Is this low enough for parallel

[boxingchamp93]

???

HESbadVt_zI

[ottorotvic]

First.

[boxingchamp93]

i know the last one was kinda high. and also i dont remember going down that fast. i think when i ripped the vid it sped it a little

[mcfadden47]

its a little bit high, but not bad. just focus on getting as deep as you can, and you'll be fine.

Also, why do you bench 220 x 3, but only squat/dead 250x3? (no hate, serious question)

[boxingchamp93]

its a little bit high, but not bad. just focus on getting as deep as you can, and you'll be fine.

Also, why do you bench 220 x 3, but only squat/dead 250x3? (no hate, serious question)

5th week squating and DL heavy with low rep. befoe i was just using 135 to get back into form.Been benching longer without injury

[ottorotvic]

My post was funnier before you edited to include the video. Yes, you are going low enough.

[SoaringSwine]

First was around parallel. 2nd was too high.

[Kiknskreem]

All high, first one was almost there.

[boxingchamp93]

I guess I will stick to this weight until I can go 250x3 with atg.

[boxingchamp93]

also the belt was not a PL one. It was one my dad got from a job he worked a long time ago

[Musclekid92]

Your first one was just about there man, a little lower and it would've been perfect. When I was trying to hit the right depth, I'd use a box and squat to it, like a box squat without the rocking motion. Just got me in the habit of going deep.

[mcfadden47]

5th week squating and DL heavy with low rep. befoe i was just using 135 to get back into form.Been benching longer without injury

oh, well thats fair then.

I was like that for a while too.

[eric717192]

Looks good to me

[prowrestlerwwe]

you'd most likley get 3 white lights

[boxingchamp93]

you'd most likley get 3 white lights

whats that?

[BLARZEE]

whats that?

you need 2 white lights for the lift to pass

[boxingchamp93]

you need 2 white lights for the lift to pass

alright yeah i looked it up after i posted

[Kiknskreem]

you'd most likley get 3 white lights

If the judges were fukcing blind. Reps 2 and 3 and clearly high, the first being close but still high.

[Metal Jerk]

Just slightly high, go an inch or two lower and you're fine.

[ss4vegeta1]

Almost there a little lower.

[ottorotvic]

I honestly think the scond rep was fine and the third only slightly high. I hate to be the one to say it, but the high camera angle is ****ing up a proper depth call here.

[JNo20]

I'd say the first and second were there or extremely close, the third was slightly high.

[ThatArmyKid]

looks good to me

[45BIG]

One and two are parallel maybe a tad below parallel as your hip joint no matter where you draw it appears to be in line if not lower than the top of your knee. I think the third one is close and IMO still a good squat, though you are leaving to the interpretation of judges and fed rules which may lead to two reds or two whites.

[Kiknskreem]

One and two are parallel maybe a tad below parallel as your hip joint no matter where you draw it appears to be in line if not lower than the top of your knee.

Below parallel???

The indicator of parallel is the top surface of the leg at the hip joint, not the joint itself. In other words, the crease at the leg and hip, not the joint within the leg.

If you stop the video, at no point does the crease of the hip drop below the top of the knee.

[45BIG]

If you stop the video, at no point does the crease of the hip drop below the top of the knee. I have no idea what the hell you are talking about crease of the hip joint and all and I have heard this for years and have seen judging of all sorts from more feds than I can count. I can tell you that in a lot of feds one and two for this lifter would have passed. I am not saying it's meeting the criteria you are stating is parallel but it would have met criteria at meets I attended. Since returning to powerlifting, I have found this entire parallel hip joint discussion to be complete nonsense as there is no consistency amongst feds. I just look at a lift and say does it look parallel or lower. To me one and two look below parallel. I have no idea how to manipulate technology but if it's not too difficult perhaps you could take the lowest points on reps one and two and point out this entire hip joint to knee relationship. As of right now I am not getting how this lift is not a minimum parallel.

[Kiknskreem]

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about crease of the hip joint and all and I have heard this for years and have seen judging of all sorts from more feds than I can count...

Well, if you don't understand the necessary relationship between the the crease of the hip and the knee, that is a problem, because that is how parallel is defined.

Taken from the IPF Rulebook

"3. Upon receiving the Chief Referee?s signal the lifter must bend the knees and lower the body until the top surface of the legs at the hip joint is lower than the top of the knees"

The top surface of the leg at the hip joint is a crease.
http://www.usapowerlifting.com/newsletter/06/novice/squata.jpg



I am not saying it's meeting the criteria you are stating is parallel but it would have met criteria at meets I attended. Since returning to powerlifting, I have found this entire parallel hip joint discussion to be complete nonsense as there is no consistency amongst feds. I just look at a lift and say does it look parallel or lower. To me one and two look below parallel. I have no idea how to manipulate technology but if it's not too difficult perhaps you could take the lowest points on reps one and two and point out this entire hip joint to knee relationship. As of right now I am not getting how this lift is not a minimum parallel.

I am sure it would have passed in quite a few feds. I don't know how lax judging has any bearing on the objective relationship between the crease of the hip and the knee.... that is how parallel has always been defined.

[45BIG]

I am sure it would have passed in quite a few feds. I don't know how lax judging has any bearing on the objective relationship between the crease of the hip and the knee.... that is how parallel has always been defined. It does when you believe the people who are judging are being objective. Lifters trust the judges' judgment and base their opinions on parallel on what they see being called parallel at meets. As many people I need to see visual representations of what it is that is being defined as parallel... aka a meet. Anyway I am looking at the image you provided
http://www.usapowerlifting.com/newsletter/06/novice/squata.jpg and I still think OP lift is at least parallel if not below.

Either way I am going to start a journal videoing my lifts because I definitely want to make sure my lifts are in the area of reasonable white lights. I will likely move feds and go into the USAPL. The ADAU and USAPL do call their squats deeper than a lot of the feds I have seen. Any assistance you have regarding my lifts is appreciated.

[Kiknskreem]

It does when you believe the people who are judging are being objective. Lifters trust the judges' judgment and base their opinions on parallel on what they see being called parallel at meets. As many people I need to see visual representations of what it is that is being defined as parallel... aka a meet.

To me, that sounds like willful ignorance.... letting what gets passed at meets determine what parallel is. If one knows what parallel really means, it doesn't matter what gets white lights. That's why I laugh at a lot of the multi-ply, high squattin' feds. It doesn't matter if it gets white lights, because I know what parallel actually means.



Anyway I am looking at the image you provided.... and I still think OP lift is at least parallel if not below.

Well, I would have to disagree. Here is an example of some squats taken to just below parallel...
yV7wqlnXp9s


Either way I am going to start a journal videoing my lifts because I definitely want to make sure my lifts are in the area of reasonable white lights. I will likely move feds and go into the USAPL. The ADAU and USAPL do call their squats deeper than a lot of the feds I have seen. Any assistance you have regarding my lifts is appreciated.

I would be happy to let me know when you get vids up.

[45BIG]

Here is an example of some squats taken to just below parallel...
yV7wqlnXp9s I suppose mere inches are miles in squatting while I think the OP first squat MAY BE a tad low...your's do not look slightly below but rather waayyyyyyy below. Which of course when done correctly is great.




I would be happy to let me know when you get vids up. Thanks

[gunzandwheelz]

I am surprised that squat depth is a topic on a power lifting forum. This is a good topic b/c people are confused which is evident by some of the posts. Two problems with the video, angle and loose shorts. Even with that I can safely say those squats were deep enough. How much lower could he get, 2 "? Kick your Olympic squats look pristine and are great training squats but they are way too deep to use as a template for proper power lifting squat depth. "Olympic" squats are not power lifting squats. They never have been and they never will be. If you think I am FOS then google it I am sure there will be 20 articles by guys like Simmons and so on that pretty much echo my thoughts. Olympic squats serve a purpose for Olympic lifts b/c of the body mechanics relate to the lifts. However, they are not the judging standard for power lifting squats. Is squatting even an Olympic lift? Those squats would have passed IPF meets, unless the judging was horribly unfair. There are several of recent IPF vids of WR's and lifts that would prove this true.

[Kiknskreem]

Kick your Olympic squats look pristine and are great training squats but they are way too deep to use as a template for proper power lifting squat depth. "Olympic" squats are not power lifting squats. They never have been and they never will be. If you think I am FOS then google it I am sure there will be 20 articles by guys like Simmons and so on that pretty much echo my thoughts. Olympic squats serve a purpose for Olympic lifts b/c of the body mechanics relate to the lifts. However, they are not the judging standard for power lifting squats. Is squatting even an Olympic lift? Those squats would have passed IPF meets, unless the judging was horribly unfair. There are several of recent IPF vids of WR's and lifts that would prove this true.

Those weren't olympic squats, and parallel is parallel no matter what kind of squat is being done.

And please note that I did not say my squat was the depth to be adhered to... merely that mine were slightly below parallel, and that his were slightly above. There is room between the two.

[gunzandwheelz]

Those weren't olympic squats, and parallel is parallel no matter what kind of squat is being done.

And please note that I did not say my squat was the depth to be adhered to... merely that mine were slightly below parallel, and that his were slightly above. There is room between the two.

Yours were damn close to Olympic squats, by the way nice set. I agree parallel is parallel no matter what and those were. I have to go squat, honestly.

[DoubleWide]

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/2157/squatru8.jpg
First one made it barely. Second a little high. Third no.

I'd lighten up to 5-8 reps to get the depth feel first.
Box Squats help.
This video (50 minutes) helped me realize some of my inflexibility was in my head. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6529481301858251744&q=olympic+squat&hl=en

[JHogg11]

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/2157/squatru8.jpg
First one made it barely. Second a little high. Third no.

I'd lighten up to 5-8 reps to get the depth feel first.
Box Squats help.
This video (50 minutes) helped me realize some of my inflexibility was in my head. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6529481301858251744&q=olympic+squat&hl=en

I've always squatted to the point where the middle of my knee and middle of my hip were at the same height. It comes out to the equivalent of the first two reps in the original video. The problem with the way these federations define parallel is that it's hard to define the "top of the knee and hard to see the crease a lot of times.

In the picture above, someone else may have drawn the line another way completely. You can't really tell where the crease is and you could define the top of the knee as the point where the rack in the background is, a couple inches forward and lower than where the line is drawn.

Kiknskreem, I think you squats are definitely below parallel. I would say more than slightly. Props for doing it though but I don't think it's a definitive guideline.

[Kiknskreem]

Kiknskreem, I think you squats are definitely below parallel. I would say more than slightly. Props for doing it though but I don't think it's a definitive guideline.


And please note that I did not say my squat was the depth to be adhered to....

^^^^

[Kung-Fool]

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/2157/squatru8.jpg
First one made it barely. Second a little high. Third no.



Exactly was I was going to say.