Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Video of Chuck's 1,000-pound squat posted!
- Thread starter BodybuildingUniverse
- Start date
I am quite aware of the rulebook -- I have been a ref for a longtime, probably longer than you have been lifting. I am also not naive enough to think that the rules are the same in every fed. Maybe when you grow up a bit and learn something about powerlifting I will take yoru arguments a little more seriously. Ed Coan did not squat 1020@220, I believe it was 964. Whatever that case is, it really doesn't matter does it?? You have a real jealousy problem with lifters that would hand you your lunch. First it was Bill Crawford now Vogelpohl -- who next?? Goggins, Frank?? I am curious. FYI -- it is 100 percent legal in the IPA to have your feet touching the monolift. You still have failed to tell me how having your feet touch the monolift help you, I just don't understand, please enlighten me.
Just some clarification: IPA allows feet to touch the monolift and Coan's record was 964 at 220.
Please! I've seen guys on ESPN2 that were in the 'World's Strongest Man' competitions during the late 80's and early 90's that used a monolift like device and squatted a 1000 lbs too moving the weight TWICE the distance of Chuck's lift! Hell, Paul Anderson back-lifted 6200 plus lbs. moving the weight the same distance that Chuck did! Now which is more impressive????????? That 10 inch squat is laughable! He could not even hold the jock of the Top 5 Olympic Lifter in the 95 KG class if it came to 'raw' leg power! He wouldn't stand a chance against those guys in a REAL leg/squat workout if he had to move the bar more than 10 inches! Hey guess what guys....I lifted my 2 ton 3000GT 10 inches....is that a new record??? Moving a 1000 lbs 10 inches is still VERY impressive, but the sport has eroded and you guys (some of you) have not even seen it! When will it sink in???
A powerlifting squat is not a leg squat, it is a combination of hips, glutes, back, hammies and quad's. Quads are very minimal in the lift. One htin gyou need to point out about wsm competitors is that most of them are over 6ft and chuck is not, so of course their squats are going to haev agreater range of motion. The devie you are talking about is not even close to a monolift -- it is a smith machine. Yes, you will squat more in a smith machine. You can even get a great bounce on the bottom if you have the right machine. Have you ever been to an actual meet?? or used a monolift, or even seen one up close?? it doesn;t sound like you know what you are talking about.
I do know what I am talking about. Unless the MP3 file is 'trick photagraphy', then you will obviously see that Chuck only moves the weight 10 inches or so. That is clearly visible. There are guys Chuck's weight that are squatting 75 to 80 percent of what he squats and they go three to four times the distance he does all the way to the floor with NO SUPPORT GEAR!
Have you ever seen an elite Olympic Athlete train? I think not. They train 6 to 7 days a week, TWICE a day on most days. Also many Super Heavy Olympic Athletes are squatting 900 lbs for a single (or more) going way below parallel. This is without a SUIT, or KNEE WRAPS (or even a BELT in many cases) or a MONOLIFT. I, like many people, am tired of records falling due to all the 'EQUIPMENT' and a with such a very small range of motion (like the 1000 lb. squat that moved 10 inches). If he would have gone to parallel or even broke the plane, he would have been buried under the weight and probably would be dead or at least a crumpled mess! This no great feat 1-dawg.
Once again like I said before, Paul anderson moved 6 times the weight the same distance over forty years ago with no SUPPORT GEAR. That is probably the greatest strength feat of all time. Real squatters move the bar more than 10 inches and they break the plane and go 'slightly' below parallel. If Chucks' squat to you is 'a good' squat (and a great '10 inch' effort above parallel it was), then you are certainly entitled to your opinion and so am I. And to answer your question, yes I have been to a few meets in Daytona when I used to live in Orlando. I was also being sarcastic when I referred to the 'Smith Machine' as a 'monolift like device'.
Bracing your feet on the inside of the Monolift does indeed provide extra leverage. It is Physics 101 (have you ever had Physics?). It has to do with the concept of the stabilzation of your 'Base of Support'. Suppose I tried to squat while standing in an ice rink. Why would I do only be able to squat 1/2 as much (1/2 as much is a 'rudimentray' example) as I would at the gym under a rubberized mat? It has to do with my 'Base of Support'. You see most of my effort has to be 'channeled' towards focusing on balancing my feet on the slippery ice of the ice rink, rather than being channelled into the effort of the squat motion itself. My feet are going to want to slip to the inside, outside, back or front because the ice is slippery. I now have less 'leverage'. Now if my base of support was to be stabilized (ex. I squatted at the gym on a rubberized mat) then I could squat more weight because the rubberized mat underneath my feet is much more stable then the ice. I have better 'leverage' due to the fact the more of my effort can be channelled into the lift itself and not into the function of 'stabilizing' my 'base of support' (my feet). If one was to 'brace' their feet on insides of the monolift, then more effort will be channeled into the lift itself because however hard their feet are pressing into to Monolift, the Monolift is pressing back into the feet with a force that is equal (directly proportional - another topic of Physics 101). This again stablizes the base of support providing even more leverage. 'Base of Support' is also one of the factor why a person can squat more on a Smith Machine, than squatting freely out of the rack. It is also why a person can leg press more than they can Smith Machine squat. It is because the 'Base of Support' is stablized more in the Smith Machine than it is in squatting freely. And the 'Base of Support' is stabilzed even more in the leg press than it is in the Smith Machine.
You have been a ref for a long time and you don't even know the most basic of Physics principles? I you don't understand how one can be ref in the sport if they don't even understand basic Physics and have never even taken Physics 101. Go and sign up for Physics 101 at your local Community College then you will have much better understanding of what you are watching at a powerlifting meet.
Have you ever seen an elite Olympic Athlete train? I think not. They train 6 to 7 days a week, TWICE a day on most days. Also many Super Heavy Olympic Athletes are squatting 900 lbs for a single (or more) going way below parallel. This is without a SUIT, or KNEE WRAPS (or even a BELT in many cases) or a MONOLIFT. I, like many people, am tired of records falling due to all the 'EQUIPMENT' and a with such a very small range of motion (like the 1000 lb. squat that moved 10 inches). If he would have gone to parallel or even broke the plane, he would have been buried under the weight and probably would be dead or at least a crumpled mess! This no great feat 1-dawg.
Once again like I said before, Paul anderson moved 6 times the weight the same distance over forty years ago with no SUPPORT GEAR. That is probably the greatest strength feat of all time. Real squatters move the bar more than 10 inches and they break the plane and go 'slightly' below parallel. If Chucks' squat to you is 'a good' squat (and a great '10 inch' effort above parallel it was), then you are certainly entitled to your opinion and so am I. And to answer your question, yes I have been to a few meets in Daytona when I used to live in Orlando. I was also being sarcastic when I referred to the 'Smith Machine' as a 'monolift like device'.
Bracing your feet on the inside of the Monolift does indeed provide extra leverage. It is Physics 101 (have you ever had Physics?). It has to do with the concept of the stabilzation of your 'Base of Support'. Suppose I tried to squat while standing in an ice rink. Why would I do only be able to squat 1/2 as much (1/2 as much is a 'rudimentray' example) as I would at the gym under a rubberized mat? It has to do with my 'Base of Support'. You see most of my effort has to be 'channeled' towards focusing on balancing my feet on the slippery ice of the ice rink, rather than being channelled into the effort of the squat motion itself. My feet are going to want to slip to the inside, outside, back or front because the ice is slippery. I now have less 'leverage'. Now if my base of support was to be stabilized (ex. I squatted at the gym on a rubberized mat) then I could squat more weight because the rubberized mat underneath my feet is much more stable then the ice. I have better 'leverage' due to the fact the more of my effort can be channelled into the lift itself and not into the function of 'stabilizing' my 'base of support' (my feet). If one was to 'brace' their feet on insides of the monolift, then more effort will be channeled into the lift itself because however hard their feet are pressing into to Monolift, the Monolift is pressing back into the feet with a force that is equal (directly proportional - another topic of Physics 101). This again stablizes the base of support providing even more leverage. 'Base of Support' is also one of the factor why a person can squat more on a Smith Machine, than squatting freely out of the rack. It is also why a person can leg press more than they can Smith Machine squat. It is because the 'Base of Support' is stablized more in the Smith Machine than it is in squatting freely. And the 'Base of Support' is stabilzed even more in the leg press than it is in the Smith Machine.
You have been a ref for a long time and you don't even know the most basic of Physics principles? I you don't understand how one can be ref in the sport if they don't even understand basic Physics and have never even taken Physics 101. Go and sign up for Physics 101 at your local Community College then you will have much better understanding of what you are watching at a powerlifting meet.
strongestsurvive
New member
I have to agree with flex-mb, finally a person on this board with some intelligence, and I contacted DAVE BARNO today who is a NATIONAL IPA ref and he says that it is ILLEGAL TO TOUCH THE SIDES OF THE MONOLIFT
strongestsurvive
New member
He says that people are afraid to give red lights to LOUIE'S GUYS for touching there feet against the Monolift. 1-dog what organization are you a ref in and what level.
Strongestsurvive
Strongestsurvive
Flex-mb: This is just like you to bitch about everybody else's lift and bring up the "raw" issue. Your BS is very old and wore out. Everytime you post it is some negative crap. We try to keep everything positive, but you jump up like a bad case of herpes.
Do you think you can move 1,000 pounds even 1 single inch in the squat?? Tell us all what gives you the right to bitch about anybody's lifting? What are you HUGE numbers? What are your credentials?
Do you think you can move 1,000 pounds even 1 single inch in the squat?? Tell us all what gives you the right to bitch about anybody's lifting? What are you HUGE numbers? What are your credentials?
Similar threads
