Does anyone know if there is an consensus as to what qualifies as an Elite total for a raw lifter these days? I am a raw lifter and would like to nail down what goals I should be shooting for.
Here are a couple:
100% RAW
Click on “Athletes” and then “class standards” (or something like that).
http://www.rawpowerlifting.com/
Raw Unity Meet
http://www.rawunitymeet.com/Classifications.html
Both of these are without knee wraps I believe. The RUM ones are much higher. This explains Eric’s thinking behind the higher values:
[quote]
Disclaimer: The original classifications used today in regular powerlifting (single ply equipment, wraps, belt) were created in the early 1970’s and based with out the use of suits and shirts. Other countries have evolved their own classifications to reflect todayâ??s sophisticated equipment. The USA still currently uses those that reflect the 1970’s. This chart best reflects what a raw lifter is capable of with out knee wraps. This brings the word Elite back into prestige as there should not be too many lifters that are capable of this
level. Those that do reach the level of “Elite” are generally the best in their country physically, and have the ability (with proper education of equipment) to become champion regardless of equipment used. Those who reach the “Master” level are nationally ranked athletes who can place well (with proper education of equipment) at any national event regardless of equipment used.[/quote]
The 100% Raw standards are way too low. I agree with Eric Talmant’s reasoning. At 242, the 1607 total required by 100% Raw is nowhere near what I would consider elite. The 1857 total that Raw Unity requires is more like it. That would put a person in the top 1% of competitors.
[quote]skizac wrote:
The 100% Raw standards are way too low. I agree with Eric Talmant’s reasoning. At 242, the 1607 total required by 100% Raw is nowhere near what I would consider elite. The 1857 total that Raw Unity requires is more like it. That would put a person in the top 1% of competitors.[/quote]
So you think 1857 is more like it? Hmmm. Let’s do some simple math on that. Assuming a modest 450 BP, that leaves a 700 squat and deadlift. Now, I know these numbers don’t quite impress anyone anymore, what with all the 500lb benchers around nowadays (the ones that can’t really bench 350 raw but that’s another debate) but I’d venture to say that those numbers are a bit high.
Of course, I have some qualifying questions too; are we talking drug tested? The higher table implies “single ply” equipment although I’m not sure what he intended to say as its a bit awkward as stated.
To OP, I don’t know if you’re going to get a satisfactory answer. I’ve been wanting to know the same thing for many years now and I cannot give you a number. There are too many variables: what constitutes raw? drug tested? fed? To the extent such a number exists, it will differ among federations.
I just looked at the first group of numbers and personally feel they are more representative of “elite”. I think as powerlifters we’re a little too influenced by all the geared and untested numbers floating around. We are constantly bombarded with geared numbers much moreso than raw numbers that I think our sense of proportion is way off. Those lowers numbers a VERY respectable RAW and drug tested.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
skizac wrote:
The 100% Raw standards are way too low. I agree with Eric Talmant’s reasoning. At 242, the 1607 total required by 100% Raw is nowhere near what I would consider elite. The 1857 total that Raw Unity requires is more like it. That would put a person in the top 1% of competitors.
So you think 1857 is more like it? Hmmm. Let’s do some simple math on that. Assuming a modest 450 BP, that leaves a 700 squat and deadlift. Now, I know these numbers don’t quite impress anyone anymore, what with all the 500lb benchers around nowadays (the ones that can’t really bench 350 raw but that’s another debate) but I’d venture to say that those numbers are a bit high.
Of course, I have some qualifying questions too; are we talking drug tested? The higher table implies “single ply” equipment although I’m not sure what he intended to say as its a bit awkward as stated.
To OP, I don’t know if you’re going to get a satisfactory answer. I’ve been wanting to know the same thing for many years now and I cannot give you a number. There are too many variables: what constitutes raw? drug tested? fed? To the extent such a number exists, it will differ among federations.
[/quote]
The first set of numbers are for lifetime drug free athletes. The second set are for untested athletes.
[quote]skizac wrote:
The 100% Raw standards are way too low. I agree with Eric Talmant’s reasoning. At 242, the 1607 total required by 100% Raw is nowhere near what I would consider elite. The 1857 total that Raw Unity requires is more like it. That would put a person in the top 1% of competitors.[/quote]
www.powerliftingwatch.com/power-rankings/unequipped-world
That is the current list of the top 50 raw power lifters in the WORLD in any federation this year. I checked and only about half of them even qualify as “elite” according to Raw unity standards.
If you can achieve 100% Raw elite standard you are probably one of the top ranked raw power lifters in the country possibly even the world.
If you can achieve Raw Unity elite standards you are pretty much pound for pound the strongest competitive raw power lifter on the face of the earth.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Of course, I have some qualifying questions too; are we talking drug tested? The higher table implies “single ply” equipment although I’m not sure what he intended to say as its a bit awkward as stated.
[/quote]
The Raw Unity Meet numbers are raw, including no knee wraps, but untested.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
So you think 1857 is more like it? Hmmm. Let’s do some simple math on that. Assuming a modest 450 BP, that leaves a 700 squat and deadlift. Now, I know these numbers don’t quite impress anyone anymore, what with all the 500lb benchers around nowadays (the ones that can’t really bench 350 raw but that’s another debate) but I’d venture to say that those numbers are a bit high.
[/quote]
They’re supposed to be high. That’s what elite means. The term has been watered down to the point that everybody expects to be able to call themselves elite. A 1607 raw total at 242 is achievable by just about anybody with dedication. That doesn’t mean “elite” to me. A performance of 700/457/700 does. Just so we’re totally clear, I’m talking about raw lifting: no suits, no shirts, no knee wraps.
Elite is SUPPOSED to be impossible to reach by a majority of lifters. But the better question is why worry about a label and not a total. Once I stop trying to improve my total, I may as well stop lifting. And for the record, I agree with Eric T’s standard for Raw Unity.
i generally dont understand the disclaimer on the RAW Unity standards.
“The original classifications used today in regular powerlifting (single ply equipment, wraps, belt) were created in the early 1970’s and based with out the use of suits and shirts.”
I don’t understand why a lifter of today, that does not use suits and shirts, would not use the same standards that were used amongst the lifters of the 70’s who also did not use suits and shirts. Other than more shit put into our food, that’s probably actually making us weaker, what has changed that the guys today that only lift in a belt and singlet would not compare themselves to the guys of the 70’s that only lifted in a belt and singlet? I’m confused.
Where would a lifetime drug-free guy that lifts in just a belt and singlet (and knee SLEEVES and wrist wraps for that matter), go to compare his numbers?
[quote]dez6485 wrote:
i generally dont understand the disclaimer on the RAW Unity standards.
“The original classifications used today in regular powerlifting (single ply equipment, wraps, belt) were created in the early 1970’s and based with out the use of suits and shirts.”
I don’t understand why a lifter of today, that does not use suits and shirts, would not use the same standards that were used amongst the lifters of the 70’s who also did not use suits and shirts. Other than more shit put into our food, that’s probably actually making us weaker, what has changed that the guys today that only lift in a belt and singlet would not compare themselves to the guys of the 70’s that only lifted in a belt and singlet? I’m confused.
Where would a lifetime drug-free guy that lifts in just a belt and singlet (and knee SLEEVES and wrist wraps for that matter), go to compare his numbers?[/quote]
That’s a good question as far as who to compare one’s numbers with. But, as far as knowing someone is lifetime drug-free is all about integrity. It really depends on what you are chasing, if anything. Would you like to be top 3 or top 10 on a state, regional, national, world level? Look at the top dogs in different fed’s that are number1 in their state, pick several states. Look at national champions.
As for equipment, I think Raw United, USAPL, and 100% Raw are the only fed’s that do knee sleeves, but I am often wrong. But, 100% Raw is a no wrist wrap fed.
[quote]skizac wrote:
TheBodyGuard wrote:
So you think 1857 is more like it? Hmmm. Let’s do some simple math on that. Assuming a modest 450 BP, that leaves a 700 squat and deadlift. Now, I know these numbers don’t quite impress anyone anymore, what with all the 500lb benchers around nowadays (the ones that can’t really bench 350 raw but that’s another debate) but I’d venture to say that those numbers are a bit high.
They’re supposed to be high. That’s what elite means. The term has been watered down to the point that everybody expects to be able to call themselves elite. A 1607 raw total at 242 is achievable by just about anybody with dedication. That doesn’t mean “elite” to me. A performance of 700/457/700 does. Just so we’re totally clear, I’m talking about raw lifting: no suits, no shirts, no knee wraps.[/quote]
I think your sense of proportion is way way way off. First of all a 700lb pull is a big pull and not many have eclipsed it at 242 whether gearedand untested or not. Next, how many raw legal 700lb squats have you seen at 242? Go to plusa top lifts at that weight and see if you can support your case. I doubt it. And I’d wager all the top 50 lifts are geared and a majority untested. Gear and drugs have so perverted powerlifting that you could actually feign a sneeze at a 1600 raw total. I’m not looking for a gear or drug debate but I stronly disagree with you. There’s a legion of 800lb squatters or better that can’t manage a 700 raw squat and don’t even get me started on the bench press!
[quote]undesired08 wrote:
dez6485 wrote:
i generally dont understand the disclaimer on the RAW Unity standards.
“The original classifications used today in regular powerlifting (single ply equipment, wraps, belt) were created in the early 1970’s and based with out the use of suits and shirts.”
I don’t understand why a lifter of today, that does not use suits and shirts, would not use the same standards that were used amongst the lifters of the 70’s who also did not use suits and shirts. Other than more shit put into our food, that’s probably actually making us weaker, what has changed that the guys today that only lift in a belt and singlet would not compare themselves to the guys of the 70’s that only lifted in a belt and singlet? I’m confused.
Where would a lifetime drug-free guy that lifts in just a belt and singlet (and knee SLEEVES and wrist wraps for that matter), go to compare his numbers?
That’s a good question as far as who to compare one’s numbers with. But, as far as knowing someone is lifetime drug-free is all about integrity. It really depends on what you are chasing, if anything. Would you like to be top 3 or top 10 on a state, regional, national, world level? Look at the top dogs in different fed’s that are number1 in their state, pick several states. Look at national champions.
As for equipment, I think Raw United, USAPL, and 100% Raw are the only fed’s that do knee sleeves, but I am often wrong. But, 100% Raw is a no wrist wrap fed. [/quote]
why no wrist wraps? i do mean wraps, not straps. i thought they were legal as long as you pulled the thumb loop?
sorry, i read your post wrong. i thought you were saying to be considered 100% Raw would mean no wrist wraps, now i see that you’re referring to a fed called 100% Raw, which im not familiar with. I haven’t looked recently, but USAPL seemed to be what appealed to me when i compared different raw feds. plus in looking at upcoming events, it seemed as though they had something near me every few months or so.
but as far as i remember, USAPL would allow my belt, the APT knee sleeves i have, and APT 24" wrist wraps, so that’s my idea of raw. of course, as far as the drugs go, i can only really know that i am drug-free, and without knowing one way or the other, i would have to assume other lifters that hold records and such as raw and drug free would be just that, so that would be what i would be interested in comparing to. Whenever i do finally reach an elite, Raw total, i certainly wont just stop there, id continue pushing myself as long as my body would allow, but at the same time, when i reach that status id definitely like to know it.
[quote]dez6485 wrote:
sorry, i read your post wrong. i thought you were saying to be considered 100% Raw would mean no wrist wraps, now i see that you’re referring to a fed called 100% Raw, which im not familiar with. I haven’t looked recently, but USAPL seemed to be what appealed to me when i compared different raw feds. plus in looking at upcoming events, it seemed as though they had something near me every few months or so.
but as far as i remember, USAPL would allow my belt, the APT knee sleeves i have, and APT 24" wrist wraps, so that’s my idea of raw. of course, as far as the drugs go, i can only really know that i am drug-free, and without knowing one way or the other, i would have to assume other lifters that hold records and such as raw and drug free would be just that, so that would be what i would be interested in comparing to. Whenever i do finally reach an elite, Raw total, i certainly wont just stop there, id continue pushing myself as long as my body would allow, but at the same time, when i reach that status id definitely like to know it. [/quote]
When you do, you will have too many people asking about your training and asking if you juiced to think about it 
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I think your sense of proportion is way way way off. First of all a 700lb pull is a big pull and not many have eclipsed it at 242 whether gearedand untested or not. Next, how many raw legal 700lb squats have you seen at 242? Go to plusa top lifts at that weight and see if you can support your case. I doubt it. And I’d wager all the top 50 lifts are geared and a majority untested. Gear and drugs have so perverted powerlifting that you could actually feign a sneeze at a 1600 raw total. I’m not looking for a gear or drug debate but I stronly disagree with you. There’s a legion of 800lb squatters or better that can’t manage a 700 raw squat and don’t even get me started on the bench press! [/quote]
I think your sense of what the human body is capable of is off. I put together a 1745 total at 242 without even training specifically for powerlifting or going through a peaking cycle, and I don’t consider myself particularly gifted compared to what I’ve seen others do. 1607 feels like a joke, while 1857 seems entirely within my reach.
I think the reason you’re not seeing many 700 lb. raw squats and deadlifts is because most powerlifters don’t compete raw.
[quote]dez6485 wrote:
I don’t understand why a lifter of today, that does not use suits and shirts, would not use the same standards that were used amongst the lifters of the 70’s who also did not use suits and shirts. Other than more shit put into our food, that’s probably actually making us weaker, what has changed that the guys today that only lift in a belt and singlet would not compare themselves to the guys of the 70’s that only lifted in a belt and singlet? I’m confused.
[/quote]
Training methodologies, supplementation, and knowledge have all advanced. There was no conjugate method, no creatine, no peri-workout nutritional theory, no bands, etc. in the 70s. Those sorts of things make a big difference in what a lifter is capable of.
[quote]
TheBodyGuard wrote:
I think your sense of proportion is way way way off. First of all a 700lb pull is a big pull and not many have eclipsed it at 242 whether gearedand untested or not. Next, how many raw legal 700lb squats have you seen at 242? Go to plusa top lifts at that weight and see if you can support your case. I doubt it. And I’d wager all the top 50 lifts are geared and a majority untested. Gear and drugs have so perverted powerlifting that you could actually feign a sneeze at a 1600 raw total. I’m not looking for a gear or drug debate but I stronly disagree with you. There’s a legion of 800lb squatters or better that can’t manage a 700 raw squat and don’t even get me started on the bench press!
skizac wrote:
I think your sense of what the human body is capable of is off. I put together a 1745 total at 242 without even training specifically for powerlifting or going through a peaking cycle, and I don’t consider myself particularly gifted compared to what I’ve seen others do. 1607 feels like a joke, while 1857 seems entirely within my reach.
I think the reason you’re not seeing many 700 lb. raw squats and deadlifts is because most powerlifters don’t compete raw.[/quote]
I’m in agreement with skizac. The point of the high standards is to limit the number of people that hit Elite to ONLY a handful each year. For example, take a look at the WPC Worlds recently in Russia, there were some insane totals (granted I don’t know if knee wraps were allowed or not).
Also, the RUM chart is for untested, so tested would be something lower.
Myself, I fit in the RUM chart right were I should,… near the bottom.
My last post hasn’t shown up yet, but just to clarify the WPC Worlds did not use knee wraps.
Here’s a few videos. The WPC is untested (AWPC is the tested counterpart). Watch Willy Albert’s video, he’s a 182lbs lifter, he did total Elite here according to the RUM classification, and it was only good enough for second.