T Nation

PL Lifter Classification

I don’t plan to compete in PL anytime soon, but as a way to gauge my strength relative to other strong people, I looked up lifter’s classifications in PL that test for AAS. The info below is for 165lb weight class. Why are the “benchmarks” so different between different between federations?

I can understand why 100%Raw numbers are lower (they don’t allow any gear other than a belt), but why such difference between others? Also, is there a rule of thumb as to how to adjust geared benchmarks to non-geared benchmarks?

Class IV

712 100%Raw
768 AAPF
838 USAPL
970 NASA

Class III

820 100%Raw
896 AAPF
965 USAPL
1075 NASA

It’s strange that the AAPF is much lower than the USAPL…

Well not “strange” in that the AAPF has better lifters, but since it’s multiply you’d expect higher.

it does not exist a classification inter-federation.

This one you post is made by the (not ufficial and not so competent) opinion of someone.
Just think of that: the majority of the federation above (with all the respect) dont squat, but make a different half bending exercise that they call squat. How can you make a classification?

Skor, trying to compare lifts across federations is futile. There are so many differences among the types of gear allowed, how that gear can be worn, squat depth, bench pauses, judging, etc. even the quality of drug testing varies from fed to fed, which is why the classification standards differ. If you want to compare you’re strength just pick one fed and compare yourself to that one.

[quote]robo1 wrote:
Skor, trying to compare lifts across federations is futile. There are so many differences among the types of gear allowed, how that gear can be worn, squat depth, bench pauses, judging, etc. even the quality of drug testing varies from fed to fed, which is why the classification standards differ. If you want to compare you’re strength just pick one fed and compare yourself to that one.

[/quote]

He hit it on the nose with this one. I would suggest to make it more precise, pick a fed that competes in the same manner as you train. i.e. you train RAW, pick a raw fed. you use single ply gear, USAPL. You use one of those suits that can double as a bulletproof vest, WPO.

And i see the best way to compare yourself is to actually get out and see how you match up 1st hand by competing. I know you said you didnt want to, but hey, its a trophy on the shelf and you can know for sure what you are dealing with.

[quote]Pipes06 wrote:
robo1 wrote:
Skor, trying to compare lifts across federations is futile. There are so many differences among the types of gear allowed, how that gear can be worn, squat depth, bench pauses, judging, etc. even the quality of drug testing varies from fed to fed, which is why the classification standards differ. If you want to compare you’re strength just pick one fed and compare yourself to that one.

He hit it on the nose with this one. I would suggest to make it more precise, pick a fed that competes in the same manner as you train. i.e. you train RAW, pick a raw fed. you use single ply gear, USAPL. You use one of those suits that can double as a bulletproof vest, WPO.

And i see the best way to compare yourself is to actually get out and see how you match up 1st hand by competing. I know you said you didnt want to, but hey, its a trophy on the shelf and you can know for sure what you are dealing with. [/quote]

I don’t see use in picking one federations and following it since I’m just looking for “benchmarks” of strength. I don’t use any gear at all (not even a belt) and the only federation that matches that is 100%Raw. But a total of 712 at 165 lb is easily attainable (225/185/305) and is nothing to write home about (for me).

I might compete if/when my raw total goes over 1000. At this point, I aim for 970lb raw total as a long-term goal (315/250/405).

If you don’t compete you don’t have a “total.” It’s all theoretical until you get in competition. You can’t count on being able to hit gym numbers in a meet. Could be less or much more.

No need or point in waiting until you think you can hit certain numbers. Jump in and get your feet wet in a real meet. People are supportive no matter what weight you lift if you have a good attitude when you’re competing. Plus you’ll get suggestions that will accelerate your training.

The comment I would make is the more relevant information is what are the qualifying totals for your age group and what is it taking to place at National meets (1st-5th) in said category. That is what we measure our lifters against, in relative terms.

Like Jim said, if you haven’t done a meet you don’t have a total so it makes no sense to even compare because those numbers were achieved on the platform, not “well shit, I could do that.”

I understand that if one doesn’t compete, there is not “total” to make any claims. I don’t plan on competing any time soon, so I don’t expect gym lifts (and I rarely do singles, mostly 3-5RM) to transfer to lifts at the meet. Still, these numbers let me set (higher) goals for myself and progressively achieve them.

I also wonder how federations come up with them.

AFAIK they’re historically based on past results.

Hence the reason more and more people are becoming “elite” these days. THe totals that were set say 5-10 years ago when the gear wasnt as extreme and now that people are getting greater carryover more and more people are hitting the required totals.

As an aside, I THINK the bodyweight co-efficent scores (Wilks, Schwartz-Malone etc) are based on a similar system. And I remember someone saying that the reason it’s hard to get a good middleweight score in the IPF/USPF is because Eddy Coan screwed it up for everyone by being such an unnatural freak. Don’t know how true it is, could be urban legend, but I like to believe it’s true!