Training partner's opener - 880 lbs

[chris mason]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Sorry, I meant a still pic from the side. It doesn't matter how big etc.

[JK1]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I am curious what people think of the lift?

Video

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. I think alot of multiply meets are getting stricter lately.

[April Mathis]

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.