Squat Depth

[PeterDolan]

hey its called lean not small and your called fat not big.... LMAO!!!

And

Here

We

Go

...

[funkyfly]

If we are squatting to the same depth on every rep and I'm doing 180 for 5 and you do 180 for 4, I have out lifted you regardless of height

Im gona let this go, happy in the knowledge that the laws of physics define how much you "lift", not just whats on the bar.

Good discussion though.

[tomsammce]

hey its called lean not small and your called fat not big.... LMAO!!!

And

Here

We

Go

...

doc can take a joke.

moving on... squat depth yeah i go go pretty deep (no homo)

[Dr Squat]

hey its called lean not small and your called fat not big.... LMAO!!!

LMAO BRO

[nate225]

If we are squatting to the same depth on every rep and I'm doing 180 for 5 and you do 180 for 4, I have out lifted you regardless of height

Im gona let this go, happy in the knowledge that the laws of physics define how much you "lift", not just whats on the bar.

Good discussion though.

I couldn't care how tall/short you are, or how far the bar travels. The laws of physics help with lifting strategies no doubt (changing ROM/Stroke) but the majority decision of Three White or Red Lights define how much you lift around here!! :grin:

[PeterDolan]

If we are squatting to the same depth on every rep and I'm doing 180 for 5 and you do 180 for 4, I have out lifted you regardless of height

Im gona let this go, happy in the knowledge that the laws of physics define how much you "lift", not just whats on the bar.

Good discussion though.

I couldn't care how tall/short you are, or how far the bar travels. The laws of physics help with lifting strategies no doubt (changing ROM/Stroke) but the majority decision of Three White or Red Lights define how much you lift around here!! :grin:

That was my point. I understand what funky was saying but at the end of the day 250 is heavier than 200

[Phedder]

Just saw this video and thought it was somewhat appropriate for this dicussion

[ThePman]

I've always gravitated towards a high-bar, more Olympic style of squat, pretty much what JV Askem described on his page: http://jva.ontariostrongman.ca/SQ2.htm

I've always preferred that style and found that it's easier to teach. Not only that, but others I've spoken to have noted that developing the mobility and technical proficiency with a full-range high-bar style (and I'd include front squats here) tends to carry over to wider stance. You really do have to mobilize the ankles and hips, and there's a good bit of luck as far as your personal leverages letting you hit rock-bottom, but I think most can do it. Not everyone, but most. I don't think it should become an issue if you can't. Sometimes good enough really is good enough.

I don't think anyone would be worse off for trying, though. That's the only way to know. I don't see the point in doing the intentional dippy-doo knee bends that pass for squats in most gyms. Every guy I see doing that looks ready to fold up at the midsection and have his knees shoot into the mirror he's checking himself out in. Knees tracking over toes is fine when the torque centers around the hips, thanks to hamstrings protecting the knee, but those guys turn it into an up-on-toes movement that barely activates teh glutes or hams -- guaranteed knee trauma sooner or later. If I were going to do that on the grounds of "quad training" I'd just leg press and be done with it.

This is assuming a raw or mostly-raw (I'd say belt + casual wraps) squatter. Suited changes the whole equation.

[Tygrrh]

Can squats cure cancer, YES, squats can cure anything

haha :pfft:

[nate225]

Had to add this pic I found today..... triple bodyweight for 3 reps, A2G.....IMPRESSED! :nod:

No belt, no wraps, no spotters: 91-kg Ivan Chakarov squats 270 kg for a triple in the training hall at the 1993 World Weightlifting Championships.

[Jigga]

^

If you want to see badass, watch Pyrros c&j 170kg, lower it on to his delts and walk it over to the rack like it aint no thing.