Your opinion, below parallel or not?
Users viewing topic: & 1 Guest
| Rob |  | Your opinion, below parallel or not? | 23-11-2007 @ 21:36 |
 Does f*ck all for SugdenBarbell.co.uk Member 1, 7173 posts SQ 182.5, BP 110, DL 205497.5 kgs @ 107kgs UnEq Administrator | http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1212/1404909473_40c5af0710.jpg?... | ||
| Boar | | ... | 23-11-2007 @ 21:37 |
 Walk your talk Member 5, 25557 posts Administrator | they are false legs - he is stood up in a hole in the floor | ||
| purplepaul | | ... | 23-11-2007 @ 21:44 |
 has free and readily available gothic porn Member 29, 1088 posts SQ 1, BP 100, DL 200301.0 kgs @ 103kgs UnEq | maybe a little "dig" would of got him just below | ||
| Hayden | | ... | 23-11-2007 @ 21:54 |
 memories , like the corners of my mind .... Member 49, 2298 posts SQ 200, BP 132.5, DL 220552.5 kgs @ 123kgs UnEq | thats insaane. | ||
| purplepaul | | ... | 23-11-2007 @ 21:58 |
has free and readily available gothic porn Member 29, 1088 posts SQ 1, BP 100, DL 200301.0 kgs @ 103kgs UnEq | did he lift it from there? | ||
| Rob | | ... | 23-11-2007 @ 22:02 |
Does f*ck all for SugdenBarbell.co.uk Member 1, 7173 posts SQ 182.5, BP 110, DL 205497.5 kgs @ 107kgs UnEq Administrator | Not sure, I wonder if he got that deep because he maybe bounced about a bit in the hole? On another point, does anyone think you could get that deep with a back squat? Looking at the picture it looks like he can get that deep because his back is so flat.. | ||
| Alex | | ... | 24-11-2007 @ 07:06 |
 Picca Boo Member 16, 1204 posts SQ 140, BP 130, DL 200470.0 kgs @ 77kgs UnEq | Was just thinking that Rob, and I guess no, not quite. I will have a go today though and take a video, just for you. I reckon I can get close. | ||
| Alex | | ... | 24-11-2007 @ 07:06 |
Picca Boo Member 16, 1204 posts SQ 140, BP 130, DL 200470.0 kgs @ 77kgs UnEq | Not with 150k though. | ||
| Pete | | ... | 24-11-2007 @ 08:07 |
 has spent time in a modern educational setting Member 47, 1221 posts | I think this is a new category. We've all heard of quarter, half and full squats. I think this is a one and a quarter squat. | ||
| IainKendrick | | ... | 24-11-2007 @ 09:55 |
 some nice relaxing jazz. Member 77, 12599 posts SQ 265, BP 165, DL 280710.0 kgs @ 93kgs UnEq | The belt is probably reducing his flexablity. Gear whore! | ||
| little_a | | ... | 24-11-2007 @ 11:21 |
 still a devious weightlifting bastard Member 43, 14374 posts | I thought that was a full squat? What do you guys do? Due to the sensible IWF rules it was probably a 'no lift' before he started to rise, although it would pass in the more lifter friendly LFWA  | ||
| Tony | | ... | 24-11-2007 @ 20:20 |
 Is partial to the odd bender. Member 6, 10239 posts SQ 280, BP 192.5, DL 317.5790.0 kgs @ 102kgs Eq | little_a said: I thought that was a full squat? What do you guys do? Due to the sensible IWF rules it was probably a 'no lift' before he started to rise, although it would pass in the more lifter friendly LFWA Why would it have failed? | ||
| Fatpete | | ... | 24-11-2007 @ 23:13 |
 Hyper obese Pete Member 70, 17870 posts SQ 322.5, BP 205, DL 300827.5 kgs @ 133kgs Eq | three point landing, no bodypart other than the soles of the feet is allowed to touch the floor. I agree with this, I see no advantage to allowing your internal organs to pop out for a look round during a lift | ||
| little_a | | ... | 25-11-2007 @ 13:16 |
still a devious weightlifting bastard Member 43, 14374 posts | You agree with the rule or the fact that it is stupid? | ||
| Fatpete | | ... | 25-11-2007 @ 13:34 |
Hyper obese Pete Member 70, 17870 posts SQ 322.5, BP 205, DL 300827.5 kgs @ 133kgs Eq | I just agree | ||