[quote]Bee_Brian wrote:
Steroids should be legal. Period.[/quote]
Regardless of your personal feelings they are against the rules and if you piss hot, you pay the price.
From what little I’ve read it sounds like Paul Anderson only had success as a weightlifter because he was so incredibly strong, not because of any proficiency with the lifts. For whatever that’s worth.[/quote]
What does that even mean? Lifting more weight than anybody else makes you more proficient with the lifts, by definition (assuming the same weightclass). You don’t get a medal for speed under the bar, head position, knee angles, etc. Taranenko doesn’t exactly look textbook either on his max attempts, but it’s not hard to make the case that he was the best there ever was at the clean and jerk.
[quote]Bee_Brian wrote:
Steroids should be legal. Period.[/quote]
Regardless of your personal feelings they are against the rules and if you piss hot, you pay the price.
From what little I’ve read it sounds like Paul Anderson only had success as a weightlifter because he was so incredibly strong, not because of any proficiency with the lifts. For whatever that’s worth.[/quote]
What does that even mean? Lifting more weight than anybody else makes you more proficient with the lifts, by definition (assuming the same weightclass). You don’t get a medal for speed under the bar, head position, knee angles, etc. Taranenko doesn’t exactly look textbook either on his max attempts, but it’s not hard to make the case that he was the best there ever was at the clean and jerk. [/quote]
Look up the definition of proficiency, you should see something about skill in there (and if it wasn’t obvious, that’s kind of where I was going with it). Paul Anderson was not a skilled weightlifter, he was an overwhelmingly strong weightlifter. For whatever that’s worth to you.
If your definition of “best there ever was” is based solely on kilos lifted in sanctioned competition, then yes, Taranenko is impossible to argue against. He’s also a heavyweight (can get as big and strong as you want without worrying about weight, which you can use to overcome technical flaws) from the golden age of steroid use (allowing you to get ridiculously strong, which you can use to overcome technical flaws). By any other definition you could make a case for a number of other lifters, including modern weight class lifters.
[quote]Bee_Brian wrote:
Steroids should be legal. Period.[/quote]
Regardless of your personal feelings they are against the rules and if you piss hot, you pay the price.
From what little I’ve read it sounds like Paul Anderson only had success as a weightlifter because he was so incredibly strong, not because of any proficiency with the lifts. For whatever that’s worth.[/quote]
What does that even mean? Lifting more weight than anybody else makes you more proficient with the lifts, by definition (assuming the same weightclass). You don’t get a medal for speed under the bar, head position, knee angles, etc. Taranenko doesn’t exactly look textbook either on his max attempts, but it’s not hard to make the case that he was the best there ever was at the clean and jerk. [/quote]
Look up the definition of proficiency, you should see something about skill in there (and if it wasn’t obvious, that’s kind of where I was going with it). Paul Anderson was not a skilled weightlifter, he was an overwhelmingly strong weightlifter. For whatever that’s worth to you.
If your definition of “best there ever was” is based solely on kilos lifted in sanctioned competition, then yes, Taranenko is impossible to argue against. He’s also a heavyweight (can get as big and strong as you want without worrying about weight, which you can use to overcome technical flaws) from the golden age of steroid use (allowing you to get ridiculously strong, which you can use to overcome technical flaws). By any other definition you could make a case for a number of other lifters, including modern weight class lifters.[/quote]
Your points about weight classes and steroids are both good and important. However, this isn’t gymnastics. The definition of good technique is the technique that allows you to lift more weight and the definition of proficiency is being able to lift more than the other guy. Paul Anderson redefined what people thought was possible in Olympic lifting, setting records by leaps and bounds. Maybe he could have lifted even more if he had spent time working on movement patterns. But maybe it would have detracted from the time he spent just getting brutally strong.
Now, obviously attention to the more technical aspects is sound advice for everyone learning and growing. But in a discussion about the greatest weightlifters, I don’t think it’s relevant to talk about who has ‘better’ technique. The winner has better technique.
Paul Anderson won when everybody else sucked (comparatively). He belonged to an era where the sport was completely different. Anyway, here goes my favourite.
Kolecki: favorite person ever, nice technique, super athletic, tons of swag, good looking, sharpest dresser in the game (see backstage 2013 worlds), friends with illyin. every time i watch his failed c&j in the 2000 and 2008 olympics i still have the illusion he will stand up. I think ive seen the 99 europeans where he won over kakhi a million times.
Evstyukhina: I dont know why i like her so much but her lifting can be described in just one word: lethal. Super weird technique in the clean and snatch but her jerk is beyond awesome. she is the one of the few >58 kg female weightlifter i consider cute.
Special mentions goes to illya for being such a winner, akkaev and vanev for cocaine high-like intensity, apti for his beautifull snatch and jerk, taner sagir and the iranian 94 for being muscleless wonders and artem ivanov because he looks just like gendry from game of thrones and his snatch technique is similar to mine: no fancy gimmicks, just clasic efective technique.
[quote]Silyak wrote:
Your points about weight classes and steroids are both good and important. However, this isn’t gymnastics. The definition of good technique is the technique that allows you to lift more weight and the definition of proficiency is being able to lift more than the other guy. Paul Anderson redefined what people thought was possible in Olympic lifting, setting records by leaps and bounds. Maybe he could have lifted even more if he had spent time working on movement patterns. But maybe it would have detracted from the time he spent just getting brutally strong.
Now, obviously attention to the more technical aspects is sound advice for everyone learning and growing. But in a discussion about the greatest weightlifters, I don’t think it’s relevant to talk about who has ‘better’ technique. The winner has better technique. [/quote]
I’m not going to debate the term definitions you’re coming up with. Paul Anderson redefined what people thought was possible in terms of human strength. He smashed the press record, but never set a record in the snatch and only added a few kilos to the jerk record. What he could or couldn’t have done under a different training methodology with a different focus is conjecture, and I’m not in a position to speculate.
I think it absolutely is relevant to discuss technique when looking at the greatest weightlifters, because a great weightlifter exhibits a blend of incredible strength and refined technique, and to make a blanket assertion that whoever lifts the most is automatically “better” at either of those attributes without looking closer at why that lifter is successful is asinine, and that’s without considering that “better” technique can be very individual at the highest level.
[quote]andresarpi wrote:
Evstyukhina: I dont know why i like her so much but her lifting can be described in just one word: lethal. Super weird technique in the clean and snatch but her jerk is beyond awesome. she is the one of the few >58 kg female weightlifter i consider cute.
[/quote]
I love Evstyukhina.
[quote]Bee_Brian wrote:
Steroids should be legal. Period.[/quote]
Regardless of your personal feelings they are against the rules and if you piss hot, you pay the price.
From what little I’ve read it sounds like Paul Anderson only had success as a weightlifter because he was so incredibly strong, not because of any proficiency with the lifts. For whatever that’s worth.[/quote]
Maybe…but then he was also a World Record holder and one of the most feared lifters of his time by his competition. Also, his raw strength pretty much still equates with legendary lifts of today, so I’d say he’s got the bases covered.
[quote]Bee_Brian wrote:
Steroids should be legal. Period.[/quote]
Regardless of your personal feelings they are against the rules and if you piss hot, you pay the price.
From what little I’ve read it sounds like Paul Anderson only had success as a weightlifter because he was so incredibly strong, not because of any proficiency with the lifts. For whatever that’s worth.[/quote]
Maybe…but then he was also a World Record holder and one of the most feared lifters of his time by his competition. Also, his raw strength pretty much still equates with legendary lifts of today, so I’d say he’s got the bases covered.[/quote]
You’re a poster whose opinion I tend to respect and with whom one can engage in a civil discussion, but that being said, I blew my load re: Anderson already in this thread. Though apparently I have trouble not getting the last word in.
[quote]Bee_Brian wrote:
Dude, there are many Americans worthy of mention.
Whatever happened to Pat Mendes? I know he got injured and all, but still, 20 years old with an 800-pound ATG back squat? How rare is that?[/quote]
Pat is making a comeback at 105 as previously stated. He has slimmed down a ton and in my opinion it has only made him that much faster through his lifts. I had the opportunity to actually train with Pat for a day when I went to High School Nationals 2010 for my coach and his knew each other previously. Lets just say the guy is a freak of nature.
And why is everyone talking about guy lifters can we just look at Jessica Salvaggio and how sexy she is as an Olympic lifter.
