A Question on Strongman Deadlifts

[tweakxc03]

Just curious on this -

Recently I've been watching the likes of Eddie Hall and Brian Shaw deadlift huge amounts of weight. One thing I've noticed among strongman athletes is they tend to take a much wider stance on the deadlift, slightly wider than shoulder width, rather than what we often see among conventional deadlifting powerlifters with a stance of around hip-width.

Is there a particular reason for this in terms of biomechanics, other than them being ridiculously massive and ridiculously strong?

Just curious if this has something to do with things being different when you weigh 400+ pounds.

Thanks

[Michael Wolf]

I've always assumed that it's mostly because of their massive bodies - gigantic thighs, and often belly, too - along with (possibly?) some traditions/copycatting that we see in sports and other areas in life all the time. And #2 could be very closely related to #1. But I don't really know for sure.

[Ryan Arnold]

Agree with Wolf. I bet Hafthor B. could deadlift more with a more narrow stance since he lacks the big belly. But I'm not going to be the one to suggest it to him

[Kyle Martin]

I wonder if it's the belly. I've got a big gut and by far the most uncomfortable part of my deadlift is when I'm bent over getting my grip with my gut mashed into my thighs.

I'll note that in this video Caron has an almost SS 5 step setup going on (if you discount the width of his feet). Brian Shaw does not, but I guess if you pull 1,000 you can use whatever form you want.

[Michael Wolf]

I'll note that in this video Caron has an almost SS 5 step setup going on (if you discount the width of his feet). Brian Shaw does not, but I guess if you pull 1,000 you can use whatever form you want.

Ya I think that's the end of the day take on it. Theoretically in a vacuum, if our pulling model is correct, it should help increase anyone's DL, whether they pull 200, 600, or 1000. And if someone like that ever comes to me for deadlift technique advice, the first thing I'd see is if our analysis, applied to their pull with instruction and cueing, helps. See a) below - they have to want my help for this to have a chance of actually working.

But I'm a little more inclined these days to:
a) take into account advanced athletes' rituals/established patterns if they've gotten good and comfortable with a technique, even if it is technically sub-optimal. Trying to change it at that stage in their career might do more harm than good, unless the athlete is actively looking for help and willing to make adjustments.
b) see our analysis as having a very strong presumption in its favor but not as an absolute, 100%, everything else is definitely and horrifically wrong.

I still teach it to everyone I coach, and have fun arguing in its favor, sometimes with very strong people or experienced coaches who think otherwise. I've just learned that I learn more and am more open to seeing new things when I take a slightly less absolutist approach to things. Nothing I've seen has changed my mind on it, but I think advancing knowledge is generally done better with the things we think we know for sure having a 99.9% presumption as opposed to a 100% "that's it, we've reached the ultimate end stage of knowledge we will ever have on this subject."

[Chris Williamson]

Ya I think that's the end of the day take on it. Theoretically in a vacuum, if our pulling model is correct, it should help increase anyone's DL, whether they pull 200, 600, or 1000. And if someone like that ever comes to me for deadlift technique advice, the first thing I'd see is if our analysis, applied to their pull with instruction and cueing, helps. See a) below - they have to want my help for this to have a chance of actually working.

But I'm a little more inclined these days to:
a) take into account advanced athletes' rituals/established patterns if they've gotten good and comfortable with a technique, even if it is technically sub-optimal. Trying to change it at that stage in their career might do more harm than good, unless the athlete is actively looking for help and willing to make adjustments.
b) see our analysis as having a very strong presumption in its favor but not as an absolute, 100%, everything else is definitely and horrifically wrong.

I still teach it to everyone I coach, and have fun arguing in its favor, sometimes with very strong people or experienced coaches who think otherwise. I've just learned that I learn more and am more open to seeing new things when I take a slightly less absolutist approach to things. Nothing I've seen has changed my mind on it, but I think advancing knowledge is generally done better with the things we think we know for sure having a 99.9% presumption as opposed to a 100% "that's it, we've reached the ultimate end stage of knowledge we will ever have on this subject."

I think Dr. Feigenbaum himself would be proud of the level of nuance in that reply; a very wise attitude in my opinion.

The 5-Step model is an absolute gift for anyone trying to teach someone to deadlift, but it's a model, not a gospel. Modifying it where necessary is part of being a good coach.

[Michael Wolf]

The 5-Step model is an absolute gift for anyone trying to teach someone to deadlift, but it's a model, not a gospel. Modifying it where necessary is part of being a good coach.

The 5 step set-up isn't a model, it's a method - a means to an end: deadlifting according to the model. It's also an absolutely brilliant one, for how much info and correct instruction it packs into such concise language. But ya, it's a) not meant to be the entire corpus of knowledge on the deadlift - the deadlift chapter is obviously much longer than the 5 steps, for example and b) it works super well as a method to get people lifting according to the model a very high % of the time. But in the rare case something isn't working then, like any other good cue that isn't working for whatever reason, it's the coach's job to find another cue or instruction to get the person moving in the way we want them to move based on the model.