I’ve come to the conclusion that man of these internet judges will call squats high based solely on the federation in which the lift was performed and not on the execution of the lift itself.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
I’ve come to the conclusion that man of these internet judges will call squats high based solely on the federation in which the lift was performed and not on the execution of the lift itself.[/quote]
You’re squatting high.
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
I think if it came down to it I’d rather have Kroc’s physique and freakish strength, as opposed to Wilkerson’s physique and superhuman strength; but that has a lot to do with the fact that I don’t think my heart could handle carrying that much mass on a daily basis. Otherwise, the amount of weight he is lifting is incredible, and you won’t hear me say a bad word about a man who can do that.[/quote]
Yeah man, I hear ya. If I could have X-ray vision or heat vision, I’d go for the heat vision.
Why the fuck is this relevant? It’s not like either of us is getting our goals anytime soon.[/quote]
Probably because multiple people have commented on his physique and said that it is not worth it to be that size and lift that amount of weight. I don’t really see how that was a hard thing to understand, but what the fuck, let’s overreact anyway![/quote]
Overreact? Cry more. Those bunch of people were told that they were idiots and their opinion didn’t matter, and you used one of your 3 posts to inform us all how YOU’d want to look, using two guys that you could never end up looking like anyway.
Your post was as valuable as my decleration that I’d rather have heat vision than x-ray vision. No one cares.
[/quote]
Uh oh…invoking the post count. That’s a very original and intelligent argument. Clearly when I reach such an impressive post count as yours I will be able to relay my thoughts more effectively. After all, this is the internetz, and you are King. Sorry I had an opinion on a message board, my Liege.
I’m not “invoking the post count”, I’m pointing out that you used one of your 3 posts to tell us how you want to look. It’s a waste of a post, and contributes nothing to the topic.
However, your fixation on post count as opposed to the core of the post (mainly the fact that no one cares what you want to look like) demonstrates that you at least realize that you were wrong. That’s all that matters.
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
I’m not “invoking the post count”, I’m pointing out that you used one of your 3 posts to tell us how you want to look. It’s a waste of a post, and contributes nothing to the topic.
However, your fixation on post count as opposed to the core of the post (mainly the fact that no one cares what you want to look like) demonstrates that you at least realize that you were wrong. That’s all that matters.[/quote]
While that was quite the straw-man argument, I would have to disagree. As for wasting posts, you’ve now done it thrice in regards to a post you cleverly deemed “irrelevant.” If my post was truly that irrelevant and contributed nothing to the topic, the intelligent individual would have simply ignored it. You, however, wasted a post playing the internet tough guy/board police and are now continuing to waste posts responding to me. Your worthless post that “called me out” contributed much less to thread than my first in it, so Pot, meet Kettle. And nice attempt at claiming an internet victory for the post quoted above, but to put it quite simply, no.
I suspect those who have time and energy to argue in this thread didn’t get their obligatory squats reps this week…
Random(ish) thoughts:
I think its hard to tell how deep he goes(lighting and angle of view)
He seems to have knee sleeves or wraps (watch how he walks after the lift) so it isnt ‘Raw’ (to me)
IPF dont have a ‘Raw’ section.
He is one STRONG mofo.
I dont thik depth rules mention the word ‘parallel’ in most feds; they usually talk about crease at hip being lower than top of knee or similar. Parallel is often taken to mean: top of the thigh parallel to floor- very difficultto judge especally on really big guys.
I seem to remember an old definition of ‘parallel’ being something like …an (imaginary) line drawn from the hip to the centre of the knee would be parallel to the floor…
Whatever definition most usually insist on BREAKING parallel, dont they?
[quote]apwsearch wrote:
This post is hilarious.
A bunch of pinheads debating depth and body composition who don’t even realize the bigger issue is that he is wearing knee wraps which makes it not a RAWWWWWWW lift.
It is a squat done in belt and wraps. There is a SIGNIFICANT difference.
Additionally, he is a bull no doubt but to elevate himself to Mark Henry status is quite silly.
Funny shit.[/quote]
Well, Henry did his lift in knee wraps. i can understand the debate over whether that constitutes raw lift or not, but he did mirror the conditions under which mark set his record.
For what it’s worth, I know the list of all time raw records has its limitations, but it does differentiate between squats w just a belt and squats with wraps and a belt. So while they are obviously different, they are both considered, at least for the purposes of that list, to be raw.
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
I’m not “invoking the post count”, I’m pointing out that you used one of your 3 posts to tell us how you want to look. It’s a waste of a post, and contributes nothing to the topic.
However, your fixation on post count as opposed to the core of the post (mainly the fact that no one cares what you want to look like) demonstrates that you at least realize that you were wrong. That’s all that matters.[/quote]
While that was quite the straw-man argument, I would have to disagree. As for wasting posts, you’ve now done it thrice in regards to a post you cleverly deemed “irrelevant.” If my post was truly that irrelevant and contributed nothing to the topic, the intelligent individual would have simply ignored it. You, however, wasted a post playing the internet tough guy/board police and are now continuing to waste posts responding to me. Your worthless post that “called me out” contributed much less to thread than my first in it, so Pot, meet Kettle. And nice attempt at claiming an internet victory for the post quoted above, but to put it quite simply, no.[/quote]
I’m not calling you out dude. Seriously, quit crying.
You seem to spend a lot of time on messageboards with you ideas about “internet police” and “internet victory”, so perhaps its hard for you to come to terms with the fact that no one cares what you’d rather look like.
I don,t want to start I,m not a power liffter I was just wandering what is considered a raw lift versus an assisted lift, so if I squat 350 with no belt,wraps or even chaulk what is this reffered to and how much more could I lift with gear
I think he hit at least parallel. If you look at his deepest, yes, the quads look to be above parallel. But do you guys realize how massive those legs (and stomach) are and how deep the crease at his hip probably is? I’m willing to be the deepest part at the crease of his hip is below the top of his knee or that his femur is at least parallel to the ground.
If you look at just his quads he looks above parallel, if you look at just his butt and hamstrings he looks below parallel. I think it’s the guys mass that makes is depth look like it does.
[quote]AnytimeJake wrote:
I don,t want to start I,m not a power liffter I was just wandering what is considered a raw lift versus an assisted lift, so if I squat 350 with no belt,wraps or even chaulk what is this reffered to and how much more could I lift with gear[/quote]
That is referred to as RAAAWWW. As you can see, with decreasing amounts of equipment and unnecessarily strict judging, you first capitalize the letters and then increase their number. A walked out high bar squat, barefoot and naked, judged by NASA with multiple replays is thus RAAAAAWWWWWWWWW.
Why don’t you have a belt or chalk? Are you just cheap as shit?
Does it have to be discussed that I can squat over 9,000???
[quote]conorh wrote:
[quote]AnytimeJake wrote:
I don,t want to start I,m not a power liffter I was just wandering what is considered a raw lift versus an assisted lift, so if I squat 350 with no belt,wraps or even chaulk what is this reffered to and how much more could I lift with gear[/quote]
That is referred to as RAAAWWW. As you can see, with decreasing amounts of equipment and unnecessarily strict judging, you first capitalize the letters and then increase their number. A walked out high bar squat, barefoot and naked, judged by NASA with multiple replays is thus RAAAAAWWWWWWWWW.
Why don’t you have a belt or chalk? Are you just cheap as shit?[/quote]
You then proceed to exclamation points when you start using items to detract from your performance.
For example if not only do you not use chalk, but you dip your hands in crisco before your deadlift (in combination with ridiculous judging and being naked) it becomes a “RAAAAWWWWWWWWWW!!!” deadlift.
Further, if you do your deadlift at a 4" deficit, you can actually begin to recycle letters in the word raw itself and hence get "R"s at the end of the word making your pull “RAAAAWWWWWWWWWWRRR!!!”
I feel like if you’re both a drug free lifter AND raw, you have to use way too many capital letters to express your point.
[quote]KBCThird wrote:
Well, Henry did his lift in knee wraps. i can understand the debate over whether that constitutes raw lift or not, but he did mirror the conditions under which mark set his record.
For what it’s worth, I know the list of all time raw records has its limitations, but it does differentiate between squats w just a belt and squats with wraps and a belt. So while they are obviously different, they are both considered, at least for the purposes of that list, to be raw.[/quote]
I know, KBC. Good post. From an equipment standpoint it’s an apples to apples lift. I will leave the rest to the internet experts.
As an old school guy, for powerlifting purposes, knee wraps and a belt is RAW to me. I honestly think it was a low point in USAPL when they voted to define RAW as knee sleeves only. Not to mention they then allowed the Inzer sleeves for the first round of meets.
To me, competing RAW is what you do to get used to the pace of the meet etc. The end goal being to make it to your respective World’s team which in the IPF, is geared.
Additionally, as a guy who actually trains with a few guys who were at this year’s Unity meet, it is always amusing to me how all these RAW zealots run around thumping their chest yet at the first USAPL Nationals we had guys who had posted “RAW” totals in their respective feds, showed up to gear check with knee wraps, erector shirts, and in a case or two bench shirts (no bullshit).
I am just tired of seeing people trump RAW squats, that are then compared to the largest and most competitively attend RAW meets (UNITY, USAPL Raw Nats, Arnold RAW comp) who are wrapping their knees.
IMO, don’t call yourself RAW if you wrap your knees (or for that matter train with Inzer elbow wraps clamped down over 2 layers of clothing).
Given the current competitive standards, it’s dishonest and bullshit.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]conorh wrote:
[quote]AnytimeJake wrote:
I don,t want to start I,m not a power liffter I was just wandering what is considered a raw lift versus an assisted lift, so if I squat 350 with no belt,wraps or even chaulk what is this reffered to and how much more could I lift with gear[/quote]
That is referred to as RAAAWWW. As you can see, with decreasing amounts of equipment and unnecessarily strict judging, you first capitalize the letters and then increase their number. A walked out high bar squat, barefoot and naked, judged by NASA with multiple replays is thus RAAAAAWWWWWWWWW.
Why don’t you have a belt or chalk? Are you just cheap as shit?[/quote]
You then proceed to exclamation points when you start using items to detract from your performance.
For example if not only do you not use chalk, but you dip your hands in crisco before your deadlift (in combination with ridiculous judging and being naked) it becomes a “RAAAAWWWWWWWWWW!!!” deadlift.
Further, if you do your deadlift at a 4" deficit, you can actually begin to recycle letters in the word raw itself and hence get "R"s at the end of the word making your pull “RAAAAWWWWWWWWWWRRR!!!”[/quote]
Oh god this was funny.
What if you do it on a bosu ball? Does that make it EXTREME enough to make it RRAAAWWWRRRXXXXX
[quote]apwsearch wrote:
I know, KBC. Good post. From an equipment standpoint it’s an apples to apples lift. I will leave the rest to the internet experts.
As an old school guy, for powerlifting purposes, knee wraps and a belt is RAW to me. I honestly think it was a low point in USAPL when they voted to define RAW as knee sleeves only. Not to mention they then allowed the Inzer sleeves for the first round of meets.
To me, competing RAW is what you do to get used to the pace of the meet etc. The end goal being to make it to your respective World’s team which in the IPF, is geared.
Additionally, as a guy who actually trains with a few guys who were at this year’s Unity meet, it is always amusing to me how all these RAW zealots run around thumping their chest yet at the first USAPL Nationals we had guys who had posted “RAW” totals in their respective feds, showed up to gear check with knee wraps, erector shirts, and in a case or two bench shirts (no bullshit).
I am just tired of seeing people trump RAW squats, that are then compared to the largest and most competitively attend RAW meets (UNITY, USAPL Raw Nats, Arnold RAW comp) who are wrapping their knees.
IMO, don’t call yourself RAW if you wrap your knees (or for that matter train with Inzer elbow wraps clamped down over 2 layers of clothing).
Given the current competitive standards, it’s dishonest and bullshit.
[/quote]
There’s one thing we can all agree on here: having a visible neck can only hold you back in life.