500kg single ply squat
Users viewing topic: & 1 Guest
| Tom_Martin |  | ... | 14-09-2016 @ 15:09 |
 No one believed him anyway. Member 958, 11411 posts SQ 410, BP 215, DL 4251050.0 kgs @ 100kgs UnEq | Wayne_Cowdrey said:I like Fatpete's attitude towards powerlifting and the concept of there being a 'correct' way of doing things based upon gentlemanly etiquette  I don't think belittling someones achievements based on your own crackpot interpretation of a rule is very gentlemanly | ||
| rich_86 |  | ... | 14-09-2016 @ 15:17 |
 Member 1255, 806 posts SQ 220, BP 135, DL 260615.0 kgs @ 85kgs UnEq | Tom_Martin said: The implication that he did not intend to put the bar in the rack would suggest that by tipping forwards, he hoped he would smash his face into the floor with 500kg on his back. Lost it at this. | ||
| AdamT | | ... | 14-09-2016 @ 15:31 |
AKA the great reset Member 4056, 5206 posts | rich_86 said: Lost it at this. Me too lol | ||
| matthewvc | | ... | 14-09-2016 @ 16:13 |
 ‘downsizing’ Member 5704, 3226 posts SQ 280, BP 210, DL 320810.0 kgs @ 96.3kgs UnEq | the point is moot imo - you get as much help as the spotters can give re-racking. for a girl doing 150kg this likely means the entire weight is supported by them. with blaine it's still going to be a massive amount on his own legs. as long as you aren't taking the piss and dumping it off your back or slamming it down in the rack with gay abandon (which would more a case of a sanction for 'endangering platform staff') then what's the problem? | ||
| Tom_Martin | | ... | 14-09-2016 @ 16:25 |
No one believed him anyway. Member 958, 11411 posts SQ 410, BP 215, DL 4251050.0 kgs @ 100kgs UnEq | Post Edited: 14.09.2016 @ 16:25 PM by Tom_Martin matthewvc said: gay abandon lol | ||
| Wayne_Cowdrey | | ... | 14-09-2016 @ 16:27 |
 Still got a little bit of strength Member 400, 22050 posts | Tom_Martin said: I don't think belittling someones achievements based on your own crackpot interpretation of a rule is very gentlemanly I don't think stating that you think a lifter failed on a technicality belittles the display of strength on display. I've seen a few log presses by Z that I don't think should have been passed. I still massively respect the displays of strength. I don't personally class this squat as a failure though. | ||
| Wayne_Cowdrey | | ... | 14-09-2016 @ 16:41 |
Still got a little bit of strength Member 400, 22050 posts | "display of strength on display" Not very good English by me. | ||
| scruffmcbuff | | ... | 14-09-2016 @ 16:47 |
Lovely ass Congrats. Member 5958, 2315 posts SQ 280, BP 170, DL 300750.0 kgs @ 138kgs UnEq | Has there been some kind of bitter fued between Pete and Tom? If so, I think we should start a thread on that. Also Matthew, "Gay abandon" lol im going to try and use this at work as often as i can. | ||
| unit94 | | ... | 14-09-2016 @ 16:54 |
 what is everyone's fran time? Member 3986, 10443 posts SQ 340, BP 200, DL 400940.0 kgs @ 129kgs Eq | The reason you shouldn't class this as a fail is because it wasn't, you can't make up your own rule and then start calling someone out for breaking it. | ||
| Tom_Martin | | ... | 14-09-2016 @ 17:31 |
No one believed him anyway. Member 958, 11411 posts SQ 410, BP 215, DL 4251050.0 kgs @ 100kgs UnEq | Wayne_Cowdrey said: I don't think stating that you think a lifter failed on a technicality belittles the display of strength on display. I've seen a few log presses by Z that I don't think should have been passed. I still massively respect the displays of strength. I don't personally class this squat as a failure though. When there is absolutely no acknowledgement whatsoever of anything positive about the lift, and the only thing you mention is the inane reason why you would class the lift as a failure, it's difficult to interpret the intention as anything but belittling. | ||
| danbaseley | | ... | 14-09-2016 @ 17:34 |
 A member for 10 years and still no mouldy peanuts Member 1252, 4479 posts SQ 160, BP 110, DL 215485.0 kgs @ 98kgs UnEq | Tom_Martin said: Which is interesting, considering the depth he himself squats to and deems to be acceptable. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KGc6AkV09vc/VebP5TL7muI/AAAAAAAAAQY/... | ||
| KevC86 | | ... | 14-09-2016 @ 17:57 |
 Member 5141, 4205 posts SQ 300, BP 180, DL 350830.0 kgs @ 130kgs UnEq | Tom_Martin said:"Bona fide" - From the Latin bona fide (“in good faith”) "In good faith - This is often thought to require sincere, honest intentions or belief, regardless of the outcome of an action. "Attempt" - Make an effort to achieve or complete Do you honestly, Pete, HONESTLY believe he intended to do anything but place the bar back in the rack regardless of what his feet did or didn't do? The implication that he did not intend to put the bar in the rack would suggest that by tipping forwards, he hoped he would smash his face into the floor with 500kg on his back. I would like to think even the most unreasonable of characters would safely presume this NOT to be the case. This is not only a great post presenting irrefutable evidence, its also damn entertaining. Well played Tom. | ||
| AdamT | | ... | 14-09-2016 @ 18:49 |
AKA the great reset Member 4056, 5206 posts | Tom you're in top form today. 'You look like a powerlifer' lol | ||
| aaron_lohan | | ... | 14-09-2016 @ 21:57 |
 Hasn't always been a bench press specialist Member 44, 1907 posts SQ 252.5, BP 220, DL 210682.5 kgs @ 83kgs Eq | the rules state the lifter has to return the bar to the rack with the help of spotters if need be. i see little difference in that and slamming the bar back into the bench after the rack command. i think it takes a lot of confidence to do it that way. btw why do old threads get resurrected? | ||
| aaron_lohan | | ... | 14-09-2016 @ 22:01 |
Hasn't always been a bench press specialist Member 44, 1907 posts SQ 252.5, BP 220, DL 210682.5 kgs @ 83kgs Eq | good fishing expedition. | ||