Deadlift 700x3 Raw

Training Powerlifting
81

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
MachineAZ:

You know what? I apologize. I think you’re wrong and I disagree with your opinion about the lift and where it stands. I also believed we’d had a prior disagreement about a 500lbs squat. If I’m wrong about that, and I don’t think I am, I apologize.

The internet is aggravating to me and maybe my test is low right now (long ass commute and little sleep the last year), but I don’t care to argue or “fight” on the internet. I don’t mind at all fighting in person though but this shit is silly and I’m just as guilty if not more for turning this into a pissing contest.

Let’s just say we disagree end of story. Good luck with your lifting goals - I sincerely hope you achieve each one of them…there is nothing I like to see more than a strong motherfucker, gear, drugs, don’t matter, strong is strong. Keep getting stronger and stay healthy…I’m done with this thread.[/quote]

Wow, good post.

I was just going to say I think all we are arguin is semantics.

We just have differing opinions on what is world class.

But hey, don’t let the internet bother you so much. Maybe take some anadrol and get those levels up? Hahah!

82

[quote]ZEB wrote:
bigjoey wrote:
ZEB wrote:
bigjoey wrote:
koreansuperman wrote:
What’s more impressive…someone who weighs 318 and deadlifts 700 or someone who weighs 175lb and deadlifts 500lb?

Answer: Someone who weighs 318 and deadlifts 700. Weight divisions are for sports so that people don’t have to be bohemoths to compete - in the real world, noone cares how many times your bodyweight you can lift or what your wilkes formula is.

The guy pulling 700lbs is stronger than the guy pulling 500lbs to the tune of 200lbs, period. Ask yourself this: could the guy who weights 175lbs and pulls 500lbs now ever put on enough muscle to pull 700lbs? I would say quite probably not.

Then the 175 pound sprinter is more impressive running a faster 100 meters than the 250 pound guy. Even if he only runs it a half second faster.

True?

Firstly, there is a much bigger difference between a 200lbs difference in the deadlift and a half a second difference in a 100 meter race. Secondly, the 250 pound guy could probably quite easily, if he chose to do so, lose enough weight to make up that half a second.A more valid comparison would be if the 175lbs guy was running it in 10 seconds and the 250lbs guy (or 320lbs guy) was running it in 13 or 14 seconds, and in that case then yes, the 175lbs guy is more impressive, sorry.

The point I was trying to make is that size and weight do indeed matter. You can play with the 100 meter dash numbers all you want. But the fact is when a very big man is also very fast, that’s very impressive. In fact so much so that sometimes they pay them lots of money to play Football at the pro level.

They don’t pay the small guys the big bucks as a rule.

So, size and weight do in fact matter with everything.

Events of any nature have to be judged by the stats of the specific individual who is performing them. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in la la land.

That’s why Olympic lifting, Powerlifting and combat sports have weight classes. The larger man is supposed to be stronger than the smaller man. Very simple.

It can be a 100 meter dash as my example above demonstrates. Or, it can be someone dunking a Basketball. If a man 7’ tall dunks it, well that’s cool. But if a guy who is 5’ 9" dunks it, that’s just flat out more impressive.

When a man who weighs 317 deadlifts 700 for 3 reps that’s impressive, as I have repeatedly stated. But when a man who weighs in the 190’s deadlifts 700 well that’s just more impressive!
[/quote]

Okay, maybe I was exaggerating somewhat in my original post when I said that nobody in the ‘real world’ cares how many times bodyweight you lift. If you remember, though, it was in response to someone saying that a 175lb guy pulling 500lbs is more impressive than the 320lbs guy pulling 700lbs, not a 190lbs guy pulling 700lbs vs a 320lbs guy pulling 700lbs. In the latter case, where their absolute strength is equal (or at the very least close to it), then yes the lighter guy is more impressive. I still maintain that whatever weight you are, a 700lbs deadlift is more impressive than a 500lbs or even a 650lbs pull. As for weight classes - yes, bigger guys are supposed to lift more weight, no shit - but they aren’t big by accident or purely by force of nature (as with the 7 foot tall guy) - they have had to work hard to get that way. If the 175lbs guy pulling 500 wants to be as impressive as the 320lb guy pulling 700, then he needs to put on enough muscle so that he, too, can pull 700. When Donnie Thompson told Louie Simmons he wanted to be The Best, Louie told him that he would have to put on weight - because that’s what you have to do to be the strongest, the most impressive that you can be,you have to
GET BIG!

83

[quote]ZEB wrote:
bigjoey wrote:
ZEB wrote:
bigjoey wrote:
koreansuperman wrote:
What’s more impressive…someone who weighs 318 and deadlifts 700 or someone who weighs 175lb and deadlifts 500lb?

Answer: Someone who weighs 318 and deadlifts 700. Weight divisions are for sports so that people don’t have to be bohemoths to compete - in the real world, noone cares how many times your bodyweight you can lift or what your wilkes formula is.

The guy pulling 700lbs is stronger than the guy pulling 500lbs to the tune of 200lbs, period. Ask yourself this: could the guy who weights 175lbs and pulls 500lbs now ever put on enough muscle to pull 700lbs? I would say quite probably not.

Then the 175 pound sprinter is more impressive running a faster 100 meters than the 250 pound guy. Even if he only runs it a half second faster.

True?

Firstly, there is a much bigger difference between a 200lbs difference in the deadlift and a half a second difference in a 100 meter race. Secondly, the 250 pound guy could probably quite easily, if he chose to do so, lose enough weight to make up that half a second.A more valid comparison would be if the 175lbs guy was running it in 10 seconds and the 250lbs guy (or 320lbs guy) was running it in 13 or 14 seconds, and in that case then yes, the 175lbs guy is more impressive, sorry.

The point I was trying to make is that size and weight do indeed matter. You can play with the 100 meter dash numbers all you want. But the fact is when a very big man is also very fast, that’s very impressive. In fact so much so that sometimes they pay them lots of money to play Football at the pro level.

They don’t pay the small guys the big bucks as a rule.

So, size and weight do in fact matter with everything.

Events of any nature have to be judged by the stats of the specific individual who is performing them. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in la la land.

That’s why Olympic lifting, Powerlifting and combat sports have weight classes. The larger man is supposed to be stronger than the smaller man. Very simple.

It can be a 100 meter dash as my example above demonstrates. Or, it can be someone dunking a Basketball. If a man 7’ tall dunks it, well that’s cool. But if a guy who is 5’ 9" dunks it, that’s just flat out more impressive.

When a man who weighs 317 deadlifts 700 for 3 reps that’s impressive, as I have repeatedly stated. But when a man who weighs in the 190’s deadlifts 700 well that’s just more impressive!
[/quote]

Also, as for your basketball example, the 5’9’’ guy is more impressive because he actually has to JUMP HIGHER - ie use more ABSOLUTE, not just RELATIVE force and strength - than the 7’ guy does to get to the rim. If a guy was tall enough, he wouldn’t have to jump at all, so of course having to actually jump is more impressive.

84

[quote]bigjoey wrote:
Okay, maybe I was exaggerating somewhat in my original post when I said that nobody in the ‘real world’ cares how many times bodyweight you lift. [/quote]

Okay…I agree.

So a man weighing 350 pounds pulling 700 is more impressive to you than a man weighing 148 and pulling 500?

Well, to each his own. I am more impressed with the 3.4 times bodyweight pull.

I want you to examine what you wrote above. Think about things like genetics. This includes but is not limited to advantages such as height, bone structure, muscle fiber type, being a mesomorphic, etc.

In reality many are big “by accident or purely by force of nature.” That does not mean that they don’t have to work hard to get to certain levels. However, as you can understand by now there are many factors that play a role beyond what you are able to personally work toward.

Don’t misunderstand me, anyone can get very big and strong by working hard and smart.

I am talking about natural potential here.

85

[quote]bigjoey wrote:
Also, as for your basketball example, the 5’9’’ guy is more impressive because he actually has to JUMP HIGHER - ie use more ABSOLUTE, not just RELATIVE force and strength - than the 7’ guy does to get to the rim. If a guy was tall enough, he wouldn’t have to jump at all, so of course having to actually jump is more impressive.[/quote]

Well…very good. Glad that you can see that the smaller man is more impressive when having to perform the same feat.

Now let me ask you another question: If the man who is 5’ 9" were to jump just one inch lower than the 7’ player isn’t that still more impressive?

86

[quote]ZEB wrote:
bigjoey wrote:
Okay, maybe I was exaggerating somewhat in my original post when I said that nobody in the ‘real world’ cares how many times bodyweight you lift.

Okay…I agree.

I still maintain that whatever weight you are, a 700lbs deadlift is more impressive than a 500lbs or even a 650lbs pull.

So a man weighing 350 pounds pulling 700 is more impressive to you than a man weighing 148 and pulling 500?

Well, to each his own. I am more impressed with the 3.4 times bodyweight pull.

As for weight classes - yes, bigger guys are supposed to lift more weight, no shit - but they aren’t big by accident or purely by force of nature (as with the 7 foot tall guy) - they have had to work hard to get that way.

I want you to examine what you wrote above. Think about things like genetics. This includes but is not limited to advantages such as height, bone structure, muscle fiber type, being a mesomorphic, etc.

In reality many are big “by accident or purely by force of nature.” That does not mean that they don’t have to work hard to get to certain levels. However, as you can understand by now there are many factors that play a role beyond what you are able to personally work toward.

Don’t misunderstand me, anyone can get very big and strong by working hard and smart.

I am talking about natural potential here.
[/quote]

Okay, with regard to the 500lbs vs 700lbs - yes, to each his own. I understand somewhat where you’re coming from, but for me I don’t care if it’s a 120lb girl pulling the 500lbs, 700lbs is still 700lbs.

As for natural potential - yes, natural potential plays a role. But natural potential is also part of what is impressive. The guys with the greatest absolute strength rarely or never have the genetic potential to have the greatest relative strength; but this also works in the reverse - the guy who can pull the most times his bodyweight never has the strength to outlift the big boys in absolute terms. The big guy probably couldn’t pull 500lbs if he got down to 175lbs, but the little guy can’t put on enough weight to pull 700lbs. In the end, what you’re left with is one guy pulling 700lbs and another guy pulling 500lbs, and for me the 700lbs puller wins every time.

87

[quote]ZEB wrote:
bigjoey wrote:
Also, as for your basketball example, the 5’9’’ guy is more impressive because he actually has to JUMP HIGHER - ie use more ABSOLUTE, not just RELATIVE force and strength - than the 7’ guy does to get to the rim. If a guy was tall enough, he wouldn’t have to jump at all, so of course having to actually jump is more impressive.

Well…very good. Glad that you can see that the smaller man is more impressive when having to perform the same feat.

Now let me ask you another question: If the man who is 5’ 9" were to jump just one inch lower than the 7’ player isn’t that still more impressive?

[/quote]

You missed the point - it’s not the same feat. The 5’9’’ guy actually has to perform a greater feat than the 7’ guy to get to the rim, because he has to travel a greater distance into the air. His feet have to be a greater distance off of the ground. He is using more ABSOLUTE strength/power, regardless of his relative strength. Let’s say the guy is 9’. The 9’ guy doesn’t have to jump at all - he just reaches up and dunks it.

The other guy has to jump and he doesn’t, so of course it’s more impressive. In any case, I don’t care about speed or jumping prowess and my original post really only related to strength. Please don’t try to make any more examples - if you have any further comments just make them and then we’ll agree to disagree. My main gripe is not with you, it’s just that every time someone posts a big lift by big guys some stooge has to go and say that it’s not so impressive because he’s big, which is plain wrong. They even had the gall to do it with the thread on Jeff Lewis’ freaking WPO record 1200lbs squat.

88

I don’t want to start the pissing contest again but I’d remind everyone here that lb for lb strength comparisons are somewhat illusory because a linear comparison is incorrect. At some point, the added weight, blood volume, bone mass, etc. is not conducive to higher performance. It is why you ALWAYS see the more impressive weight x bodyweight performances at the lower weight classes.

And if we removed gear from the equation, I believe the disparity among heavy to lighter lifters would be greater. Let’s move away from a PL perspective and look at Olympic lifters…I would think that it is irrefutable that the lighter classes are moving more relative weight than the higher classes.

89

[quote]bigjoey wrote:
ZEB wrote:
bigjoey wrote:
Okay, maybe I was exaggerating somewhat in my original post when I said that nobody in the ‘real world’ cares how many times bodyweight you lift.

Okay…I agree.

I still maintain that whatever weight you are, a 700lbs deadlift is more impressive than a 500lbs or even a 650lbs pull.

So a man weighing 350 pounds pulling 700 is more impressive to you than a man weighing 148 and pulling 500?

Well, to each his own. I am more impressed with the 3.4 times bodyweight pull.

As for weight classes - yes, bigger guys are supposed to lift more weight, no shit - but they aren’t big by accident or purely by force of nature (as with the 7 foot tall guy) - they have had to work hard to get that way.

I want you to examine what you wrote above. Think about things like genetics. This includes but is not limited to advantages such as height, bone structure, muscle fiber type, being a mesomorphic, etc.

In reality many are big “by accident or purely by force of nature.” That does not mean that they don’t have to work hard to get to certain levels. However, as you can understand by now there are many factors that play a role beyond what you are able to personally work toward.

Don’t misunderstand me, anyone can get very big and strong by working hard and smart.

I am talking about natural potential here.

Okay, with regard to the 500lbs vs 700lbs - yes, to each his own. I understand somewhat where you’re coming from, but for me I don’t care if it’s a 120lb girl pulling the 500lbs, 700lbs is still 700lbs.

As for natural potential - yes, natural potential plays a role. But natural potential is also part of what is impressive. The guys with the greatest absolute strength rarely or never have the genetic potential to have the greatest relative strength; but this also works in the reverse - the guy who can pull the most times his bodyweight never has the strength to outlift the big boys in absolute terms. The big guy probably couldn’t pull 500lbs if he got down to 175lbs, but the little guy can’t put on enough weight to pull 700lbs.[/quote]

BINGO!

Which means that both can be impressive. But one still has more merit based on relative strength.

90

[quote]bigjoey wrote:
ZEB wrote:
bigjoey wrote:
Also, as for your basketball example, the 5’9’’ guy is more impressive because he actually has to JUMP HIGHER - ie use more ABSOLUTE, not just RELATIVE force and strength - than the 7’ guy does to get to the rim. If a guy was tall enough, he wouldn’t have to jump at all, so of course having to actually jump is more impressive.

Well…very good. Glad that you can see that the smaller man is more impressive when having to perform the same feat.

Now let me ask you another question: If the man who is 5’ 9" were to jump just one inch lower than the 7’ player isn’t that still more impressive?

You missed the point - it’s not the same feat. The 5’9’’ guy actually has to perform a greater feat than the 7’ guy to get to the rim, because he has to travel a greater distance into the air. His feet have to be a greater distance off of the ground. He is using more ABSOLUTE strength/power, regardless of his relative strength. Let’s say the guy is 9’. The 9’ guy doesn’t have to jump at all - he just reaches up and dunks it.[/quote]

And the man who weighs 198lbs. is at a disadvantage to the man who is 350 pounds when it comes to lifting a weight (if they are both trained).

Hence, the man who is 198 and lifts 700 is more impressive than the man who is 350 and lifts 700. And in fact, I think the 198 pound man is more impressive lifting a lighter weight compared to what the larger man is lifting.

I also think that most people would agree with me and that is also why they have “outstanding over all lifter” awards at powerlifting competitions.

I would agree that anyone who thinks that 700 for 3 is not impressive is not thinking clearly. On top of that accomplishment the lifter is not even a powerlifter! That makes it even more impressive.

As I have stated from my first post the 700 x 3 is impressive!

However, it’s not as impressive as someone who is lighter in bodyweight lifting a greater multiple of his bodyweight (in my opinion). This example in no way denegrates the man who is lifting 700 for 3.

Also, keep in mind all message boards do is give people a chance to voice their opinion. We have all read threads where someone posts something and then there are 50 responses that read something like this:

  • “Cool”

-“Wow that was great!”

-“I wish I could lift that much.”

Bla bla bla…

By the time you finish the thread you are ready to nod off to sleep.

Threads only become interesting when there is at least a modicum of difference between two or more posters.

You have argued your point well and I understand where you are coming from.

91

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

First, I’m no hater - if you make it, god bless you and good luck doing it - one thing we lifters do not have as opposed to catty BB’s who critique each other like two broads talking shit about another’s dress, is that we support each other…b/c in the weights lie the ultimate truth - you either lifted the weight of you didn’t (Well, it used to be like that before these stupid shirts and suits…but you get the point). [/quote]

So we’re not catty bodybuilders who critique each other’s physiques, we’re catty lifters who critique each other’s gear use, is that it? ok, wanted to make sure i got it straight.

But you’re not a hater. I know that because you stated it so explicitly.

92

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I don’t want to start the pissing contest again but I’d remind everyone here that lb for lb strength comparisons are somewhat illusory because a linear comparison is incorrect. At some point, the added weight, blood volume, bone mass, etc. is not conducive to higher performance. It is why you ALWAYS see the more impressive weight x bodyweight performances at the lower weight classes.

And if we removed gear from the equation, I believe the disparity among heavy to lighter lifters would be greater. Let’s move away from a PL perspective and look at Olympic lifters…I would think that it is irrefutable that the lighter classes are moving more relative weight than the higher classes.[/quote]

I agree with most of what you have stated. However, that does not negate the fact that lifting say 3 times your bodyweight is still more impressive (to many) than lifting 2 times your bodyweight.

Regardless of what your actual bodyweigt is.

In other words, we can take this out of the realm of large lifters vs smaller lifters.

If two 181 pound lifters lift in front of you and one pulls 500 and the other pulls 700 you are going to automatically be more impressed with the greater lift.

Why?

Is it just because it is a heavier weight?

No.

It’s because they both weigh 181 and one man just lifted about 3.9 times his bodyweight and the other man, while still strong lifted about 2.8 times his bodyweight.

Again, this in no way takes away from the very large lifters who are able to pull 900 or better.

It’s all good…

93

[quote]cap’nsalty wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Just about 2.2 times his body weight.

Ever wonder why the pullup is not a Pling event? Because nobody cares how many pullups you can do. This relative strength thing was old before it started.[/quote]

More like too many fat-asses didnt want to try to pull their bodyweight up. Its too hard to develop all the muscles to be able to bench, squat and deadlift properly, then have the weight of those same muscles pull you down. I think it would be really impressive if that were a powerlifting event, however, I could see alot of people getting fucked up shoulders trying to do a pullup with alot of added weight…

94

[quote]KBCThird wrote:
TheBodyGuard wrote:

First, I’m no hater - if you make it, god bless you and good luck doing it - one thing we lifters do not have as opposed to catty BB’s who critique each other like two broads talking shit about another’s dress, is that we support each other…b/c in the weights lie the ultimate truth - you either lifted the weight of you didn’t (Well, it used to be like that before these stupid shirts and suits…but you get the point).

So we’re not catty bodybuilders who critique each other’s physiques, we’re catty lifters who critique each other’s gear use, is that it? ok, wanted to make sure i got it straight.

But you’re not a hater. I know that because you stated it so explicitly.
[/quote]

Every time I try to get out, they pull me back in…

I was just pointing out that those factors bear consideration - all lifts are NOT equal. PERIOD. Once again in these forums, reading and comprehension, is f’n fundiminental…our public school tax dollars in evidence here.

95

[quote]ZEB wrote:

RickJames wrote:
there is nothing special about a small skinny person deadlifting a lot of weight.

Really? Does that happen all the time in your world?

Small skinny guys deadlifting a lot of weight?[/quote]

Actually, yes. I am a powerlifter; that’s what I do. I lift in a powerlifting gym with 15-20 other powerlifters. We have guys come in and out fairly regularly - some stay, some go, but I get to see a lot of guys try to lift. I go to meets at all levels - back yard, local, state, national, etc. I see what the common lifter is capable of, and small skinny guys pulling a lot relative to their weight (lets say at least double bodyweight) is very common.

I have seen hardly anyone not capable of at least one of the following with maybe 2 years of good training:

  1. Deadlift 500
  2. Deadlift triple body weight

No offense to those that haven’t done these, but I think I could get about any non-handicapped full grown man (under 50 years of age) to do one of these fairly quickly in the right environment and under the right guidance (which is not too hard to find).

[quote]Really? Then why are we all impressed when a very large Football player runs a 4.7 (or less) 40?

Olympic sprinters do that all the time.

THINK
[/quote]

You think. We get “impressed” by football players that are heavy running fast because they are required to do something besides just run (hit people, carry the ball, etc.). Show me the weight classes in track & field, where the event of running is judged alone (just like deadlifting is a very specific event).

I also think I remember you using weight classes as a reason that lifts relative to bodyweight are important. Funny thing is that it disproves your point that dividing weight lifted by how much the lifter weighs is the important issue. If that were the case, there would be NO weight classes, as we could just judge by coefficient.

As it stands, they use a formula for an overall lifter that is not a strict weight lifted divided by weight of lifter ratio. Try to take a clue from the people that have created and run the sport for years…they do actually know what they’re talking about more than those outside of the sport do.

96

RickJames:

"I have seen hardly anyone not capable of at least one of the following with maybe 2 years of good training:

  1. Deadlift 500
  2. Deadlift triple body weight

No offense to those that haven’t done these, but I think I could get about any non-handicapped full grown man (under 50 years of age) to do one of these fairly quickly in the right environment and under the right guidance (which is not too hard to find)."

Your post is generally well-written, but as someone who has been lifting for nearly 30 years I think your off base here. A triple body weight DL is a very advanced lift. If you can do as you state here than you are quite the master trainer. You may be working with a “pool” of very motivated guys (and gals). But, I think you should be careful in extrapolating this pool to the general population.

97

[quote]RickJames wrote:
ZEB wrote:

RickJames wrote:
there is nothing special about a small skinny person deadlifting a lot of weight.

Really? Does that happen all the time in your world?

Small skinny guys deadlifting a lot of weight?

Actually, yes. I am a powerlifter; that’s what I do. I lift in a powerlifting gym with 15-20 other powerlifters. We have guys come in and out fairly regularly - some stay, some go, but I get to see a lot of guys try to lift. I go to meets at all levels - back yard, local, state, national, etc. I see what the common lifter is capable of, and small skinny guys pulling a lot relative to their weight (lets say at least double bodyweight) is very common.

I have seen hardly anyone not capable of at least one of the following with maybe 2 years of good training:

  1. Deadlift 500
  2. Deadlift triple body weight

No offense to those that haven’t done these, but I think I could get about any non-handicapped full grown man (under 50 years of age) to do one of these fairly quickly in the right environment and under the right guidance (which is not too hard to find).

Really? Then why are we all impressed when a very large Football player runs a 4.7 (or less) 40?

Olympic sprinters do that all the time.

THINK

You think. We get “impressed” by football players that are heavy running fast because they are required to do something besides just run (hit people, carry the ball, etc.). Show me the weight classes in track & field, where the event of running is judged alone (just like deadlifting is a very specific event).

I also think I remember you using weight classes as a reason that lifts relative to bodyweight are important. Funny thing is that it disproves your point that dividing weight lifted by how much the lifter weighs is the important issue. If that were the case, there would be NO weight classes, as we could just judge by coefficient.

As it stands, they use a formula for an overall lifter that is not a strict weight lifted divided by weight of lifter ratio. Try to take a clue from the people that have created and run the sport for years…they do actually know what they’re talking about more than those outside of the sport do. [/quote]

Good post but I disagree with you about the triple bwt. deadlift with 2 years of training. If that were the case, the top 100, 50, 25 DL’s in PLUSA would be populated with 726lb DL’s for the 242’s and 825 for the 275’s…and this does not bear out. Surely you cannot attribute that to lack of good training or instruction.

Now, as you go lower in the weight classes, the 3x bwt starts to occur in higher numbers. This is DIRECT EVIDENCE of the point you just made (and I was trying to make) and, as you aptly point out, is why we have formula to compare lifters!

I don’t understand why these bwt. guys don’t “get it”.

98

Here is the link to the USAPL 2005 Open Nationals. NOT ONE lifter in the upper weight classes achieved a 3x bwt deadlift! Note this is a drug tested org. so it gives you an idea of what is possible, and not possible, w/o drugs…

www.usapowerlifting.com/newsletter/25/results/2005mens_lbs.html

99

Hold on guys, I said OR, not AND. That means if I can get you to pull 500, then I don’t need to get you to pull triple bodyweight for what I said above to be true. I put the triple bodyweight part in there for the very light guys (again, I really don’t include females in these discussions implicitly; I will state when I include them).

A 132lb guy pulling 500 would be very tough, but the same guy pulling triple bodyweight (396) would be more realistic. And I didn’t say which one I’d get the guy to do. It might be easier to bulk a 140lb guy up to 180lbs and get him to pull 500 instead of triple bodyweight at 140 - it will just depend on the lifter.

Again, nearly every lifter I’f seen (male, of a decent age, no physical handicaps) could get to 500lbs or triple bodyweight with some reasonable training.

100

[quote]RickJames wrote:

You think. We get “impressed” by football players that are heavy running fast… [/quote]

I’m sorry maybe I was not as clear as I could have been. Every Football player is timed in the 40. When you have a very large man who can run a very fast 40 more people take notice than when a man of 175lbs. (or less) can do it.

Why do you suppose that is?

Why do you suppose it’s more impressive seeing a 260 pound player running a fast 40 than a 175 pound man?

I’m sure that you have your own thoughts on this.

But…

I think that it’s impressive for the same reason it is impressive to see a 198 pound lifter pull 700, as opposed to a 350 pound man lifting 700 or even 800 pounds.

Yes, very valid point.

They do have “outstanding lifter” trophies!

It Would seem that some on this board would simply give that specific trophy to the biggest heavy weight who lifted the most that day.

“Wow did you see that he pulled 800 pounds.”

Mesmerized by the shear number nothing else matters to them.

But we know better!

(Yes heavy weights are impressive…but there is more to it)

The outstanding lifter award is usually won not by the behemoths. They are usually not the strongest pound for pound no matter what formula that is used!

That the sport of Powerlifting embraces this award (outstanding lifter) should tell everyone who is ONLY impressed with the shear number of pounds lifted that there is more to it…