Author Topic: Squat Proportions  (Read 3149 times)

Offline Arturo Gómez

  • WE Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 270
Re: Squat Proportions
« Reply #24 on: Jul 16, 2011, 01:38 PM »
Freedom is a great thing for the man. In my personal case, I made my own gym in my house, to be absolutely free of coaches.
In my coordinates, much times I only make squat and press, and improve my olimpic lifts. In other times, I improved with intense specifical training. Other times, I only got injuries. Today, I know what I need.
I think better to experiment so that you want. I suggest: make a training without squat, or with a very light squat, and see the results.

Offline ViKtoricus

  • WE Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 193
  • On a journey towards human excellence.
Re: It's not about squatting heavy anymore...
« Reply #25 on: Jul 17, 2011, 02:55 AM »
Four important points to know about Anderson.

1. He lifted during a period that included 3 lifts. His snatch/c&j would likely have been higher without the press.
2. He lifted during a period when the bar could not contact the body during the pull. He had to use very inefficient technique.
3. He was forced out of the sport well before his prime because he made a little money on the side for charity.
4. He was on top of the world. It's pretty difficult to instill in your mind that you need to lift vastly more when you are already setting world records. (however he DID continue to improve, see above)

It is about squatting heavy. The Bulgarians you like so much were obsessed with squatting heavy.



I'm gonna have to disagree on all of this, Matt...

About 90% of the trainees in the elite level are training the same way. VERY heavy, VERY frequently, and with MORE dynamic lifts than STRENGTH lifts.

Paul Anderson is too much... He is just plain strong. God knows what he could've accomplished if he was actually born in 1985 and was recruited by a great coach. Anderson is built to squat and his thighs are huge. Calling him a genetic anomaly is an understatement. NO ONE squats 1,000 pounds raw without being a genetic anomaly. I believe his style of training (combination of heavy, 3-rep max lifting and some high volume, 10-reps-per-set training) is the best way to produce a massive squat, but an absolute waste of time for our dynamic sport. Yes, squats are a necessity. Yes, they are effective in increasing our numbers in the clean+jerk. NO, it's not about squatting heavy anymore. That is a very outdated, very inefficient way of doing things.
"Get others to do the work for you, but always take the credit."   -Robert Greene

Offline Chris Ⓐ LeRoux

  • MS, CSCS, Exempt from USAW bureaucrats
  • Administrator
  • WE Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5240
  • Tread On Me At Dire Risk
Re: Squat Proportions
« Reply #26 on: Jul 17, 2011, 06:49 AM »
Can't see how saying that emphasizing heavy squats is outdated proves its ineffective. The fact is that the level of weightlifting in the world is now of a lower level than it was 20-30 years ago, which would indicate the "new wave" is not necessarily superior. ;)
"Show me the government that does not infringe upon anyone's rights, and I will no longer call myself an anarchist." ~Jacob Halbrooks

Offline ViKtoricus

  • WE Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 193
  • On a journey towards human excellence.
Re: Squat Proportions
« Reply #27 on: Jul 17, 2011, 08:31 AM »
Can't see how saying that emphasizing heavy squats is outdated proves its ineffective. The fact is that the level of weightlifting in the world is now of a lower level than it was 20-30 years ago, which would indicate the "new wave" is not necessarily superior. ;)

Huh? lol. I don't know about the most recent results, but I whenever I say modern, I'm basically referring to the era of weightlifting when the overhead press was officially eliminated...

 :)peaceout
"Get others to do the work for you, but always take the credit."   -Robert Greene

Offline Chris Ⓐ LeRoux

  • MS, CSCS, Exempt from USAW bureaucrats
  • Administrator
  • WE Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5240
  • Tread On Me At Dire Risk
Re: Squat Proportions
« Reply #28 on: Jul 17, 2011, 08:56 AM »
I'm speaking of the changing of the classic weight classes, which was done supposedly to allow room for women in the Olympics (the first time) but was also justified by claiming the old, superior records, were tainted. The second weight class change, which was far more stupid and destructive, was purely to erase the "unachievable records."
"Show me the government that does not infringe upon anyone's rights, and I will no longer call myself an anarchist." ~Jacob Halbrooks

Offline ViKtoricus

  • WE Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 193
  • On a journey towards human excellence.
Re: Squat Proportions
« Reply #29 on: Jul 17, 2011, 09:11 AM »
The second weight class change, which was far more stupid and destructive, was purely to erase the "unachievable records."

Now that is just sad...

 :)protest
"Get others to do the work for you, but always take the credit."   -Robert Greene

Offline Shaun Le Conte

  • WE Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1392
Re: Squat Proportions
« Reply #30 on: Jul 17, 2011, 09:24 AM »
I'm speaking of the changing of the classic weight classes, which was done supposedly to allow room for women in the Olympics (the first time) but was also justified by claiming the old, superior records, were tainted. The second weight class change, which was far more stupid and destructive, was purely to erase the "unachievable records."

The history above is a little mixed up. The first change at the beginning of 1993 was a recognition of the impact of steroids on the record books while retaining 10 weight classes. The second in 1998 was to make room for the women who began competing in the Olympics in 2000, decreasing to 8 men's weight classes.

But this is all besides the main point. Squat on brothers, I will watch from the sidelines or the smith machine.
Parole lachée ne revient jamais
http://canlift.blogspot.com <-- now back to 1960

Offline Chris Ⓐ LeRoux

  • MS, CSCS, Exempt from USAW bureaucrats
  • Administrator
  • WE Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5240
  • Tread On Me At Dire Risk
Re: Squat Proportions
« Reply #31 on: Jul 17, 2011, 09:28 AM »
Ahh yes, Shaun. Thanks for the correction. Still, I have to laugh at the idea of officially recognizing the impact of steroids on records set absent any proof of such use.

What will be truly sad is the inevitable results of these distortions of history. I could cite a nearly endless list of such consequences but one that I feel like mentioning is what will happen when the classes are changed again. Will the records for the 56kg class be the first, higher batch, or the second, phony ones? Its hilarious in a way, though a great injustice.
"Show me the government that does not infringe upon anyone's rights, and I will no longer call myself an anarchist." ~Jacob Halbrooks