Realism: Raw Strength Standards

[IzzyT]

On another strength forum I frequent, someone asked about how we could define realistic strength standards to aspire to as well as compare various lifters due to weight class differences.

My answer is below and I thought it would be interesting for the guys in this forum as well:
I think elite RAW American powerlifters can help us out quite a bit. Keep in mind the following data may not be 100% accurate, but it is pretty close (powerliftingwatch.com rankings).

Only competitions done in America (USA):
Top 50 RAW Performances / #1 Best RAW Performance:
132:
Squat: 303, 2.29xBW / 530, 4.02xBW
Bench: 253, 1.92xBW / 363, 2.75xBW
Deads: 402, 3.04xBW / 578, 4.38xBW
Total: 890, 6.74xBW / 1361, 10.31xBW

148:
Squat: 391, 2.64xBW / 534, 3.61xBW
Bench: 310, 2.09xBW / 402, 2.72xBW
Deads: 473, 3.19xBW / 606, 4.09xBW
Total: 1102, 7.45xBW / 1482, 10.01xBW

165:
Squat: 465, 2.82xBW / 615, 3.73xBW
Bench: 363, 2.20xBW / 487, 2.95xBW
Deads: 545, 3.30xBW / 655, 3.97xBW
Total: 1285, 7.79xBW / 1570, 9.52xBW

181:
Squat: 515, 2.85xBW / 617, 3.41xBW
Bench: 395, 2.18xBW / 480, 2.65xBW
Deads: 600, 3.31xBW / 705, 3.90xBW
Total: 1420, 7.85xBW / 1655, 9.14xBW

198:
Squat: 560, 2.83xBW / 755, 3.81xBW
Bench: 429, 2.17xBW / 535, 2.70xBW
Deads: 630, 3.19xBW / 750, 3.79xBW
Total: 1526, 7.71xBW / 1840, 9.29xBW

220:
Squat: 601, 2.73xBW / 750, 3.41xBW
Bench: 455, 2.07xBW / 529, 2.40xBW
Deads: 655, 2.98xBW / 744, 3.38xBW
Total: 1603, 7.29xBW / 1901, 8.64xBW

242:
Squat: 617, 2.55xBW / 800, 3.31xBW
Bench: 480, 1.98xBW / 600, 2.48xBW
Deads: 672, 2.78xBW / 865, 3.57xBW
Total: 1660, 6.86xBW / 1960, 8.10xBW

275:
Squat: 666, 2.42xBW / 854, 3.11xBW
Bench: 510, 1.85xBW / 612, 2.23xBW
Deads: 705, 2.56xBW / 832, 3.30xBW
Total: 1752, 6.37xBW / 2226, 8.09xBW

308:
Squat: 630, 2.08xBW / 865, 2.05xBW
Bench: 500, 1.62xBW / 650, 2.11xBW
Deads: 661, 2.15xBW / 825, 2.68xBW
Total: 1690, 5.49xBW / 2165, 7.03xBW

SHW:
Squat: 650 / 1000
Bench: 501 / 655
Deads: 672 / 840
Total: 1725 / 2215


Take-aways:
1) Unless you're very, very short, weighing too little actually HARMS your BW multiples. This is pretty obvious. There aren't many people who are nearing their muscular genetic/drug enhanced limits at 132/148lbs. Guys like Joe Morrow and Tony Conyers are South of 5'4".
2) Most of these guys probably run cycles; they use steroids.
3) There is a point where being fat not only harms BW multiples, but overall total -- at least for Americans. This seems to occur at 275lbs. This likely has to do with the inability to get into a good pull position and the useless added weight during squat. It is even more likely that this is due to the fact there simply aren't many people tall enough to fill out 308lbs with anything even remotely close to lean (15-20% BF).
4) In terms of the Top 50 grouping, BW multiples actually start to decrease after 181lbs. The drop-off becomes more and more significant after 200+lbs.
5) The higher up the weight classes you go, the smaller the difference between the elite and the Top 50 (usually).
6) For most weight classes, ~2-2.25xBW bench, ~2.75xBW squat, ~3-3.25xBW deadlift gets you into the Top 50 American lifters.
7) For most weight classes, ~2.5xBW bench, ~3.5xBW squat, ~3.75xBW deadlift gets you near the very, very best. You're probably one of the ten or twenty strongest raw lifters in the world at your weight.

In my opinion, your table could look like this:
All multiples +/- 0.25 based on nearness to 200lbs. Above 200lbs, -0.25BW multiple. Below 200lbs, +0.25BW multiple.

Trained / Strong / Elite / Champion(Heroic as you called it)
Squat: 1xBW / 2xBW / 2.5xBW / 3.25xBW
Bench: 0.75xBW / 1.5xBW / 2xBW / 2.5xBW
Deadlift:1.5xBW / 2.5xBW / 3xBW / 3.5xBW

Additionally, weight gain should be prescribed to all those under 181lbs (unless they are very short, i.e. 5'5" or less) and fat loss to all those above 275lbs (unless they are very tall, 6'5" or greater).

[isaku900]

good collection of data.

not in agreement on all of your conclusions from that data.

[IzzyT]

good collection of data.

not in agreement on all of your conclusions from that data.

Neither do I, particularly the part about gaining weight/losing weight, but a rule of thumb is generally proven by the exception.

[fatbencher]

In my opinion, your table could look like this:
All multiples +/- 0.25 based on nearness to 200lbs. Above 200lbs, -0.25BW multiple. Below 200lbs, +0.25BW multiple.

Trained / Strong / Elite / Champion(Heroic as you called it)
Squat: 1xBW / 2xBW / 2.5xBW / 3.25xBW
Bench: 0.75xBW / 1.5xBW / 2xBW / 2.5xBW
Deadlift:1.5xBW / 2.5xBW / 3xBW / 3.5xBW

And AT 200 Lbs? Should I use it as-is?

If so: Elite bench next year.

[Torrtrefireto]

10lbs away from elite squat

BTW the 220 things listed there are lower than the Maryland state usapl junior 220 records (except bench) so I don't know about the validity of this whole list

edit- wow I can't read and am stupid

[gunzandwheelz]

Nice collection of data. Had to be alot of work. What do the first number(s) represent? For example the 1603 total in the 220 class.

[hammerfelt]

In my opinion body fat helps squats, hurts dead lift, no effect on bench press.

One elite down, squats, two to go.

[John Prophet]

some belly fat/power gut working with a belt definitely helps in the squat. Look at Jeff Lewis a few years back


here are the elite standards from the 100% raw fed

148 - 1185
165 - 1298
181 - 1396
198 - 1471
220 - 1551
242 - 1607
275 - 1654
275+-1728


If I can manage to trim down a bit I can make 198's so I have looked at those numbers before. If a guys squat and dead are vaguely in the same ballpark the numbers might look like this:

sq - 540
bench 371
dead 560

[koyongi]

Aside from the top few in each weight class, I don't think you can really make a good analysis of tiers from this data. Top 50 in the 132s or 148s is pretty much anybody that did a meet, and is full of teen and junior lifters. In contrast, there were over 60 198ers at USAPL raw nationals alone this year, and top 50 is likely the top 20% or so on PLwatch. Again, you'll see the dropoff in the 275+ range, especially since a lot of federations don't have a 308, and you simply have less lifters in those weight classes. So the lower quality lifts in the top end and the bottom end aren't necessarily inherent in the classes themselves or the lifters in those classes, but are because there are less competitors to try to break the top 50.

I'd venture to guess that if you did the same analysis in the women's top 50s, they'd look a lot like the men's 132s and SHWs. A few really good competitors and a lot of also-rans. It's easy to make the list if no one else is trying.

[arian11]

Aside from the top few in each weight class, I don't think you can really make a good analysis of tiers from this data. Top 50 in the 132s or 148s is pretty much anybody that did a meet, and is full of teen and junior lifters. In contrast, there were over 60 198ers at USAPL raw nationals alone this year, and top 50 is likely the top 20% or so on PLwatch. Again, you'll see the dropoff in the 275+ range, especially since a lot of federations don't have a 308, and you simply have less lifters in those weight classes. So the lower quality lifts in the top end and the bottom end aren't necessarily inherent in the classes themselves or the lifters in those classes, but are because there are less competitors to try to break the top 50.

I'd venture to guess that if you did the same analysis in the women's top 50s, they'd look a lot like the men's 132s and SHWs. A few really good competitors and a lot of also-rans. It's easy to make the list if no one else is trying.

damn, i needa get outta the 198 class lol.

[isaku900]

A few really good competitors and a lot of also-rans. It's easy to make the list if no one else is trying.

dis.

especially in the raw divisions, there aren't that many heavyweight males raw. look at how difficult it was for RUM to fill the heavier weight classes every year.

[Black_Spit]

dis.

especially in the raw divisions, there aren't that many heavyweight males raw. look at how difficult it was for RUM to fill the heavier weight classes every year.

So do you fall more into the side of what seems to be the prevailing opinion that a the extra fat can help the big guys, particularly on squat and bench?

Or are you simply saying OP hasn't proven his point very well that your average 275 and up PL needs to lose a bunch of weight?

[koyongi]

So do you fall more into the side of what seems to be the prevailing opinion that a the extra fat can help the big guys, particularly on squat and bench?

Or are you simply saying OP hasn't proven his point very well that your average 275 and up PL needs to lose a bunch of weight?

We're not saying either. We're saying that there are more 181-242s, so the top 50 in those classes is the top 10-20%, while the top 50 in the 308s is like the top 50% (arbitrary numbers, but you get the idea). Not as many people can be a quality 132 or SHW, so those classes will only have a few good lifters. The 132s will have a lot of kids that need to fill out, and the SHWs will have a lot of fatties.

[Doollas]

some belly fat/power gut working with a belt definitely helps in the squat. Look at Jeff Lewis a few years back


here are the elite standards from the 100% raw fed

148 - 1185
165 - 1298
181 - 1396
198 - 1471
220 - 1551
242 - 1607
275 - 1654
275+-1728

The discussion of elite numbers has been discussed before, but I think these are too low. Then I look at the RUM elite standards and I think they are too high, but that really depends on what you want to call elite. Is elite a world record, or is it the top 0.5% of lifters, the top 2%, etc. I think the NASA standards, without wraps, are a good number to shoot for, and that's what I'll be aiming for this spring.

[John Prophet]

I dont see "elite" and "world record" being in the same ballpark. Look at olympic weightlifting. In the WORLD championships you usually have 1-3 people at most who have a legit shot to win the weightclass. Quite often it is just one person with that legit chance. The worlds are often won with numbers significantly under the world record. That world record might be 6-8 years old.

Yet there was a worldwide qualifying system. So even the guys who finish 10th and look like scrubs at the olympics or world championships are obviously still "elite" no matter how you look at it.

I have heard it mentioned that elite should be the top 10% of lifters. Dunno how that works out.

IMO, with so many feds, if the standards were too high, each fed would have like 2 elite lifters per class, lol. One of the feds had an elite invitational (was it 100% raw?) and from the results sheet it looked like there were less than 20 lifters.

Maybe they should have "elite" similar to what 100% raw has, then have "super elite" or "double elite" which would mean that you made the elite numbers in the next higher weight class


In any case, step outside of the powerlifting meet and look inside the average gym. Those numbers I posted for 198s-- 550ish squat and dead, 371 bench-- you can go a year in an average gym and not see any 198ish guy do those lifts. In that respect they are "elite"

[Black_Spit]

In any case, step outside of the powerlifting meet and look inside the average gym. Those numbers I posted for 198s-- 550ish squat and dead, 371 bench-- you can go a year in an average gym and not see any 198ish guy do those lifts. In that respect they are "elite"

I kind of see what you're saying.

If you look at other sports, say football, if you play in college, you're probably at least good at it but if you've made it to the NFL, even as a bench warmer, you are an elite player of that sport.

So I guess the question is 'elite compared to what?'

[John Prophet]

yeah, HOW elite do you want it to be? if you want it to be silly high then just take Jon Kucs or Jon Coles or Mike Bridges raw numbers and extrapolate them out to all the weight classes

[Doollas]

I don't disagree, just stating what the RUM standards are. I think Bill or Becky can correct me if I am wrong, but in most weight classes, no one has posted an elite total at the RUM events. So that is sort of an elite of the elite number. 10% sounds high, but I'd have to see all the numbers, and Black_Split makes a good point..compared to what. 10% of all human beings, 10% of all gymgoers, 10% of competitors? That's why I like the NASA #'s...they just kind of sound about right lol. 1600 total at 242 isn't that great, but a ~1850 total (right at the records) is like one lifter every couple years at best.

[John Prophet]

I don't disagree, just stating what the RUM standards are. I think Bill or Becky can correct me if I am wrong, but in most weight classes, no one has posted an elite total at the RUM events. So that is sort of an elite of the elite number. 10% sounds high, but I'd have to see all the numbers, and Black_Split makes a good point..compared to what. 10% of all human beings, 10% of all gymgoers, 10% of competitors? That's why I like the NASA #'s...they just kind of sound about right lol. 1600 total at 242 isn't that great, but a ~1850 total (right at the records) is like one lifter every couple years at best.

why dont u post up NASA's numbers so people can compare?

Also, NASA uses knee wraps dont they? depending on who you ask, thats 40-75lbs or more right there.


In the olympic weightlifting world, the peak numbers were put up around the 1985-88ish era. Most of those were Soviets or Bulgarians. Then the IOC determined to get better at drug testing etc. So they changed weightclasses a few times and at some point just abolished all of the old records and started again.

So instead of having records they sort of picked a number and called it the "world standard." AFAIK MOST of those world standards havent been reached yet. So that would be the elite of the elite.

And most of the old Soviet records are still the TRUE records...in other words they havent been beaten yet. (So I guess the new testing protocols work pretty well, lol)

[Doollas]

why dont u post up NASA's numbers so people can compare?

Also, NASA uses knee wraps dont they? depending on who you ask, thats 40-75lbs or more right there.


In the olympic weightlifting world, the peak numbers were put up around the 1985-88ish era. Most of those were Soviets or Bulgarians. Then the IOC determined to get better at drug testing etc. So they changed weightclasses a few times and at some point just abolished all of the old records and started again.

So instead of having records they sort of picked a number and called it the "world standard." AFAIK MOST of those world standards havent been reached yet. So that would be the elite of the elite.

And most of the old Soviet records are still the TRUE records...in other words they havent been beaten yet. (So I guess the new testing protocols work pretty well, lol)

The discussion of elite numbers has been discussed before, but I think these are too low. Then I look at the RUM elite standards and I think they are too high, but that really depends on what you want to call elite. Is elite a world record, or is it the top 0.5% of lifters, the top 2%, etc. I think the NASA standards, *without wraps*, are a good number to shoot for, and that's what I'll be aiming for this spring.

Class 114.50 123.50 132.25 148.75 165.25 181.75 198.25 220.25 242.50 275.50 308.50 Super
Elite 970 1050 1175 1375 1475 1525 1600 1675 1725 1775 1825 1875

[isaku900]

In any case, step outside of the powerlifting meet and look inside the average gym. Those numbers I posted for 198s-- 550ish squat and dead, 371 bench-- you can go a year in an average gym and not see any 198ish guy do those lifts. In that respect they are "elite"

...why would powerlifters step outside a powerlifting to compare their numbers? that's ridiculous on its face.

in an average gym you could also go a year and not see a legal squat, squatting 25kg legally could be considered "elite" using that standard.

[John Prophet]

yeah, 1600@198 is pretty stiff IMO. say a 600 squat and dead and 400 bench. I wonder how many guys from all feds hit that numbers in a year? I guess PL watch would have that info

[John Prophet]

...why would powerlifters step outside a powerlifting to compare their numbers? that's ridiculous on its face.

in an average gym you could also go a year and not see a legal squat, squatting 25kg legally could be considered "elite" using that standard.

true, but by the same token squatting 25kg legally in the SPF could be elite as well

[arian11]

I dont see "elite" and "world record" being in the same ballpark. Look at olympic weightlifting. In the WORLD championships you usually have 1-3 people at most who have a legit shot to win the weightclass. Quite often it is just one person with that legit chance. The worlds are often won with numbers significantly under the world record. That world record might be 6-8 years old.

Yet there was a worldwide qualifying system. So even the guys who finish 10th and look like scrubs at the olympics or world championships are obviously still "elite" no matter how you look at it.

I have heard it mentioned that elite should be the top 10% of lifters. Dunno how that works out.

IMO, with so many feds, if the standards were too high, each fed would have like 2 elite lifters per class, lol. One of the feds had an elite invitational (was it 100% raw?) and from the results sheet it looked like there were less than 20 lifters.

Maybe they should have "elite" similar to what 100% raw has, then have "super elite" or "double elite" which would mean that you made the elite numbers in the next higher weight class


In any case, step outside of the powerlifting meet and look inside the average gym. Those numbers I posted for 198s-- 550ish squat and dead, 371 bench-- you can go a year in an average gym and not see any 198ish guy do those lifts. In that respect they are "elite"

Class 114.50 123.50 132.25 148.75 165.25 181.75 198.25 220.25 242.50 275.50 308.50 Super
Elite 970 1050 1175 1375 1475 1525 1600 1675 1725 1775 1825 1875

Yea, I think it really matters what you consider elite. I see myself as a beginner, maybe intermediate, and I can't recall the last time I saw someone at the FSU gym squat more than me. Bench, a decent amount of people can beat me and I've only seen a couple dudes deadlift more than me. But I was looking at the Raw Nationals numbers and in the 198 there were like 40 open competitors and I would have gotten somewhere around 35th or worse. And I don't think the 1st place guy in 198 beat the elite NASA standards.

[UPAJudge]

We're not saying either. We're saying that there are more 181-242s, so the top 50 in those classes is the top 10-20%, while the top 50 in the 308s is like the top 50% (arbitrary numbers, but you get the idea). Not as many people can be a quality 132 or SHW, so those classes will only have a few good lifters. The 132s will have a lot of kids that need to fill out, and the SHWs will have a lot of fatties.

So what you are saying is getting into the top 50 of those popular weight classes is harder than getting in the top 50 of like 308 raws//shw raw...

interesting.



Just want to toss my 2 cents in here and say, why does the USPA think their raw lifting standards should be higher than most other federations?

[Torrtrefireto]

Yea, I think it really matters what you consider elite. I see myself as a beginner, maybe intermediate, and I can't recall the last time I saw someone at the FSU gym squat more than me. Bench, a decent amount of people can beat me and I've only seen a couple dudes deadlift more than me. But I was looking at the Raw Nationals numbers and in the 198 there were like 40 open competitors and I would have gotten somewhere around 35th or worse. And I don't think the 1st place guy in 198 beat the elite NASA standards.

What is your scale like?
Beginner->Intermed->Advanced->Elite? Just curious, as I consider myself an intermediate as well

[John Prophet]

So what you are saying is getting into the top 50 of those popular weight classes is harder than getting in the top 50 of like 308 raws//shw raw...

interesting.

thats sort of common sense. There might not even BE 50 guys in the 308s in most feds. There are going to be dozens of 198/220 guys. Basic bell curve right there

Look at China....they cold DOMINATE most of the middle weight classes in oly lifting....but sometimes they dont even enter any supers

like when I used to race BMX in the early 80s. A a local race thered be a few kids in the 6-8yr old classes. Ususally theyd have to combine those classes. Then maybe a few guys 16 and older. But then there be a dozen guys in the 10-14 yr old classes

[koyongi]

So what you are saying is getting into the top 50 of those popular weight classes is harder than getting in the top 50 of like 308 raws//shw raw...

interesting.



Just want to toss my 2 cents in here and say, why does the USPA think their raw lifting standards should be higher than most other federations?

Yup.

How are the USPA raw standards higher?

[isaku900]

thats sort of common sense. There might not even BE 50 guys in the 308s in most feds. There are going to be dozens of 198/220 guys. Basic bell curve right there

...dude...the PL watch "top 50" includes results from ALL US FEDERATIONS.

[UPAJudge]

Ok, I have seen this on the USPA ********:

United States Powerlifting Association (USPA) My plan for the Elite Raw lifter classification will be the following:
114-970
123-1047
132-1157
148-1256
165-1366
181-1455
198-1526
220-1603
242-1647
275-1692
308-1736
308+-1780