a good squat as the hip crease being below the top of the knees? If gear doesn't let me get that low, should I be allowed a good squat? Maybe multiply feds should change the rules looking that some aspect of the thigh is level to the ground? So in my brain, you need to meet the rule and this goes both ways--too high or not getting a squat passed because it didn't make a picky judges 2 inch lower rule.

And I'll ask this to be educated, does the multiply stuff layer on so thick that it make the hip crease look higher than it really is? If so, that would make judging damn tough?

drew
04-17-2012, 08:56 AM
Without reading anyone elses comments, I'll just say it looked a tad high from this angle but good enough that it should have gotten 2 whites. Really could go either way.

Just want to clarify that I had to pause the video at the lowest point. That said, I would probably have given it a white.

J_Byrd
04-17-2012, 08:58 AM
Knowing that the angle is looking up at it, I would think it looked good.

Brian Hopper
04-17-2012, 10:03 AM
It didn't look bad to me. I've seen alot worse and get white lights. I also paused it at the lowest point like drew did and I still think that it deserved at least 2 whites. What federation was that? He got robbed thats for sure!!!

chris mason
04-17-2012, 11:29 AM
Chris, that camera angle just isn't a good one. He handled the weight very, very well (damned fast squat), but I don't feel comfortable making any comment on depth from that video angle other than to say he was close for sure.

As far as equipment, I've seen deeper squats in multiply. I've also seen much, much higher. The bottom line is you need to get a camera angle from the judges chair or ask the judges the day of the meet (ideally right after the attempt) why they gave reds. If they can't give a concise, to the point answer as to why they gave a red light, then they shouldn't be in the judges chair.

I would love to see a video of a deeper squat in a canvas suit. I really don't think you are going to find one (a significant difference).

They gave an answer, and it was that they needed him to get to a depth that wasn't possible in the equipment.

chris mason
04-17-2012, 11:33 AM
Show me a multi-ply in a canvas suit where the crease of the hip is below the knee. It doesn't happen because it can't if the equipment is not retardedly loose. That, to me, is why it makes sense that you simply cannot have the same depth rule for equipment that precludes it. That is the definition of stupidity.

hamstring
04-17-2012, 11:36 AM
The dip should have allowed that lift to get at least 2 whites. If a judge isn't used to a dip like that then I could see it not passing but I have seen lifters from certain big gyms much higher than that (inches) and still get 3 whites. Sorry it didn't pass, I think it should have.

drew
04-17-2012, 12:17 PM
Show me a multi-ply in a canvas suit where the crease of the hip is below the knee. It doesn't happen because it can't if the equipment is not retardedly loose. That, to me, is why it makes sense that you simply cannot have the same depth rule for equipment that precludes it. That is the definition of stupidity.

EPiuWvtE7-8

Rugby Dad
04-17-2012, 01:09 PM
How about coming out of that multi ply crap, and lifting the weight under your own God-given ability?

joey54
04-17-2012, 01:47 PM
How about coming out of that multi ply crap, and lifting the weight under your own God-given ability?

I hope you are just trolling.

Drew, I was thinking of that video as well. It can't be seen in the video, but I have seen some try to discredit that lift by stating Rychlak had his feet propped against the monolift for leverage. I wouldn't know, but just pointing out how even that video has its critics.

The point is the only opinion which matters on competition lifts are the judges. Unfortunately for Chris' partner his squats were turned down.

RFabsik
04-17-2012, 04:45 PM
Show me a multi-ply in a canvas suit where the crease of the hip is below the knee. It doesn't happen because it can't if the equipment is not retardedly loose. That, to me, is why it makes sense that you simply cannot have the same depth rule for equipment that precludes it. That is the definition of stupidity.

Then don't they have to change the rule? Maybe the top of the thigh is parallel to the ground? Or do we need to use technology that marks the trochanter or hip and if it breaks a point--successuful squat? I haven't seen any rules or feds that say "must achieve the full depth allowed by the equipment." Wouldn't that be a little backwards?

chris mason
04-17-2012, 05:52 PM
EPiuWvtE7-8

Drew, that video is quite old and the equipment is far from the same. No sarcasm intended, I do appreciate the video.

chris mason
04-17-2012, 05:54 PM
How about coming out of that multi ply crap, and lifting the weight under your own God-given ability?

Statements like that seem silly to me. They indicate bias and likely a misunderstanding. Equipped lifting is simply another form of lifting. It is no easier, and in fact could be argued to be harder. It is simply different.

chris mason
04-17-2012, 05:57 PM
Then don't they have to change the rule? Maybe the top of the thigh is parallel to the ground? Or do we need to use technology that marks the trochanter or hip and if it breaks a point--successuful squat? I haven't seen any rules or feds that say "must achieve the full depth allowed by the equipment." Wouldn't that be a little backwards?

Yes, I think I have said that a few times. The rule should be different for the current generation of multi-ply gear.

Invain
04-17-2012, 06:21 PM
How about coming out of that multi ply crap, and lifting the weight under your own God-given ability?

Hehe.

I'm usually pretty judgmental when it comes to depth, especially when it comes to geared squatting, but that really didn't look bad to me. I've seen a lot of squats higher than that pass.

ScottYard
04-17-2012, 06:35 PM
It did Chris, yes. That is why I posted it. It was a really bad call. He then took the same weight even deeper and got called on depth again...

He was the only multi-ply lifter in the meet and the judges were obviously not prepared for it. It was extremely frustrating. The meet itself was otherwise well run, but we learned our lesson that you don't do multi-ply lifting in anything but a multi-ply meet.

FYI, I called him up and I was on my hand and knees from behind on the platform... It was a bullshit, bullshit call.

He did smoke the shit out of it, no?

You are right. its best to keep them seperate. Too seperate lifts with too seperate views for the judges. narrower Raw squats you can judge from the front. Wide multi ply squats you just cant. The suit makes the thighs look an inch higher. Most raw novice guys bury their squats and then the judges look for buried suited squats. that wont happen but hitting paralell wich what most rule book says can be done no problem.

I even hate some of these raw guys that go super deep for no reason, give up 100 lbs on their squat and then the judges will screw guys that while not as deep as others still lift well within the rules.

RFabsik
04-17-2012, 08:07 PM
Yes, I think I have said that a few times. The rule should be different for the current generation of multi-ply gear.

What would be a good rule?

Anyway at the tournies to get side shots or does the spotter get in the way? I think side shots would really alleviate a lot of confusion and shut up trolls.

ScottYard is on the mark and answered a lot of my questions. Thanks guys.

chris mason
04-17-2012, 08:24 PM
What would be a good rule?

Anyway at the tournies to get side shots or does the spotter get in the way? I think side shots would really alleviate a lot of confusion and shut up trolls.

ScottYard is on the mark and answered a lot of my questions. Thanks guys.

I'd have to think about that. Someone post a good side view of someone squatting to parallel for me if you have one readily available.

RFabsik
04-17-2012, 09:25 PM
Here's one from back/side http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnk8CA-uiOo

Side, but I don't think it is multiply. Check around 2m39s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE2yEnzD0jc

Here's a front side, but this guy doesn't have the huge quads Justin does, so its easier to tell depth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfbDLMNozMg

Searched for a while, most of stuff online from meets are shot from the front or front. side.

chris mason
04-17-2012, 10:23 PM
Sorry, I meant a still pic from the side. It doesn't matter how big etc.

JK1
04-18-2012, 12:10 AM
I would love to see a video of a deeper squat in a canvas suit. I really don't think you are going to find one (a significant difference).

They gave an answer, and it was that they needed him to get to a depth that wasn't possible in the equipment.

I specifically said "in multiply" for a reason. I also said I've see higher and I've seen deeper for a reason--I really think I have. In canvass specifically, I'm going to have to think a bit to come up with examples I can post here. From this last weekend, I think Sherri Bullock's opener and Shany Gilberts squats were both deeper. Sherri had on a relatively loose leviathan. Shany's was very tight to me--one of the tightest i've seen in a while. It took us a while to get her out of it after she was done lifting. Let me think about it and I'll see if I can post video for you to see what I'm trying to say. Again, I think camera angle pays a huge role with percieved depth from the front, especially in multiply due to the folds and angles of the equipment and the way the legs seem to bunch up under the suit and briefs (ie the equipment really, really compresses the upper thigh.

One thing I'm learning with a leviathan is people tend to have the legs too long and too tight. You watch the people who can get down with it, they have it so that the legs of the suit are a bit higher and the hips are ridiculously tight. I found that to be the same case when I squatted in a boss suit too. People told me I could never hit depth in that suit.. .I struggled, then shortened the legs and tightened the hips and didn't have a problem after that.

In my mind understanding and manipulating the equipment is a huge issue and for me, the biggest part of the challenge of any equipt lifting.

RFabsik
04-18-2012, 06:41 AM
Here is a link reviewing the rules of powerlifting in general and he shows a bunch of shots once you scroll down of proper depth. I think the guy is either in just a singlet or maybe single ply.

http://powerliftingab.com/WhatisPL.htm

JK1
04-18-2012, 12:14 PM
Here is a link reviewing the rules of powerlifting in general and he shows a bunch of shots once you scroll down of proper depth. I think the guy is either in just a singlet or maybe single ply.

http://powerliftingab.com/WhatisPL.htm
Please don't take this personal, but I really, really do not like web pages like the one you have posted. They are perpetuating misinformation about this sport that is just continuing with problems---just like that old pencil drawing of the buried squat that was represented by many federations as how squats should be, even though it was obviously well below parallel.

here are the problems I've got with this website:
1) you really can't see anything on the photos. The lifter being pictured is in a washed out black singlet. as an example photo, the hip crease should be CLEARLY visible, not hidden like it is in those example photos. The simple fact is it just opens up to too much subjectivity with depth calling, which is not what you want to do if you are trying to teach squat judging.
2) the red lines that are drawn in. From what I can see they reflect the authors opinion, not a true anatomical location or measuring point for determining squat depth. Before I get flack for that comment, look really close at them (ie change the contrast on the photo and blow it up like I did) The one appears above the hip crease, the other I'm not sure where it is. This isn't good either.
3) the "proper" squat stance illustrated is a relatively narrow stance of a squat by a skinny individual not carrying a large amount of body fat or muscle mass. These kinds of squats look very different than a wider stance by a heavier person. If squat depth is going to be illustrated, it really should contain a picture of a SHW, a 242, and someone under 180 lbs. Not only that, but ideally there should be a photo of a man and a woman of those weight classes. Why? Because each one of them will appear slightly different, especially in a washed out black singlet where the hip crease is not clearly visible.
4) the final issue goes back to what I think Chris's point is..that individual is in a singlet with (if they are following the rules) only a pair of underwear underneath. You put on double ply briefs, you put on a double ply suit and the visual appearance to the squat is going to be different. That has to be taken into account. To try to compare an indivual in just a singlet with an individual in thick multiply gear isn't really accurate at all, because the equipment changes the visual appearance to a degree.

RFabsik
04-18-2012, 01:21 PM
No offense taken. I was just trying to find some side shots of powerlifters squatting, and it was really tough to find any from a competition. Maybe I'm bad at searching the internet.

I'm struggling to figure out what would be a good depth rule for multiply?

JK1
04-18-2012, 03:20 PM
No offense taken. I was just trying to find some side shots of powerlifters squatting, and it was really tough to find any from a competition. Maybe I'm bad at searching the internet.

I'm struggling to figure out what would be a good depth rule for multiply?

I wish I had a simple concise answer for that. This was the topic of a pretty intense discussion between my wife and I a couple of years ago when we were working on a rulebook. The anatomy does not change, the problem is individual interpretation of individual variation. If you think about it this and include all feds and the internet interpretations, there is huge variation with no one really having a simple concise answer that applies to all body shapes and sizes.

RFabsik
04-18-2012, 03:31 PM
When a rule is variable based on a person or his/her shape, it will always create controversy. The best way to solve it is to take out the variable factors. But, then you'd really have to change the face of powerlifting. So instead of saying one has to squat to parallel, you can have them squat to a certain bar/chain/strap. How you figure out this height would cause debate too. Maybe it is based on weight class or height???

That's one of the advantages of strongman, it needs technique, but relies on the outcome for the prize not the technique--get the sandbag on the platform (however you want), get the log overhead (however you want).

MarcusWild
04-18-2012, 03:42 PM
Is equipment really a reason to allow high squats though? I just can't follow that logic. If you can't get depth in the gear, then wear less gear. Why not say shirts make it too hard to touch, so we don't have to touch on bench anymore? Let lifters take the bar down until the shirt locks up, then press it back up and count it as good.

You can get depth in multi-ply gear (including canvas). The "problem" is it takes 50-150 lbs off the squat compared to squatting high. Ego makes people look for the fed that'll pass the high squats. IPA had their turn in the High PA era. APF had the WPO era. Now it's the SPFs turn.

Everyone knows you can go to certain meets and if you bend your knee and stand up with the weight it'll get passed. Then it's defended with great logic of "you could't even unrack that" or "you can't judge a WR lift unless you have a WR". Which begs the question of how pro athletes even have a league, since their refs/officials aren't former all star players?

If everyone wants to allow higher squats in multi-ply, then at least change the rule book so it's honest and accurate.

April Mathis
04-18-2012, 04:38 PM
April and Robert, a point you are sorely missing is you simply cannot get much deeper in multi-ply equipment of that type. That is about as good as it gets. I defy you to show me a lifter in briefs and a canvas suit getting much deeper than that.

The rules of powerlifting have to be relative to the equipment or it makes no sense. THAT is the point and one that so many seem to miss.

Like I said I think it was right about parallel without seeing from the side, and if so I would have given a white light. I think right at parallel/just breaking is what should equal white lights in all meets in raw, single ply, and multi ply. The rule is written exactly the same in all federation rulebooks that I know of: the crease of the hip must be below the top of the knee. I dislike that most have gone to one extreme or another with it. Some you can still get redlighted on depth 2 inches below and others pass squats 6 inches high with 3 white lights.

My view is if you cannot get to parallel, then the gear is too tight or you are not technically proficient in using it. There shouldn't be a different standard, although it seems more judges in some multi ply meets (and this has happened in many federations not just one, and not all meets of any one federation) have taken it upon themselves recently to allow almost anything to pass (which is basically the same as a different standard without actually writing it in the rulebook). I also do not like that there are different standards based on who the lifter is. There are definitely some people that always get high squats passed and are shown a lot of favoritism based on who they are and/or what gym they lift at.

I have seen many below parallel squats also in multiply (very, very few at 1000lbs. or above though). One lift that comes to mind to me is Steve Goggins 1102 squat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUY8RiQ69Dg .

Edit: Here's a 1000lbs. in canvas (I think the 1102 was something else): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUxR3zUeRCk

JohnnyRingo
04-18-2012, 07:20 PM
I am curious what people think of the lift?


d6sNP1HZHJc&feature=youtu.be

Alot of things to say about this video.
1) He is one of 2 people I have seen the wears something around the back trap area when squatting. My buddy actually wore his gf's scarf one time. No insult, it's just one of the first things i noticed.
2) IDK what fed. the lift was in because I scimmed this thread bad, but the lifts i have seen (5 comps, I didn't compete I'm a weak little bitch) that would have gotten 3 whites. I have only seen SPF comps.
3) Sweet titties his legs are huge.
4) Anyone who disrespects the multiply lifters like this guy just don't understand IMO. The lifts done in these suits still transfer into some of the strongest raw lifters out there.

chris mason
04-18-2012, 08:41 PM
Ok, this is a pic from the link Robert posted. It is said to be a high squat. To me, this height would be good for the multi-ply gear which allows multi-ply briefs and a thick canvas suit (like an Inzer Leviathan).

I think what I would consider a valid depth would be the femur being more or less parallel to the ground as it appears to be in this pic.

Getting the crease of the hip below the top of the knee is going BELOW parallel. That is a fine criteria for all but the most extreme equipment.

Again, to not change the rules for the extreme equipment is DUMB. Equipped lifting IS different than raw. Current generation multi-ply IS MUCH different.

chris mason
04-18-2012, 08:43 PM
Like I said I think it was right about parallel without seeing from the side, and if so I would have given a white light. I think right at parallel/just breaking is what should equal white lights in all meets in raw, single ply, and multi ply. The rule is written exactly the same in all federation rulebooks that I know of: the crease of the hip must be below the top of the knee. I dislike that most have gone to one extreme or another with it. Some you can still get redlighted on depth 2 inches below and others pass squats 6 inches high with 3 white lights.

My view is if you cannot get to parallel, then the gear is too tight or you are not technically proficient in using it. There shouldn't be a different standard, although it seems more judges in some multi ply meets (and this has happened in many federations not just one, and not all meets of any one federation) have taken it upon themselves recently to allow almost anything to pass (which is basically the same as a different standard without actually writing it in the rulebook). I also do not like that there are different standards based on who the lifter is. There are definitely some people that always get high squats passed and are shown a lot of favoritism based on who they are and/or what gym they lift at.

I have seen many below parallel squats also in multiply (very, very few at 1000lbs. or above though). One lift that comes to mind to me is Steve Goggins 1102 squat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUY8RiQ69Dg .

Edit: Here's a 1000lbs. in canvas (I think the 1102 was something else): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUxR3zUeRCk

The Goggins squats you provided vids for are no deeper than what Justin did. You are being confused by the fact he is bent completely over in his signature good morning style. Steve was an incredible lifter with a back of titanium.

chris mason
04-18-2012, 08:47 PM
Alot of things to say about this video.
1) He is one of 2 people I have seen the wears something around the back trap area when squatting. My buddy actually wore his gf's scarf one time. No insult, it's just one of the first things i noticed.
2) IDK what fed. the lift was in because I scimmed this thread bad, but the lifts i have seen (5 comps, I didn't compete I'm a weak little bitch) that would have gotten 3 whites. I have only seen SPF comps.
3) Sweet titties his legs are huge.
4) Anyone who disrespects the multiply lifters like this guy just don't understand IMO. The lifts done in these suits still transfer into some of the strongest raw lifters out there.

Lol, Johnny, those are the suit straps you are seeing :).

chris mason
04-18-2012, 08:54 PM
Is equipment really a reason to allow high squats though? I just can't follow that logic. If you can't get depth in the gear, then wear less gear. Why not say shirts make it too hard to touch, so we don't have to touch on bench anymore? Let lifters take the bar down until the shirt locks up, then press it back up and count it as good.

You can get depth in multi-ply gear (including canvas). The "problem" is it takes 50-150 lbs off the squat compared to squatting high. Ego makes people look for the fed that'll pass the high squats. IPA had their turn in the High PA era. APF had the WPO era. Now it's the SPFs turn.

Everyone knows you can go to certain meets and if you bend your knee and stand up with the weight it'll get passed. Then it's defended with great logic of "you could't even unrack that" or "you can't judge a WR lift unless you have a WR". Which begs the question of how pro athletes even have a league, since their refs/officials aren't former all star players?

If everyone wants to allow higher squats in multi-ply, then at least change the rule book so it's honest and accurate.

Like I said, change the rules for the current generation multi-ply, or don't allow it. Having people compete and passing squats that are not within the current rules (hip crease below top of knee) is just silly.

The logic is that the gear is a different type of lifting competition. It still takes extreme strength, but there is a higher danger and skill component.

JohnnyRingo
04-19-2012, 12:14 AM
Lol, Johnny, those are the suit straps you are seeing :).

Lol I had a few drinks tonight and was thinking there was some neat squat scarf out now.

powerlift, drink, repeat.

SEOINAGE
04-19-2012, 11:50 AM
He shouldn't have taken the same weight a second time, should have just said screw the judges and slam a crap ton more weight whether they like it or not. fvck em

SELK
04-19-2012, 04:31 PM
From the video it looks like it could go either way, at a tightly judged meet im not that surprised to see that not pass, but it looks very close. Just depends on the meet I think. At the xpc coalition the squat judging was tight and i got 2 whites on this (http://imgur.com/wMJwt). I think alot of multiply meets are getting stricter lately.

April Mathis
04-19-2012, 09:31 PM
Ok, this is a pic from the link Robert posted. It is said to be a high squat. To me, this height would be good for the multi-ply gear which allows multi-ply briefs and a thick canvas suit (like an Inzer Leviathan).

I think what I would consider a valid depth would be the femur being more or less parallel to the ground as it appears to be in this pic.

Getting the crease of the hip below the top of the knee is going BELOW parallel. That is a fine criteria for all but the most extreme equipment.

Again, to not change the rules for the extreme equipment is DUMB. Equipped lifting IS different than raw. Current generation multi-ply IS MUCH different.

I agree this is right at parallel (the crease of the hip is right in line with the top of the knee by the line you drew). I believe you drew the line to go through the crease of the hip (it's hard to tell with the black). It is right at the edge of where I would white light it both equipped and raw (benefit of the doubt goes to the lifter in calls that are very close, as to break parallel can be by a millimeter or less, so in essence at and breaking parallel are just about the same and should go to the lifter). Why should raw have to be lower than this? That's the part I don't understand of what you are saying.

ct67_72
04-20-2012, 06:38 PM
I think the squat looked good, but as others have said, its nearly impossible to tell from that angle.
I can also appreciate your feelings on the rules of the squat in multi-ply gear, but in that thinking when would it end? More aggresive gear and now it gets higher.
I am a geared lifter but a firm believer that a true squat is one that the hip breaks parallel with the knee. If the equipment wont allow it, it needs to be different.
If benching gets too difficult to touch do we allow a certain distance from the chest to consider it good? do we start calling bench presses when the elbow breaks parralel with the shoulder?
The bottom line is that the rules are the rules. If they say that you must break parralel for the lift to be considered good, than you must do exactly that. You cant be mad at the rules that you agreed to entering a meet.
On a side note, he smashed that weight!

chris mason
04-21-2012, 09:39 AM
I agree this is right at parallel (the crease of the hip is right in line with the top of the knee by the line you drew). I believe you drew the line to go through the crease of the hip (it's hard to tell with the black). It is right at the edge of where I would white light it both equipped and raw (benefit of the doubt goes to the lifter in calls that are very close, as to break parallel can be by a millimeter or less, so in essence at and breaking parallel are just about the same and should go to the lifter). Why should raw have to be lower than this? That's the part I don't understand of what you are saying.

I'm not saying raw should, but that has been the rule and I am not asking for a change in the raw or single ply rules, I am asking for recognition that the current and most extreme version of multi-ply is really a different form of competition and should be addressed as such.

chris mason
04-21-2012, 09:42 AM
I think the squat looked good, but as others have said, its nearly impossible to tell from that angle.
I can also appreciate your feelings on the rules of the squat in multi-ply gear, but in that thinking when would it end? More aggresive gear and now it gets higher.
I am a geared lifter but a firm believer that a true squat is one that the hip breaks parallel with the knee. If the equipment wont allow it, it needs to be different.
If benching gets too difficult to touch do we allow a certain distance from the chest to consider it good? do we start calling bench presses when the elbow breaks parralel with the shoulder?
The bottom line is that the rules are the rules. If they say that you must break parralel for the lift to be considered good, than you must do exactly that. You cant be mad at the rules that you agreed to entering a meet.
On a side note, he smashed that weight!

I am addressing a current concern. If the equipment got more extreme to the point you are referencing than further consideration would have to take place.

The current concern is that the most extreme multi-ply gear pretty much precludes the current squat depth rule from being viable. It makes no sense not to address it. You can either:

a) Ban said equipment.
b) Make the rules such that lifters can actually comply with them.

chris mason
04-21-2012, 09:45 AM
And what none of you rule sticklers realize is that the current state of meets is a farce. What is happening is at most meets the squat depth rule is NOT being enforced and there is an unwritten understanding. That is silly. Address the problem and move on.

April Mathis
04-21-2012, 11:11 AM
I understand your point of view. It makes sense, but I just disagree. The squats you posted looked ok to me based on the current rules, or at least very close. Making the lifter have to hit parallel in a meet should limit how ridiculous the gear can be. The judges just have to stick to it. I understand something close going to a lifter, but I do not understand that some lifts can be given 3 whites and be 6 inches above parallel and count for world records. If you can't be getting lower than that with 1000lbs.+, then the gear is just way too tight. I know quite a few people that can get to parallel with tighter gear (they need help getting on briefs and a suit I would say is tighter gear) with 315-500 on the bar, yet squat a lot more than that. It is tight enough to squat a couple hundred pounds more than raw, but not ridiculous. I really don't think it's any different than the argument Vincent made recently about bench shirts being so ridiculous at bigger meets that 80% of the lifters bomb trying huge numbers and still not touching. But no one is having a discussion that touching should be replaced by a 2-board instead in a meet.

chris mason
04-21-2012, 03:51 PM
April, you make a good point with the bench shirts, but it is different. The shirts are much more versatile and adjustable (i.e. they are wearing a shirt which may be several sizes too small and or they have pulled the collar down such that the shirt locks them up too high). When someone can't touch a weight that is more or less by choice/design. I don't think the same is true with a Leviathan type suit and Predator briefs. If you have on the right size suite and briefs and the straps up it would be the very rare individual indeed who could squat to where the crease of their hip is below the top of their knee, especially if they squat with a wide stance. There is some room for adjustment with the straps, but you really can't go several sizes too small because of the design of the suits (with respect to getting them on and off).

JK1
04-21-2012, 09:12 PM
April, you make a good point with the bench shirts, but it is different. The shirts are much more versatile and adjustable (i.e. they are wearing a shirt which may be several sizes too small and or they have pulled the collar down such that the shirt locks them up too high). When someone can't touch a weight that is more or less by choice/design. I don't think the same is true with a Leviathan type suit and Predator briefs. If you have on the right size suite and briefs and the straps up it would be the very rare individual indeed who could squat to where the crease of their hip is below the top of their knee, especially if they squat with a wide stance. There is some room for adjustment with the straps, but you really can't go several sizes too small because of the design of the suits (with respect to getting them on and off).


Chris, please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the real issue the appearance given from the wide stance vs a narrow stance and the inability of certian individuals to adjust for that change in appearance--lets face it a narrow stance with the leg perpendicular to the judge will look different than a wide stance with the legs turned out and the toes facing the judge.. the hip crease will appear different anyway you look at it. At the same time the squat will look different from the front too. it seems some just can't or won't understand that.

April Mathis
04-22-2012, 10:28 PM
Chris, please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the real issue the appearance given from the wide stance vs a narrow stance and the inability of certian individuals to adjust for that change in appearance--lets face it a narrow stance with the leg perpendicular to the judge will look different than a wide stance with the legs turned out and the toes facing the judge.. the hip crease will appear different anyway you look at it. At the same time the squat will look different from the front too. it seems some just can't or won't understand that.

This part is true Jack. Even with a wider stance, you should still be able to tell depth the same from the side. From the front it will look higher usually. Most of the meets I have been to and lifters I've been around compete with gear so I've been accustomed to what that looks like when judging from the side. If anything, a lot of lifters lift wider in gear not just for the suit to provide more support, but also to lessen the range of motion and hit parallel faster than with a closer stance. If the judges are judging the wider stance lifters differently and want them to have to go much lower, then that would be a problem. I have actually never seen this happen at a meet, as usually the judging is more lax towards the geared lifters if it is a meet with both raw and gear or different amounts of gear.

I also believe there is a serious problem with a lot of lifters now purposely training high all of the time and then expect to get down once they get to a meet and wonder why they can't. I know of many people and even have several friends that do this even and have talked with them that it a bad idea if they don't at least practice to hit depth some of the time in the gym. I know a bunch of people putting on 2 or 3 pairs of multi ply briefs and then a suit on top and wonder why they can never hit depth. I'm not saying from experience, because I never used a canvas suit myself as of yet. But it seems to me that more people training these ways will also lead to higher squats or lifters saying they just can't get down lower.

And Chris I know at least one person I used to train with wore a canvas suit and would take at least 30-45 minutes and at least 2 or 3 people helping to get it off every time. He actually somehow squatted to parallel with that also.

chris mason
04-22-2012, 10:41 PM
Chris, please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the real issue the appearance given from the wide stance vs a narrow stance and the inability of certian individuals to adjust for that change in appearance--lets face it a narrow stance with the leg perpendicular to the judge will look different than a wide stance with the legs turned out and the toes facing the judge.. the hip crease will appear different anyway you look at it. At the same time the squat will look different from the front too. it seems some just can't or won't understand that.

Well, I'm not sure about that. A narrower stance does make squatting deeper easier although I am not sure how much of a difference it would make in a Leviathan suit and Predator briefs.

chris mason
04-22-2012, 10:42 PM
This part is true Jack. Even with a wider stance, you should still be able to tell depth the same from the side. From the front it will look higher usually. Most of the meets I have been to and lifters I've been around compete with gear so I've been accustomed to what that looks like when judging from the side. If anything, a lot of lifters lift wider in gear not just for the suit to provide more support, but also to lessen the range of motion and hit parallel faster than with a closer stance. If the judges are judging the wider stance lifters differently and want them to have to go much lower, then that would be a problem. I have actually never seen this happen at a meet, as usually the judging is more lax towards the geared lifters if it is a meet with both raw and gear or different amounts of gear.

I also believe there is a serious problem with a lot of lifters now purposely training high all of the time and then expect to get down once they get to a meet and wonder why they can't. I know of many people and even have several friends that do this even and have talked with them that it a bad idea if they don't at least practice to hit depth some of the time in the gym. I know a bunch of people putting on 2 or 3 pairs of multi ply briefs and then a suit on top and wonder why they can never hit depth. I'm not saying from experience, because I never used a canvas suit myself as of yet. But it seems to me that more people training these ways will also lead to higher squats or lifters saying they just can't get down lower.

And Chris I know at least one person I used to train with wore a canvas suit and would take at least 30-45 minutes and at least 2 or 3 people helping to get it off every time. He actually somehow squatted to parallel with that also.

Parallel is not legal depth.

Crease of the hip below the top of the knee is significantly below parallel.

Brian Hopper
04-24-2012, 08:51 AM
I'm not sure how different they are, but this was done in Ginny's canvas suit and he hits good depth.

60pcZA8YG4c

chris mason
04-24-2012, 09:53 AM
I think there is a BIG difference because Gene R told me he wore one in that video of him getting below parallel with 1k lbs that someone posted.

JK1
04-24-2012, 04:18 PM
I think there is a BIG difference because Gene R told me he wore one in that video of him getting below parallel with 1k lbs that someone posted.

Irrespective of the suit worn, based on how the butt material was poking out on that suit (look at the peak of material when he turns around), I'd actually say it looks like it is pretty loose in the hips for a canvas suit. That obviously will allow him to get deeper because of tension of material across the glutes.

JK1
04-24-2012, 04:20 PM
I also believe there is a serious problem with a lot of lifters now purposely training high all of the time and then expect to get down once they get to a meet and wonder why they can't. I know of many people and even have several friends that do this even and have talked with them that it a bad idea if they don't at least practice to hit depth some of the time in the gym. I know a bunch of people putting on 2 or 3 pairs of multi ply briefs and then a suit on top and wonder why they can never hit depth. I'm not saying from experience, because I never used a canvas suit myself as of yet. But it seems to me that more people training these ways will also lead to higher squats or lifters saying they just can't get down lower.

And Chris I know at least one person I used to train with wore a canvas suit and would take at least 30-45 minutes and at least 2 or 3 people helping to get it off every time. He actually somehow squatted to parallel with that also.

I personally work where the weak point is. This may mean working a high box or a low box, it depends on where I'm weakest. Now typically speaking, I always squat to a low box on DE days. Why? So my hips don't get so tight I'm fighting getting down in equipment.

This is just like not touching in a bench shirt. I fail to understand how people can go through weeks of training, never touch weight and then expect to magically touch the day of the meet. That is a bomb just waiting to happen.