Louie Simmons on Wide Stance Squat

[Tom Campitelli]

Louie Simmons has an interesting video over at CrossFit on the wide stance squat:

http://media.crossfit.com/cf-video/CrossFit_SimmonsWideStance.wmv

He makes the claim that a wide stance squat translates narrower, but a narrower stance does not translate wider.

[Smack]

My wide stance squat didn't translate to a bigger narrow stance squat at all.

[Raskolnikov]

I wonder why guys like Matt K use a relatively narrow stance (shoulder to just outside shoulder width) for much of their unequipped training? As do the vast majority of guys who compete in RAW or single ply feds. I suppose an argument could be made that an o-lifter who exclusively uses a fairly narrow stance high bar squat might benefit from wide stance squats (more adductor and hamstring involvement), but considering most of us squat in a way that already incorporates those muscles, I just don't see the utility in an ultra-wide stance.

[Smack]

No disrespect to Louie, but, like everyone else, is not right all the time, and I think this may be one of those instances, given that Westside aren't exactly renowned for producing world class single ply and raw lifters.


I wonder why guys like Matt K use a relatively narrow stance (shoulder to just outside shoulder width) for much of their unequipped training? As do the vast majority of guys who compete in RAW or single ply feds. I suppose an argument could be made that an o-lifter who exclusively uses a fairly narrow stance high bar squat might benefit from wide stance squats (more adductor and hamstring involvement), but considering most of us squat in a way that already incorporates those muscles, I just don't see the utility in an ultra-wide stance.

Plus, wide stance squats tear up the hips unless you're wearing briefs. Which are quite costly. I think many Westside affiliated places sell them as well for maybe a bit cheaper, I dunno...

[StLRPh]

Plus, wide stance squats tear up the hips unless you're wearing briefs. Which are quite costly. I think many Westside affiliated places sell them as well for maybe a bit cheaper, I dunno...

I think that this is right on point.

[Kincain]

wouldn't a wide stance contribute to how deep you have to go in the squat just as the deadlift, when people use a sumo stance and wear no soles (ballet shoes). Maybe it has to do with the heigth

[Gary Gibson]

wouldn't a wide stance contribute to how deep you have to go in the squat just as the deadlift, when people use a sumo stance and wear no soles (ballet shoes). Maybe it has to do with the heigth

All these points have been spot on.

Kincain, what you said--plus the nature of multi-ply gear--contributes to the depth issues that go along with wide stance squatting in a monolift in certain feds. You can only set up that wide if you don't have to walk the weight out. And you can't go very deep if you set up that wide and are wearing extremely supportive gear.

This reminds me of Louie's insistence on box squat carryover. I found that box squats taught me to sit back, but didn't train the hamstring pre-stretch for regular squats, nor did they teach me to hold the weight in the hole the way pause squats would have. I'm sure box squats DO carry over to squatting in extreme gear with lots of stopping power. I say this based on the results of people who use extreme gear and rave about the box squat.

Box squats probably also don't fatigue the hip muscles the way regular squats do and can thus be trained more often. (wide stance box squats also carry over to the sumo deadlift, btw, without beating up the grip.) Box squats make sense for very strong people using multi-ply in a monolift, but less sense for single-ply and raw lifters (but, again, they do help raw sumo pulling). I suspect much the same can be said for wide stance squats.

To quote ol' Rip (yet again!), wide stance squats are great if you're a powerlifter using gear (and a monolift) and trying to move more weight. But a wide stance leaves out a lot of quad involvement. A regular stance trains more muscle and has more carryover to other sporting activities which involve the quads...which is pretty much EVERY other sporting activity.

[grambo]

All these points have been spot on.

Kincain, what you said--plus the nature of multi-ply gear--contributes to the depth issues that go along with wide stance squatting in a monolift in certain feds. You can only set up that wide if you don't have to walk the weight out. And you can't go very deep if you set up that wide and are wearing extremely supportive gear.

This reminds me of Louie's insistence on box squat carryover. I found that box squats taught me to sit back, but didn't train the hamstring pre-stretch for regular squats, nor did they teach me to hold the weight in the hole the way pause squats would have. I'm sure box squats DO carry over to squatting in extreme gear with lots of stopping power. I say this based on the results of people who use extreme gear and rave about the box squat.

Box squats probably also don't fatigue the hip muscles the way regular squats do and can thus be trained more often. (wide stance box squats also carry over to the sumo deadlift, btw, without beating up the grip.) Box squats make sense for very strong people using multi-ply in a monolift, but less sense for single-ply and raw lifters (but, again, they do help raw sumo pulling). I suspect much the same can be said for wide stance squats.

To quote ol' Rip (yet again!), wide stance squats are great if you're a powerlifter using gear (and a monolift) and trying to move more weight. But a wide stance leaves out a lot of quad involvement. A regular stance trains more muscle and has more carryover to other sporting activities which involve the quads...which is pretty much EVERY other sporting activity.

Great post. I personally don't have any experience with super wide stance box squatting, geared powerlifting etc. so that may limit that validity of my opinion. However, I haven't read anything that has said that wide stance translates better to narrow stance. If that were true, wouldn't Westside lifters have better vertical leap/max box jumps than olympic weightlifters?

Louie is an amazing powerlifting coach, and his lifters can exert insane amounts of power through the type of geared squat they do, but what matters for the general strength community is athletic carryover. Ironically, this is also what CrossFit should be interested in, and it would seem that Rip's style of squat is much better suited so that goal. I think it's going to look pretty stupid when we start seeing pictures from CF affiliate gyms of people super wide box squatting less than their bodyweight while wearing running shoes. What's the point of learning powerlifting techniques when you are fundamentally weak.

[Phil Stevens]

I wonder why guys like Matt K use a relatively narrow stance (shoulder to just outside shoulder width) for much of their unequipped training? As do the vast majority of guys who compete in RAW or single ply feds. I suppose an argument could be made that an o-lifter who exclusively uses a fairly narrow stance high bar squat might benefit from wide stance squats (more adductor and hamstring involvement), but considering most of us squat in a way that already incorporates those muscles, I just don't see the utility in an ultra-wide stance.

Because it hurts and they dont have the support of the equipment to hold them tight when training Raw. The binding and hip pain is not conducive to doing them in the ultra wide stance without the equipment. Matt K has also stated much of his narrow stance squatting is to bring up the starting strength of his DL.

[Phil Stevens]

I think it's going to look pretty stupid when we start seeing pictures from CF affiliate gyms of people super wide box squatting less than their bodyweight while wearing running shoes. What's the point of learning powerlifting techniques when you are fundamentally weak.

:D LOL classic

[strongdaniel]

I enjoy crossfit. But I am also a little skeptical about anything I hear coming from them. No disrespect to Louis, but he has his squat technique that he employs and has affiliated with crossfit, whose goal is promoting GPP. Wouldn't it make sense that he promises that his variety of squat has greater potential for crossover? All I'm saying is that this would not be the first time we heard exaggerated claims about the efficacy of various crossfit orthodoxies.

[blowdpanis]

Louie Simmons has an interesting video over at CrossFit on the wide stance squat:

http://media.crossfit.com/cf-video/CrossFit_SimmonsWideStance.wmv

He makes the claim that a wide stance squat translates narrower, but a narrower stance does not translate wider.

He's wrong, and obviously so. I realize that's probably sacrilege, but oh well.

As a rule of thumb, you can predict a movement's carryover to other, similar movements by the range of motion around the relevant joints in that movement, along with how much weight you're actually lifting. More ROM at a given weight = better transfer. As an easy example here, I've always found that weighted dips transfer very well for me to other push exercises, whereas many other people have not. However, most people do weighted dips for very little ROM with a wide grip, whereas my ROM on them has always been bordering on the extreme with a narrow grip. This is not a coincidence.

I am also willing to bet this is precisely why people still perceive high bar squats as transferring better than low bar squats, because they are conflating "low bar" with powerlifting, i.e. wider, less range of motion. Keep the stance and depth similar between the two, and now you have a low bar squat that carries over extremely well to basically everything (Rip's version).

[Tom Campitelli]

He's wrong, and obviously so. I realize that's probably sacrilege, but oh well.

I don't think that we can so easily say Simmons is wrong here because of the following:


He has gone to the effort to collect quality data on lifting
He's a genuine expert in his field
He has a lot of experience with lifters and with athletes in other sports
The Westside Barbell crew is insanely strong, probably the strongest in the world


However, I don't know that a wide stance, feet straight forward squat and its associated smaller range of movement has nearly as much applicability to novices as does Rip's method. You don't train with Louie unless you are already an elite level lifter. What takes someone from a 600 lb squat to a 900 lb squat is probably a lot different than what takes someone from 150 to 350.

He may also be observing what Rip has noted on a number of occasions and that is that getting strong on the squat tends to help lots of other related endeavors. It probably doesn't hurt to be able to be fluent with front, high bar, low bar, and wide stance techniques.

Lastly, Kirk Karwoski squatted 1000 lbs for two in the video below using a technique that many on these forums would instantly recognize.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo1tU1YqPp0

[blowdpanis]

I don't think that we can so easily say Simmons is wrong here because of the following:


He has gone to the effort to collect quality data on lifting
He's a genuine expert in his field
He has a lot of experience with lifters and with athletes in other sports
The Westside Barbell crew is insanely strong, probably the strongest in the world


However, I don't know that a wide stance, feet straight forward squat and its associated smaller range of movement has nearly as much applicability to novices as does Rip's method. You don't train with Louie unless you are already an elite level lifter. What takes someone from a 600 lb squat to a 900 lb squat is probably a lot different than what takes someone from 150 to 350.

He may also be observing what Rip has noted on a number of occasions and that is that getting strong on the squat tends to help lots of other related endeavors. It probably doesn't hurt to be able to be fluent with front, high bar, low bar, and wide stance techniques.

Lastly, Kirk Karwoski squatted 1000 lbs for two in the video below using a technique that many on these forums would instantly recognize.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo1tU1YqPp0

I am going to suggest something controversial and say that, if Westside members would compete in real feds that actually enforce rules on squat depth, belly benches etc, they would not be regarded as "the strongest people in the world." I am not suggesting they are not ridiculously strong, but I am suggesting that, with "real" rules in place, they'd never dominate something like the IPF. Consider what the training programs of people competing in those feds looks like in terms of both squat style and training (Sheiko, Smolov, etc).

Louie is a great coach, but his comments here do not seem to be based in reality for most people, and I invite anybody to experiment and find out for themselves. I honestly believe that the vast majority of people will find that a narrower stance squat has better transfer to other lower body lifts, including other squat variants, than the other way around. I leave open the possibility that a minority will find this is not the case.

In terms of anecodtal evidence, I can think of three retardedly strong people off the top of my head who have noted the exact same thing: Fred Hatfield, Glenn Pendlay and Konstantinovs. Fred has described making athletes use an "athletic" squat for the majority of their training in order to build strength, and wider stance affairs to "demonstrate" it. Glenn has written extensively about his use of "olympic" squats transferring much, much better to everything than his previous use of wider stance, PL squats. Konstantinovs has written that he uses "olympic" squats (though vids reveal he is simply doing low bar squats with a shoulder width stance) as they transfer better to his deadlift.

All of that said, in order to maximize your squat out of context, a wider stance will obviously work better than a narrower stance, to a point, so I'm not doubting the validity of wider stance squats for competition purposes. But Louie is talking about general strength transfer here.

[Gary Gibson]

I am also willing to bet this is precisely why people still perceive high bar squats as transferring better than low bar squats, because they are conflating "low bar" with powerlifting, i.e. wider, less range of motion. Keep the stance and depth similar between the two, and now you have a low bar squat that carries over extremely well to basically everything (Rip's version).

At this stage of this meme's progression, the above cannot be stated enough.

http://startingstrength.com/resources/forum/showthread.php?t=13832

[Smack]

He has gone to the effort to collect quality data on lifting
He's a genuine expert in his field
He has a lot of experience with lifters and with athletes in other sports
The Westside Barbell crew is insanely strong, probably the strongest in the world


I'm afraid that none of the above criteria automatically disqualifies him from ever being wrong.

Has he collected data on this precise subject, i.e wide stance squats transferring better than narrower stance squats? And if so, what was the depth criteria?

Is he an expert in training weak lifters who have no interest in powerlifting (Crossfitters), and taking their squats from very little to very large? I always thought that he only trained elite level powerlifters.

I know he has experience with athletes in other sports; however, is this as much as others who all prefer a narrower stance squat?

I understand that they may dominate some of the multi ply American federations, but they don't dominate the IPF, WPC, anything raw, etc.

[grambo]

I enjoy crossfit. But I am also a little skeptical about anything I hear coming from them. No disrespect to Louis, but he has his squat technique that he employs and has affiliated with crossfit, whose goal is promoting GPP. Wouldn't it make sense that he promises that his variety of squat has greater potential for crossover? All I'm saying is that this would not be the first time we heard exaggerated claims about the efficacy of various crossfit orthodoxies.

This is another great point. I think CF and Rip parting ways was a huge loss for CF. Rip's methodology and published works are EXACTLY what CF'ers need to get strong and develop GPP, hell it's worked awesome for myself. I respect Louie and WSB, but I don't see how his system is going to benefit newbies whom very few are squatting much more than BW as a 1 rep max.

CF would have been better off for their trainers and clients to be taught a system similar to Rips by pretty much anyone, but they are screwed because they need name recognition to sell certs. I imagine most gym owners with a clue will simply get the Starting Strength certification instead.

[RobertFontaine]

I'll play devils advocate for a moment.
One of Rip's primary justifications for the lower back squat over the bodybuilding or olympic squat is that you can move more weight and get stronger.

If wide squat allows you to get stronger than standard lower back squat it may very well be that the additional strength derived from being able to move more weight outweighs the potentially more subtle positioning of the movement.

I don't know if this is true but all things being more or less equal I tend to prefer to move more weight to get stronger.

[blowdpanis]

I'll play devils advocate for a moment.
One of Rip's primary justifications for the lower back squat over the bodybuilding or olympic squat is that you can move more weight and get stronger.

If wide squat allows you to get stronger than standard lower back squat it may very well be that the additional strength derived from being able to move more weight outweighs the potentially more subtle positioning of the movement.

I don't know if this is true but all things being more or less equal I tend to prefer to move more weight to get stronger.

This mentality would then be a justification for quarter squats and half benches. Obviously "something" is missing.

That something is that range of motion factors heavily into the equation, it's not just a matter of "weight moved," or else partials would be the be-all end-all of getting strong. There is obviously an interplay between the two, so if you have two exercises where one has marginally less ROM, but fantastically more weight lifted, it will still probably transfer better. But all else constant, more ROM = better transfer to similar lifts.

So it's not that weight moved doesn't matter, it just has to be considered in respect to the range of motion through which it is being moved.

[Kerpal]

I have never seen someone hit full depth (top of thigh at hip joint below top of knee) with a wide stance squat. I went to an APF meet once and didn't see a single lifter actually perform a full squat.

In that video, neither one of those guys is even close to a full squat when they're sitting on the box. Pause at 1:26, 2:28 and 2:42. They're not even "parallel".

When, in any athletic endeavor that takes place outside of a monolift do you ever stand like that? That stance is great for multi-ply half squats out of a monolift in feds with extremely lax judging, otherwise it has nothing to do with reality.

[Gary Gibson]

I'll play devils advocate for a moment.
One of Rip's primary justifications for the lower back squat over the bodybuilding or olympic squat is that you can move more weight and get stronger.

If wide squat allows you to get stronger than standard lower back squat it may very well be that the additional strength derived from being able to move more weight outweighs the potentially more subtle positioning of the movement.

I don't know if this is true but all things being more or less equal I tend to prefer to move more weight to get stronger.

Moving more weight and working more muscles aren't always the same thing.

You could move more weight in a quarter squat than in a proper low bar full squat, but that doesn't mean more muscle has been worked.

The wide stance squat is different from a closer stance squat in a lot of ways: Distance traveled, depth achieved and involvement of the quads.

A closer stance squat is better for "all around development" than a wide stance squat for many of the same reasons a proper squat is better than a deadlift for all around development.

(There are those who'd argue that a high bar squat is EVEN BETTER because it's harder...but a high bar squat actually involves both less MUSCLE and less weight, because it favors a more closed knee angle and more quad involvement at the cost of a more open hip angle and less posterior chain involvement. The low bar, medium stance squat seems to be the winner in total muscle involved to move the most weight.)

[Gary Gibson]

I have never seen someone actually hit full depth (top of thigh at hip below top of knee) with a wide stance squat.

In that video, neither one of those guys is even close to a full squat when they're sitting on the box. Pause at 1:26 and 2:28. Not even parallel.

That stance is great for multi-ply half squats out of a monolift in feds with extremely lax judging though.

In one, Kerpal.

[Kerpal]

In one, Kerpal.

What?

.....

[Gary Gibson]

What?

.....

You got it in one shot.

Good job.

And not to take anything away from how strong those multi-ply monolift quarter squatters are. A few of those guys (Tony Conyers, Brian Schwab, etc) take off all their gear for the Raw Unity meets and prove very conclusively that they can still outsquat and outbench everyone without their gear.

The multi-ply monolift quarter squat is an entirely different sport than single-ply squatting which is much more closely related to raw squatting. But those guys multi-ply monolift quarter squatting 800-1000 lbs got there by being genetically elite and busting their humps and they are fully capable of 500-700 lb squats to proper depth with just a belt.

[Raskolnikov]

I'll play devils advocate for a moment.
One of Rip's primary justifications for the lower back squat over the bodybuilding or olympic squat is that you can move more weight and get stronger.

If wide squat allows you to get stronger than standard lower back squat it may very well be that the additional strength derived from being able to move more weight outweighs the potentially more subtle positioning of the movement.

I don't know if this is true but all things being more or less equal I tend to prefer to move more weight to get stronger.

I question your assumption that wide stance squats actually allow you to get stronger. No one outside of multiply powerlifting squats with an ultra-wide stance. Just this year, Brian Siders squatted 1014 in the USAPL (single ply). Watch the squat: shoulder width stance, low bar, knees out and forward over his toes -- looks very, very similar to what we all try to do around here. Watch any of the weight classes from the this year's IPF Worlds and you'll notice the same thing. Some of the guys in the lighter weight classes squat around 4 times body weight with a shoulder width stance. I doubt very, very, very much that these guys would be putting up bigger numbers with an ultra wide stance.

Edit: might as well include a link to Siders' lift: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXuuLiEN3JM

[Kerpal]

^ hard to tell from the front, but even that squat looked iffy in terms of depth.

[Sal Webber]

^ hard to tell from the front, but even that squat looked iffy in terms of depth.
I don't know anything about wide stance squats and I don't know a thing about power lifting rules but if people aren't breaking parallel and they are being called good lifts...why doesn't the governing body do something about poor judging? Seems like it calls the entire integrity of the sport into question. Is there such thing as a competitor protest? Is there instant replay?

[Raskolnikov]

^ hard to tell from the front, but even that squat looked iffy in terms of depth.

Looks plenty deep to me...

http://content.screencast.com/users/jasonbess/folders/Jing/media/913f9bcf-aeca-4e95-b0ac-dd415c597206/2009-12-20_0112.png

[Kerpal]

I don't know anything about wide stance squats and I don't know a thing about power lifting rules but if people aren't breaking parallel and they are being called good lifts...why doesn't the governing body do something about poor judging?

I've wondered this myself. Like I said, I went to an APF meet and was shocked at how high the squats were, yet almost all of them were passed. Cognitive dissonance?

[Cmanuel]

Looks plenty deep to me...

http://content.screencast.com/users/jasonbess/folders/Jing/media/913f9bcf-aeca-4e95-b0ac-dd415c597206/2009-12-20_0112.png

I was a spectator at this meet and remember this squat. Trust me, pleentttyyy deep. USAPL requires deep squats.

Originally Posted by grambo
I think it's going to look pretty stupid when we start seeing pictures from CF affiliate gyms of people super wide box squatting less than their bodyweight while wearing running shoes. What's the point of learning powerlifting techniques when you are fundamentally weak.

I think I shit myself from this comment lolol

[RobertFontaine]

The underlying assumption that Louis doesn't know squat is not terribly palatable to me. To assume that 900 and 1000 pound multi-ply squatters can't squat raw is fairly naive. Louis' statement in the video is that wide stance squatting carries over to narrow stance squatting. That the quads are developed in either stance and that hip drive is more developed by the wider stance. AND that the reverse is not true as narrow stance does not develop the hip drive that a wide stance does.

This is very interesting. I'm fairly sure Louis does know squat as does Mark. This is a question I would like to hear further discussed by those qualified to do so. For novices this question is likely irrelevant. Keep it simple.

However, I have discovered recently that to keep my squat moving I've had to resort to things like RDL's and GM's which quickly added 20 pounds to the bar and unstalled me.

Would wide stance squats allow me to work on the weakness in my hips and allow me to add some more weight to the bar in my regular back squat?

[George Noble]

Everyone thinks that all the Westside lifters squat high. No. At the Pro-Am Frankl (a BIG lifter, not WSB) did some bad squats and Dave Hoff did some weird looking bench, so The Internet thinks that all of the squats at that meet were high. Hoff's squat was in. Chuck V's squat was in. Wenning's squat was in. Hoss's squat was in. Panora's high squats were red lighted, IIRC. Pretty much all the squats I saw from that meet were in except Frankl's. Same thing happened at the Pro-Am 2008 - Donnie quarter squatted his way to a 2905 so The Internet declares not only that all squats in that meet were high, not only that all squats in that fed were high, but that ALL SQUATS IN THE HISTORY AND FUTURE OF MULTI PLY EVER have been and will be high.

The SPF has affiliated itself with the GPC, so we may well see WSB lifters at a bona fide world championships. I predict they will do very well, but they will still be lifting in multi ply out of monolifts so the IPF-philes will say their squats were high without watching any videos.

I just watched the video. Pudding's face when Louie started "fighting" him was classic.

[Kerpal]

Why is it that when I search "Westside squat" on youtube, every squat looks high? Is it because they are filmed from the front, so look higher?

Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfGKCSnbAxg

Are these considered full squats?

[George Noble]

That video isn't loading too well for me, but from the description it looks like they are training lifts. Sometimes they box squat high as a variation, and sometimes high squats just happen in lots of gear. The legitimacy of training feats is absolutely not a concern for competitors. All that matters is the training effect.

[Raskolnikov]

The underlying assumption that Louis doesn't know squat is not terribly palatable to me. To assume that 900 and 1000 pound multi-ply squatters can't squat raw is fairly naive.

I won't cry "strawman" because I don't remember if someone in this thread has actually argued that multi-ply squatters can't squat raw (pretty silly if they did), but the real point is that world class raw and single-ply squatters don't use a wide stance. And they don't use a wide stance because a) without lots of gear they beat the shit out of the hips, and b) raw and single-ply squatters can squat more with a "narrow" shoulder to just outside shoulder width stance. So, again, Louis' entire premise seems to be a bit flawed and his perspective skewed by the fact he has worked, primarily, with a bunch of guys who compete in multi-ply. Sure they can squat a shitload raw with a narrow stance (they are a bunch of strong fuckers, after all), but that doesn't mean a wide stance squat is the most efficient way to build a huge narrow stance squat.


Would wide stance squats allow me to work on the weakness in my hips and allow me to add some more weight to the bar in my regular back squat?

Try it. Personally, the few times I've given it a shot (box squatting, in particular), my hips can't handle it for more than a week. Maybe your experience will be different.

[Raskolnikov]

Why is it that when I search "Westside squat" on youtube, every squat looks high? Is it because they are filmed from the front, so look higher?

Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfGKCSnbAxg

Are these considered full squats?

Under who's definition? They'd probably pass in the WPO, but I doubt very much they pass in the IPF. Keep in mind these guys are training for a sport -- not general fitness or strength -- and they do so within the rules defined by the authorities under which they perform. So, for their purposes, these are full squats.

[Smack]

Under who's definition? They'd probably pass in the WPO, but I doubt very much they pass in the IPF. Keep in mind these guys are training for a sport -- not general fitness or strength -- and they do so within the rules defined by the authorities under which they perform. So, for their purposes, these are full squats.

In theory, all powerlifting federations have the same depth requirements: the squat must break parallel, i.e. the top of the knee must be above the hip crease.

People can say that you can't judge depth accurately from the front all they want, but it's remarkable how squats passed in the IPF have an uncanny habit of appearing deep, and squats like Donnie T's 1234lber as part of a world record total routinely look well above parallel.

It's also worth noting the there are still many many examples of bad judging in the IPF as well. Squats that are easily below parallel but not quite Olympic depth getting turned down as 'not deep enough' is also piss poor judging.

[Raskolnikov]

In theory, all powerlifting federations have the same depth requirements: the squat must break parallel, i.e. the top of the knee must be above the hip crease.

People can say that you can't judge depth accurately from the front all they want, but it's remarkable how squats passed in the IPF have an uncanny habit of appearing deep, and squats like Donnie T's 1234lber as part of a world record total routinely look well above parallel.

Agreed -- I shouldn't have used the word "rules," as they all define parallel the same way. But, clearly, despite the explicit rules, certain feds are much more lax when it comes to judging depth (most of which, for reasons I don't know, happen to be multi-ply feds). So it should come as no surprise that those who compete in those feds happen to squat higher than those who compete in feds like the IPF that tend to be very strict when judging depth.

My point: competition judging is dictating squat depth in training, so, for their purposes, the guys at Westside are squatting deep enough.

[davew]

Fuck.

Louie talks a million miles an hour.

And there's something about Tony Budding that annoys the hell out of me when I watch a video with him in t.

[Kerpal]

That video isn't loading too well for me, but from the description it looks like they are training lifts. Sometimes they box squat high as a variation, and sometimes high squats just happen in lots of gear. The legitimacy of training feats is absolutely not a concern for competitors. All that matters is the training effect.

Ok, well when I type in "Westside meet" and watch videos of their lifters in competition, their squats look the same; they still aren't getting anywhere near full depth, and it's still being approved by the judges.

Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdqeBE3iIXA

I am not trolling, I am honestly trying to figure out why they go nowhere near a full squat, and yet their lifts are usually approved. I've been wondering this since I went to that APF meet months ago. I looked up their rules when I got home and their rule clearly states that the top of the thigh at the hip has to be below the top of the knee, but I didn't see a single lifter go anywhere near that deep the whole time I was there, yet most of the lifts were passed.

[stronger]

Ok, well when I type in "Westside meet" and watch videos of their lifters in competition, their squats look the same; they still aren't getting anywhere near full depth, and it's still being approved by the judges.

Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdqeBE3iIXA

I am not trolling, I am honestly trying to figure out why they go nowhere near a full squat, and yet their lifts are usually approved. I've been wondering this since I went to that APF meet months ago. I looked up their rules when I got home and their rule clearly states that the top of the thigh at the hip has to be below the top of the knee, but I didn't see a single lifter go anywhere near that deep the whole time I was there, yet most of the lifts were passed.

Simply put, various federations have various rules about what constitutes legal depth, legal gear, etc. Most people you find here on the Starting Strength forums will be of the opinion that raw and deep squats are superior to a highly wrapped and suited squat that is not very deep.

[Smack]

Simply put, various federations have various rules about what constitutes legal depth, legal gear, etc. Most people you find here on the Starting Strength forums will be of the opinion that raw and deep squats are superior to a highly wrapped and suited squat that is not very deep.

No. They. Don't. It's. All. The. Same. The. Squat. Must. Break. Parallel.

Some judges are incredibly lax when it comes to enforcing this universal depth. Some judges aren't even aware of the correct rules themselves, as I know from reading comments on Powerlifting Watch from people proclaiming to be judges. There are no federations which have rules stating that high squats are OK, just some federations with some poor judges (IPF being one of those, since people's squats are turned down there for not being deep enough despite being below parallel).

[George Noble]

The first one looked high, as did the second woman (I only got to her). The rest of them looked borderline, but close enough that I would give the judges the benefit of the doubt in whatever decision they made from my vantage point of a fairly low resolution YT video from pretty much the front.

As for not being able to judge from the front, I think this: you can see when a squat is clearly high (ex. Frankl, Donnie, Mannering) and you can see when as squat is clearly low (an IPF lift that gets white lights) but you can't usually judge it to the nearest half inch. So when guys are deliberately squatting only just as low as they need to go, I tend to just go with whatever the judges say.

Maybe I'm wrong and they all squat high. It wouldn't be too surprising, since they don't tend to do bona fide international meets (IPA is an American meet). Hopefully that will change this year in Prague.

[George Noble]

No. They. Don't. It's. All. The. Same. The. Squat. Must. Break. Parallel.

Some judges are incredibly lax when it comes to enforcing this universal depth. Some judges aren't even aware of the correct rules themselves, as I know from reading comments on Powerlifting Watch from people proclaiming to be judges. There are no federations which have rules stating that high squats are OK, just some federations with some poor judges (IPF being one of those, since people's squats are turned down there for not being deep enough despite being below parallel).
Yep :)

[stronger]

No. They. Don't. It's. All. The. Same. The. Squat. Must. Break. Parallel.


then they effectively have differing rules if some federations will let a squat that is quite obviously not in accordance with the rules pass

[Smack]

It's all to do with the judges.

If the judges were consistent in all multi ply federations then there would be none of this controversy. Andy Bolton squats 50kg less in the WPC than he did in the WPO. Yet both organisations have (had) the same squat rules depth, it's just that one has judges which enforce them more strictly. And then you get some IPF judges who red light anything which wasn't literally ass to grass.

I'm actually looking at the 2001 WPO. Interesting to see that nearly everyone is squatting to proper depth, the kind of depth that only an overly snobby IPF judge would white light. Those that didn't hit depth got red lighted. Compare that to some of the current crop of multi ply American lifting. Take Scott Mendelson recently 'talking' to the judges to get them to change their minds after they red lighted his 1031lb bench which wasn't locked out, for example. Or the Dave Hoff controversy. Or Shawn Frankl. If the backyard American federations had decent judges then multi ply lifting would be a lot more respectable.

[Kerpal]

Simply put, various federations have various rules about what constitutes legal depth, legal gear, etc. Most people you find here on the Starting Strength forums will be of the opinion that raw and deep squats are superior to a highly wrapped and suited squat that is not very deep.

No, I looked up the APF squat depth rule. It is the same as that in Starting Strength, however, I did not see a single lifter go anywhere near that depth all day, and almost all lifts were approved. I was viewing the lifting from the front, and I understand it's harder to judge depth from a front view, but it was still obvious that these squats were nowhere near deep enough.

Here is actual footage from the meet I attended: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4riJRkGJFhQ

Would anyone honestly call these full squats or am I just terrible at judging depth? It is very possible that I am just not understanding how to judge depth correctly.

[Sal Webber]

It's all to do with the judges.

If the judges were consistent in all multi ply federations then there would be none of this controversy. Andy Bolton squats 50kg less in the WPC than he did in the WPO. Yet both organisations have (had) the same squat rules depth, it's just that one has judges which enforce them more strictly. And then you get some IPF judges who red light anything which wasn't literally ass to grass.

Could a software program like Dartfish be used to improve judging objectivity?

[stronger]

No, I looked up the APF squat depth rule. It is the same as that in Starting Strength, however, I did not see a single lifter go anywhere near that depth all day, and almost all lifts were approved. I was viewing the lifting from the front, and I understand it's harder to judge depth from a front view, but it was still obvious that these squats were nowhere near deep enough.

Here is actual footage from the meet I attended: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4riJRkGJFhQ

Would anyone honestly call these full squats or am I just terrible at judging depth? It is very possible that I am just not understanding how to judge depth correctly.

yeah, I was incorrect as pointed out by a previous poster. The results are the same: different federations produce different results

[pbjorge12]

Could a software program like Dartfish be used to improve judging objectivity?

For sure. Just film it from the side with a bright green (bright any color really) marker on the patella and the hip crease. Then use dartfish to connect the two points and check if its parallel or below.

It wouldn't be instant results but it would work...

Hell I'm sure you could set something up automatic and instant if you wanted to. Sports have been notorious though for wanting to keep human referees when often computers would give more accurate results. Ref errors are almost part of sports.

[Raskolnikov]

Sports have been notorious though for wanting to keep human referees when often computers would give more accurate results. Ref errors are almost part of sports.

Especially when certain orgs would have to lop a couple hundred pounds off their squat records. I don't think the lax judging has anything to do with human error (at least not on the whole). I think it has to do with human volition: certain orgs want to see bigger numbers come hell or high water, even if it mean 4 ply canvas suits and 2 inches shy of parallel white lights. As someone else has mentioned, the lax judging has happened gradually over the last decade -- it's not as if some judges have recently gone blind or flunked out of "squat judging school." Certain orgs have just developed an internal culture over the last decade, a culture in which "parallel" is rather more like a range than a cutoff point.

[Sal Webber]

Especially when certain orgs would have to lop a couple hundred pounds off their squat records. I don't think the lax judging has anything to do with human error (at least not on the whole). I think it has to do with human volition: certain orgs want to see bigger numbers come hell or high water, even if it mean 4 ply canvas suits and 2 inches shy of parallel white lights. As someone else has mentioned, the lax judging has happened gradually over the last decade -- it's not as if some judges have recently gone blind or flunked out of "squat judging school." Certain orgs have just developed an internal culture over the last decade, a culture in which "parallel" is rather more like a range than a cutoff point.

I used to be heavily involved in a sport that had a lot of judging subjectivity: Competitive Aerobatics. Imagine judging how round a loop is and assigning a score or how vertical a hammerhead was or whether you stopped your spin exactly on heading. In order to deal with "creep" of judging standards over time they require yearly certification through classroom and practical experience. Also, there is a national ranking system that compares each judge to their peers (5) that saw the same flight. At the end of the year, the best judges are asked to judge at Nationals.

Now all of that being said, one of the reasons I don't fly competitively anymore is that I got tired of the lack of consistency in judging. :D

[zepled37]

I can't even bring myself to watch the non-IPF lifts anymore because so many just look like crap and get passed.

I have no doubt that the lifters in these multi-ply feds are strong as shit and the strongest are probably right up there with the strongest in the world in any fed, but the lifts themselves mean nothing to me because of the manner in which they are performed. I really don't care if a multi-ply lifter squats 2000 pounds, it means nothing to me as an official record or result.

On another note, I think doing wide stance box squats (for speed) for a while contributed to some hip pain that I have. I believe I'm also pre-disposed to overuse injuries, but still I think it is probably helpful in limited doses, but a normal athletic type squat is much more natural.