Squat depth

I think depth > weight, from a general strength and athletic stand point.  

I think Gene Flynn said this (paraphrasing) in his log a few years back (and yes, Craig,I could go back and look but I'm lazy): 

Duncan McCallum wrote:   I totally broke 90. Haters.

To be fair, he is dealing with nagging stuff. He is a usually in the below parallel club.

Assuming we're talking about the same guy.

That's interesting . I love SSB squats but I've always found that my max back squat is significantly more than my SSB due to the upright posture the specialty bar demands. He says in that article that you should be able to handle. upwards of 130% of your max back squat with the SSB bar. Maybe I'm doing them wrong?

That was a good read Dan.  Thanks!

I think Sean would agree that these are much easier than back squats.  Also, lol at whoever gave this video a thumbs down.

Jake, that's a strawman.  No one is talking about speed.  I would find it shocking that a legit 500# squatter couldn't move 225 with a lot of speed.

rob meulenberg wrote: Jon, I think he is probably talking about the way SSB squats were originally meant to be done.  That is holding onto a rack or something and using that to help you during the squat.  This indeed makes it easier.  The way most of us use the bar now makes the lift substantially harder than a low or high bar back squat.

Interesting.. Thank You.

jsully wrote: I agree that strength is important, but how important?

I've said it on here a bunch.  There is 'strong' and there is 'strong enough to throw far', and they are not the same thing. 

There's probably a basal strength level to throw far that's generally accepted by all of us, with a few variations here and there for individuality and anthropometry.  I know for me what those numbers are, and I suspect anyone who's been throwing for a while knows what they are for them.     

jsully wrote: At what point do you realize that you're strong enough to throw far as shit and all that really matters now is length of time of application of force and the speed of which you're able to produce that force?

If your goal is to be the best thrower and throw as far as you can, I hope it's realized pretty early.  I see cases of classic overthinking though time and time again.  It's so silly simple to get strong, and takes such basic movements, yet people want to complicate it all the time, but I digress...

jsully wrote: If you're squatting 500lbs, imo, you're strong enough to throw the weights and hammers in the top 10%. I can't speak for stones, we all know how that goes, amirite Craig? #no55in2015

lol, there is that pesky technique factor regarding some throws. 

jsully wrote: In contrast, if you want to turn big cabers, I think you have to squat at least 1,300lbs

This sounds about right. 

Caber and WOB are really the only events that I can tell when my strength levels are down below what I like them to be. 

It's all interesting, and again, these events are a mix of strength and technique. Technique is the hard part that takes more time than the strength. Jon, in all fairness, your technique got a lot better this summer, too, so don't forget the learning curve you have of just starting out. Granted, you're also super athletic, so you have to take that into account. Not fair.

Daniel McKim wrote: Granted, you're also super athletic, so you have to take that into account. Not fair.

This is exaggerated...

You can't fool me Jon.  You are light years ahead of me after my first year, plus you're a strong fella.  I predict a big year for you.

SeanUrq wrote: Does a lighter guy need to have that 500+ squat (or whatever we decide is strong) to throw the 56 with the big guys? I'm barely 250 on a good day so my feeling is that my added strength may benefit my lack in size to counter the 56. Now I know I still have plenty of work to be done to improve my technique but I can't help but think the strength will allow me to be competitive until I become more technically sound.

The strength will NEVER be a detriment. 

It will not help with the 56 as much as strength + bodyweight would. 

Another 15-25lbs bodyweight would do wonders for you and Nate, consistency-wise.  But not everyone wants to do that, I suppose.   

SeanUrq wrote: I'm barely 250 on a good day so my feeling is that my added strength may benefit my lack in size to counter the 56.

This makes me ponder what size really achieves..

If your tech is spot on, do you NEED the extra weight to "counter" the 56?

Matty Ice (Doherty) went 44/89 last year and he weighs what? 240? His hammers were also in the 115/145 range as well. Yes, he's extremely technical and he's super twitchy. I'm curious to know what his top end strength levels are at vs top end speed-strength levels.

Hmm.. so it would seem there is also a line between technique and bodyweight similar to the line between technique and strength, yes? If you're throwing the weight correctly, you're getting your feet down and pushing it around vs those that get their feet down and "pull" it into the field. I would guess the pullers are the ones that really need that extra bodyweight.

Common denominator = technique.

Watch videos. Do drills. Throw. Repeat several times per week.