Originally Posted by
irontruth901
Sloppy cues because they don't work efficiently for a sizeable minority of people with wide-hipped anthropometry. After 40 years of coaching experience, I thought you and Starting Strength would have given more careful thought to such important matters. These cues are better because, well, they work better:
1. Take your INDIVIDUAL VERTICAL JUMP STANCE WIDTH with the barbell over the MIDDLE OF YOUR FEET.
(the individual vertical jump stance width cue does not handicap all those of wide hipped anthropometry re. narrow stance. Those with wider hips have a commensurately wider vertical jump stance. Also, a narrow stance usually makes it more difficult for these individuals to achieve a flatter braced back. The mid foot cue is a way more practical cue on the platform for the TRAINEE'S EYE than eyeballing one inch).
2. Squat down with your arms horizontal into your vertical jump stance until your shins touch the bar.
(Hey presto - you are nearly in YOUR individual bio-mechanically most efficient position to launch the deadlift AND you are not leaving pounds off the bar by short-changing yourself on engaging more leg-drive in the movement. A point well-documented by other elite strength coaches who have handled novice trainers to elite trainers eg. Marty Gallagher, Ed Coan).
3. HOLD THAT POSITION.
4. Grab the bar with elbows just outside your knees.
5. Stand up using legs to PUSH THE FLOOR while dragging the bar up your legs SIMULTANEOUSLY.
(Simply saying "drag the bar up the legs" carries the risk of many novices straying into stiff-legged deadlift territory without the vital "push the floor" leg cue. In the Blue Book you reference vertical jump stance as the main determinant of stance width, yet you are conversely on record as advocating narrow stance on the 5 Deadlift Cues).
Questions:
1. What are your refutations of the above new cues?
2. Why is there a glaring contradiction between the stance width you recommend in the Blue Book ie. vertical jump and other places in your writings - and the above article - where you advocate a narrow stance?