# Front Loaded Squats



## Stretch (Nov 2, 2005)

I'm kinda new to these, and I love 'em.  I never see many people in the gym do squats this way.  Not many people in my gym do squats anyway, it's mostly college guys doing curls-for-girls.  But is there a reason why they are not more popular?


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Nov 2, 2005)

they're scared...


----------



## Tough Old Man (Nov 2, 2005)

Stretch said:
			
		

> I'm kinda new to these, and I love 'em. I never see many people in the gym do squats this way. Not many people in my gym do squats anyway, it's mostly college guys doing curls-for-girls. But is there a reason why they are not more popular?


I don't think there necessary. If you use these three I think you'll achieve the quads your looking for. 

1) Squats
2) Leg Presses
3) Hack Squats.

There's so many others that front just doesn't take space in my log book


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Nov 2, 2005)

Tough Old Man said:
			
		

> I don't think there necessary.


i disagree.


----------



## BigDyl (Nov 2, 2005)

The13ig13adWolf said:
			
		

> i disagree.




I agree.


----------



## cider303 (Nov 2, 2005)

everytime i do hack squats i end up on my ass


----------



## ihateschoolmt (Nov 2, 2005)

Tough Old Man said:
			
		

> I don't think there necessary. If you use these three I think you'll achieve the quads your looking for.
> 
> 1) Squats
> 2) Leg Presses
> ...


Front squats>leg press and hack squats.


----------



## swordfish (Nov 2, 2005)

ihateschoolmt said:
			
		

> Front squats>leg press and hack squats.





Agreed.   and   ATG back squats> front squats  and 

ATG back squats= king of all exercises.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Nov 2, 2005)

swordfish said:
			
		

> Agreed.   and   ATG back squats> front squats  and
> 
> ATG back squats= king of all exercises.


 I disagree. ATG front squats > ATG back squats, such that ATG front squats are king of all exercises.

 I've always felt like I've had a better workout with front squats (no, not the 'pump') and I also added over 20 pounds to my ATG back squat doing front squats exclusively for about six-eight weeks.

 It's so much harder to hold the bar in front of you than to just rest it on your back - your wrists are strengthened and your back is used a ton more. It also absolutely forces you to have a perfect posture whereas with back squats you can be a little lazy if you're not careful.


----------



## swordfish (Nov 2, 2005)

Squaggleboggin said:
			
		

> I disagree. ATG front squats > ATG back squats, such that ATG front squats are king of all exercises.
> 
> I've always felt like I've had a better workout with front squats (no, not the 'pump') and I also added over 20 pounds to my ATG back squat doing front squats exclusively for about six-eight weeks.
> 
> It's so much harder to hold the bar in front of you than to just rest it on your back - your wrists are strengthened and your back is used a ton more. It also absolutely forces you to have a perfect posture whereas with back squats you can be a little lazy if you're not careful.




You can use more weight and the load is shifted from quads to more hams and glutes+ lower back, thus making the ATG back squat- king of all leg exercises. I think that front squats are GREAT, but back squats are that much better, especially when you get the form down and go deep. I'll bet you money that someone that can ATG back squat- 400x10 has bigger legs than someone that can do a front squat of 300x10 simply because the back squats require a little bit more of hams and glutes.


----------



## ihateschoolmt (Nov 2, 2005)

Front squats work your whole body better. Back squats work your legs better.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Nov 2, 2005)

swordfish said:
			
		

> You can use more weight and the load is shifted from quads to more hams and glutes+ lower back, thus making the ATG back squat- king of all leg exercises. I think that front squats are GREAT, but back squats are that much better, especially when you get the form down and go deep. I'll bet you money that someone that can ATG back squat- 400x10 has bigger legs than someone that can do a front squat of 300x10 simply because the back squats require a little bit more of hams and glutes.


 I still disagree. The fact that you can use more weight means nothing. You can use even more weight for the leg press than for the back squat, right? So, using that logic, the leg press would be king.

 I'm not talking about size though - strictly strength. Of course, if someone can do 100 pounds more for one exercise than the other, you'd expect them ot be bigger. Use equal poundages, though, and the person who can front squat 400 is probably much stronger than the one who can back squat 400. Look at the olympic lifters. Some of them can front squat close to 1,000 and can probably do a raw back squat ATG more than just about any powerlifters. They have some real power, and it's from training the front squat.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Nov 2, 2005)

ihateschoolmt said:
			
		

> Front squats work your whole body better. Back squats work your legs better.


 A succinct and accurate summary of my thoughts that I may have failed to communicate.


----------



## P-funk (Nov 2, 2005)

front squats are the shiat!!

I rarely ever push max lifts on my back squats anymore.  I choose to do all my strength work with my front squat.


----------



## Yanick (Nov 2, 2005)

who front squats one thousand pounds?


----------



## P-funk (Nov 3, 2005)

Yanick said:
			
		

> who front squats one thousand pounds?




I was wondering the same thing.


----------



## The Monkey Man (Nov 3, 2005)

swordfish said:
			
		

> I'll bet you money that someone that can ATG back squat- 400x10 has bigger legs than someone that can do a front squat of 300x10




Hey some of that shit you are smoking must be pretty good...

Send me a sample of your crack stones -


----------



## BritChick (Nov 3, 2005)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> I agree.



Me too.


----------



## The Monkey Man (Nov 3, 2005)

BritChick said:
			
		

> Me too.


You just don't like ATG, schtick -


----------



## Nate K (Nov 3, 2005)

Front squats are the shit.  I tend to try and not worry about the weight with them and go DEEP.  I'm getting excited just typing about it.


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 3, 2005)

Squaggleboggin said:
			
		

> I still disagree. The fact that you can use more weight means nothing. You can use even more weight for the leg press than for the back squat, right? So, using that logic, the leg press would be king.



This has come up before, and you have to remember that although you move more mass with the leg press, you don't necessarily move more weight, which are two separate things.  Most leg press sleds sit on about a 45 degree angle, or even a bit less.  This means that you are really only pushing about 70% of what is actually on the sled (You have to take the cosine of 45 degrees).  You also have to consider that you are also moving your bodyweight during a squat, almost all of it.

My take on the front squat vs. back squat debate is that it is a pointless debate.  No exercise is better per se; it depends on what your goals are.  If you are a powerlifter, then back squats are king.  If you are an olympic lifter, then front squats are king.  If you are a bodybuilder, then both are useful training tools.


----------



## P-funk (Nov 3, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> This has come up before, and you have to remember that although you move more mass with the leg press, you don't necessarily move more weight, which are two separate things.  Most leg press sleds sit on about a 45 degree angle, or even a bit less.  This means that you are really only pushing about 70% of what is actually on the sled (You have to take the cosine of 45 degrees).  You also have to consider that you are also moving your bodyweight during a squat, almost all of it.




Also, just to go along with that, you would have to look at the two people squating.  Physics will play a role in how much weight (force inches) are actually being moved.  Things like femur length, torso length, ROM, where you set the bar, the distance the bar moves etc...will all play into this debate.


----------



## Tough Old Man (Nov 3, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> Also, just to go along with that, you would have to look at the two people squating. Physics will play a role in how much weight (force inches) are actually being moved. Things like femur length, torso length, ROM, where you set the bar, the distance the bar moves etc...will all play into this debate.


LOL I feel like i need to go back to school after this and re take algebra again


----------



## BigDyl (Nov 3, 2005)

BritChick said:
			
		

> Me too.



I agree with you and BigBadWolf... perhaps we should get together and discuss other things we agree on... who knows what could happen from there...


----------



## BritChick (Nov 3, 2005)

The Monkey Man said:
			
		

> You just don't like ATG, schtick -



I do both... just Smith Machine not BB - Patrick's favourite!


----------



## Stretch (Nov 3, 2005)

The13ig13adWolf said:
			
		

> they're scared...



It's cool.  That leaves the squat rack open for me.


----------



## Yanick (Nov 3, 2005)

Squaggleboggin said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about size though - strictly strength. Of course, if someone can do 100 pounds more for one exercise than the other, you'd expect them ot be bigger. Use equal poundages, though, and the person who can front squat 400 is probably much stronger than the one who can back squat 400. Look at the olympic lifters. Some of them can front squat close to 1,000 and can probably do a raw back squat ATG more than just about any powerlifters. They have some real power, and it's from training the front squat.



your forgetting one big thing though. the guy who can front squat 400 will also be able to back squat a hell of a lot more than 400 lbs. Hell i can back squat ATG, 400x2 but i doubt i would even be able to hold 400lbs in the rack position let alone front squat it!

saying that Oly lifters get all their power from front squatting is just plain ridiculous. Your assuming that every single OL'er in the world just front squats and automatically has a strong back squat, which is just plain wrong, they squat just like anybody else does.

you cannot label exercises as king just because it seems harder to you, fact of the matter is though that i would have to agree with swordfish. in the end even if you can front squat 400, you can still back squat more than 400 because it is just much easier to hold the bar on your back vs your shoulders/clavicle. So yes, back squats will put more weight on your body no matter what, but front squats have their place in training routines and certainly might be better suited for certain sports than others but in the end you want the load to be as great as possible.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Nov 3, 2005)

Yanick said:
			
		

> your forgetting one big thing though. the guy who can front squat 400 will also be able to back squat a hell of a lot more than 400 lbs. Hell i can back squat ATG, 400x2 but i doubt i would even be able to hold 400lbs in the rack position let alone front squat it!
> 
> saying that Oly lifters get all their power from front squatting is just plain ridiculous. Your assuming that every single OL'er in the world just front squats and automatically has a strong back squat, which is just plain wrong, they squat just like anybody else does.
> 
> you cannot label exercises as king just because it seems harder to you, fact of the matter is though that i would have to agree with swordfish. in the end even if you can front squat 400, you can still back squat more than 400 because it is just much easier to hold the bar on your back vs your shoulders/clavicle. So yes, back squats will put more weight on your body no matter what, but front squats have their place in training routines and certainly might be better suited for certain sports than others but in the end you want the load to be as great as possible.


 I do see where you're coming from, but, using the same facts, my logic is much different. You see, I'm interested in the exercise that will cause you to work the hardest with the least amount of weight (AKA the exercise that will build the most functional strength to me). This is why I've always stood by the DB bench being better than the BB bench for strength. Sure, you can use more weight for the BB bench, but there's a good reason why you can't use as much with the DBs - it's much more difficult to do a DB bench with the same weight as a BB bench. To me, this makes the DB bench a much more valuable exercise. Now, replace 'BB bench' with 'back squat' and 'DB bench' with 'front squat' and my same logic still applies. Just because there's actually more weight on the bar doesn't mean you actually have to work harder. Therefore, the exercise with which you can use less weight while still needing the same amount of force is the better exercise IMO. Many people disagree with this, but my reasoning is for different reasons than their reasoning usually is. Hopefully I explained my thoughts sufficiently.

 P-funk, I thought you said there were some olympic lifters who could do a front squat of close to 1,000 pounds but didn't do them anymore because after that point it didn't help them with their cleans. Maybe I just misremembered.

 Oh, and I'm quite sure that someone with a strong front squat (such as an olympic lifter) will also have a strong back squat, especially since you said that in your first paragraph, but seemed to contradict yourself in the next.


----------



## swordfish (Nov 3, 2005)

BB bench > DB bench.


----------



## P-funk (Nov 3, 2005)

Squaggleboggin said:
			
		

> P-funk, I thought you said there were some olympic lifters who could do a front squat of close to 1,000 pounds but didn't do them anymore because after that point it didn't help them with their cleans. Maybe I just misremembered.




no, I said they back squat near 1000lbs raw but have stopped since there isn't much carry over to the actual lifts like there is when you front squat.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Nov 3, 2005)

swordfish said:
			
		

> BB bench > DB bench.


 This means nothing without an explanation.

 Again, the DB bench forces you to work much harder to move the same amount of weight. How do you figure the BB bench is better for functional strength? The DB bench is much more effective because it puts you at more of a disadvantage. More weight means nothing. More stress and more work are the keys.

 I could load up 250 pounds on the BB and move it three inches. I could also load up 240 pounds and do a complete bench press rep. Using your logic, the first exercise is better because it uses more weight. Again, if someone could explain the logic behind this, that would be great.


----------



## GFR (Nov 3, 2005)

The13ig13adWolf said:
			
		

> i disagree.


  I disagree.


----------



## Stretch (Nov 3, 2005)

Squaggleboggin said:
			
		

> This means nothing without an explanation.
> I could load up 250 pounds on the BB and move it three inches. I could also load up 240 pounds and do a complete bench press rep. Using your logic, the first exercise is better because it uses more weight. Again, if someone could explain the logic behind this, that would be great.



Well, you have to consider that in each situation, you are at max effort.  Otherwise, nothing can be compared.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Nov 3, 2005)

Do you really mean to say that moving 250 pounds three inches is more effective than moving 240 pounds for the entire movement? Hopefully not.

 Assume 240 is my max, and that I can only move 250 three inches, period. I'm doing much more work moving the 240 the entire distance. The whole point of that was to make some people realize that more weight does not mean a better exercise. And, no, it wouldn't have to be maxes to have a comparison, just equal percentages of the 1RM or equal weights.


----------



## BigDyl (Nov 3, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I disagree.



I'd agree with whatever she said...


----------



## GFR (Nov 3, 2005)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> I'd agree with whatever she said...


And you still wont hit it


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 3, 2005)

Squaggleboggin said:
			
		

> Do you really mean to say that moving 250 pounds three inches is more effective than moving 240 pounds for the entire movement? Hopefully not.



Again, it all comes down to specificity.  If you are talking about increasing lockout strength on your bench press because that is your weak point, then yes, it can be more effective.




> Assume 240 is my max, and that I can only move 250 three inches, period. I'm doing much more work moving the 240 the entire distance. The whole point of that was to make some people realize that more weight does not mean a better exercise. And, no, it wouldn't have to be maxes to have a comparison, just equal percentages of the 1RM or equal weights.



I still agree that more weight doesn't necessarily make for a better exercise.  I'm sure I can move more weight on a smitch machine than comparable freeweight movements, but fuck the shit machine; it is a non-functional turd of a device and I won't be caught dead doing a single thing in one, ever.

However, I must say, people need to stop thinking about movements in terms of superiority.  Most every movement has it's place in someone's training, so long as it isn't unecessarily dangerous.


----------



## Yanick (Nov 4, 2005)

Squaggleboggin said:
			
		

> I do see where you're coming from, but, using the same facts, my logic is much different. You see, I'm interested in the exercise that will cause you to work the hardest with the least amount of weight (AKA the exercise that will build the most functional strength to me). This is why I've always stood by the DB bench being better than the BB bench for strength. Sure, you can use more weight for the BB bench, but there's a good reason why you can't use as much with the DBs - it's much more difficult to do a DB bench with the same weight as a BB bench. To me, this makes the DB bench a much more valuable exercise. Now, replace 'BB bench' with 'back squat' and 'DB bench' with 'front squat' and my same logic still applies. Just because there's actually more weight on the bar doesn't mean you actually have to work harder. Therefore, the exercise with which you can use less weight while still needing the same amount of force is the better exercise IMO. Many people disagree with this, but my reasoning is for different reasons than their reasoning usually is. Hopefully I explained my thoughts sufficiently.
> 
> P-funk, I thought you said there were some olympic lifters who could do a front squat of close to 1,000 pounds but didn't do them anymore because after that point it didn't help them with their cleans. Maybe I just misremembered.
> 
> Oh, and I'm quite sure that someone with a strong front squat (such as an olympic lifter) will also have a strong back squat, especially since you said that in your first paragraph, but seemed to contradict yourself in the next.



i see what your saying, and upon further examination i think this whole debate is pointless as there cannot be a superior exercise in those terms. Yeah if your talkinb about leg presses vs squats of whatever kind i can see someone saying squats are superior, but even then some BB'er will come on and start arguing the pro's of leg pressing. So the whole debate is pointless.

as far as the contradictory statement made, it seemed like it but the point i was trying to get across was the fact that Oly lifters, front and back squat like anybody else. In other words, lets take the 1000lb raw back squat, Pat was talking about. Say an oly lifter never back squats and gets his front squat to an astronomical figure, like say 700 or something. I doubt he would be able to back squat 1000lbs if he doesn't train the lift, however one who trains both lifts will be able to back squat significantly more than front, as an example he might put up a 600lb front squat, but the back squat can be around the 1000 range.

and lastly, i think i understand your argument now although i think the whole debate is moot, as i've stated. Basically it all comes down to the tension on your muscles as you move through your range of motion. An example being doing side laterals with straight arms, vs bent arms. Sure you can use more weight on the bent arm version, however the force that your muscles must produce to overcome the weight when it is held straight out at arms length may potentially be greater (making the resistance arm longer?). but there is no possible way to quantify which version of squats will create more tension in a specific muscle or muscles so i can't see how anyone can say one is better than the other.


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Nov 4, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I disagree.


fair enough.


----------



## The Monkey Man (Nov 4, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> They back squat near 1000lbs raw but have stopped since there isn't much carry over to the actual lifts like there is when you front squat.


 

LEARN IT...

KNOW IT...

LIVE IT!!!


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 4, 2005)

The13ig13adWolf said:
			
		

> fair enough.



Wrong.


----------



## The Monkey Man (Nov 4, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Wrong.


She means he is entitled to his opinion...

(I Hope) -


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Nov 4, 2005)

Well the only thing I care about is whether people actually understand what I'm saying now. For so long everyone just said that I was wrong and never actually looked at what I was saying.

 To me, there will always be movements superior to others because of my goals, so it really isn't a pointless argument so long as you know what goals are in mind.

 The comment about the bench press, you kind of missed the entire point, CP. It had nothing to do with the lockout portion or anything - I was just showing that more weight doesn't always mean a better exercise.


----------



## BigDyl (Nov 4, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> And you still wont hit it




c'mon man, you know i spit hot fiyah.


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 4, 2005)

The Monkey Man said:
			
		

> She means he is entitled to his opinion...
> 
> (I Hope) -



I was just being an ass.  I meant nothing by it.  Heh.


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 4, 2005)

Squaggleboggin said:
			
		

> Well the only thing I care about is whether people actually understand what I'm saying now. For so long everyone just said that I was wrong and never actually looked at what I was saying.
> 
> To me, there will always be movements superior to others because of my goals, so it really isn't a pointless argument so long as you know what goals are in mind.



That's true enough.  Some movements are superior to others depending on their goals.  

However, there are certainly tough calls.  For example, are leg presses or olympic squats better for hypertrophying the quadriceps?  You'd be hard pressed to give me a definitive answer on that one.  Everyone is going to have their own opinion based on very loosely controlled empirical evidence.  However, that is not enough for me to declare a winner.




> The comment about the bench press, you kind of missed the entire point, CP. It had nothing to do with the lockout portion or anything - I was just showing that more weight doesn't always mean a better exercise.



Fair enough; I see your point.  I was merely emphasizing the role that specificity plays in exercise selection.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Nov 4, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> That's true enough.  Some movements are superior to others depending on their goals.
> 
> However, there are certainly tough calls. For example, are leg presses or olympic squats better for hypertrophying the quadriceps? You'd be hard pressed to give me a definitive answer on that one. Everyone is going to have their own opinion based on very loosely controlled empirical evidence. However, that is not enough for me to declare a winner.
> 
> Fair enough; I see your point.  I was merely emphasizing the role that specificity plays in exercise selection.


 Yeah, there are definitely close calls. Luckily I usually have very specific goals, so the exercises I choose are perfect for what I'm aiming towards.


----------



## Mudge (Nov 4, 2005)

I dont like back squats, can't get into them. I like front squats a lot, as well as leg presses, SLDL and lunges.


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Nov 5, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> I was just being an ass.  I meant nothing by it.  Heh.


well stop it...


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Nov 5, 2005)

Mudge said:
			
		

> I dont like back squats, can't get into them. I like front squats a lot, as well as leg presses, SLDL and lunges.


you don't have to like them to do them. full back squats are necessary IMO.


----------



## The Monkey Man (Nov 5, 2005)

The13ig13adWolf said:
			
		

> you don't have to like them to do them. full back squats are necessary IMO.


 
  Full back squats would be a detriment to my current training goals!?!?


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Nov 5, 2005)

The Monkey Man said:
			
		

> Full back squats would be a detriment to my current training goals!?!?


dare i ask how so...


----------



## The Monkey Man (Nov 5, 2005)

The13ig13adWolf said:
			
		

> dare i ask how so...


Old habits die hard!


----------



## BigDyl (Nov 5, 2005)

The Monkey Man said:
			
		

> Full back squats would be a detriment to my current training goals!?!?


----------



## * Legion * (Nov 5, 2005)

There are many good points raised.  Ultimately, ladies and gentlemen, Anyone arguing about this topic is, assumedly, doing SOME sort of squat, which is GREAT, because there are too many who do NO squatting, which is terrible.  Do the squats.  Oly lifters MUST practice the front squats.  Powerlifter, do those back squats.  I, as of late, have really found my groove with the front squats, and find if strange to get the looks in the gym when I rack up big weight for front squats.  its a rush.  I feel the tightening in my core, and this is good.


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 5, 2005)

The13ig13adWolf said:
			
		

> you don't have to like them to do them. full back squats are necessary IMO.



I don't know that they're necessary so much as a good idea.  A lot of people make great progress (At least from a bodybuilding standpoint) without doing any type of squat or freeweight leg movement at all.  That isn't to say that I suggest such a thing, but any type of freeweight squat is really going to be reasonably similar.

There are really only two main differences between a front squat and an olympic squat.  One, the center of gravity is different.  Two, in a front squat more of the force from your prime movers is dissipated to the ancillary muscles (Neutralizers and fixators) because a greater amount of force is necessary in order to keep you stabilized.

The point is that the same functions are still trained: you train knee and hip extension.  You still generate an appreciable amount of force in front squats.  As long as you are progressive with loads, you should be able to induce hypertrophy and increase strength using either type of squat.

What's my point?  Both exercises kick ass!  Do them both at times, no matter what your goals are.  There is a transmutation of training effects among exercises that share similarities.  These two exercises certainly share many similarities, so there should theoretically be quite a bit of carry-over between the two.


----------



## WilliamB (Nov 5, 2005)

What exactly is a front squat?  I think I do them but I'm not sure if we are talking about the same thing.  Hold the bar in front of you at about chest height.  That really squeezes the forearms.


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Nov 6, 2005)

WilliamB said:
			
		

> What exactly is a front squat?  I think I do them but I'm not sure if we are talking about the same thing.  Hold the bar in front of you at about chest height.  That really squeezes the forearms.



http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/OlympicLifts/FrontSquat.html

http://www.exrx.net/WeightExercises/Quadriceps/BBFrontSquat.html


----------



## P-funk (Nov 6, 2005)

those aren't front squats!!!!


now this is a front squat..........


Rezezadeh with 280kg


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Nov 6, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> those aren't front squats!!!!
> 
> 
> now this is a front squat..........
> ...


DAY-UM....

that is all.


----------



## The Monkey Man (Nov 6, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> those aren't front squats!!!!
> 
> 
> now this is a front squat..........
> ...


Thass whut i'm talkin about!


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 6, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> those aren't front squats!!!!
> 
> 
> now this is a front squat..........
> ...



How can any human being do that with over 600 pounds, no sweat?  I bet he could hit like 7xx for a single.  That guy is a freak!


----------



## P-funk (Nov 6, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> How can any human being do that with over 600 pounds, no sweat?  I bet he could hit like 7xx for a single.  That guy is a freak!




the word on the street is that he hit a 270kg clean and jerk (that is 594lbs!!).  He may try and attempt it at the world championship coming up in the next few weeks.  If he does look the f^ck out!  He will once again break the world record (562.5kg) set by himself last year (I think he did that one at the olympics or he broke is previous record at the olympics with 560kg and then did the 562.5kg at the world championship).  either way, the dude is a beast!!


----------



## Mudge (Nov 6, 2005)

Thats not a knife...


----------



## * Legion * (Nov 6, 2005)

How does he do that sideways?  (That's how the video plays on my media player.)


----------



## WilliamB (Nov 6, 2005)

Mudge said:
			
		

> Thats not a knife...


]

This is a knife!


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Nov 6, 2005)

* Legion * said:
			
		

> How does he do that sideways?  (That's how the video plays on my media player.)


 You just need to work your toe grip strength. You should know something this basic by now...


----------



## * Legion * (Nov 6, 2005)

Squaggleboggin said:
			
		

> You just need to work your toe grip strength. You should know something this basic by now...




Ahem.  I'll let this one go.  Snotty.

I was making a joke because the CLIP PLAYS SIDEWAYS ON MY MEDIA PLAYER.  

"Something this basic" Indeed.


----------



## The13ig13adWolf (Nov 6, 2005)




----------



## GFR (Nov 6, 2005)




----------



## swordfish (Nov 6, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> the word on the street is that he hit a 270kg clean and jerk (that is 594lbs!!).  He may try and attempt it at the world championship coming up in the next few weeks.  If he does look the f^ck out!  He will once again break the world record (562.5kg) set by himself last year (I think he did that one at the olympics or he broke is previous record at the olympics with 560kg and then did the 562.5kg at the world championship).  either way, the dude is a beast!!




562.5kg???


----------



## ihateschoolmt (Nov 6, 2005)

swordfish said:
			
		

> 562.5kg???


 He ment pounds.


----------



## ihateschoolmt (Nov 6, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> the word on the street is that he hit a 270kg clean and jerk (that is 594lbs!!). He may try and attempt it at the world championship coming up in the next few weeks. If he does look the f^ck out! He will once again break the world record (562.5kg) set by himself last year (I think he did that one at the olympics or he broke is previous record at the olympics with 560kg and then did the 562.5kg at the world championship). either way, the dude is a beast!!


 Holy shit, a 31.5 pound difference is HUGE in one year at that level.


----------



## P-funk (Nov 6, 2005)

ihateschoolmt said:
			
		

> Holy shit, a 31.5 pound difference is HUGE in one year at that level.




no not really.  the thing you have to remeber is that he can break records on demand.  He gets paid every time he breaks a record.  So, if he keeps breaking his own record by 2.5kgs that means he is going ot make some sick bank every time he competes.  Where as, if he totally shattered it he wouldn't be making a bonus every year.  When he breaks these records it isn't like he is getting burried by the weight or it is killing him.  They look very very easy.  Everythign comes down to business.  I have a feeling he may just blow this one out and possibly retire soon.  That way it will be a long long time (if ever) that someone will touch his record.  Why not go out with a bang!


----------



## ihateschoolmt (Nov 6, 2005)

P-funk said:
			
		

> no not really. the thing you have to remeber is that he can break records on demand. He gets paid every time he breaks a record. So, if he keeps breaking his own record by 2.5kgs that means he is going ot make some sick bank every time he competes. Where as, if he totally shattered it he wouldn't be making a bonus every year. When he breaks these records it isn't like he is getting burried by the weight or it is killing him. They look very very easy. Everythign comes down to business. I have a feeling he may just blow this one out and possibly retire soon. That way it will be a long long time (if ever) that someone will touch his record. Why not go out with a bang!


 I forgot about that. I was just thinking how crazy it would be if someone came in and hit a raw 746 bench right now.


----------



## GFR (Nov 6, 2005)

ihateschoolmt said:
			
		

> I forgot about that. I was just thinking how crazy it would be if someone came in and hit a raw 746 bench right now.


I'm working on it.....give me 2 years


----------



## * Legion * (Nov 6, 2005)

Right now, the hardest part about the front squatting is the pain in my wrists and forearms.  Does this eventually subside?  I try to avoid doing the crossed-arm style of front squatting, and hold the weight as if I was going to press or jerk it overhead after the squat.


----------



## Yanick (Nov 6, 2005)

* Legion * said:
			
		

> Right now, the hardest part about the front squatting is the pain in my wrists and forearms.  Does this eventually subside?  I try to avoid doing the crossed-arm style of front squatting, and hold the weight as if I was going to press or jerk it overhead after the squat.



i've found that once you get flexible enough to have your elbows pointed upward you let the weight rest more on your shoulders/clavicle instead having to hold it there with your hands. the problem i have is that the left side of my clavicle seems to come out more and when the weight gets real heavy it starts hurting that one spot like a bitch and a half.


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 6, 2005)

* Legion * said:
			
		

> Ahem.  I'll let this one go.  Snotty.
> 
> I was making a joke because the CLIP PLAYS SIDEWAYS ON MY MEDIA PLAYER.
> 
> "Something this basic" Indeed.



I think he was joking.  Maybe you were too, but it seemed less like it.  Squaggle is like me.  He seems to refuse to use emoticons, so things get misconstrued on occasion.

As an aside, I want to see someone do a C&J with 600 pounds.  If he really hit 594 in training, then maybe it's closer than we think.  Now that would be a milestone!


----------



## * Legion * (Nov 6, 2005)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> I think he was joking.  Maybe you were too, but it seemed less like it.  Squaggle is like me.  He seems to refuse to use emoticons, so things get misconstrued on occasion.
> 
> As an aside, I want to see someone do a C&J with 600 pounds.  If he really hit 594 in training, then maybe it's closer than we think.  Now that would be a milestone!




I know he was, I was too.  He cracks me up.  Actually, to see me do front squats would crack you up too.  I promise.  I have this incessant paranoia that I have plumber's crack whenever I do them.


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Nov 7, 2005)

* Legion * said:
			
		

> I have this incessant paranoia that I have plumber's crack whenever I do them.


Trust me, the rest of us have that same paranoia when you start your warm ups. We fear what we know is ever so near.


----------

