Donnie Thompson Totals 3,000!!!

Training Powerlifting
241

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

[quote]BEAR BORN wrote:
I think Malanichev will hit 1000 in wraps and a belt with IPF judging in his next meet, his 993 was deep and just generally excellent.[/quote]

theinternet sucks…just a few minutes on you tube will prove how weak and pathetic you really are :([/quote]

Dont be sad heavy, just do what sad and weak people do, get on youtube and raise hell about depth, gear, lunar phases, roids, time of the month (if its a female lifter), and then just lie and tell everyone that you squat 900 ASS TO FUCKING GRASS everytime.

I hate youtube commentators.

EDIT - spelling and accidental implication that heavy was weak lol

242

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

[quote]BEAR BORN wrote:
I think Malanichev will hit 1000 in wraps and a belt with IPF judging in his next meet, his 993 was deep and just generally excellent.[/quote]

theinternet sucks…just a few minutes on you tube will prove how weak and pathetic you really are :([/quote]

I know how you feel. When I’m feeling especially good about my lifts I go and look at the IPF Open worlds results and it kicks my ego right in the face.

243

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
I hate youtube commentators. [/quote]
x2 I fear for the human race when reading some of those. First gets old real fast not to mention the women/kitchen jokes.

244

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

[quote]BEAR BORN wrote:
I think Malanichev will hit 1000 in wraps and a belt with IPF judging in his next meet, his 993 was deep and just generally excellent.[/quote]

theinternet sucks…just a few minutes on you tube will prove how weak and pathetic you really are :([/quote]

Dont be sad heavy, just do what sad and weak people do, get on youtube and raise hell about depth, gear, lunar phases, roids, time of the month (if its a female lifter), and then just lie and tell everyone that you squat 900 ASS TO FUCKING GRASS everytime.

I hate youtube commentators.

EDIT - spelling and accidental implication that heavy was weak lol[/quote]

so that is how it is done? fuuuuuuck, what have i been doing wasting my time on the last 30 years. you have opened up a whole new world to me DF. thank you

245

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

[quote]BEAR BORN wrote:
I think Malanichev will hit 1000 in wraps and a belt with IPF judging in his next meet, his 993 was deep and just generally excellent.[/quote]

theinternet sucks…just a few minutes on you tube will prove how weak and pathetic you really are :([/quote]

Dont be sad heavy, just do what sad and weak people do, get on youtube and raise hell about depth, gear, lunar phases, roids, time of the month (if its a female lifter), and then just lie and tell everyone that you squat 900 ASS TO FUCKING GRASS everytime.

I hate youtube commentators.

EDIT - spelling and accidental implication that heavy was weak lol[/quote]

so that is how it is done? fuuuuuuck, what have i been doing wasting my time on the last 30 years. you have opened up a whole new world to me DF. thank you[/quote]
A world of likes, dislikes, video quotes, kitchen references, form nazis, 12 years olds with no friends, 40 year olds with no life, and steroidsR4losers

246

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

[quote]BEAR BORN wrote:
I think Malanichev will hit 1000 in wraps and a belt with IPF judging in his next meet, his 993 was deep and just generally excellent.[/quote]

theinternet sucks…just a few minutes on you tube will prove how weak and pathetic you really are :([/quote]

Dont be sad heavy, just do what sad and weak people do, get on youtube and raise hell about depth, gear, lunar phases, roids, time of the month (if its a female lifter), and then just lie and tell everyone that you squat 900 ASS TO FUCKING GRASS everytime.

I hate youtube commentators.

EDIT - spelling and accidental implication that heavy was weak lol[/quote]

so that is how it is done? fuuuuuuck, what have i been doing wasting my time on the last 30 years. you have opened up a whole new world to me DF. thank you[/quote]
A world of likes, dislikes, video quotes, kitchen references, form nazis, 12 years olds with no friends, 40 year olds with no life, and steroidsR4losers[/quote]

Regarding the steroidsR4losers guy, for a while everytime I saw him comment, I would comment to him “YOU ARE TEH COOOOOOOLEST.”

It really pissed him off.

247

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

[quote]BEAR BORN wrote:
I think Malanichev will hit 1000 in wraps and a belt with IPF judging in his next meet, his 993 was deep and just generally excellent.[/quote]

theinternet sucks…just a few minutes on you tube will prove how weak and pathetic you really are :([/quote]

Dont be sad heavy, just do what sad and weak people do, get on youtube and raise hell about depth, gear, lunar phases, roids, time of the month (if its a female lifter), and then just lie and tell everyone that you squat 900 ASS TO FUCKING GRASS everytime.

I hate youtube commentators.

EDIT - spelling and accidental implication that heavy was weak lol[/quote]

so that is how it is done? fuuuuuuck, what have i been doing wasting my time on the last 30 years. you have opened up a whole new world to me DF. thank you[/quote]
A world of likes, dislikes, video quotes, kitchen references, form nazis, 12 years olds with no friends, 40 year olds with no life, and steroidsR4losers[/quote]

Regarding the steroidsR4losers guy, for a while everytime I saw him comment, I would comment to him “YOU ARE TEH COOOOOOOLEST.”

It really pissed him off.[/quote]
I think I saw one of those lol

248

Damn impressive!

249


It is impossible to judge squat depth from the front, anybody who says otherwise just doesn’t understand the finer nuances of the sport.

250

[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:
It is impossible to judge squat depth from the front, anybody who says otherwise just doesn’t understand the finer nuances of the sport.

[/quote]

This is exactly what I have been saying for a while now, the only way to lift truely raw is naked. A loose singlet can add 100lbs to your total. This guy is strong. Although you can’t make out the crease of his hip, the outline of his penis is clearly defined. Which is all that matters.

251

[quote]StormTheBeach wrote:
Although you can’t make out the crease of his hip, the outline of his penis is clearly defined. Which is all that matters.[/quote]
So if you’re judging from the front, the penis must be inline with the top of the socks then? Makes sense.

252

[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:
It is impossible to judge squat depth from the front, anybody who says otherwise just doesn’t understand the finer nuances of the sport.

[/quote]
Well Tim, no offense to you but I know an IPF international level ref (actually the head ref in the IPF scenes from Power Unlimited), who has been in the sport for > 30 years, is a member of the IPF technical commitee and the chief examiner for Canada who will give a red light for depth from the front. I’ve seen him do it many times. I’d say he understands the “finer nuances” of the sport better than anyone on this board.

253

[quote]OBoile wrote:

[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:
It is impossible to judge squat depth from the front, anybody who says otherwise just doesn’t understand the finer nuances of the sport.

[/quote]
Well Tim, no offense to you but I know an IPF international level ref (actually the head ref in the IPF scenes from Power Unlimited), who has been in the sport for > 30 years, is a member of the IPF technical commitee and the chief examiner for Canada who will give a red light for depth from the front. I’ve seen him do it many times. I’d say he understands the “finer nuances” of the sport better than anyone on this board.[/quote]

O’Boile - I guess I am a crappy writer as I was attempting to be sarcastic. Of course you can judge depth from the front and it is pretty easy to do so on a proper depth squat, that was the point of the pic, nobody would say that guy is not deep enough. If you change your definition of proper depth, this allows for super wide squatting and then it does become harder to judge from the front especially on big guys, but it is really pretty simple. A below parallel squat will have the femurs pointing downward at the bottom, this is not hard to see from the front (I have head judged at meets as well). True, there are a few instances if it is super close then you leave it up to the side judges to make the call, but on squats that are pretty high or nicely deep it is very easy to judge depth from the front.

254

[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:
I guess I am a crappy writer as I was attempting to be sarcastic.
[/quote]
I picked it up.

[quote]A below parallel squat will have the femurs pointing downward at the bottom, this is not hard to see from the front (I have head judged at meets as well).
[/quote]Below parallel? Since when was this required? You have to squat to at least parallel and anyone pushing the limits of their ability will be cutting it close.

So, basically on world records leave it to the side judges. Oh, and on wide squats. Oh and on big guys. So what was your point? I don’t mean to be rude, but this is a wide squat, big guy, world record attempt (so it’s going to be close) and you are posting this business about judging from the front while voicing the exceptions at the same time?

255

[quote]novaeer wrote:
Well, I’ve got mine ready.

[/quote]

You should’ve gotten a lot more than that at the rate this thread is going.

256

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:
I guess I am a crappy writer as I was attempting to be sarcastic.
[/quote]
I picked it up.

[quote]A below parallel squat will have the femurs pointing downward at the bottom, this is not hard to see from the front (I have head judged at meets as well).
[/quote]Below parallel? Since when was this required? You have to squat to at least parallel and anyone pushing the limits of their ability will be cutting it close.

So, basically on world records leave it to the side judges. Oh, and on wide squats. Oh and on big guys. So what was your point? I don’t mean to be rude, but this is a wide squat, big guy, world record attempt (so it’s going to be close) and you are posting this business about judging from the front while voicing the exceptions at the same time?[/quote]

I am not talking specifically about Donnie’s squat, he is a lifter competing in a fed with certain rules. What I am talking about is the idea that you can’t judge depth from the front, and I am talking about what the rules should be (and are in many feds). Competition squats are BELOW parallel in all the strict feds - USAPL, IPF, RAW, AAU, ADAU, etc - crease of the hip or top of the acetabulum BELOW the top of the knee. If a fed allows parallel squats that opens a whole can of worms (especially because the question then becomes what is parallel to what - top of the thigh parallel to the ground is pretty low, bottom of the thigh parallel to the ground is a 3/4 squat at best), so my point was simply that if feds all followed the same guidelines for squats and went with the strict version of it (the full squat) then we would not have any of these questions about if you can judge it from the front or not. My essential point is simply that if you do a full squat it is crystal clear that it is a full squat from the front, side and back, it doesn’t matter on the view point.

257

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]novaeer wrote:
Well, I’ve got mine ready.

[/quote]

You should’ve gotten a lot more than that at the rate this thread is going.[/quote]

I bought one of these, so I’m good.

258

Yeah, I went and read the IPF rules and brushed up on my own fed of choice (UPA) and yes it says BELOW. Frankly a micrometer below is BELOW, but point taken. And come on you know all the feds say hip crease and top of the knee, so this “what is parallel to what” doesn’t need to be said. I get what you are saying about a “full squat”, but who is gonna go that deep when it shouldn’t be required even by the rules. You get your hip creases below those knee tops just enough and then you come up.

Really I do get your point about vantage point if you go deep enough, but even you yourself said if it’s close you can’t judge it from the front or if it’s a big guy, so basically you can say a really deep squat is good or an egregiously high squat is bad from the front, but that’s it.

An aside… I need to find the fed that uses the acetabulum instead of the hip crease! I could squat an inch shallower!

259

[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:
I guess I am a crappy writer as I was attempting to be sarcastic.
[/quote]
I picked it up.

[quote]A below parallel squat will have the femurs pointing downward at the bottom, this is not hard to see from the front (I have head judged at meets as well).
[/quote]Below parallel? Since when was this required? You have to squat to at least parallel and anyone pushing the limits of their ability will be cutting it close.

So, basically on world records leave it to the side judges. Oh, and on wide squats. Oh and on big guys. So what was your point? I don’t mean to be rude, but this is a wide squat, big guy, world record attempt (so it’s going to be close) and you are posting this business about judging from the front while voicing the exceptions at the same time?[/quote]

I am not talking specifically about Donnie’s squat, he is a lifter competing in a fed with certain rules. What I am talking about is the idea that you can’t judge depth from the front, and I am talking about what the rules should be (and are in many feds). Competition squats are BELOW parallel in all the strict feds - USAPL, IPF, RAW, AAU, ADAU, etc - crease of the hip or top of the acetabulum BELOW the top of the knee. If a fed allows parallel squats that opens a whole can of worms (especially because the question then becomes what is parallel to what - top of the thigh parallel to the ground is pretty low, bottom of the thigh parallel to the ground is a 3/4 squat at best), so my point was simply that if feds all followed the same guidelines for squats and went with the strict version of it (the full squat) then we would not have any of these questions about if you can judge it from the front or not. My essential point is simply that if you do a full squat it is crystal clear that it is a full squat from the front, side and back, it doesn’t matter on the view point.
[/quote]

One problem though, unless I missed something, the word parallel doesn’t appear in any federations rule book in regards to squat depth. IPF is crease of the hip below the top of the knee, i.e. deep as shit but RARELY consistant from meet to meet. I have not competed in the SPF (where Donnie hit his record squat) but the rule for that is crease of the hip below the top of the thigh. His legs are like redwoods and he weighs 400lbs. I bet the crease of his hip is 2 feet long. True that means you can squat higher than in the IPF and bigger guys have a huge advantage with this rule, but that is the rule.

I have to agree with you though, you can judge depth from the front. You just can’t judge it from the internet.

260

[quote]StormTheBeach wrote:

I have not competed in the SPF (where Donnie hit his record squat) but the rule for that is crease of the hip below the top of the thigh.[/quote]

Incorrect - from the SPF Rule Book - “A legal squat is performed when the top of the upper thigh at the hip (the crease of the hip) passes below the height of the knee”

http://www.southernpowerlifting.com/form.php?id=7