Deadlift 700x3 Raw

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
tom63 wrote:
For the record, many guys in light weight classes have done 3-4 X bodyweight deadlifts, but less than ten have done 900. Coan, Wohbler, Heisey, Magnusson, Bolton, Henry, Kaz in an exhibition, and two or three others.

Relative strength ain’t relative. You can’t cry relative strength in the real world.

It’s teh gay as the young ins say.

Reinhoudt and Gary Frank.

[/quote]

Ano Turtianen

What’s more impressive…someone who weighs 318 and deadlifts 700 or someone who weighs 175lb and deadlifts 500lb? I always found people who “looked” weaker and lifted heavy to be more impressive than guys who weigh 250+ who lift a lot more weight. But that’s just my opinion.

[quote]tom63 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Just about 2.2 times his body weight.

True but he has to move that bodyweight too.

Does that mean that the more you weigh the LESS you should be able to deadlift?

No of course not.

But…2.2 times bodyweight is very respectable for three reps. However, it’s not outstanding.

You’ve got to be kidding. It’s 700 pounds.[/quote]

Damn straight. Most of us on this board have no right to knock a dude who pulls 7 bills.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Just about 2.2 times his body weight.

True but he has to move that bodyweight too.

Does that mean that the more you weigh the LESS you should be able to deadlift?

No of course not.

But…2.2 times bodyweight is very respectable for three reps. However, it’s not outstanding.
[/quote]

You have to be kidding me. I guess we’re all absolutely pathetic compared to ants who can lift over a hundred times their bodyweight, right? The larger you get, the less your relative strength will be if you are optimally trained. Supertraining, by Mel Siff has a great mathematical discussion of why this is so. I can go look up the page numbers if you would like.

Also, there is nothing special about a small skinny person deadlifting a lot of weight. I have seen plenty of small guys (less than 200lbs) pull 500lbs with very little training. I have seen nearly zero 300lb guys pull 700x3 with very little training.

Not to mention how stupid it is to talk about relative strength anyway…that’s like saying my 12 second 100meters is outstanding because I am fat.

Also, to the others, I think Ano just pulled a hair under 900, but I’ll try to look that up. His WPO record is less than 900 I believe, but I’m not sure about his personal best in competition. Magnusson is another one if he hasn’t been mentioned, and Konstantin Konstantinov (sp?) is yet another (947@275, but I guess he’s weak too…frickin’ idiots).

[quote]RickJames wrote:
Also, to the others, I think Ano just pulled a hair under 900, but I’ll try to look that up. His WPO record is less than 900 I believe, but I’m not sure about his personal best in competition. Magnusson is another one if he hasn’t been mentioned, and Konstantin Konstantinov (sp?) is yet another (947@275, but I guess he’s weak too…frickin’ idiots).[/quote]

I saw a source that listed A.T.'s PR as 415 kg which is what? 913. Not sure when or where though. I believe that Kazmaier’s was not a usual barbell, but a little further off the ground.

[quote]koreansuperman wrote:
What’s more impressive…someone who weighs 318 and deadlifts 700 or someone who weighs 175lb and deadlifts 500lb? I always found people who “looked” weaker and lifted heavy to be more impressive than guys who weigh 250+ who lift a lot more weight. But that’s just my opinion.[/quote]

So basically what u are saying is DW is as impressive as that guy?!! you are insane. And everyone knows as you get heavier your pull gets suckier! lol. i am frickin impressed. this guy is a guard coming out of college that snapped his leg 4 months ago! All you guys are being dickheads. Fuckin put this in perspective.

[quote]koreansuperman wrote:
What’s more impressive…someone who weighs 318 and deadlifts 700 or someone who weighs 175lb and deadlifts 500lb? [/quote]

Answer: Someone who weighs 318 and deadlifts 700. Weight divisions are for sports so that people don’t have to be bohemoths to compete - in the real world, noone cares how many times your bodyweight you can lift or what your wilkes formula is.

The guy pulling 700lbs is stronger than the guy pulling 500lbs to the tune of 200lbs, period. Ask yourself this: could the guy who weights 175lbs and pulls 500lbs now ever put on enough muscle to pull 700lbs? I would say quite probably not.

[quote]koreansuperman wrote:
What’s more impressive…someone who weighs 318 and deadlifts 700 or someone who weighs 175lb and deadlifts 500lb? I always found people who “looked” weaker and lifted heavy to be more impressive than guys who weigh 250+ who lift a lot more weight. But that’s just my opinion.[/quote]

Then you should pretty much jizz your pants looking at this picture.

[quote]RickJames wrote:

Also, to the others, I think Ano just pulled a hair under 900, but I’ll try to look that up. His WPO record is less than 900 I believe, but I’m not sure about his personal best in competition. Magnusson is another one if he hasn’t been mentioned, and Konstantin Konstantinov (sp?) is yet another (947@275, but I guess he’s weak too…frickin’ idiots).[/quote]

Konstantinovs’ recent 947@275 has got to be the best deadlift ever!! that is an insane fucking weight at 275!

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

Well for this guy, bodyweight is a tool. If he lost 40 pounds, his deadlift would probably go up 20-30 pounds without him getting any stronger.[/quote]

That is pure conjecture on your part. In most cases weight helps.

Actually I think that argument has no merit. Why do you think that they have body weight classes?

The bigger man should be lifting more. And in most cases he does.

[quote]Also, a 300 pound guy with a 30 inch vertical impresses me more than a 150 pound guy with a 30 inch vertical. The 300 pound guy is twice the force on the field as the 150 pounder.

[/quote]

Yea, I agree. When it comes to moving pure bodyweight you have a point. It’s also impressive to see a 250 pound football player run a fast 40.

No argument on that one.

[quote]cap’nsalty wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Just about 2.2 times his body weight.

Ever wonder why the pullup is not a Pling event? Because nobody cares how many pullups you can do. This relative strength thing was old before it started.[/quote]

Relative strength and body weight strength are very important. When you say for example that “no one cares about how many pull-ups you can do” you are quite wrong.

True it’s not a powerlifting event, but of course there is a very big world of strength feets out there which are not powerlifting events.

Do you look down your nose at overhead pressing?

Olympic lifts?

Cleans?

Barbell Rows?

I’m sure you don’t, you’re too smart for that.

As for Pull-ups, the US Marines care enough to make it a requirement. And also several other branches of the service do as well including the Navy Seals.

And in fact Coach DeFranco states that he can always tell how fast his trainees will be on the field simply by giving them a Pull-up test first!

Go check out his site-He thinks Pull-ups are important.

Does that mean that Pull-ups or Push-ups are more important than the deadlift?

Of course not, it’s all good! You’ve heard that before I’m sure.

700 pounds is a respectable deadlift for someone who is 317 pounds. However, their are other lighter lifters moving a higher percentage of their own bodyweight. Which in and of itself is more impressive to many (perhaps not you).

I’m impressed with his 700 pounds for three reps. I just happen to fall into the camp that is more impressed with someone who weighs 181 pounds and does a 700 pound deadlift.

In fact, state championships are won all the time by guys pulling 3+ times their bodyweight. Isn’t the purpose of having weight classes to see who is the strongest in any given lift for their specific weight? And if someone lighter actually lifts more than someone who is heavier that is impressive!

So, weight class is ONE very important issue.

I also think that someone can be impressed with the sheer numbers without being so mesmerized that they cannot look at it from a different persepctive.

[quote]RickJames wrote:
ZEB wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Just about 2.2 times his body weight.

True but he has to move that bodyweight too.

Does that mean that the more you weigh the LESS you should be able to deadlift?

No of course not.

But…2.2 times bodyweight is very respectable for three reps. However, it’s not outstanding.

there is nothing special about a small skinny person deadlifting a lot of weight. [/quote]

Really? Does that happen all the time in your world?

Small skinny guys deadlifting a lot of weight?

Really? Then why are we all impressed when a very large Football player runs a 4.7 (or less) 40?

Olympic sprinters do that all the time.

THINK

[quote]bigjoey wrote:
koreansuperman wrote:
What’s more impressive…someone who weighs 318 and deadlifts 700 or someone who weighs 175lb and deadlifts 500lb?

Answer: Someone who weighs 318 and deadlifts 700. Weight divisions are for sports so that people don’t have to be bohemoths to compete - in the real world, noone cares how many times your bodyweight you can lift or what your wilkes formula is.

The guy pulling 700lbs is stronger than the guy pulling 500lbs to the tune of 200lbs, period. Ask yourself this: could the guy who weights 175lbs and pulls 500lbs now ever put on enough muscle to pull 700lbs? I would say quite probably not.[/quote]

Then the 175 pound sprinter is more impressive running a faster 100 meters than the 250 pound guy. Even if he only runs it a half second faster.

True?

[quote]ZEB wrote:
mertdawg wrote:

Well for this guy, bodyweight is a tool. If he lost 40 pounds, his deadlift would probably go up 20-30 pounds without him getting any stronger.

That is pure conjecture on your part. In most cases weight helps.

I don’t think that you can compare strength between guys of different weight by dividing by bodyweight. In some lifts, you have to move your bodyweight and in others you don’t.

Actually I think that argument has no merit. Why do you think that they have body weight classes?

The bigger man should be lifting more. And in most cases he does.

Also, a 300 pound guy with a 30 inch vertical impresses me more than a 150 pound guy with a 30 inch vertical. The 300 pound guy is twice the force on the field as the 150 pounder.

Yea, I agree. When it comes to moving pure bodyweight you have a point. It’s also impressive to see a 250 pound football player run a fast 40.

No argument on that one.

[/quote]

Did any of you pseudo-scientific dickwads that love to nitpick any weight lifting feat ever hear about the various FORMULA for comparing weight classes and lifts?

The reason for the various FORMULA is because comparison of weights lifted is not a linear pound for pound comparision. A bigger man has bigger bones, more blood/fluid and to put it more generally, more fucking stuff in his body that has nothing to do with moving a weight!

I always love these neat little bwt. to bwt. comparisons you nitwits do on this web site - at one time, so many of you are far ahead of the curve in terms of knowledge over the average gym dickhead and, at the same time, you average gym dickheads manage to write stupid shit on these pages in spite of the information on these pages on on the internet in general.

And finally, to those of us who actually lift and compete, its generally WELL ACCEPTED that, unlike the bench press and squat, weight gain generally does not result in a bigger DL. Let me quantify that furthe - lean mass gain I’d say yes, you’re getting stronger and your DL will be stronger all other things equal. But just gaining plain ol fucking mass - especially around the middle, generally doesn’t help your DL - it hinders it.

If I remember the various polls on these various pages about member’s max DL and such, more than half of you here cannot lift half of this for 3 reps. SO SHUT THE FUCK UP.

[quote]AgentOrange wrote:
koreansuperman wrote:
What’s more impressive…someone who weighs 318 and deadlifts 700 or someone who weighs 175lb and deadlifts 500lb? I always found people who “looked” weaker and lifted heavy to be more impressive than guys who weigh 250+ who lift a lot more weight. But that’s just my opinion.

Then you should pretty much jizz your pants looking at this picture.[/quote]

I’m pretty sure the Rhino Beetle is the strongest liveing creature, pound for pound.

And it weighs more than any ant!

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
ZEB wrote:
mertdawg wrote:

Well for this guy, bodyweight is a tool. If he lost 40 pounds, his deadlift would probably go up 20-30 pounds without him getting any stronger.

That is pure conjecture on your part. In most cases weight helps.

I don’t think that you can compare strength between guys of different weight by dividing by bodyweight. In some lifts, you have to move your bodyweight and in others you don’t.

Actually I think that argument has no merit. Why do you think that they have body weight classes?

The bigger man should be lifting more. And in most cases he does.

Also, a 300 pound guy with a 30 inch vertical impresses me more than a 150 pound guy with a 30 inch vertical. The 300 pound guy is twice the force on the field as the 150 pounder.

Yea, I agree. When it comes to moving pure bodyweight you have a point. It’s also impressive to see a 250 pound football player run a fast 40.

No argument on that one.

Did any of you pseudo-scientific dickwads that love to nitpick any weight lifting feat ever hear about the various FORMULA for comparing weight classes and lifts?

The reason for the various FORMULA is because comparison of weights lifted is not a linear pound for pound comparision. A bigger man has bigger bones, more blood/fluid and to put it more generally, more fucking stuff in his body that has nothing to do with moving a weight!

I always love these neat little bwt. to bwt. comparisons you nitwits do on this web site - at one time, so many of you are far ahead of the curve in terms of knowledge over the average gym dickhead and, at the same time, you average gym dickheads manage to write stupid shit on these pages in spite of the information on these pages on on the internet in general.

And finally, to those of us who actually lift and compete, its generally WELL ACCEPTED that, unlike the bench press and squat, weight gain generally does not result in a bigger DL. Let me quantify that furthe - lean mass gain I’d say yes, you’re getting stronger and your DL will be stronger all other things equal. But just gaining plain ol fucking mass - especially around the middle, generally doesn’t help your DL - it hinders it.

If I remember the various polls on these various pages about member’s max DL and such, more than half of you here cannot lift half of this for 3 reps. SO SHUT THE FUCK UP.

[/quote]

I’m on your side with the 700 at 300+ being more impressive than 500 at whatever, but the average deadlift from that poll was 447. Here’s a spreadsheet. Also 2.2x bodyweight, but who cares.

DeadliftBW DL/BW
435 205
407 220
515 235
585 195
585 305
455 205
425 175
485 165
410 170
400 185
485 270
375 170
375 215
310 150
350 160
440 180
425 205
530 162
500 198
477 178
425 198
425 275
365 165
470 195
540 200
11194 4981
447.76 199.24 2.247339892

The formula’s for comparing across weight classes are flawed because they are based on actual totals of elite lifters in the category. For example, because Ed Coan was so far ahead at 220, the formula made it harder for a 220 pound guy to get a high score.

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Did any of you pseudo-scientific dickwads that love to nitpick any weight lifting feat ever hear about the various FORMULA for comparing weight classes and lifts?

The reason for the various FORMULA is because comparison of weights lifted is not a linear pound for pound comparision. A bigger man has bigger bones, more blood/fluid and to put it more generally, more fucking stuff in his body that has nothing to do with moving a weight!

I always love these neat little bwt. to bwt. comparisons you nitwits do on this web site - at one time, so many of you are far ahead of the curve in terms of knowledge over the average gym dickhead and, at the same time, you average gym dickheads manage to write stupid shit on these pages in spite of the information on these pages on on the internet in general.

And finally, to those of us who actually lift and compete, its generally WELL ACCEPTED that, unlike the bench press and squat, weight gain generally does not result in a bigger DL. Let me quantify that furthe - lean mass gain I’d say yes, you’re getting stronger and your DL will be stronger all other things equal. But just gaining plain ol fucking mass - especially around the middle, generally doesn’t help your DL - it hinders it.

If I remember the various polls on these various pages about member’s max DL and such, more than half of you here cannot lift half of this for 3 reps. SO SHUT THE FUCK UP.

[/quote]

And if you could read better you would see that we are all supporting the 700 pound at 300+ over the 500 at 190. I said that weight is a tool for this guy because it helps him on the field. His job is to place a large mass (him) in a spot with a certain speed. I meant that he could drop 40 pounds and not lose any (or even gain some) to his deadlift.

Anyone who thinks that bodyweight is not important relative to your Deadlifting max is simply wrong. Otherwise, why not eliminate weight classes?

The bigger you are the more weight you should be able to lift. However, pound for pound totals are still very impressive!

What a foolish thing to suggest that bodyweight is not paramount.

Louie Simmons seems to agree that pound for pound totals are important.

Westside women have proven to be stronger as a group than those from any other gym. Six women have squatted or deadlifted more than 500 pounds. Mariah Liggett, the first woman at Westside, set many world records and won more world championships than any other woman. Other notable women from Westside are Doris Simmons, Laura Dodd, Sue Meany, Deb Sorenson, and Terry Byland. But only one has managed to become the strongest pound-for-pound woman to date - Amy Weisberger.

(Someone better dash off a nasty letter to Louie Simmons and try to straighten him out so that he never mentions “pound for pound” totals. LOL).

Both Carrie Boudreau and Vanessa Gibson have totaled 1151 at 123 pounds. These totals are the only ones by females that surpass a male USPF Elite total. But on February 20,2000, also lifting in the 123s, Amy made a 450 squat, a 280 bench, and a 450 deadlift to total 1180, a world record. Amazingly, six days later she benched 286 and 292 for two more world records. This reflects the fact that Amy is not only very strong but also very fit.
How did Amy total 34 pounds over a male Elite? She uses a scientific approach to lifting. For squatting she employs box squats with Flex bands, which provide overspeed eccentrics and progressive concentrics. This increases not only the squat but also the deadlift.
The box squats are done with short rest periods between sets (45 seconds works best), Six sets are done when bands are being used. Eight sets are done when just bar weight is used. During Amy?s mini-cycle, the weights ranged from 205 to 245, plus 40 extra pounds of tension at the bottom and 75 pounds of tension at the top with the bands. This loading was for 4 weeks. The last 2 weeks was a de-loading phase: the bands remained the same, but the bar weight was reduced to ensure quickness.
Special work played a great role in Amy?s squat. She does sets on the Reverse Hyper machine 4 times a week, 2 heavy and 2 light. She also does sled work, lots of abs, pull-throughs, and glute/ham raises. No more than three exercises are performed in one workout.
At Amy?s level of preparedness, she must switch core exercises each week on max effort day. She does a variety of good mornings - bent back, arched back, combo squat/good morning, straight leg, and thigh-supported (Paul Anderson style) - to really isolate the erectors. Only one of these is done per workout. Amy will alternate a good morning one week with a squat the next week. The squat exercises that she prefers are Safety Squat bar, front squat, Manta Ray, and belt squat. Sometimes she will add chains or bands. This prevents the body from adapting to an exercise by changing the rate of resistance. By squatting with bands, she has increased her deadlift considerably, through leg drive. (Amy deadlifts only once between meets, and she competes twice a year.)
After the core exercise on max effort day, she will repeat the same special work that she did on speed day, 72 hours previously. She will then pick two or three special exercises for glutes, hamstrings, erectors, and lats, but never in the same sequence as on speed day.
For the bench press, Amy does speed work on Sunday using 8 triples with 50% of her contest best. Flex bands that contribute about 25 pounds of tension at chest level and 70 pounds at the top are used in 4-week waves. Then she switches to chains for 3 or 4 weeks. Chains are always used before a meet to eliminate the added eccentric work from the bands. After benching, Amy hits triceps very hard, training them longer than the speed benching (about 20 minutes). Lats are next, and delt raises are last. About 20 lifts out of 200 (about 10%) on the bench are done with a slightly heavier weight to check bar speed.
On the max effort day for the bench, Amy chooses from a wide variety of special exercises. Her favorites are board press, floor press, incline and decline press with the bar or dumbbells, overhead band press, and carpet press (like board press but with a roll of carpet instead of the boards). After the max effort core exercise she does triceps, lats, and delts.
For GPP work, Amy will do a few extra workouts a week with sled dragging to raise her level of physical preparedness.
As you can see, men and women train the same at Westside. There is a test we all must pass: it?s the test of time, and Amy certainly has passed that test as no woman has before.

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
TheBodyGuard wrote:
Did any of you pseudo-scientific dickwads that love to nitpick any weight lifting feat ever hear about the various FORMULA for comparing weight classes and lifts?

The reason for the various FORMULA is because comparison of weights lifted is not a linear pound for pound comparision. A bigger man has bigger bones, more blood/fluid and to put it more generally, more fucking stuff in his body that has nothing to do with moving a weight!

I always love these neat little bwt. to bwt. comparisons you nitwits do on this web site - at one time, so many of you are far ahead of the curve in terms of knowledge over the average gym dickhead and, at the same time, you average gym dickheads manage to write stupid shit on these pages in spite of the information on these pages on on the internet in general.

And finally, to those of us who actually lift and compete, its generally WELL ACCEPTED that, unlike the bench press and squat, weight gain generally does not result in a bigger DL. Let me quantify that furthe - lean mass gain I’d say yes, you’re getting stronger and your DL will be stronger all other things equal. But just gaining plain ol fucking mass - especially around the middle, generally doesn’t help your DL - it hinders it.

If I remember the various polls on these various pages about member’s max DL and such, more than half of you here cannot lift half of this for 3 reps. SO SHUT THE FUCK UP.

And if you could read better you would see that we are all supporting the 700 pound at 300+ over the 500 at 190. I said that weight is a tool for this guy because it helps him on the field. His job is to place a large mass (him) in a spot with a certain speed. I meant that he could drop 40 pounds and not lose any (or even gain some) to his deadlift.[/quote]

My post was NOT aimed at you. And to the remark about formula and Ed Coan - there is more than ONE formula and I didn’t intend to imply that any one formula was exact or for that matter, entirely accurate - but the existence and attempt to make a formula is a scientific acknowledgement to the fact that you cannot compare pound to pound bwt. to weight lifted in a linear fashion for the reasons I stated - more blood volume, bone mass, etc.

That was my point!

And if you look at DL records and the like empirically, the answer is NO, a lighter lifter lifting 3x bwt. is NOT more impressive than the big guys moving the truly big weights. The occurrence of smaller guys lifting 3x bwt. is absolutely without a doubt more frequent that the larger guys. Now this raises some interesting questions about added mass and perhaps a law of dimishing returns - but the debate to begin with is superfluous - we have weight classes for a reason - to compare apples to apples; we have formula and attempts to define “best lifter” because of disparity of weight between two lifters…because of the acknowledgement that a formula is necessary to compare the lifting of two disparate lifters, any attempt to compare the weight on the basis as a factor of one’s mass is meaningless - except if you were doing so on the comparison of two lifters who weighed the same! Case closed.

[quote]SWR-1222D wrote:
AgentOrange wrote:
koreansuperman wrote:
What’s more impressive…someone who weighs 318 and deadlifts 700 or someone who weighs 175lb and deadlifts 500lb? I always found people who “looked” weaker and lifted heavy to be more impressive than guys who weigh 250+ who lift a lot more weight. But that’s just my opinion.

Then you should pretty much jizz your pants looking at this picture.

I’m pretty sure the Rhino Beetle is the strongest liveing creature, pound for pound.

And it weighs more than any ant![/quote]

Of course the rhino beetle can lift tons of weight, because it’s heavier. If it cut some weight, it could be oly lifting 1000x bodyweight instead of just 850x.