I wish I had time to read the whole thread on this subject… it is always interesting, comparing two variants of a sport.
From a bit of a historian’s point of view on ballistic versus static strength, I wanted to mention that in the old days, powerlifters made much better Olympic and military pressers than Olympic lifters made good bench pressers. Jon Cole, a decent bench presser, was a very respectable overhead presser; Jim Williams near the point when he set his 675 BP, pressed 460 lbs. with scant overhead training and mentioned this effort in a letter to a magazine.
Mel Hennessey lifted in odd lift meets and did behind-the-neck presses with well over 300 lbs.; Larry Pacifico was a good overhead presser, on and on and on.
On the other hand, Ernie Pickett barely bench pressed more than he pressed in official meets and he trained at both lifts. Paul Anderson was actually considered a poor bench presser during his actual short career as a lifter. He was credited with 415 for sets of 2 or 3 reps when he was overhead pressing almost at that level at that time in his career.
I’ll stop now just sort of making the point that the ballistic forms of movements don’t always translate to great limit maximums in the more static powerlifts. An olympic lifter would have to learn to stop at just below parallel in a squat and reverse from that point to squat really big weights… just because they are good at the ballistic version of a squat doesn’t mean they’d be great power squatters.
Bill Starr made a great deadlift of, what, 666 lbs. off of a base of mainly Olympic lift training, but he also squatted in the low 500s in most of his powerlifting meets back then, albeit in a very strict form. My guess is Starr would have looked very fast and explosive in the squat right up to the point he approached his maximum lift in the squat, then he’d fail suddenly. he was attempting cleans in the low to almost mid 400s at one point near this time.
I would say history says:
that bench pressers convert to overhead pressers better than overhead pressers to bench pressers;
each of the two styles of squat convert poorly to the other: powerlifters would have a hard time standing up out of a heavy low clean; Olympic lifters would have a hard time in the middle of a contested squat… olympic lifters are definitely more springy in the legs and would be better jumpers since they are essentially jumping with the bar in a snatch and clean;
Olympic lifters would do slightly better at deadlifting than deadlifters would do in the snatch and clean, but this largely due to the skill factor involved in the quick lift pulls, not so much on how the lifts translate, power-wise, to each other.
The amount of work is NOT equal. The work isnt equal because the force exerted is NOT equal to one another. The force exerted to lift an object is NOT equal to the weight of the object. It is dependent on the MASS of the object times the ACCELERATION of the object.
[/quote]
The amount of work IS equal. An object of 100 Kg at a height of 1 m has the potential energy of ca. 1000 Joule, that means one has to do at least the work worth 1000 J to lift it up to that height. If one lifter lifts the weight twice as fast as the other to that height he doesn’t accelerate the whole distance and if the input of force is to high he has to deccelerate i.e. produce counterforce to stop the object at the needed height. You are right by saying the acceleration from the faster lifter is higher but looking closely the acceleratin/decceleration and with it force/counterforce summ up to the work exerted by the slower lifter hence they both do the same work.
But enough of the nitpicking.
You didn’t answer the question:
The amount of work is NOT equal. The work isnt equal because the force exerted is NOT equal to one another. The force exerted to lift an object is NOT equal to the weight of the object. It is dependent on the MASS of the object times the ACCELERATION of the object.
The amount of work IS equal. An object of 100 Kg at a height of 1 m has the potential energy of ca. 1000 Joule, that means one has to do at least the work worth 1000 J to lift it up to that height. If one lifter lifts the weight twice as fast as the other to that height he doesn’t accelerate the whole distance and if the input of force is to high he has to deccelerate i.e. produce counterforce to stop the object at the needed height. You are right by saying the acceleration from the faster lifter is higher but looking closely the acceleratin/decceleration and with it force/counterforce summ up to the work exerted by the slower lifter hence they both do the same work.
But enough of the nitpicking.
You didn’t answer the question:
What’s your definition of (physical) strenght?
[/quote]
“if the input of force is to high he has to deccelerate i.e. produce counterforce to stop the object at the needed height”
the LIFTER would not need to produce negative acceleration, that would be provided by gravity. The lifter’s acceleration would lessen, yes, but it would never be less than zero.
My definition of strength? That’s teh whole point, that this can’t be boiled down to a nice simple definition, certainly not one that would lend itself to any kind of quantification, in terms of “stronger than” or “not as strong as.”
[quote]Hanley wrote:
I think you’re all missing something fairly important here.
Look at the numbers… They don’t exactly add up. I don’t for a second doubt the legitamcy of them, BUT I would hazard a guess that your arms are extremely long Brad?
Hence the deadlift WAY out of sync with the front squat and clean.
Also, the reason that weightliftng is in the olympics is cos of the history of it. Powerlifting’s a relatively new sport. And saying “weightlifters are stronger, plain and simple” does nothing to prove or disprove anyones argument on this thread.
You’re just stating you opinion. Mine’s completely different. Hell mine is that the 2 are completely imcomparable. I’ve competed at both, and train in a gym with national champs in both disiciplines.
You never hear either groups bad mouth each other. The only people that seem to care are keyboard warriors.[/quote]
My log is on Fortfiediron and my pullis on youtube under 275kg pull. I am not dissing powerlifters, far from it I think they are tremendous athletes, hence why I PL lifts are much greater than my oly, thats what I started off with.
As far as what you said about deadlift/clean I agree 100%. The mechanics of a deadlift are FAR off what a clean or power clean for that matter, simple truth being, I have long femurs, short torso and very long arms. Pulling a weight off the floor is way different to keeping the hips down during a clean or snatch.
As far as the ‘weakness’ of my arguement, I could pull out stories and literature about power outputs about various lifters and various points forever, but at the end of the day, its is only my opinion, and ima stick to it
Throwing in my two cents as an olympic weightlifter.
Stronger at squat and deadlift then powerlifters (also having more flexibility) but, I doubt most olympic lifters can beat power lifters in the bench press. Why would an o lifter really need to bench?
[quote]cactrotman wrote:
Throwing in my two cents as an olympic weightlifter.
Stronger at squat and deadlift then powerlifters (also having more flexibility) but, I doubt most olympic lifters can beat power lifters in the bench press. Why would an o lifter really need to bench?[/quote]
this sums up the inherently flawed logic of this thread, this “n=1” type of assumption.
So because YOUR squat and YOUR deadlift are better than the squat and deadlift of some of the PLers you know, it follows that all OLers would be? Is that the conclusion you want us to draw, or are you just letting us know your personal experience?
this is really funny, how about now we ask who plays tic tac toe better? I mean it is saying who better at sports Baseball players or Football players. Guess what you do what you do the guy next to you doesn’t.
Some guy cleans 500lbs hey that?s good another guy squats and pulls over 1000lbs that?s good too. “A power lifter couldn’t clean this much…” well guess what an Olympic lifter couldn’t bench this much. Anyone who can compete at a pro level deserves to be applauded.
It seems that people on hear want to lick from the ass of Olympic lifting so bad that they close there minds to other types of athletes. In closeting Hussein and Bolton could take dumbs bigger than anyone talking on hear.
[quote]splicer wrote:
… a lot of stuff that was correct, but then:
Well strength is really another way of saying how much work can you do, where Work=F(d). …[/quote]
As far as quantitative definitions of strength go: how much force you can apply is the primary definition of strength. How much work you can do is a secondary definition of strength. If a question about who is “stronger” is posed with no context that would point toward one definition or the other, then the primary definition of “strength” should apply.
[quote]splicer wrote:
Which group is stronger? Well strength is really another way of saying how much work can you do, where Work=F(d).
KBCThird wrote:
No, no it is not. You dont get to make up these definitions as you go along.
[/quote]
splicer didn’t make up any definition. What he did wrong was: he interpreted the key adjective using a secondary definition instead of the primary definition, when there was no context to point to the secondary definition.
[quote]splicer wrote:
Powerlifting is all about reducing the distance the bar has to be moved so that more mass can be moved. The drastic back arch in the bench, the sumo style in the deadlift, and the high, bent-over squat all reduce the distance the bar must move.
The sport is judged mostly by whether the bar moves from point A to point B to point A: lock-out to chest to lock-out, or standing, “parallel”, standing, or floor, lock-out, “down”. Where the crucial factor is the concentric movement, incomplete concentric movement, no lift.
What is being judged is ability to do work. W=F(d)=mgd. Mass of barbell, gravity and distance of the concentric movement, what other factors are in play? Do you have a better definition of strength?
[/quote]
From sampling a few English-language dictionary definitions of “strength” it seems that strength=force is usually primary and strength=force*distance is usually secondary.
Admittedly, a powerlifting event is not judged solely on the application of force, but by the ability to apply that force from point A to B and back to A. But because powerlifting requires the force to be applied across a shorter distance than olympic lifting, it seems likely that those who train for powerlifting at the elite level would develop the ability to apply a greater amount of force than those who train for olympic lifting at the elite level. According to the primary definition of strength, that would make the powerlifters stronger.
[quote]KBCThird wrote:
If someone squats 500 lbs in 2 seconds and someone else squats it in 4 seconds, they have not applied an equal amount of force to the bar, the acceleration of the 2 second squatter was greater.
[/quote]
The maximum force applied by the 2-second squatter is greater. But the mean force applied across the distance has to be algebraically the same in both cases. If either squatter kept applying the same upward force to the bar right up to the top of the squat and also did not apply any downward force at the end of the movement, the bar would fly up (just a little ways) from the squatter’s hands.
The bar would fly higher from the 2-second squatter’s hands than from the 4-second squatter’s hands, which would make the distance greater for the 2-second squatter. To keep from tossing the bar, both squatters must either ease up on the force near the top of the lift, or else apply a downward force with the fingers against the top of the bar right at the top of the lift.
The 2-second squatter must either ease up a little sooner or apply more downward force at the top of the lift. Easing up sooner means more distance with lower force worked into the average; or else more downward force at the top means a very short distance with a negative number of greater magnitude worked into the average.
The mean upward force applied to the bar by the 2-second squatter and the 4-second squatter will work out to be equal (or the 2-second squatter will throw the bar).
[quote]Brad Cutler wrote:
Personally I think this one has been beaten to death…but ye, olympic lifters are stronger, and by some stretch imo. When Reza does that 280kg front, it looks like he could do 15-20 reps with it. 800lbs back squat? Try 1000lbs. Same goes for Dimas 200kg front squats @83kg (1993 worlds)and Aranda’s 200kg+ back squats.
They both look like play weights. To be honest, how many PL guys can squat 300kg completely raw (no belt etc.) regardless of bodyweight let alone after a ton of other work? Aranda looks like his true max would be anywhere from 300-330kg…@77kg!!!
Personally I think I am a case in point. I deadlifted 605@190lbs about 6 months ago (belt, straps)… my clean and jerk is 242lbs (and I have a excellant weightlifting coach too). I think that says it all.
Maybe guys at the top of the sport (bolton, benni, hooper etc.) would be close, but majority of other pl guys would never come close to these numbers…[/quote]
Could you upload/link to the clip of Aranda squating?
[quote]SWR-1240 wrote:
If we were to talk about power output, wouldn’t bicyclists be at the very top of the list?
I think speed skaters might be a close second to them too.
And by the way, I’m not being sarcastic this time, like I obviously was when I was talking about long distance runners.[/quote]
No. If we were talking about maximum power output olympic level shot putters would be the cream of the crop. I have been to several throwing clinics and research has shown that elite shotputters generate up to 9 horse power, the next being olympic lifters at 6. I dont know what falls beyond them.
With all the talk about speed and how because one is faster then the other and with that makes them stronger, ask what is harder taking somthing down with the same speed you bring it up both very fast the up motion almost on the rebound, or slowly controlling the weight and lifting it quickly.
I am not saying either is better I am just playing devils advocate and trying to get some of you to understand because you like one more than the other doesn’t mean it is the end all be all.
[quote]NealRaymond2 wrote:
splicer wrote:
Which group is stronger? Well strength is really another way of saying how much work can you do, where Work=F(d).
KBCThird wrote:
No, no it is not. You dont get to make up these definitions as you go along.
splicer didn’t make up any definition. What he did wrong was: he interpreted the key adjective using a secondary definition instead of the primary definition, when there was no context to point to the secondary definition.
[/quote]
of course he made up hte definition. strength is NOT “just another way of saying how much work can you do.” I think i’ve already addressed that, SEVERAL times.
[quote]Timme wrote:
KBCThird wrote:
ok, I’ll be honest, bolton vs Reza my money says Bolton’s stronger
You can’t compare these guys thou. reza is compeating in a drugtested federation, Bolton is not.
Compare Reza with Ove Lehto (World champion in IPF) instead.[/quote]
first of all, my comment about bolton being stronger than reza was tongue in cheek. I’ve already pretty well laid out my argument that you cant compare someones performance in teh olifts to someones performance in the powerlifts.
If I had a gun to my head I would go with the guy who holds the squat, deadlift and total record in the WPO - which ADMITTEDLY has more than its share of detractors - over the guy whose sport has a great element of technique (as opposed to sheer strength.) But jeez, Reza makes 580 something from the floor to overhead look easy.
But the drug-tested comment is SUCH a joke. How many times has this been played out? How many times should it be pointed out that “drug-tested does not mean drug-free?” And that goes for BOTH the olympics and the IPF by the way. The willful ignorance is just stunning.
