350 LB Deadlift at 180, 21 Years Old

Bigger Stronger Leaner Powerlifting & Strength Sports
42

[quote]mldj wrote:
johnnytang24 wrote:
powerliftingjake wrote:
how is 3 times body weight only novice johnnytang24 i dont think half the people on here if not more are not even close to deadlift 3xboday weight and there are some world class lifters u can say that becasue its like saying that andy bolton is still a novice he doesnt deadlift 3x body weight and he has the bogestr deadlift ever.

Do you always selectively read parts of a post and comment on them? 3xBW for a 200lbs male OR EQUIVALENT SCORE BY FORMULA. So Andy Bolton doesn’t have to pull 3xBW.

considering many (possibly most) people would not be able to achieve “novice” by your standards, within 4 years of training, i’d suggest that calling it “novice” would be quite retarded

You’re a novice when you start until you reach 3xBW @200lbs. And judging by the lifting and advice given on these boards, most people are still novices within 4 years

Ummm, so a guy who pulls 500 in the 148 weight class cannot qualify for “Beginner” by your standards?

This must be joke. Or some kind of stupid I’m-so-hardcore overstating post.[/quote]

Or the post assumes you’re smart enough to know how to read. By every formula out there, 500@148 is better than 600@200.

Really, people can’t be this stupid to not be able to understand the concept of a formula. WTF is is it going to take to pound into your retarded skull how a formula works?

43

We were talking about your ridiculous classification, based on, I don’t know what, random powerlifting threads in Internet forums?

You insist to clasify for “Beginner” one has to pull around 3.5 times his own bodyweight? The whole concept of these standards is to give you some REALISTIC weight ranges, depending on your weight and strength training levels.

There are many other variables like age, height, body structure, which must be taken into account, but the extremities outside the standard deviation should be minimized.

Regarding that, I would say that the “Starting Strength” standards are quite good.
And yours are not.
Of course, you can say that your goals are 3x, then 3.5x, then 3.75x pull, but don’t even try to disregard the achievements of others by saying “No, look what is strong for me”.

Keep in mind that for not so little part of the strength training community 600@198 IS better than 500@148. The first guy will be bigger and stronger than the second guy, while you can’t say who will be better athlete, because of the specialization needed to go over 3xBW deadlift.

44

[quote]mldj wrote:
We were talking about your ridiculous classification, based on, I don’t know what, random powerlifting threads in Internet forums?
[/quote]
Seems like every meet I go to, about 20-30% of the people go over 600 on the DL, with bodyweights ranging from 165+

You fail at reading. Again.

All classifications are a matter of opinion. I’m not disregarding the achievements of anyone.

[quote]
Keep in mind that for not so little part of the strength training community 600@198 IS better than 500@148. The first guy will be bigger and stronger than the second guy, while you can’t say who will be better athlete, because of the specialization needed to go over 3xBW deadlift.[/quote]
So is 601@350 better than 600@198? Is 600@198 better than 300@100? Is the only thing that matters the absolute number? Who’s the one not taking into account body structure and disregarding other people’s achievements?

45

[quote]johnnytang24 wrote:
mldj wrote:
We were talking about your ridiculous classification, based on, I don’t know what, random powerlifting threads in Internet forums?

Seems like every meet I go to, about 20-30% of the people go over 600 on the DL, with bodyweights ranging from 165+

You insist to clasify for “Beginner” one has to pull around 3.5 times his own bodyweight? The whole concept of these standards is to give you some REALISTIC weight ranges, depending on your weight and strength training levels.

You fail at reading. Again.

There are many other variables like age, height, body structure, which must be taken into account, but the extremities outside the standard deviation should be minimized.

Regarding that, I would say that the “Starting Strength” standards are quite good.
And yours are not.
Of course, you can say that your goals are 3x, then 3.5x, then 3.75x pull, but don’t even try to disregard the achievements of others by saying “No, look what is strong for me”.

All classifications are a matter of opinion. I’m not disregarding the achievements of anyone.

Keep in mind that for not so little part of the strength training community 600@198 IS better than 500@148. The first guy will be bigger and stronger than the second guy, while you can’t say who will be better athlete, because of the specialization needed to go over 3xBW deadlift.
So is 601@350 better than 600@198? Is 600@198 better than 300@100? Is the only thing that matters the absolute number? Who’s the one not taking into account body structure and disregarding other people’s achievements? [/quote]

On any formula the heavier weight pound for pound will win. A heavier weight will even beat a lighter with a greater pound for pound lift. This is why they have formulas. My best deadlift was something like 451 at 148. I’m knocking on the door of 600 now at 200. I missed the 600 a month or so ago, pretty close.

Pound for pound aside, I think my 570 at 200 is more impressive than my 451 at 148. It took a helluva lot more training to get here than there.

46

[quote]johnnytang24 wrote:
mldj wrote:
We were talking about your ridiculous classification, based on, I don’t know what, random powerlifting threads in Internet forums?

Seems like every meet I go to, about 20-30% of the people go over 600 on the DL, with bodyweights ranging from 165+

You insist to clasify for “Beginner” one has to pull around 3.5 times his own bodyweight? The whole concept of these standards is to give you some REALISTIC weight ranges, depending on your weight and strength training levels.

You fail at reading. Again.

There are many other variables like age, height, body structure, which must be taken into account, but the extremities outside the standard deviation should be minimized.

Regarding that, I would say that the “Starting Strength” standards are quite good.
And yours are not.
Of course, you can say that your goals are 3x, then 3.5x, then 3.75x pull, but don’t even try to disregard the achievements of others by saying “No, look what is strong for me”.

All classifications are a matter of opinion. I’m not disregarding the achievements of anyone.

Keep in mind that for not so little part of the strength training community 600@198 IS better than 500@148. The first guy will be bigger and stronger than the second guy, while you can’t say who will be better athlete, because of the specialization needed to go over 3xBW deadlift.
So is 601@350 better than 600@198? Is 600@198 better than 300@100? Is the only thing that matters the absolute number? Who’s the one not taking into account body structure and disregarding other people’s achievements? [/quote]

If we’re not talking just pure lifting, my strength would play out better now on most athletic fields if I weren’t so damn old.

the funny thign about this is, I would rather be strong, than strong for a little guy. most people don’t even look at relative strength out in the real world.

47

I agree you can pull some amazing weight when you first start out in comparison to other lifts. For example other day my younger sister who is 15 just starting to weightlift is about 140ish lbs was repping 135 on deadlift without much trouble yet can only squat around 75 for reps-atg-. And she is by no means a strong person at all.

This whole ‘Am I strong yet’ kind of posting is little silly. You will KNOW when you are strong.

48

I agree you can pull some amazing weight when you first start out in comparison to other lifts. For example other day my younger sister who is 15 just starting to weightlift is about 140ish lbs was repping 135 on deadlift without much trouble yet can only squat around 75 for reps-atg-. And she is by no means a strong person at all.

This whole ‘Am I strong yet’ kind of posting is little silly. You will KNOW when you are strong.

Bingo.

49

[quote]Guerrero wrote:
I did a 350lb Deadlift, for 2 reps. Heaviest, I’ve done, grip gave before anything else.

I’m not trying to be like OMG IM STRONG.

I’m pretty much the only person in my gym who deadlifts or does any oly shit.

Is this a decent deadlift? What should I be shooting for?

I’m 5’10, 21yrs old, 180 lbs.

I know what a good bench is, like 300 lbs abouts is the upper end, past that you’re really pushing digits and if you’re a lifter 200 and up is respectable.

I don’t know what a good deadlift is tho, what should I be shooting for, what is respectable, and what is the upper end?
[/quote]

Ok I’m a little surprised no one asked this, but how long have you been training for? and why are you training?

As you can tell from everyone bickering it really depends. If you want to win a meet you’ll have to pull a pretty decent amount, like 3xBW (at least 500). If you aren’t lifting to win any competitions then make sure your form is spot on, there’s no sense in trying to pull some # just so you can tell your boys and then you end up having trouble walking for a few days.

If you continue to train your lift #'s will go up without a doubt. 350@180 shows a good base of strength, but you won’t turn many heads. Like I said it depends on what you wan to do. I can almost guarantee you you’ll be in the mid 4’s before you know it. It’s a catch 22 really, I’m a little tired of everyone saying “Dude if you ain’t pulling like 700 pounds then youre a pussy!” however, I understand and fully believe in pushing yourself to your max abilities.

Just keep everything in perspective. I’m 20 and have only been deadlifting for ~4 months so I’m not really worried about my #'s, so long as I’m improving strength, form, and having a good ass time doing it. (I have to say–don’t neglect lift #'s and all because it is important and necessary to improve, just don’t get so caught up in them you are obsessed with a #)

Goodluck and let us know how you progress.

50

Now I’m curious. Would you guys apply similar strength standards to women?

51

By weight class, men, and women.

52

I’ve seen that.

Women’s elite standards are just over double bodyweight. Sounds pretty low to me.

53

[quote]johnnytang24 wrote:
The OP never asked for anyones numbers. He asked what was considered good. Here’s what I consider good for a 200lbs male, or the equivalent score by formula:

<3xBW (600lbs) Novice
<3.5xBW (700lbs) Beginner
<3.75xBW (750lbs) Good

3.75xBW Elite

Not everyone can achieve elite (I probably never will), but isn’t that the definition of the word?[/quote]

So Ryan Celli is a beginner?

54

[quote]ChaseT wrote:
johnnytang24 wrote:
The OP never asked for anyones numbers. He asked what was considered good. Here’s what I consider good for a 200lbs male, or the equivalent score by formula:

<3xBW (600lbs) Novice
<3.5xBW (700lbs) Beginner
<3.75xBW (750lbs) Good

3.75xBW Elite

Not everyone can achieve elite (I probably never will), but isn’t that the definition of the word?

So Ryan Celli is a beginner?[/quote]

no, he’s good

55

[quote]johnnytang24 wrote:
ChaseT wrote:
johnnytang24 wrote:
The OP never asked for anyones numbers. He asked what was considered good. Here’s what I consider good for a 200lbs male, or the equivalent score by formula:

<3xBW (600lbs) Novice
<3.5xBW (700lbs) Beginner
<3.75xBW (750lbs) Good

3.75xBW Elite

Not everyone can achieve elite (I probably never will), but isn’t that the definition of the word?

So Ryan Celli is a beginner?

no, he’s good[/quote]

I’m just pointing out how arbitrary your ratings are. Ryan’s best pull in a sanctioned meet is 672.3 at 192.6 for a 3.49xBW ratio.

Only two men hit 750lbs in the 198lb class in the IPF last year: Craig Terry and Andrey Belyaev.

Craig Terry was built to deadlift and Belyaev is nearly as strong pound for pound as Ed Coan.

56

Ryan has pulled over 700 in an unsanctioned meet. Also, most people don’t pull their best at meets. I would bet most people could pull more if they didn’t squat and bench first.

As for the top tier, that’s exactly what that is. Only the best. Probably people built to deadlift, with years of training. Probably using gear as well. The 198 record is 100lbs over what I consider elite.

What numbers aren’t arbitrary? The Exrx numbers? Who decided those, and why are they a good standard? Every female lifter at the gym I go to has pulled elite within a year or two of lifting. Doesn’t seem very elite to me.

57

[quote]johnnytang24 wrote:
Ryan has pulled over 700 in an unsanctioned meet. Also, most people don’t pull their best at meets. I would bet most people could pull more if they didn’t squat and bench first.

As for the top tier, that’s exactly what that is. Only the best. Probably people built to deadlift, with years of training. Probably using gear as well. The 198 record is 100lbs over what I consider elite.

What numbers aren’t arbitrary? The Exrx numbers? Who decided those, and why are they a good standard? Every female lifter at the gym I go to has pulled elite within a year or two of lifting. Doesn’t seem very elite to me. [/quote]

Maybe the female ratings aren’t as good. Maybe if it’s done by percentages of people, there just aren’t enough women who lift heavy to make higher standards there.

58

[quote]johnnytang24 wrote:
Ryan has pulled over 700 in an unsanctioned meet. Also, most people don’t pull their best at meets. I would bet most people could pull more if they didn’t squat and bench first.

As for the top tier, that’s exactly what that is. Only the best. Probably people built to deadlift, with years of training. Probably using gear as well. The 198 record is 100lbs over what I consider elite.

What numbers aren’t arbitrary? The Exrx numbers? Who decided those, and why are they a good standard? Every female lifter at the gym I go to has pulled elite within a year or two of lifting. Doesn’t seem very elite to me. [/quote]

Most record-based sports (running, swimming, track & field, olympic weightlifting, powerlifting, etc.) classify somebody as elite when they hit a certain percentage of the current world record, or when they are one of the top X% of the competitors in the world at that event. Setting numbers based on bodyweight doesn’t have as much significance as the above methods.

59

I like that idea of Elite being a % of the world record…

What sorta %'s would we be talking?

60

[quote]Hanley wrote:
I like that idea of Elite being a % of the world record…

What sorta %'s would we be talking?[/quote]

90% or more for world class, elite should be less something you could achieve with all resources. Yet world class not everyone would hit because of genetic limitations.