[quote]detazathoth wrote:
Massive LOL to all the haters[/quote]
LOL at the idea that one must be a “hater” to call a high squat high.
[quote]Sturat wrote:
Personally I’d love to see some technology introduced to squat judging. A couple of stickies that go on say the ischial tuberosity and the tibial plateau, both are easy to palpate even on a man this size. Then when the one on the IT passes below the one on the TP it beeps and records depth as good. It would take all this guesswork out of things.
Judges would still be necessary to evaluate the rest of the lift but the question of depth would be removed.[/quote]
Good idea stu , but it’d be the greater trochanter is where it should go . But the idea is a great one. The ischial tuberosity would just be make it a little high .
[quote]burt128 wrote:
[quote]detazathoth wrote:
Massive LOL to all the haters[/quote]
LOL at the idea that one must be a “hater” to call a high squat high.
[/quote]
Dude you’re one that phaggy time, this isn’t like a Mike Miller squat where it’s blatantly high, it’s a good squat that passed.
/THREAD
[quote]detazathoth wrote:
[quote]burt128 wrote:
[quote]detazathoth wrote:
Massive LOL to all the haters[/quote]
LOL at the idea that one must be a “hater” to call a high squat high.
[/quote]
Dude you’re one that phaggy time, this isn’t like a Mike Miller squat where it’s blatantly high, it’s a good squat that passed.
/THREAD[/quote]
I have no idea what that first part of you post means, I must be getting old…
[quote]detazathoth wrote:
Dude you’re one that phaggy time, this isn’t like a Mike Miller squat where it’s blatantly high, it’s a good squat that passed.
/THREAD[/quote]
Now I remember why I stopped poking around these parts. It was never the opinions that got me, it was how they were expressed.
[quote]mrodock wrote:
[quote]detazathoth wrote:
Dude you’re one that phaggy time, this isn’t like a Mike Miller squat where it’s blatantly high, it’s a good squat that passed.
/THREAD[/quote]
Now I remember why I stopped poking around these parts. It was never the opinions that got me, it was how they were expressed.[/quote]
.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
[quote]Sturat wrote:
Personally I’d love to see some technology introduced to squat judging. A couple of stickies that go on say the ischial tuberosity and the tibial plateau, both are easy to palpate even on a man this size. Then when the one on the IT passes below the one on the TP it beeps and records depth as good. It would take all this guesswork out of things.
Judges would still be necessary to evaluate the rest of the lift but the question of depth would be removed.[/quote]
Good idea stu , but it’d be the greater trochanter is where it should go . But the idea is a great one. The ischial tuberosity would just be make it a little high .[/quote]
Haha thanks. My bad there
[quote]BEAR BORN wrote:
http://www.powerliftingwatch.com/node/17462
Compare it to
The second squat Andrei makes.
His second squat is deeper than Wilkersons clearly, pause it and frame by frame it if you like. And gets red lighted.
This is a massive milestone for raw lifting, if Wilkerson can do it that fast and easily and to depth why doesn’t he compete out of the SPF, and why is his deadlift so low relatively? Every other raw squatter who squats anything like that is a tremendous puller, ie. Mark Henry, Big Don Andrei, etc
I love powerlifting, I respect everyone who gives devotion to the sport, regardless of whether you are in gear, wraps, raw, or whatever.
Robert Wilkerson is far
far
far stronger than I will ever be
I respect him a ton
He is massive as hell
but the squat is high and would have passed in no other federation. Is it impressive? Fuck yeah, he is terrifyingly strong and dedicated.
I am not attacking the man, he is one of the best powerlifters ever. I paused that squat at the bottom and watched frame by frame, that is a Miller Squat It actually looks almost exactly the same in regards to depth.
I won’t be commenting in this thread again, the man is an incredible lifter, a great human being whom I respect a lot from what I hear and terrifyingly strong, but that squat should not have gotten whites and I can’t figure out how you could rationalize it to be to legitimate depth.
I think often judges must feel pressured in such a way as to want to call a squat like that legitimate precisely BECAUSE it is such a massive milestone and expansion of the boundaries of human capability. And before someone says it, no I can’t walk out a grand, no I am not a judge.[/quote]
your posts makes far too much sense and is too full of correct to get anywhere on a board like this.
now you will be viciously attacked as a “hater” (wtf fuck does that mean anyway…) and a whiny bitch who is just jealous that he is not as strong as the guy in the video.
It is so amusing how far the pendulum has swung in the other direction. Many years ago squats like this would not have been taken seriously, and if were posted on the internet would have been laughed at and anyone defending them would have been ridiculed.
now the exact opposite.
yes I will get flammed for saying this.
no I am not as strong as that guy,
no I do not give a fuck, it was still high.
yes there are too fucking many federations, to the point that PL is a joke now.
there, now bring it! I am ready. lol
[quote]Sturat wrote:
Personally I’d love to see some technology introduced to squat judging. A couple of stickies that go on say the ischial tuberosity and the tibial plateau, both are easy to palpate even on a man this size. Then when the one on the IT passes below the one on the TP it beeps and records depth as good. It would take all this guesswork out of things.
Judges would still be necessary to evaluate the rest of the lift but the question of depth would be removed.[/quote]
good point Stu, but really. Most of the vets here on this board who have any experience competitive lifting know a legit COMPETITION squat when we see it. It is not rocket science.
Can someone post a picture and definitively indicate where the hip crease is on Wilkerson?
If not, then you can’t judge from the video. Simple as that.
BTW, Heavy Thrower, “in the old days”, Hatfield, Karwowski, and Moran were cutting squats higher than what the online judges consider acceptable today (unless it’s Siders).
“Many years ago”
captain kirk has some of the most legit 900lb plus squats ever.
Fred Hatfield’s 1000 plus was deep.
I cant comment on everybody who ever lifted in every competition before 1995.
have high squats passed at competitions many years ago…yes, and they were called out for it too.
the old ADFPA (i think, now the USAPL) and I know that most of the squats passed at IPF and ADFPA meets were “convincingly” deep, the high squats that passed were the exception not the rule.
…
…
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
“Many years ago”
first off, thanks for posting that video…brings back memories and its is cool and nostalgic to watch the lifters of old days.
but you proved my point sort of. for example, the 1045 of Pasanela was high, and was turned down. I argue from that angle it was very close to the depth of Rob’s squat that passed.
the point is that sometimes judging sucks, bad lifts get passed, good lifts get turned down, and the toughest lift to judge is the squat. this is nothing new.
point I am trying to make is that now if an obviously high squat gets passed, especially if it is an all time world record/milestone lift, then the rule of thumb is to bash the people who point out that is was a poor judging call.
ask yourself why all the big lifts in the iron game that stir up “controversy” are almost always squats, and almost always is a alphabet soup federation?
rarely if ever do you see outrage about a lift passed or not passed in OLing, or in the IPF.
I am not being critical of Rob.
just the judging and quality of the too many american PL feds.
I could qualify my statements like Bear Born did first, by going on and on about how awesome I think Rob is, what a great sport PL is, what a fucking beast he is, how I am an little insignificant weakling compared to him, whatever.
I don’t bother because I would still get jumped on for daring to say anything negative.
actually, I just finished watching the vid again frame by frame, though he did not bury it, and no way it would have passed in the overly strict IPF, that was pretty darn close to being legal depth.
the guys upper thighs are so fucking big that they look way high at the bottom of the lift. if you watch the video frame by frame and only look at his his him crease and bottom of his thigh, the squat looks a lot closer to depth.
I will stand by my earlier comments, that is, that it is very hard to compare some of the records set today as it seems the judging is too inconsistent with all the different feds to know what the hell is really going on.
again, Bear Born makes a good point. the vid he posted was definitely a legit 992 squat, but it got turned down.
to me and many others, Robs squat was marginal and got passed.
question is, is the fed Andrei lifts in too strict, or is the SPF too lax?
I am a fan of the sport, it is just frustrating to me, that is all.
[quote]heavythrower wrote:
[quote]Sturat wrote:
Personally I’d love to see some technology introduced to squat judging. A couple of stickies that go on say the ischial tuberosity and the tibial plateau, both are easy to palpate even on a man this size. Then when the one on the IT passes below the one on the TP it beeps and records depth as good. It would take all this guesswork out of things.
Judges would still be necessary to evaluate the rest of the lift but the question of depth would be removed.[/quote]
good point Stu, but really. Most of the vets here on this board who have any experience competitive lifting know a legit COMPETITION squat when we see it. It is not rocket science. [/quote]
You’re totally right, it’s not rocket science by any means but it would give a nice qualitative measure of performance. Plus it would help somewhat with all this arguing. If different feds want different squat heights it would be easy enough to pick different landmarks. IPF wants deeper squats? easy, someone else wants higher squats? Also easy.
It’ll never happen because it’s logical and impartial but it would be nice.
On a slightly more related note, if three judges sitting within a few feet of this passed it that’s enough for me. I’m sure as hell not capable of making a better judgment off a crappy video from a bad angle.
[quote]Sturat wrote:
On a slightly more related note, if three judges sitting within a few feet of this passed it that’s enough for me. I’m sure as hell not capable of making a better judgment off a crappy video from a bad angle.[/quote]
Thank you!
[quote]burt128 wrote:
[quote]frankjl wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Were any of those 10 years in a variety of federations spent in the side judge’s chair at this particular meet?
[/quote]
This sums it all up. You want to know why I don’t think it was high? Because he didn’t get redlighted.
He went to the depth that was necessary for a squat to pass in this particular federation.[/quote]
I thought it was hip crease below the knee. Thats how it was at my last SPF meet. Anyway, you are saying the rule previously listed here (top of thigh below knee) would make it high… But if you have a guy with thighs like that, to get the top of their thigh below their knee they would have to go till their hip is well below their knee.
I have friends that were AT THE MEET and have been pissed in the past because of how Rob was judged… some of his past squats WERE high… my friends watched close and it was there…
Which passes squats that are high by the definition in its rule book.[/quote]