Video of Mike Bridges' Raw Challenge Squats

I'm sorry, but what the hell was wrong with those squats?

I understand why the IPFer's give us Multiply guys hell, I really do. But you've also gotta call BS on a guy sinking his squats like that and getting red lighted. That's BS, both of those were good squats.

No they weren't. He hit 90, which is to bad because the unreal power he had the guy could have put his ass to the floor, paused the squat, read us all Gone with the Wind and come up without issue.

These were not sunk squats. Plane and simple.

Where can I sign up for next years event? What a shame.

That's ashame. A legend robbed like that on such a huge stage. I can imagine Mike's frustration to train as hard as he did, spend the money to travel to the meet, time away from home, etc and then get a screw-job like that.

www.titan500.blogspot.com
www.youtube.com/titan500

those were great squats. what a joke.

Gotta agree with previous writer. How could these excellent squats be redlighted?

what was he red-lighted for???

I usually don't post about stuff like this. I prefer to give the refs the benefit of the doubt and the videos were not shot at the best angle. But that second squat definitely looked deep enough and both were easy.

I think we had a case of judges attempting to set the standard for the weekend, and they set it pretty high. The amount of completely legitimate squats which were redlighted was beyond me. Additionally, a bunch of people bombed on the squat, some were just stupid and got stapled with their openers but many were redlighted on depth.

I have another angle I will try to post later today.

PS Jon, I think the second video up there is actually his third squat and not his second.

APT Pro Gear
Monster Energy

both were borderline, could've gone both ways...

How he got red lighted is beyond me. I don't know why anyone would want to lift in a federation that red lights lifts like that. There is no way the judges were for the lifter in this meet. I have to wonder if the federation cares at all about the lifter. Anyone that says those lifts weren't deep enough has never squatted 500 pounds.

This is how a squat had to look to get passed last weekend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gbiyh1i-_o

Steve

Everyone wants to talk about the rules on the squat. If the top of his hip joint wasn't below the highest part of his knee I must be crazy. This is why most truly great lifters will not support the USAPL. Especially when you see the extreme inconsistancy. I've seen Siders squat at least an inch and a half higher than that and get whites.

well I squated 661 in this very meet that after noon and got three whites and he was right at borderline. these squats should have been deeper. But I think what really screwed him was his singlet with the color change and black arrow at the hip. I have shorts that i squat in with marks like that and they always make me look high. Plus on his acutual second attempt which he paused he double dipped which means red lights. lastly i would like to say it is better for the fed to keep its credability than allow any half assed attempt to pass. I think mike understands that. the same thing happened to tuscherer last year in the quest meet.

That's a joke ! The squats are perfect ! Are the m....r fu..ers blind ? Where our sport is going ?

Mike is an excellent lifter and a great guy, but they were parallel. Everyone is too used to seeing super high multiply squats, so when they see something that is lower than that, they think it's buried

Second looked borderline.

First was definitely high. Not by a big margin, but good call by the referees.

If you pause that second squat attempt in the video it sure looks like his knees are higher than his hips.

Watching it in normal speed, I thought it was good too.

I think they were pretty hard on him. Could he have gone lower? Sure, but he did enough to pass it.

Oh well. It happens. He'll be back.

Nice squats Mike!

too bad Mike got robbed - 2nd squat was good.

Exactly, these guys saying it was high clearly don't know the rule. You can pause the video and see that his knee completely blocks his hip so that it can't even be seen, this means the hip is lower than the knee. Unless this is an extremely bad camera angle there is no way you can say those weren't good squats.

Looked good to me. What a shame.

Kinda wonder if the multi colored squat suit, especially in the hip area, made it difficult for the judges to determine depth?

True, but it does not make his squats legal

The only thing that makes you crazy, is to think that issues of inconsistancy of judging is a USAPL alone issue.

Exactly!

TRAIN HARD
"BIG WILLIE" J.T. HALL
BENCH PRESS VIDEOS
INZER ADVANCE DESIGNS
BMF SPORTS
USP LABS ASTEROID STACK
ADRENALINE GEAR
QUEST NUTRITION ANA-PRO

There was absolutely nothing wrong with those squats! When did a legal squat morph into the ass must hit the floor?! In an USAPL/IPF meet the only way to be certain a squat will be passed is if your ass does indeed hit the floor. Otherwise it is a crap shoot.

the 2nd squat looked really close to me. Looks like the same kind of depth they were calling at RUM. If anything was boarderline they were giving reds. So you know upfront that you have to bury it. So instead of complaining about it, squat deeper. That said, I'm sure Mike knows this and while it sucks for him, he's lifted in the USAPL a lot, he knows what to do. I'm sure he'll get it sorted.

I think his 3rd attempt should have been good but i'll say, I'd rather see boarderline lifts get red-lighted, than see these ridiculously high squats get passed. That shit burns me up.

www.biolayne.com

I have been lifting a long time and from the video I saw and looked at those are good squats in my opnion. I think both of them are legal it meets the rules or what should be the rules of this sport. Ken Ufford

I never said they had to have ass hit the floor. It was an expression as to the pure power the guy had with the weight. I will not dispute that calls at times with the IPF can make you wonder what the judges were looking at. But those lifts posted here, the legs where at 90 degrees. You can call me crazy, call me whatever you want. Those squats were 90. Nothing more, nothing less.

i never saw any double dip on those squats both looked good to me.i think a man that has been as good of an athlete as bridges should be givin the benefit of the doubt. boy this is disapointing

Based on the multitude of threads arguing SQ depth at any given point on this website, there just appears to be a fundamental disagreement of the interpretation of the SQ depth rule, even though it reads the same across federations. The problem I see is in the definition of "top of the thigh at the hip joint". If you put your fingers on that point while standing and then dropped into a SQ or raised your leg up to mimic the hip and knee bend of a SQ, you find your fingers down in your "hip crease". Some people say a SQ breaks parallel if the deep part of that hip crease goes below the knee, others seem to use the thigh surface above the hip crease as a marker. The language in the rulebooks isn't specific enough to say which one is correct.
Thus, there will likely be this never-ending argument about what is legal SQ depth.
For the record, I thought these squats looked good, so I guess I'm more in the deep hip crease camp.

there was a double dip on his 2nd attempt. Its not posted here.

First, don't you believe that one of the greatest lifters ever knows depth? This depth issues raises the hackles of most everyone on one side or the other. To be honest, both sides are in error. Too high or too low are just that. Why can't we settle on just right?
The USAPL likes the idea of VERY deep and smooth and easy. If you strain too much then the lift just didn't look right while the multi-ply guys enjoy a balls to the wall effort with blood and possibly body parts detaching and might give a break if it is a little high. In my opinion, this will not be fixed and we will still be here bitching ten years from now about the same bullshit.
Was Hoff's squat high, maybe, but no where near as high as some have portrayed it. Was Ricks too low? Apparently not if Bridges depth is in question. As for me, I will take the blood flying and strewn bodyparts over the oversanitized version of the USAPL, but that is just me.

Bwhuhahahaha

...makes all the squat videos from the last couple weekends at the multi-ply meets look even higher now.

wow.

Putt Houston.... now with Ridiculous BCWW

Are you kidding me? There was nothing wrong with those squats!. Mike is a true champion and those calls are just plain BS!

Vince
35 yr. vet

The 2nd attempt was good - the judges made a bad call.

Mike's squats were close. Could go either way, only the judges in the chairs can make the call. Raw lifting does not have the rebound of the suit and wraps, going deeper than required gives up considerable weight. Its part of the game. Raw lifting is definitely more technical and form intensive in the hole. Since it does appear the raw guys have to squat deeper than the geared lifters in the USAPL, I suspect the singlet doesn't help. They have a tendency to ball up and make the the 'crease' look higher than a squat suit which digs deeper.

By the way, I believe if your ass touches the floor, that will not pass. I saw that happen with a teenager at an AAU meet years ago. He got redlighted.

They were just as deep as Tuscherer's. They should have passed, Good job Mike.

Jeff Hackett.

It' time time That squats go the way of the overhead press.

Jeff Hackett.

ULTIMATE SIZE, STRENGTH, AND STAMINA
www.fitstep.com
www.extremeselfprotection.com

Do you honestly think you can tell the difference between 90 and 89.9??? If it's that close the tie goes to the runner, unless of course you are lifting in the USAPL and the judges have a hard on for power.

A LOT OF THE GEAR LIFTERS SQUATS WERE HIGHER ON SAT.
I WATCH THE WHOLE MEET FROM THE FRONT ROW,NEXT TO THE RACK.

Those squats were close--could have gone either way. They were definitely 90 degrees. Hard angle to know for sure if they were lower than that and hence, a legal squat.

Obviously, those squats were lower than 95% of the purported squats posted herein. But that does not mean that they were good squats.

Does the rulebook say tie go to the runner? So correct me if I am wrong, but that tells me you say it was at least close
Those on this thread who say it was close I think is a fair observation. That being said if it looks close on tape, would it not be fair and reasonable to think that just maybe the judges had a better view and made the correct call?

We can take a reasonable look at this, or we can resort to thinking the IPF judges get sexually excited over throwing reds. I choose the ladder.

I don't think the IPF refs get sexually excited about throwing reds, but I do think that on a National and World scale they for sure have an agenda.

maybe we could use the IPF 'half ass bench rule' and write a new IPF rule called the 100.5% rules that states the lift must go below what the acutal rule calls for by 100.5%

The IPF technical chair has said that the lifter should get the benefit of the doubt. To me, that sounds very similar to tie goes to the runner.

Where is the rule that says the leg has to be past 90 degrees?

From the rule book:

"Upon receiving the Chief Referee’s signal the lifter must bend the knees and lower the body until the top surface of the legs at the hip joint is lower than the top of the knees."

It has nothing to do with the center of the thigh or the angle of the leg. If you want to judge it as the lifter's entire leg has to be past 90, then write the rule that way.

www.wildirongym.com
Become a fan of Wild Iron on Facebook

The expression that is old as time itself has been lifter must break 90 to have a legal squat. We can play semantics if you wish, but it really boils down to the same thing. Break 90, hip joint drops below the top of the knee. Etc, etc.

But, ill appease. I have high doubt that Mikes hip joint is lower than the top of his knees. As I stated before it’s reasonable to say its close. But did not comply with the rules.

I don't care what angle his leg looked like to you and I don't know why you keep refering to that. If you pause the video the top of his leg at the hip was clearly lower than his knee, its plain as day. So please stop bullshitting yourself and everyone else. Mike got robbed.

Or we can all just say that you can't judge accurately from video. Take your pick.

I'd agree too. Both vids showed borderline lifts.

hahaha. God, its like arguing with a little kid. "I don't care what the rule is, I go by what the old timers say"... Get a clue, pause the video, read the rule.

There is nothing about the angle of your leg in the rulebook, every idiot thats ever done a meet knows that.

So I am a little kid because I think your wrong? Your logic is astounding, even if par with the mental capacity of a cadaver.

Times like this I am thankful there are multiple leagues in Powerlifting. It’s interesting that someone would have such tantrums over calls in a fed for which they will attack, but never compete in. But since it makes you feel good.. please continue.

Ive done plenty of meets.. including the one Mike was in. And I got whites in most my lifts.

Yeah im bullshitting everyone.. blah blah blah.. Mikes squats were still not to depth. And I am the child here? Grown up.

Look good to me...I paused the video at the bottom of the squat. It's more than close, it definite. How can someone defend the calls on this?? It is a good squat period!!

Well Mr. Bridges I watched the Video and I can tell you a squat like that will be more than good in our New Federation that will be starting in the Western States. I know your coming out To California for a possible movie deal and we would like to get you on board with us along with your Sponsors. We will be contacting you real soon and we will be talking to you about become one of our Premier Charter members.

Is he required to grow a mustache?

So is this true with Mike Bridges joining up with this new Fed I've been hearing about and him being part of the board of directors or something like that. Mike would really bring a big draw of lifters if this is so. Anyone one else have any more info about this?

Depth Nazis are tards.....looked good to me.

I stopped the video and I seen he has this very big bulging muscle on the top of his leg which by looking at that the judges probably thought the squat was not parallel to his hip joint

If judges were only passing really deep squats.... I would have squatted real deep

The rule book does not say the benefit of doubt goes to the lifter but John Stephenson, IPF Technical Committee Chair DOES say that!

The solution to all this argueing? An amendment to the rules. Squats must be performed completely naked and a fourth judge needs to be laying on the floor between the lifters legs just to get every angle down. 4 white lights!

is it more credible to redlight squats that should be white lighted?

Where does it say in the rulebook "parallel"?

no, look at the rulebook then look at his squats.
except for the double dipped squat(should have been redlighted). then judge it.

its not semantics. its the rules stated in the rulebook.

MIKE'S WERE GOOD I WAS THERE AND THE JUDGING WAS VERY BAD!MY FRIEND WAS ALSO ROBBED HIS 3RD SQUAT WAS LOWER THAN HIS FIRST. THEY DID THE SAME AT THE NATIONALS. THEY ARE TOO OLD! THE RULE DOES NOT SAY THAT YOUR ASS HAS TO HIT THE FLOOR. THIS IS WHAT DRIVES LIFTERS SOME WHERE ELSE!

This is why people don't want to lift USAPL and why you are now seeing more bench press meets. Lousy calls and they are only being defended by USAPL die hard forum leaders. What a joke and dis-respect to a great lifter.

Hey Mike, so what is this all about you coming out to California and getting with a new federation. Fill us in on the details? Anyone else heard about this?

I have watched this video over and over. when looking at his left knee back you can see the bottom of his belt is below the top of the knee but he is also leaning forward. I have found that when i lean forward my hips come up. Also when you look at his right knee compared to his hip it looks like he is just barely above. I was not there. I dont know this lifter and really am debateing in trying to compete in usapl. From my stand point the only people that really know are the judges. Did he get 3 reds on all lifts???? I cant stand one side judge telling me i hit depth and the other says no way. I also think it is very difficult for head judge to even judge depth.

So is there any truth that this new federation is going to have side camera's for the audience to watch just like the judges when squat are performed? Someone should ask Bridges what he knows.

Props to mike he should have gotten those squats, if he had gone any deeper he would have been sweeping the floor with his A**. He broke parallel plain and simple.

Hey Mike, so what is this all about you coming out to California and getting with a new federation. Fill us in on the details? Anyone else heard about this?

NEW FED? MAYBE THATS WHY THEY RED LIGHTED HIM....

From the video, the first one looked close. The third one appeared that he broke parallel (with hip crease lower than knee). Too bad. Strict judging is good but when a lifter squats to depth, the squat should be good. He shouldn't have to go 2, 3, or 4 inches lower then what is required!

For kicks, I went and looked at the 1977 Worlds that are on Youtube. Mike's squats were every bit as good as what was getting passed in that meet. Same fed and same rules.

Squats were good, no doubt about it.

looks like mike got to eat a piece of the same usapl pie i did at raw unity. it's not about breaking , but dipping at the bottom which in my 20 plus years was never deemed as healthy for the joints. a good squat breaks parallel, mike did that. the squat is about power and breaking parallel, not about who can get the closest to the floor without blowing out a knee!

When I arrived that morning the rumors going around the Grand Ballroom were that your squats had to be very deep. There happened to be quite a few injuries that were probably due to lifters really trying to go extra deep on their squats. I actually got a light quad strain that forced me to pass on my third squat. I think Mike's large legs and the colors and design of his singlet really served to confuse the judges. In this case I think his singlet messed with the judges eyes to his detrement. It is unfortunate but you will see Mike return to his winning ways. By the way if anyone has a copy of my second squat attempt could you please email it to me at jraw504@gmail.com and I would greatly appreciate it.

Now I'll accept a person saying "hey, you need a convicingly deep squat to get whites in the IPF" but to say that he wasn't "parallel" or that he didn't "break 90 degrees" or that "the top of the thigh at the hip was higher than top of the knee" or what-the-fuck-ever is ridiculous. I consider myself a multi-ply lifter but the fact of the matter is that I don't think he hit IPF depth, but to say he didn't "break parallel" by at least a mm, as per the letter of the rule, is plain idiotic.

Brian Mc

Can someone show me in the rule book the"90 degrees" Rule?

So with this logic if I let my knees go forward but my legs broke 90 degrees, then it's a good squat?

Please would someone quote the rule book as it is written and quit making shit up!

Good squat Mike! Too bad for the shit calls, another fed and it's inconsistancies but in the wrong direction!

Glenn Baggett
NGBB Elite

You're the one that says you don't care what the rule is, and my logic is dumb? It's amazing people can make it through life without understanding how things work.

I'm glad theres multiple leagues too, ones for the guys that choose to follow the rule as written, and one for people to interpret as they see fit while completely disregarding the written rule.

Learn to read, then pickup the rulebook.

You can see that the bottom of his belt is below the top of his knee and you would still question his depth based on the hip that you cannot see? lol... Am I the only one that understands the rulebook? Or anatomy?

I am drunk as a skunk and had my hand on a hot girls ass all night., amd still i have more clue of the rules the geeting.

WHO WOULDA THINKED IT

Borderline at best, high at worst, life sucks, then you become a multiply tard on plywatch

What the hell is 'setting the standard' for the meet!? The standard is already set for every meet that will ever be contested! It's called the rule book! Every squat should be judged solely on that and nothing else. And it never changes for any meet...any level. If the IPF/USAPL can't get that straight they should clean house and start over with judges and official to get rid of a ridiculous mindset or shut down. That kind of thinking is inexcuseable!

I agree with this. there is only ONE standard for squat depth regardless of the type of contest or the weight lifted. In multiply feds, the heavier the weight, the higher the squat in general and in the USAPL, the higher the level of the meet, the greater the depth requirement - both are ridiculous and do not comply with the rules.