[quote]JLederach wrote:
you see personally i find those exrx.net standards to be a little low…[/quote]
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
What are your lifts?[/quote]
[quote]JLederach wrote:
maxes are speculative…i [u]think[/u]…[/quote]
I’m sure you can see the disconnect here if you look closely. You have never competed and don’t know your maxes, yet you formed an opinion on these others based on what? Most people’s gyms lifts are nowhere near their competition lifts. Assuming the performance standards are based on comp lifts, you can’t compare the two…its apples to plutonium…send in your entry form then figure it out.
[quote]JLederach wrote:
you see personally i find those exrx.net standards to be a little low…[/quote]
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
What are your lifts?[/quote]
[quote]JLederach wrote:
maxes are speculative…i [u]think[/u]…[/quote]
I’m sure you can see the disconnect here if you look closely. You have never competed and don’t know your maxes, yet you formed an opinion on these others based on what? Most people’s gyms lifts are nowhere near their competition lifts. Assuming the performance standards are based on comp lifts, you can’t compare the two…its apples to plutonium…send in your entry form then figure it out.[/quote]
But I agree they are very low…adding the S/B/D together for the 275’s only adds up to mid 1500’s. That wouldn’t even get you an elite in the feds with shitty judging standards, untested, and supportive wraps. I think its 1654 for most.
I like the standards that Tim Henriques and Paul Bossi recently put together for the 100% RAW fed. It charted the top lifters on PL watch and was based on tested feds that do not allow supportive equipment to qualify as raw. I think its 1710 total for the 275’s, which sounds about right. The individual lifts add up to more than 1710 though due to the fact that those who specialize in a lift and don’t compete full PL meets will skew the results. That’s the way it should be.
Yes I know you do–I actually read your previous posts where you had already stated this. I read your posts, but it didn’t appear you read mine since I didn’t offer an opinion one way or another prior. Or maybe you filled int he blanks with your active imagination. not sure.
Yes I know you do–I actually read your previous posts where you had already stated this. I read your posts, but it didn’t appear you read mine since I didn’t offer an opinion one way or another prior. Or maybe you filled int he blanks with your active imagination. not sure.[/quote]
I agree with your post about the other standards. That’s something we can agree on. And I understand your views about comp maxes and gym maxes being different. But that wasn’t the question. The question was to determine what we consider to be elite in the big three and based on your “answer” to which I responded, we all agreed these standards were low. You indirectly tried to disprove their answer by saying they haven’t competed. Competition or not, their opinions were stated as well as a side conversation about their lifts. I’m assuming my opinion is valid since I’ve competed and will compete again in the future. Is that a fair assumption?
The standards developed by Kilgore are low if you are looking at what constitutes elite for competitive powerlifters. If you are looking at what might constitute elite with respect to the entire group of adult males who lift weights, they seem like they are about right. For raw tested powerlifting, I agree that the 100% raw standards seem about right. 1630 at 242 (my weight class) is a pretty beastly raw total.
[quote]TheTexican wrote:
If someone has video showing good enough form to get whites, I consider that evidence enough.
That’s just my opinion . That is, not having attended film school. [/quote]
Agreed. There are plenty of incredibly strong lifters out there that never enter a competition in their lives. Btw i check out those 100% raw standards and agree with everyone that those seem to be a good way to measure.
Yes I know you do–I actually read your previous posts where you had already stated this. I read your posts, but it didn’t appear you read mine since I didn’t offer an opinion one way or another prior. Or maybe you filled int he blanks with your active imagination. not sure.[/quote]
I agree with your post about the other standards. That’s something we can agree on. And I understand your views about comp maxes and gym maxes being different. But that wasn’t the question. The question was to determine what we consider to be elite in the big three and based on your “answer” to which I responded, we all agreed these standards were low. You indirectly tried to disprove their answer by saying they haven’t competed. Competition or not, their opinions were stated as well as a side conversation about their lifts. I’m assuming my opinion is valid since I’ve competed and will compete again in the future. Is that a fair assumption? [/quote]
You can arrive at the right answer by the wrong method…blind squirrels and nuts and all that…the point being if you are trying to use your gym lifts to form an opinion on competition standards, your opinion carries very little weight.
i mentioned the fact that i have yet to compete, but i posted this thread to start discussion about what it means to be strong overall, not necessarily in competition. chill out.
Jim Wendler’s discussion of what is strong is always pretty interesting.
I don’t really think it’s worth thinking a lot about whether you’re strong or not though. I think it’s more about feeling confident in what ability you have, staying hungry for bigger weights, and letting PR’s feel good for a couple days when they come but then looking towards the next one.
I’m speaking from the standpoint of someone who is still trying to get to the big weights though. Maybe the mentality is different when you can already bench 500 and squat houses though.
The good thing about what we are talking about is there is always room for important. And that should be the only thing we really worry about. Comparing numbers might be good for the ego, but just improving every day should be enough. The rest will come.
[quote]burt128 wrote:
The standards developed by Kilgore are low if you are looking at what constitutes elite for competitive powerlifters. If you are looking at what might constitute elite with respect to the entire group of adult males who lift weights, they seem like they are about right. For raw tested powerlifting, I agree that the 100% raw standards seem about right. 1630 at 242 (my weight class) is a pretty beastly raw total.[/quote]
Since when is a Raw Total Elite in the 242 weight class 1630?
