Vogelpohl 1175 lb World Record Squat

how much does he weigh? He does NOT look like he is big enough to even be capable of unracking that much. HUGE kudos.

[quote]AccipiterQ wrote:
how much does he weigh? He does NOT look like he is big enough to even be capable of unracking that much. HUGE kudos. [/quote]

He weighed in at 255, without cutting weight I imagine since he went 242 at the last meet he did and usually bloated up to fill out the 275’s in years past.

He doesn’t look big enough to unrack that weight because your computer screen is small. Having stood next to the guy, he’s fucking massive.

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Many looks high squats from the front actually break parallel when you see them from the side.
I actually was watching a big time meet from the side and compared to video from the front. The front looked 4" high on some that were below parallel.[/quote]

Not to nit pick but “breaking parallel” has nothing to do with it.
The rule book says crease of the hip bellow the top of the knee.

For most thats a bit deeper than what people say is “bellow parallel”

[quote]db2000 wrote:

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Many looks high squats from the front actually break parallel when you see them from the side.
I actually was watching a big time meet from the side and compared to video from the front. The front looked 4" high on some that were below parallel.[/quote]

Not to nit pick but “breaking parallel” has nothing to do with it.
The rule book says crease of the hip bellow the top of the knee.

For most thats a bit deeper than what people say is “bellow parallel”[/quote]

The deepest part of the crease at the hip? On a lot of big guys the bottom of the crease at the hip is much much lower than the outside where the stomach hangs over the quad.

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Many looks high squats from the front actually break parallel when you see them from the side.
I actually was watching a big time meet from the side and compared to video from the front. The front looked 4" high on some that were below parallel.[/quote]

The muscle belly on the quads probably creates the impression that it’s not parallel. That’s my guess because when i watch myself in the mirror i think i’m high all the time but people tell me i’m breaking parallel by more than enough.

that was just… amazing. I think it’s all in the background music

[quote]db2000 wrote:

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Many looks high squats from the front actually break parallel when you see them from the side.
I actually was watching a big time meet from the side and compared to video from the front. The front looked 4" high on some that were below parallel.[/quote]

Not to nit pick but “breaking parallel” has nothing to do with it.
The rule book says crease of the hip bellow the top of the knee.

For most thats a bit deeper than what people say is “bellow parallel”[/quote]
Aren’t “breaking parallel” and “crease of the hip bellow the top of the knee” the same thing?

[quote]OBoile wrote:

[quote]db2000 wrote:

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Many looks high squats from the front actually break parallel when you see them from the side.
I actually was watching a big time meet from the side and compared to video from the front. The front looked 4" high on some that were below parallel.[/quote]

Not to nit pick but “breaking parallel” has nothing to do with it.
The rule book says crease of the hip bellow the top of the knee.

For most thats a bit deeper than what people say is “bellow parallel”[/quote]
Aren’t “breaking parallel” and “crease of the hip bellow the top of the knee” the same thing?[/quote]

What does parallel mean? what is parallel to the floor? the femur? the top of the quad? the hamstring?

Dont say femur unless you have xray vision

There’s something wrong when someone sets a WR in a PL federation and people start arguing about depth.

What’s wrong with this picture, is left as an exercise for the reader.

“Breaking parallel” is a commonly used shorthand way to say the “top of the thigh at the hip joint goes lower than the top of the knee” in powerlifting circles. It’s obviously much easier to say “breaking parallel” and powerlifters know what the person is talking about without having to quote the rulebook definition every time it’s mentioned.

[quote]SRS2000 wrote:
“Breaking parallel” is a commonly used shorthand way to say the “top of the thigh at the hip joint goes lower than the top of the knee” in powerlifting circles. It’s obviously much easier to say “breaking parallel” and powerlifters know what the person is talking about without having to quote the rulebook definition every time it’s mentioned. [/quote]

Well as an IPF lifter, we just say ‘hitting depth’
Cause either you do…or you dont.

You see 100 morons on the internet saying “yeah bro, totally deep enough it was bellow parallel” when they are some how deciding what they are measuring as paralell

I am always astonished when I see these threads and people are arguing if the lifter was one inch above parallel or not. Anyone who has the balls to unrack over 1100 lbs in the squat is a Beast in my book…

…Continuw discussing the merits of breaking parallel, hitting depth, and creases in the hips…

[quote]ShadowStrong wrote:
I am always astonished when I see these threads and people are arguing if the lifter was one inch above parallel or not. Anyone who has the balls to unrack over 1100 lbs in the squat is a Beast in my book…

…Continuw discussing the merits of breaking parallel, hitting depth, and creases in the hips…[/quote]

I have no comment about the depth of the squat, just the way people describe it.

Whilst we are talking about rules, I am pretty sure you dont get bonus points, or are allowed to squat higher, just because its a heavy weight

Nor is there a 4th light for going well below the rulebook definition. Fact is, the man squatted to legal (as defined by the standard in the rulebook, and enforced by the judges) depth and did so with disgusting ease. the squat was good, give the man the credit he is due

[quote]chrisarmes wrote:
Nor is there a 4th light for going well below the rulebook definition. Fact is, the man squatted to legal (as defined by the standard in the rulebook, and enforced by the judges) depth and did so with disgusting ease. the squat was good, give the man the credit he is due[/quote]

I never said he didn’t. He was awarded enough whites to get the squat counted. I never said he didn’t.

I am just sick of people saying “bellow parallel” when 90% of people have no idea what the rule book states.

I still state that the way “bellow parallel” is used by most people is wrong

[quote]db2000 wrote:

[quote]chrisarmes wrote:
Nor is there a 4th light for going well below the rulebook definition. Fact is, the man squatted to legal (as defined by the standard in the rulebook, and enforced by the judges) depth and did so with disgusting ease. the squat was good, give the man the credit he is due[/quote]

I never said he didn’t. He was awarded enough whites to get the squat counted. I never said he didn’t.

I am just sick of people saying “bellow parallel” when 90% of people have no idea what the rule book states.

I still state that the way “bellow parallel” is used by most people is wrong

[/quote]

Then start your own thread and stop trolling in this one.

[quote]chrisarmes wrote:
Nor is there a 4th light for going well below the rulebook definition. Fact is, the man squatted to legal (as defined by the standard in the rulebook, and enforced by the judges) depth and did so with disgusting ease. the squat was good, give the man the credit he is due[/quote]

I got to watch it happen, and its even better to see in person.

I’d like to see anyone criticizing his depth get CLOSE to parallel with 1175 on their back.

everyone’s a judge from the keyboard.

Difference is I was a judge in the ADFPA, now the USAPL. the canvas suits allowed in other federations make it impossible in most cases to judge depth from the front. You just can’t do it. From the side is different.

I’ve attended the WPO finals in Columbus as part of the medical staff for five years straight. I was at the side with a perfect view of the lifters in the squat. Many guys were hitting below parallel according to the rules. Many looked high from the front on a different view.

[quote]db2000 wrote:

[quote]SRS2000 wrote:
“Breaking parallel” is a commonly used shorthand way to say the “top of the thigh at the hip joint goes lower than the top of the knee” in powerlifting circles. It’s obviously much easier to say “breaking parallel” and powerlifters know what the person is talking about without having to quote the rulebook definition every time it’s mentioned. [/quote]

Well as an IPF lifter, we just say ‘hitting depth’
Cause either you do…or you dont.

You see 100 morons on the internet saying “yeah bro, totally deep enough it was bellow parallel” when they are some how deciding what they are measuring as paralell[/quote]
I’m an IPF lifter and I say “breaking parallel”.

Anyhow, back on topic… I KNOW I could break parallel with 1175 on my back. Coming back up afterwards (even after the weight is lifted off my crushed body) would be another story. That is a very impressive feat of strength.

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Difference is I was a judge in the ADFPA, now the USAPL. the canvas suits allowed in other federations make it impossible in most cases to judge depth from the front. You just can’t do it. From the side is different.

I’ve attended the WPO finals in Columbus as part of the medical staff for five years straight. I was at the side with a perfect view of the lifters in the squat. Many guys were hitting below parallel according to the rules. Many looked high from the front on a different view.[/quote]]

Actually, the RULES say you can’t judge depth from the front. Feel free to look it up if you dont believe it. Hope this helps!

Jason