Squat form check, deep enough?

[barbar25]

Can someone comment if this is deep enough, or am I above parallel?

http://users.telenet.be/kvq/SQuat%20depth.png

[AndrewLewis]

Here's my best guess.
SquatDepthbarbar25.jpg

[barbar25]

So it's just above parallel. Thank you for the analysis.

[barbar25]

May I ask what program you're using to draw these lines?

[AndrewLewis]

No. You're just below parallel, if not at parallel. You might want to drop an extra inch just to make sure.

Powerpoint.

[barbar25]

Ok, thanks for the answers.
This one was what I considered a bit high, the other two are lower.

[AndrewLewis]

Anytime. Approximating the acetabulum is very difficult.

[Michael Grantham]

Not to be argumentative, but this looks high to me. Squats are judged at the surface of the thigh at the hip crease, not by the hip joint.

[AndrewLewis]

Not to be argumentative, but this looks high to me. Squats are judged at the surface of the thigh at the hip crease, not by the hip joint.

It's ok to question. There's nothing wrong with sincerely disagreeing.

An SSC could swoop down any moment and tell me my picture is wrong, but squats are judged differently in some federations than by the SS criteria. We use the acetabulum and the top of the patella.
The surface of the thigh is an okay proxy sometimes, but muscle mass and fat get in the way. It's more accurate to approximate the acetabulum and the top of the patella.

[Michael Grantham]

All of the large feds use (or at least the rulebooks claim to use) the surface of the thigh. The idea that muscle mass and fat get in the way of judging where the surface of the thigh is, but muscle mass does not get in the way when judging where the hip joint is doesn't make any sense at all. It's an excuse for letting high squats pass.

That argument aside, given the venue of the question, it seems like the SSBT criteria would be the default answer.