What is Elite?

Training Powerlifting & Strength Sports
21

[quote]theuofh wrote:
On one hand, having achievable elite totals is somewhat motivating. However, I do agree that having an elite total doesn’t mean one is an “elite” level lifter. Some of the federations set the bar a bit low.

I was talking to a training partner with more experience in powerifting than I have, and he told me they used to redo the elite classification each year based on the totals the previous year. I don’t know if it was a percentage or set number, but they would define the elite totals such that top 5 or so percent or X number of lifters would total elite the next year.

I think this would help to keep things more current, based on the evolution (or lack of) in gear, training methods, drugs, the retirement of legendary lifters, and whatever else.[/quote]

Re-evaluating the elite term can be good in that it is a constant and up to date but then again in can be bad in that it would suck to meet a standard, classify yourself as elite, only to then be told 3 years later you weren’t really elite. And since lifting is so static, meaning a bench press in the 70’s is essentially the same as today (raw of course) and a bench press in China is the same as one in the USA, I think having more set standards would be good.

22

[quote]tom63 wrote:
I go by the old uspf standards with my own personal formula thrown in to account for multipl gear. I add two hundred to those totals and if your close I’ll say yeah. 181 was 1642. Inzer blasts , supersuits, less effective wraps. You hit 1850, I’d say you’re close. 1900, I’d give it to you. 2000 for sure.

So just ask me , tell me what they lifted in and I’ll tell you if it’s elite. And if you’re just hitting those totals and you’re usapl and your katana is giving you 150 lbs, you’re not elite.

Or do what liquid mercury said. Hit the old uspf standards raw or knee wrap raw . 600-425-600 is elite . I’ll even give the raw guy kneewraps and a deadlift suit . I think this would be a close approximation to the 1980s.

[quote]IzzyT wrote:
I don’t think percentages are very useful as a baseline. In terms of percentages, you are strictly comparing yourself to other people rather than genetic potential. This works well when everyone is training correctly and doing what it takes to get stronger. However, this isn’t the case. The amount of people in any given weight class who are training properly is variable and changes throughout time. If everyone quit powerlifting except for three guys, and one of them squats 100lbs, while the others only squat 50lbs, does that make him elite? I don’t think so. Obviously, this is a rather huge exaggeration, but I think it holds true especially at the very, very light and very, very heavy classes where there are so few true competitors at any given time.

To me, “elite” designations should be based upon Wilks’ numbers. That is, relative strength appropriately modeled (read: not linearly). Percentages, IMO, should act merely as a filter. Throughout time, there are going to be improvements in drugs, nutrition, training methodology, and maybe even genetics. When this occurs, it may make sense to raise, and maybe lower, the elite standards from an established baseline to reflect current world conditions.

And on the other hand, I believe it is perfectly reasonable that one generation may only produce a dozen elite lifters while another generation produces several dozen. Should the lifters be punished for being born in a more competitive period? I don’t think so.

Again, this is why I think using absolute measurements as a baseline makes the most sense. Percentages can add some degree of finesse, but that is all that I am personally comfortable in using them for. [/quote]
[/quote]

I liked your previous definition of about 10 a weight class per year, but with your actual numbers I don’t think people meet that. I agree the gear was way different back then (that is what I lifted in as well when I used it) and it does seem like the 70’s and 80’s were a heyday for PL, but the gear did help and there was a lot of drug usage back then by the top guys. For example, the 1642 total at 181 has been hit 1 time in the last 4.5 years by a raw lifter. Throw in strict judging and drug testing and no one is even close that now. Taking 200 lbs off of that and include drug testing and strict judging and you will get closer to the 10 people per weight class per year standard you mentioned. I do agree that they need to revise the elite numbers for the gear as the gear gets better.

23

[quote]maraudermeat wrote:
i’ll keep it simple. in my mind if you can bench 2 X BW, squat 3 x BW and dead 3 X BW all raw. [/quote]

I like the general idea, the only issue with this is it is not that hard (still very good, yes) for a lighter lifter to hit these guidelines and it is damn near impossible for a SHW to hit them. Assuming Kaz was 320 it means even he did not total elite at 2400, or for example my deadlift is elite at 3.5 bodyweight (true it was in a suit) but Manguson’s DL of 1014 is not elite b/c it is not 3x bodyweight for him, but I would rather have his pull than mine any day. Just giving you food for thought.

24

[quote]Tim Henriques wrote:

[quote]LiquidMercury wrote:
Hitting a multi-ply elite total…doing it raw.[/quote]

That would be bad asses but alas almost no one does that and even fewer, if anyone, does it drug free[/quote]

I accept your challenge.

25

Whoever can provide somewhat close competition for the #1 person in that weight class/division should be considered elite. Top 5.

26

Just wanted to say thanks for all of the replies. Feel free to keep them coming if you wish

27

I guess, when people say “elite” I am thinking top 5 or so. If you would ask me who are the elite QBs in the NFL, I would say Manning, Brady, Rodgers, and Brees (or about 5). So I would generally say top 5 in each weight class for raw or geared lifting (separating drug tested vs not drug tested).