Ryan Kennelly's 1036lb Bench Press!

Training Powerlifting
162

[quote]orangecola wrote:

Since Orange Cola has never been one to avoid controversy, let me take a stab at this one.

This “1036” bench was a joke.

I am not saying that this bench is as big a joke as Kara Bohigan’s 402 bench

[/quote]

I have three things to say about this post:

  1. If you are going to criticize someone, take the time to spell their name correctly.
  2. I saw her make that lift in person, and it certainly was no joke.
  3. I think it is interesting that you singled Kara out, seeing as she is Ryan Kennelly’s wife.

If some of the individuals on this thread put as much effort into their training as they do into arguing about and criticizing others’ training, maybe they would have world record lifts, too.

163

I don’t think this is the main reason why average Joe doesn’t know powerlifting. I mean look at weightlifting. Not much equipment help, but still not popular.

164

[quote]Hanley wrote:
orangecola wrote:

I am not saying that this bench is as big a joke as Kara Bohigan’s 402 bench:

And hold on one fucking second. Kara did that in a closed back rage (not sure if it was single or double, BUT it lacked the extreme jackability of open shirts), there was a hold at lockout, a proper pause on the chest and it was fully locked out, and quite smooth too. AND it was quite soon after a knee operation. Or is your head so far up your ass you couldn’t see the knee brace?

It would appear your another person who doesn’t have a clue.

You want a “strong governing body” to look after the lifters? To what end? So people like you are more willing to accept the sport? If that’s the audience we’re attempting to cater for then powerlifting is about to take huge steps backwards.

If you’re a raw advocate (this is assuming you compete) then go lift in 100% RAW, USAPL raw, ADFPA (WDFPF) unequipped or APF raw and quite moaning about gear, single ply USAPL, APF, IPA, WPO whatever the hell fed you want, and if you’re a multi ply guy go APF, IPA, WPO etc etc… And most of all, if you’re actually a powerlifting fan then shut the hell up and appreciate one of the greatest strength displays the world has ever seen.[/quote]

“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

–From Hamlet (III, ii, 239)

Hey Hanley,

In this case, the lady is you, and I doth think you protest too much.

Sounds like a little insecurity to me because you know that I am right and there is no other sport like powerlifting in which the equipment gives such an extreme carry over to the performance. Nothing even comes close.

In my case, I don’t powerlift, I lift for looks and fitness and while this may not impress you, I have benched within the last year a 365lbs single and 225 for 24 reps at a bodyweight of 210 pounds. I have since retired from heavy lifting in favor of more bodybuilding and getting my weight down so I can be healthier.

I made the before mentioned lift having never taken anything even closely resembling a drug, no arch, no supersuit, and no tricks. My range of motion is probably twice that (at a minimum) of what you see these guys doing here. I can’t even figure what my max would be if I specialized in powerlifting or worked with learning how to use a shirt for a couple of years.

The bottom line is you need somebody like me to comment on this because I am not emotionally invested in defending shirts being that I am a powerlifting outsider. I figure that particuarly compared to you I can give an honest opinion.

I remember when my cousin wrestled in college, the wrestling world said that there was no problem with the extreme measures that the wrestlers used to cut weight and they refused to listen to outside sources (like me the non wrestler) about how stupid the process was. They would say I don’t understand cause I don’t wrestle (the same thing you are saying) and that I don’t realize the competitive advantage it really offers (again) and that it isn’t as dangerous as non insiders believe (again).

Later that year, within a 1 month period, three college wrestlers DIED from cutting weight with one being from the highly respected program at the University of Michigan.

The NCAA and outside medical agencies FORCED the wrestling community to change it ways because even after the 3 deaths wrestlers still weren’t going to do anything about it.

I believe there to be a bunch of parallels between the spirit of both situations in which individuals involved cannot give an accurate apprasial of what is happening.

In case you forgot, here is what an actual 1000 pound, non smith machine wearing suit/b.s. monolift squat looks like:

Granted kirk and the dr. are wearing equipment, but it nothing compared to this:

If you want to avoid the criticism then stop calling this stuff a world record. An impressive physical feat of which less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the people in the world could do,fine,I can agree with that.
But don’t insult the real records of true powerlifting greats like Dave Pasennella (god rest his soul) by saying that this current group of bloat hogs are “Smashing Records”.

Voluntarily take (or ask)yourself off the powerlifting USA record boards and put yourself in the catagory of the sword swallowers of the circus side shows.

These guys are NOT setting new world records, so stop claiming so. Travis Mash did not break ed coans record as was claimed, I don’t care what numbers he put up. You draw the heat because you have the balls to think you have the right to make a comparison, which you do not.

165

[quote]orangecola wrote:
…and there is no other sport like powerlifting in which the equipment gives such an extreme carry over to the performance. Nothing even comes close.
[/quote]

I didn’t even bother reading the rest of your post. I stopped at this ignorant statement. There are several items that have just as much, if not more of a carryover in the world of sports. Some were already mentioned in this thread.

166

[quote]orangecola wrote:
These guys are NOT setting new world records, so stop claiming so.[/quote]

http://www.powerliftingwatch.com/records/1100-pound-squat
http://www.powerliftingwatch.com/records/900-pound-raw-squat
Does that mean all these lifts aren’t true and shouldn’t be approved? Oh, Mike Miller’s squat failed to reach parallel, and that’s a bad example for you to use.

[quote]I remember when my cousin wrestled in college, the wrestling world said that there was no problem with the extreme measures that the wrestlers used to cut weight and they refused to listen to outside sources (like me the non wrestler) about how stupid the process was. They would say I don’t understand cause I don’t wrestle (the same thing you are saying) and that I don’t realize the competitive advantage it really offers (again) and that it isn’t as dangerous as non insiders believe (again)…

… I believe there to be a bunch of parallels between the spirit of both situations in which individuals involved cannot give an accurate apprasial of what is happening…

… You draw the heat because you have the balls to think you have the right to make a comparison, which you do not.[/quote]

I smell some hypocricy and faulty logic here…

167

Now come on- that’s cruel- you just HAD to go and march out Mike Miller’s 1220 curtsy- arguably the worst “record” squat of recent memory. Truth be told- in regular APF, APC, APA, and- gulp- even most IPA meets- Miller’s 1220 would not count. By and large, the average >1 white-light goes to something that looks more akin to true squat. So that leaves us with gear. Passanella, Waddington, Hatfield and Karwoski were putting up a grand in their prime. Monolifts and modern gear (versus walking out in Marathon supersuits and goldlines) count for something like 100-200 lbs of “technical innovation”. Sure enough- the best squats of today are in the 1100-1200 range.

I don’t think anybody familiar with the sport honestly thinks that a 1000lb. squat done in a monolift with four layers of polyester material is the same as a walkout in a loose yellow singlet. If they do, so what? I mean, there’s still people that believe in heaven, hell, and good old blue-eyed, bearded Jesus.

So that leaves uss with the pissing contest of the “record”. Occasionally, a PL-record monger of yore will lament about how his record was broken by some new-fangled squat suit- Ed Coan and Kirk Karwoski have been known to make these points. If I were a guy who took a walked-out grand to the hole in a Titan Victor, maybe I would be bitter as well. I mean- that “record” is pretty important- you get a ticker-tape parade, a phone call from the president, and you get to deflower the fairest lass in your village. But- if I were some yokel on the internet that thinks that his three-and-half plates raw bench is pretty hot shit, I’m not sure if I would have a legitimate insight on geared lifting.

PS- good call on Passanella- a lot of folks seems to forget about him.

[quote]orangecola wrote:

In case you forgot, here is what an actual 1000 pound, non smith machine wearing suit/b.s. monolift squat looks like:

Granted kirk and the dr. are wearing equipment, but it nothing compared to this:

If you want to avoid the criticism then stop calling this stuff a world record. An impressive physical feat of which less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the people in the world could do,fine,I can agree with that.
But don’t insult the real records of true powerlifting greats like Dave Pasennella (god rest his soul) by saying that this current group of bloat hogs are “Smashing Records”.

Voluntarily take (or ask)yourself off the powerlifting USA record boards and put yourself in the catagory of the sword swallowers of the circus side shows.

These guys are NOT setting new world records, so stop claiming so. Travis Mash did not break ed coans record as was claimed, I don’t care what numbers he put up. You draw the heat because you have the balls to think you have the right to make a comparison, which you do not.
[/quote]

168

[quote]Pinto wrote:
Now come on- that’s cruel- you just HAD to go and march out Mike Miller’s 1220 curtsy- arguably the worst “record” squat of recent memory. Truth be told- in regular APF, APC, APA, and- gulp- even most IPA meets- Miller’s 1220 would not count. By and large, the average >1 white-light goes to something that looks more akin to true squat. So that leaves us with gear. Passanella, Waddington, Hatfield and Karwoski were putting up a grand in their prime. Monolifts and modern gear (versus walking out in Marathon supersuits and goldlines) count for something like 100-200 lbs of “technical innovation”. Sure enough- the best squats of today are in the 1100-1200 range.

I don’t think anybody familiar with the sport honestly thinks that a 1000lb. squat done in a monolift with four layers of polyester material is the same as a walkout in a loose yellow singlet. If they do, so what? I mean, there’s still people that believe in heaven, hell, and good old blue-eyed, bearded Jesus.

So that leaves uss with the pissing contest of the “record”. Occasionally, a PL-record monger of yore will lament about how his record was broken by some new-fangled squat suit- Ed Coan and Kirk Karwoski have been known to make these points. If I were a guy who took a walked-out grand to the hole in a Titan Victor, maybe I would be bitter as well. I mean- that “record” is pretty important- you get a ticker-tape parade, a phone call from the president, and you get to deflower the fairest lass in your village. But- if I were some yokel on the internet that thinks that his three-and-half plates raw bench is pretty hot shit, I’m not sure if I would have a legitimate insight on geared lifting.

PS- good call on Passanella- a lot of folks seems to forget about him.

orangecola wrote:

In case you forgot, here is what an actual 1000 pound, non smith machine wearing suit/b.s. monolift squat looks like:

Granted kirk and the dr. are wearing equipment, but it nothing compared to this:

If you want to avoid the criticism then stop calling this stuff a world record. An impressive physical feat of which less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the people in the world could do,fine,I can agree with that.
But don’t insult the real records of true powerlifting greats like Dave Pasennella (god rest his soul) by saying that this current group of bloat hogs are “Smashing Records”.

Voluntarily take (or ask)yourself off the powerlifting USA record boards and put yourself in the catagory of the sword swallowers of the circus side shows.

These guys are NOT setting new world records, so stop claiming so. Travis Mash did not break ed coans record as was claimed, I don’t care what numbers he put up. You draw the heat because you have the balls to think you have the right to make a comparison, which you do not.

[/quote]

Great stuff!, It’s not like anyone cares about lifting. Jr. high School girls Bball games draw more people around where i live than the average powerlfiting meet. Local (pennsylvania) football games at the high school level draw more fans than the biggest meets in the world. some local schools draw in the 10K range.

Now that’s nothing compared to Texas, hahaha.

169

I just need to point out this thread all comes down to one word. EGO. I competitively powerlift USAPL and am going to compete nationally. I use equipment because everyone else does. Ill tell some1 my geared lifts but once i say geared i am labled a pussy in my gym cause they assume i cant do half of what im lifting. So my 330 shirted bench only amounts to a 285 paused RAW usapl stnadards. My 560 dead only comes to a 515 dead raw usapl standards. my 450 squat comes to a 415 raw usapl standard.

I dont fucking care what people say about gear. Shit i way under 160lbs. That 1036lb bench was a lil iffy, but who the fuck cares. He has been training longer than most people on this site even knew what a benchpress looked like. He trained for one thing, people train for another. Plus this thread i believe was posted to be a link to watch it, not turn it into a copy of the “all about bench shirts DL and squat suits” thread.

170

[quote]Pipes06 wrote:
I just need to point out this thread all comes down to one word. EGO. I competitively powerlift USAPL and am going to compete nationally. I use equipment because everyone else does. Ill tell some1 my geared lifts but once i say geared i am labled a pussy in my gym cause they assume i cant do half of what im lifting. So my 330 shirted bench only amounts to a 285 paused RAW usapl stnadards. My 560 dead only comes to a 515 dead raw usapl standards. my 450 squat comes to a 415 raw usapl standard.

I dont fucking care what people say about gear. Shit i way under 160lbs. That 1036lb bench was a lil iffy, but who the fuck cares. He has been training longer than most people on this site even knew what a benchpress looked like. He trained for one thing, people train for another. Plus this thread i believe was posted to be a link to watch it, not turn it into a copy of the “all about bench shirts DL and squat suits” thread.[/quote]

OMG look at that… a USAPL single ply lifter’s actually agreeing. But he competes in single ply??? WTF??? What the hell is going on??? OMG could it be he actually knows what it’s like to train and compete for a comp and respects everything that goes into it rather than just sit up on his high horse bitching???

OMG Lolz. What’s next, a 1050lb squatter saying they don’t like gear but wearing it anyway to compete against the best??? (OMG does that mean hte best ewar gear???) WTF is going on… The best lifers in the world wear gear??? I think the world just imploded.

171

[quote]Shadowzz4 wrote:
Taquito wrote:
Shadowzz4 wrote:

You my friend are a fucking idiot. The sport is called pole vaulting! There is also another event called the high jump! They are not the same! Just like he did not bench press 1036 pounds! That is not a bench press! Take the pole to the high jump competition and you have a good comparision to the bench shirt.

1)- Explain how pads make the players better.
3)- the skate is in the name of the sport! If they called this shirt pressing it would be fine. its not a bench press
4)- any sport shoes? Dude your a fucking moron.
5)- the game of baseball has used bats for over 100 years.

powerlifters just started artificially putting up their numbers fairly recently.

[/quote]

  1. Football pads went from thick multi-layer shirts & leather helmets to the high-tech gear we have today. Increased ability to hit & take a hit, better protection/safety. and overall physicality of the game have been affected.
  2. Baseball bats weren’t always made of aluminum with rubberized grips
    Tennis…see if any of the pro’s want to grab granddad’s wooden racket with braided strings to play a match…nope, they’d rather have the latest, lightest ultra-polymer rackets.
    Another one…track spikes…upon their arrival all old sprinting records were destroyed.

Bottom line: most sports advance either thru better training or better equipment, or both.

172

[quote]xb100 wrote:
RJ24 wrote:

If guys got 200-300 pounds out of there shirts, there would be a ton more people benching 600-700 pounds.

[/quote]

Kinda naive, aren’t you?
Let’s see, me & my training partner both get 200+
Joe Mazza stated, in a PLUSA interview, that he gets 275
I know Jay Fry, Mike Wolfe & Fred Boldt all get 250+
Basically, anyone you see in the Top 20, you can count on getting 200 or more

173

[quote]mattwray wrote:
Why do y’all (raw guys) seriously care? They are lifting weights, not curing cancer or fighting a war to the death.

If you had the biggest raw bench, I could understand why you might be pissed. But I doubt anyone here is within 200lbs of the highest raw bench, so why do you care if it is called a bench press, pirhoutte, backspin or whatever.

I am heavily tattooed and in the tattoo world there is a saying that is fitting in this context:

The difference between tattooed people and non-tattooed people is that tattooed people don’t care if you don’t have tattoos.

Geared lifters don’t care if you want to lift raw. Strong is strong, and we understand that. Only raw lifters say geared lifters should not be allowed to lift that way.

This argument is so overdone.

[/quote]
Excellent post. I like the tattoo thing, as I can relate.
I have yet to hear a geared lifted complain because someone’s raw number was higher than his or bitch that raw lifters shouldn’t be able to lift that way. Geared lifters couldn’t care less what raw lifters are doing, but damn, do raw lifters get their panties in a bunch about shirts/suits.

There are plenty of feds and meets to lift in the manner in which you choose, raw, single, multi, tested/non-tested. If you can’t find one of these suitable to your lifting preference, go do Jazzercise or something.

174

[quote]shandwill wrote:
orangecola wrote:

  1. I think it is interesting that you singled Kara out, seeing as she is Ryan Kennelly’s wife.

[/quote]
Check your facts…she is not his wife.

175

[quote]Antman517 wrote:
mattwray wrote:
Why do y’all (raw guys) seriously care? They are lifting weights, not curing cancer or fighting a war to the death.

If you had the biggest raw bench, I could understand why you might be pissed. But I doubt anyone here is within 200lbs of the highest raw bench, so why do you care if it is called a bench press, pirhoutte, backspin or whatever.

I am heavily tattooed and in the tattoo world there is a saying that is fitting in this context:

The difference between tattooed people and non-tattooed people is that tattooed people don’t care if you don’t have tattoos.

Geared lifters don’t care if you want to lift raw. Strong is strong, and we understand that. Only raw lifters say geared lifters should not be allowed to lift that way.

This argument is so overdone.

Excellent post. I like the tattoo thing, as I can relate.
I have yet to hear a geared lifted complain because someone’s raw number was higher than his or bitch that raw lifters shouldn’t be able to lift that way. Geared lifters couldn’t care less what raw lifters are doing, but damn, do raw lifters get their panties in a bunch about shirts/suits.

There are plenty of feds and meets to lift in the manner in which you choose, raw, single, multi, tested/non-tested. If you can’t find one of these suitable to your lifting preference, go do Jazzercise or something.
[/quote]

Yeah, I cant understand why someone training hard to do something would get upset when others use equipment that greatly inflates their “abilities” and then (and here is the key part) calls it the same thing.

If someone jumps as high as they can, its called a vertical jump. If they run with a pole and stick the pole in the ground to jump as high as they can, its called a pole vault. Nobody calls their pole vault jump a “vertical jump”… nevermind that its different because of the equipment involved.

Softball players use a larger ball, different pitching style, and larger bats than in baseball. So they call the sport softball. They dont “forget to mention” that the equipment involved makes it a totally different game (though there are major similarities). I’ve yet to hear a softball player try to claim their home run record as a baseball record… only to later reveal that a larger ball/larger bat just happens to make it easier to hit the damn thing.

I know, I know, I bowed out of the conversation. But then I thought about it some more.

I dont have a problem with geared lifting on its own. What bothers me is that a raw bench press and a geared bench press are so radically different, yet are both called the exact same thing. Anyone not familiar with the sport isnt going to know about the use of shirts or how much they change the lift from mostly being a test of your bottom position to being a test of your lockout strength, how they make the lift more about tenchinque.

So, my simple suggestion, without bias or ignorance or malice or jealousy or any of that nonsense… is just call it something else.

Call it a geared bench press. Call a raw bench press a raw bench press. We can agree that the geared bench press record is 1036 and the raw bench press record is 715.

Make the thread title “Ryan Kennelly’s 1036lb Geared Bench Press!”. Its still impressive as hell, and there would be no debate over the honesty in reporting the record.

I keep hearing that the best lifters in the world are proud of being able to get the most out of their gear, that they arent afraid to admit how many more pounds it helps them lift. So why not refer to it as a geared bench press every time they talk about it?

176

Yeah I agree with cappedandplanit. I’m positive the reason so many people are offended by bench shirts is just the way a geared bench press is worded the same as the raw bench press.

However, I personally never like to see equipment added into a sport to take away from people that set incredible records in the past, be it advances in technology or new introductions in equipment like a bench shirt. It’s just not fair for the athletes of the past, seeing as they can’t compete anymore because they’re old or dead.

The purpose of records is to compare today’s great athletes with those of the past. When variables keep changing, the comparison cannot be made without wondering who accomplished a greater feat. This goes with any sport.

177

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Anyone not familiar with the sport isnt going to know about the use of shirts or how much they change the lift from mostly being a test of your bottom position to being a test of your lockout strength, how they make the lift more about tenchinque.
[/quote]

But that’s not the sport’s problem. Anyone not familiar with the differences between softball and baseball won’t understand the differences between the game. A homerun is still called a homerun. An equipped meet is called an equipped meet and a raw meet is called a raw meet. But, even though they are different things, they both call their movement a “bench press.” Homerun – bench press. See what I’m saying.

Beyond that, why should the sport care if people don’t recognize the differences? Anyone that wants to know can easily find out. Pole vaulting doesn’t care if people don’t know that bamboo was once used and people landed on a pile of straw.

That’s my issue with the so-called raw advocates. They already know there’s a difference between the lifts. Why do they get in such an uproar over heavy shirted lifts?

178

[quote]malonetd wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Anyone not familiar with the sport isnt going to know about the use of shirts or how much they change the lift from mostly being a test of your bottom position to being a test of your lockout strength, how they make the lift more about tenchinque.

But that’s not the sport’s problem. Anyone not familiar with the differences between softball and baseball won’t understand the differences between the game. A homerun is still called a homerun. An equipped meet is called an equipped meet and a raw meet is called a raw meet. But, even though they are different things, they both call their movement a “bench press.” Homerun – bench press. See what I’m saying.

Beyond that, why should the sport care if people don’t recognize the differences? Anyone that wants to know can easily find out. Pole vaulting doesn’t care if people don’t know that bamboo was once used and people landed on a pile of straw.

That’s my issue with the so-called raw advocates. They already know there’s a difference between the lifts. Why do they get in such an uproar over heavy shirted lifts?[/quote]

If someone posted a thread saying “New home run record!”… and you opened it to find that it was a softball home run record, would you at least be tempted to suggest that a more honest title would be “New softball home run record!”?

I’m just an advocate of honesty. And yes, calling a raw bench and a geared bench both “bench press” is dishonest.

Consider the guy who falls asleep in the same bed as a girl he’s hooking up with at a party, and lets everyone read into him saying “We slept together” as they wish. Sure, he isnt lying, but he knows they’re interpreting it differently. Gear advocates KNOW people are going to interpret “XXX bench press” as “raw XXX bench press” unless otherwise noted.

But sure, why should that guy care if people dont know that by “sleep” he means “entered a state of unconciousness” and not “sexual intercourse”… sure sure, it just happens to make him look like a stud and gets him some cheap admiration from his friends… but its not his fault, so why should he go out of his way to clear things up… right?

Just like geared lifters shouldnt care that most people will assume it was a raw lift… sure, sure, it just happens to make him sound a lot stronger, but… (and please dont argue that a person with a 1000 pound raw bench is not stronger than a person with a 1000 pound shirted bench).

Would it really be that hard to just call it a geared bench press? Its one extra word.

179

On the other end of things, I’d be my left arm that if something happened that brought the numbers down, the same people who dont go out of their way to denote a geared lift vs raw would be QUICK to point out the difference.

Lets say, just for example, all the federations decide that instead of the squat, lifters will perform an overhead squat. Since an overhead squat is always going to be less than a persons back squat… do you think they would want to continue calling the event simply “squat”? Or do you think they would push to have the event correctly named “overhead squat”?

I think they’d call it their “overhead squat” every single time they ever talked about the lift.

I bet they’d care a whole lot what the “non-lifting community understands” if a change was made that deflated their numbers instead of inflating them.

180

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
On the other end of things, I’d be my left arm that if something happened that brought the numbers down, the same people who dont go out of their way to denote a geared lift vs raw would be QUICK to point out the difference.

Lets say, just for example, all the federations decide that instead of the squat, lifters will perform an overhead squat. Since an overhead squat is always going to be less than a persons back squat… do you think they would want to continue calling the event simply “squat”? Or do you think they would push to have the event correctly named “overhead squat”?

I think they’d call it their “overhead squat” every single time they ever talked about the lift.

I bet they’d care a whole lot what the “non-lifting community understands” if a change was made that deflated their numbers instead of inflating them.[/quote]

I’m sorry, but I completely missed your point on account of that analogy was way too gay.

181

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I dont have a problem with geared lifting on its own. What bothers me is that a raw bench press and a geared bench press are so radically different, yet are both called the exact same thing. Anyone not familiar with the sport isnt going to know about the use of shirts or how much they change the lift from mostly being a test of your bottom position to being a test of your lockout strength, how they make the lift more about tenchinque.

So, my simple suggestion, without bias or ignorance or malice or jealousy or any of that nonsense… is just call it something else.

Call it a geared bench press. Call a raw bench press a raw bench press. We can agree that the geared bench press record is 1036 and the raw bench press record is 715.

Make the thread title “Ryan Kennelly’s 1036lb Geared Bench Press!”. Its still impressive as hell, and there would be no debate over the honesty in reporting the record.

I keep hearing that the best lifters in the world are proud of being able to get the most out of their gear, that they arent afraid to admit how many more pounds it helps them lift. So why not refer to it as a geared bench press every time they talk about it?[/quote]

This is the best thing you’ve said in this thread. In fact, it’s one of the best things said in this . I agree with you 100% that all lifts should be named raw or geared at the beginning. Such a label is necessary to make things clear for everyone.

In Kennelly’s case, it’s a bench, no doubt. It’s just geared.