New IPF Bench Record - 353kg
Users viewing topic: & 1 Guest
| Icepick |  | ... | 05-03-2008 @ 10:12 |
 still a cock Member 55, 1213 posts SQ 50, BP 25, DL 55130.0 kgs @ 0.1kgs UnEq | Martin1956 said: The guy I mentioned in my first post on this thread lifted raw with a tiny ROM and did 180 @ 67.5. If that's how you practice, that's how you develop. yea but he was disabled lifter, wasn't he?? We have a disabled guy in my gym that bences 185 raw at 70kgs, as impressive as that might sound, the guy has no legs and his upper body mass is bigger than most 100kg dude I know. Back to your debate about reducing ROM,etc. To me it all sound like hating on someone because they have an advantage, that's is all part of the game, just gotta deal with it and concentrate on how to bring your game up. | ||
| Martin1956 | | ... | 05-03-2008 @ 10:26 |
 Old Age Presser Member 75, 7745 posts SQ 0, BP 200, DL 200400.0 kgs @ 105kgs Eq | Icepick said: Martin1956 said: The guy I mentioned in my first post on this thread lifted raw with a tiny ROM and did 180 @ 67.5. If that's how you practice, that's how you develop. yea but he was disabled lifter, wasn't he?? We have a disabled guy in my gym that bences 185 raw at 70kgs, as impressive as that might sound, the guy has no legs and his upper body mass is bigger than most 100kg dude I know. Back to your debate about reducing ROM,etc. To me it all sound like hating on someone because they have an advantage, that's is all part of the game, just gotta deal with it and concentrate on how to bring your game up. The guy I'm talking about also holds the British able-bodied record. He's not in a chair and his disability is dwarfism. It's an 'equipped' record that he set raw. It's not about hating, more about the purity of the lift. The way things are going, we'll end up with someone doing a 1 inch ROM and the lift'll just become a laughing stock. Rather than people 'bringing their game up' they may come to the conclusion that the game is so slanted against them that they'll stop even trying. I don't see the objection to specifying a minimum distance the bar must be moved, assuming that it could be readily enforced. You could even have a variable distance based on bodyweight, height, arm length, etc. Changing a ribbon on the bar would be no more complicated or time consuming than changing the rack height. All totally theoretical, of course, because it won't happen, but sometimes it's good to theorise. | ||
| IainKendrick | | ... | 05-03-2008 @ 10:34 |
 some nice relaxing jazz. Member 77, 12599 posts SQ 265, BP 165, DL 280710.0 kgs @ 93kgs UnEq | I get a feel for were your coming from Martin but I think there's nothing to be done with it and fair enough if they do everything else within the rules. The Japaneese guy is such a short block, add to that good felibility, non of which I think you should be penailised for. I am also awars that no one on here is knocking any lifter just debating rules etc. | ||
| Icepick | | ... | 05-03-2008 @ 10:42 |
still a cock Member 55, 1213 posts SQ 50, BP 25, DL 55130.0 kgs @ 0.1kgs UnEq | Martin1956 said: The guy I'm talking about also holds the British able-bodied record. He's not in a chair and his disability is dwarfism. It's an 'equipped' record that he set raw. It's not about hating, more about the purity of the lift. The way things are going, we'll end up with someone doing a 1 inch ROM . As long as it perform within the rules then I have no problems with that, I have seen 56/60k dwarfts in the ipf squatting close to 300kgs, that to me is impressive as f**k regardless!! what next are going to introduce a rule on the minimun rom you have to squat?? the rules are fine the way they are. Martin1956 said: Rather than people 'bringing their game up' they may come to the conclusion that the game is so slanted against them that they'll stop even trying. Fine by me, they can move on, Not everyone can be a champ and with they wont last in the game with a defeated attitute like that. | ||
| Martin1956 | | ... | 05-03-2008 @ 11:10 |
Old Age Presser Member 75, 7745 posts SQ 0, BP 200, DL 200400.0 kgs @ 105kgs Eq | Icepick said: Martin1956 said: The guy I'm talking about also holds the British able-bodied record. He's not in a chair and his disability is dwarfism. It's an 'equipped' record that he set raw. It's not about hating, more about the purity of the lift. The way things are going, we'll end up with someone doing a 1 inch ROM . As long as it perform within the rules then I have no problems with that, I have seen 56/60k dwarfts in the ipf squatting close to 300kgs, that to me is impressive as f**k regardless!! what next are going to introduce a rule on the minimun rom you have to squat?? the rules are fine the way they are. Martin1956 said: Rather than people 'bringing their game up' they may come to the conclusion that the game is so slanted against them that they'll stop even trying. Fine by me, they can move on, Not everyone can be a champ and with they wont last in the game with a defeated attitute like that. On the squat, no, because the way they hold the bar has no impact on the ROM. Everyone has to go below parallel and there's no problem. Rules are never perfect and set in stone. That's why, across many sports, there's constant modification/refinement. The 81 cm rule was introduced to stop the tall long limbed lifters having a tiny ROM. Some may have argued that the original rule was fairer and everyone should be able to grip as wide as they like. The rule clearly isn't perfect, because it stops taller people from using the same technique as shorter people. I have no problem that it was a good, legal lift. I'm putting forward the proposition that the rule should be further modified. If you disagree with that proposition, fair enough, but your disagreement does absolutely nothing to invalidate the proposition. You should know that I've never come on here with a defeatist attitude, but if your ultimate goal is a national/world record/title and your ROM is four times longer than your main competitors, then at some point you may take a rational decision that your goal is unattainable because the rules are just too slanted against you. And if a goal orientated person has an unattainable goal, chances are they will direct their energy and talents elsewhere, to the detriment of powerlifting. | ||
| Icepick | | ... | 05-03-2008 @ 11:25 |
still a cock Member 55, 1213 posts SQ 50, BP 25, DL 55130.0 kgs @ 0.1kgs UnEq | Martin1956 said: Rules are never perfect and set in stone. That's why, across many sports, there's constant modification/refinement. The 81 cm rule was introduced to stop the tall long limbed lifters having a tiny ROM. Some may have argued that the original rule was fairer and everyone should be able to grip as wide as they like. The rule clearly isn't perfect, because it stops taller people from using the same technique as shorter people. I have no problem that it was a good, legal lift. I'm putting forward the proposition that the rule should be further modified. If you disagree with that proposition, fair enough, but your disagreement does absolutely nothing to invalidate the proposition. Ok Martin, I think we are just having to agree to disagree with this one. Martin1956 said: You should know that I've never come on here with a defeatist attitude, but if your ultimate goal is a national/world record/title and your ROM is four times longer than your main competitors, then at some point you may take a rational decision that your goal is unattainable because the rules are just too slanted against you. And if a goal orientated person has an unattainable goal, chances are they will direct their energy and talents elsewhere, to the detriment of powerlifting. Again if you look around, the best benchers or deadlifters are often blessed with a body type that allows them to excel in that discipline. But anyhow if you are a bench specialist with a rom 4 times bigger than most of your competitor, just suck it up or moved on. We need to get away from this nanny state where we are trying to make it fair for everyone  | ||
| Martin1956 | | ... | 05-03-2008 @ 15:38 |
Old Age Presser Member 75, 7745 posts SQ 0, BP 200, DL 200400.0 kgs @ 105kgs Eq | Opinions are good!  Using the nanny state approach, should the 81 cm rule ever have been brought in? Because that robs me and you of the opportunity to use the same arm angle as shortarses. | ||
| Alex | | ... | 05-03-2008 @ 16:37 |
 Picca Boo Member 16, 1204 posts SQ 140, BP 130, DL 200470.0 kgs @ 77kgs UnEq | Post Edited: 05.03.2008 @ 16:42 PM by Alex Martin1956 said: You should know that I've never come on here with a defeatist attitude, but if your ultimate goal is a national/world record/title and your ROM is four times longer than your main competitors, then at some point you may take a rational decision that your goal is unattainable because the rules are just too slanted against you. And if a goal orientated person has an unattainable goal, chances are they will direct their energy and talents elsewhere, to the detriment of powerlifting. Surely someone that much shorter would be in a different weight class? I get your point, and when I see squats with a 1 inch ROM from dwarf powerlifters, I do kinda think there's something not right about it, but then I think that's the way it is, they have been born very short which sucks arse, at least they can use their body to excel at one sport. Someome like Midote could not compete in strongman. He couldn't grip a stone properly never mind get it to the heights in comps, and I very much doubt he could even hold the log properly. He could never be a fast runner, etc etc. Sports are biased towards the genetically gifted and PL is no exception. | ||
| Martin1956 | | ... | 05-03-2008 @ 18:17 |
Old Age Presser Member 75, 7745 posts SQ 0, BP 200, DL 200400.0 kgs @ 105kgs Eq | I get your point Alex, and clearly this is a discussion where there are a number of different positions that one can take - no pun intended. My position is this: The term 'bench press' implies a degree of upward movement. At what point does that movement become so minimal that it is no longer a press? This is clearly a genuine concern for all powerlifting organisations, otherwise there would be no 81 cm rule and it would be a free for all. The whole purpose of the rule was to prevent guys doing the lift with virtually no ROM. Now, as lifters have got bigger and wider, the ROM issue has re-emerged. You and others are of the view 'so be it'. I'm in the 'let's make the press a proper press' camp. I believe you've either got to do away with the grip width rule to give everyone the option to grip super wide, or do something to introduce a minimum ROM based upon height, arm length, etc. Incidentally, I don't think either of these things will happen in the foreseeable future, but it doesn't stop me believing that the latter should. Otherwise, as time goes by, the top benchers are going to be doing a movement that simply doesn't relate to what we all understand to be a bench press. | ||
| brynevans | | ... | 05-03-2008 @ 18:17 |
 Scotbasher - forever Member 59, 2115 posts | Post Edited: 05.03.2008 @ 18:20 PM by brynevans I remember a few years ago an article in International Powerlifter entitled "Ban the dwarfs". Someone suggested not allowing foot blocks to be used on the benchpress as a way of excluding dwarfs as well as the varying grip width debate.For many years Stanaszek Andrzej dominated the 52kg class until Fedosienko Sergey came along (he isn't a dwarf). Stanaszek had about a 300kg squat, 182.5 bench, both world record lifts,but only a 145kg deadlift. Fedosienko was outpulling him by over 90kg so it was game over. In fairness to Stanaszek he did have pretty much a shoulder width grip on the bench, however on the deadlift the bar was up at his waist at the completion of the lift. The new bench rules regarding foot and buttock placement go some way towards combating the big arch benchers. Alex pointed out that the genetically gifted tend to find "their sport" I think I'm sitting in that camp.But I do quite like the range of motion suggestion though it's difficult to enforce. As long as its being done by the rules then it's a valid lift. | ||
| MarkClegg | | ... | 05-03-2008 @ 20:17 |
 knock knock !! who's there ?? OLD SCHOOL SUGDEN Member 212, 11439 posts SQ 325, BP 212.5, DL 370907.5 kgs @ 100kgs UnEq | Just get rid of the bench press all together and have a game of basketball between squat and deadlift .. That`ll get rid of the little t**ts ! Barry "here to help" Broadbent | ||
| Sparrow | | ... | 05-03-2008 @ 20:32 |
 always lookIng for the extra UT2 work. Member 9, 18279 posts SQ 210, BP 167.5, DL 260637.5 kgs @ 103kgs UnEq | Good point Barry. Do we really need powerlifting AND olympic weightlifting anyway? Let's keep the squat, get rid of bench, do clean and jerk instead, then deadlift and f**k off the snatch too. 3 lifts, would be cool - could be the next Sugden meet up? | ||
| Rick | | ... | 05-03-2008 @ 20:44 |
 I am a bench-only guy Member 3, 10035 posts SQ 185, BP 175, DL 235595.0 kgs @ 140kgs UnEq Administrator | Martin1956 said: I'm in the 'let's make the press a proper press' camp. [...] Otherwise, as time goes by, the top benchers are going to be doing a movement that simply doesn't relate to what we all understand to be a bench press. We already have that, from the normal person's point of view. Can't get 200, 300, 450kg to the chest? I don't think it's broken. Sure, it discriminates a little against the long-armed person, but we need that for balance. Unless you propose to make the likes of Mr Shaw pull standing on a platform, or with a snatch grip! | ||
| Martin1956 | | ... | 05-03-2008 @ 21:21 |
Old Age Presser Member 75, 7745 posts SQ 0, BP 200, DL 200400.0 kgs @ 105kgs Eq | I seem to be in a minority of one on this one, like most ahead of the game visionaries through the ages. My comment was specifically about the movement, Rick, not the weight, and no one seems to want to answer my specific question - at what point does the movement become so slight that it ceases to be a press? If the answer is 'at no point', then how long will it be before some massive c**t who can have the bar resting on his chest with his arms fully extended comes along and makes even more of a mockery of the lift? Or will that be allowed because he's just making use of his natural advantages? | ||
| Titch | | ... | 05-03-2008 @ 21:29 |
 One Sexy MoFo Member 101, 2470 posts | Rules are gay. I haven't competed so I'm obviously going to be less concerned about certain aspects of comp lifting than other people who have been on the competitive platform. But I know which lifts impress me and which don't; I don't need placings or revamped rules to determine that. | ||