[quote]db2000 wrote:
Sorry In my country the word ‘parallel’ must mean something different to ireland.
Carry on[/quote]
We’re not talking about the fucking dictionary definition of “parallel”. We’re talking about powerlifting. When a straight line drawn from the crease of the hip and knee is parallel to the ground, the lifter is “parallel”.
When they’ve broken that plane, they’ve got to legal depth and broken “parallel”. Simples.
What’s complicated about that?
[quote]StormTheBeach wrote:
[quote]JimMcD wrote:
[quote]JPeggEFS wrote:
[quote]tom63 wrote:
[quote]JPeggEFS wrote:
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Difference is I was a judge in the ADFPA, now the USAPL. the canvas suits allowed in other federations make it impossible in most cases to judge depth from the front. You just can’t do it. From the side is different.
I’ve attended the WPO finals in Columbus as part of the medical staff for five years straight. I was at the side with a perfect view of the lifters in the squat. Many guys were hitting below parallel according to the rules. Many looked high from the front on a different view.[/quote]]
Actually, the RULES say you can’t judge depth from the front. Feel free to look it up if you dont believe it. Hope this helps!
Jason
[/quote]
USAPL judge now Jason, but might test for the IPA since they are local. You can judge from the front if the lack of depth is very obvious. I need to check the exact phrasing, but if it is grossly high, obviously high etc. I would need to read the correct wording of course.
With saying that I’ll stand by my 4" high squats from the front are often below parallel. I’ve seen Angelo Berdanelli do this, Chuck, and others.
In further defense of the IPA, the last meet I attended had very tight judging standards. I was very impressed. It’s what gave me the idea of doing this again.[/quote]
Wasnt knocking any fed, but I am 99% sure that, save for, apparently the SPF, you cant judge deopth save for the examples you listed…ala that bullshit 1220 of mike millers.
Jason
[/quote]
I think you’re going to have a hard time finding it written in the rules of any fed that you can’t judge depth from the front. I know there was an opinion given by someone within the APF a few years ago that the head judge shouldn’t judge depth but it’s not in the rules. It’s just like the fact that words “break parallel” don’t appear anywhere. It’s part of the lore of powerlifting judging but not part of the rules.
[/quote]
Exactly why we need a 4th judge to lay directly under the exposed anus of the squatter. Anus dialation is the only true way to measure depth. [/quote]
[quote]db2000 wrote:
[quote]Hanley wrote:
[quote]db2000 wrote:
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Many looks high squats from the front actually break parallel when you see them from the side.
I actually was watching a big time meet from the side and compared to video from the front. The front looked 4" high on some that were below parallel.[/quote]
Not to nit pick but “breaking parallel” has nothing to do with it.
The rule book says crease of the hip bellow the top of the knee.
For most thats a bit deeper than what people say is “bellow parallel”[/quote]
Lol whut?!
Breaking parallel has EVERYTHING to do with it. It’s the whole point of squatting. Parallel is where the crease of the hip is at the same point as the top of the knee. You break that, it’s a legal squat.
First time posting here in about 6 months and I see the quality of posting hasn’t gotten any better. And I thought the 09’ers were bad.[/quote]
Sounds like you have missed the point.
People say ‘parallel’ but what on earth does it actually mean? The only thing close straight on your leg is your femur. Unless you have xray specs you cannot tell if its parallel to the ground.
If you are talking about the top of the thigh…its not a straight line…how on earth are you going to measure it.
crease of hip and top of knee are two clear anatomical points.
Oh well…we cant all be smart
[/quote]
When the crease of the hip is even with the top of the knee the femur is assumed to be parallel. Whether this is actually true or not doesn’t really matter, what matters is that this is the definition of parallel as used in the sport powerlifting. There are actual judges who use the term “breaking parallel”.
But seriously, you’re arguing about a non-issue that no one really cares about but you. Go and chase your windmills somewhere else, Don Quijote.
im so glad the validity of chucks squat isnt determined by those nutswiner, keyboard warrior, 400lb squatters who will literally take up PAGES of an internet forum bickering about the definition of parallel.
(ps. everyone knows you hafta blow the judges. thats why theyre “white” lights. u make 3 of 3 judges nut? GOOD LIFT!)
[quote]CBear84 wrote:
400lb squatters )[/quote]
I think you’re being generous.
This discussion is no different than people arguing over whether or not the receiver got in the endzone or the guy was safe at first. Not really sure what having the ability to do something personally, makes one’s opinion more or less valid than anyone else’s. In fact, if one can not perform the task in question, how are they even qualified to say it was good?
I guess someone needs to develop a way to quickly take computerized measurements and calculate the proper height to project a laser. Squat will be no good unless the ass breaks the beam. lol
just put yellow dot at top of the hip and use a camera at knee level.