IPF Squat Depth is Typically..

No excuses! Just lift it!

Interesting; at this point it seems that 3/4 of the voters say it's below the worded rule. Democracy in action! By a land slide! The IPF judging is unfair! So stop comparing everyone else's squats to them! I'm glad to see this poll!

dammit, what do u call "a squat"? if an athlete squats >1000 pounds halfway is it a squat? Results say it better than words. ipf best 457 kg, wpc/wpo etc. 100k more.
rules must be equal for all divisions, only in this case comparisons should be fair.

With all due respect to Putt (you're 'da man!), I think having hard measurements is flawed. Unless there is a point to this survey I'm missing, I have to regretfully say it isn't a fair survey. (please read on)

Even for USAPL/IPF standards, the rule states one thing (break parrallel) while lifters seem to be held to a even greater standard (I've been contemplating writing a article about this).In this regard, minus the measurements, your on the right track!

Especially for a "new" lfter, the standards held by the USAPL/IPF referees, has always seem to have been; convince me you can squat below parrallel. Which is often confused with;now I'm either convinced you capable of squatting below parrallel or your going to have to really convince me on your next attempt. Then you have; alright, the first three lifters weren't quite as deep as the fourth and now I have a standard for which I'll judge the rest. Keep in mind, these examples reflect hypothetical cases and not all three examples can be found in one referee, but a combination of the three or only one may affect a referees decision making process.

So, if the effort here is to overstate what is required to get a lift passed in the IPF, mission successful. Otherwise, I think it boils down to the individual making the call. Which, doesn't make it right, but highlights the need to scrutinize each referee's performance in interpreting the rules.

Jim
Maryland Powerlifting

Lift..., what else?

dnt give me no jibba jabba! for a squat to be a squat it has 2 be below parrallel

Actually Jim, this poll was spawned from another thread where I claimed the IPF depth standard was about 2" below parallel. I was challenged that my assessment was wrong and I chose to poll my peers and get an overall view as well.

I don't agree with a hard number measurement at all. I just wrote those in the poll to make it easier to understand. I firmly believe in the break parallel standard, and if that means by 1/64 of an inch then that satisfies me. It is obvious though to me, who has competed in different federations, that all federations have the same squat depth rule and nobody is on the same page in enforcing it. The IPF is for the most part too low and the IPA/WPO is probably at the other extreme...too high. And I'm not just talking some gifts are given away because that would be normal. I'm saying overall that's what it appears to be. I would like to see a picture analysis or video review in place for referees from all three positions and compare the results of different referees. (from different federations) The whole point is to 1. come together on common ground and 2. to show that making lifters squat too low is just as bad as passing their high ones. The guys in some federations are sweeping all the records across the board while others are being denied for extreme squat depth standards and other minor silly reasons. You can't even compare WR's anymore because the merit and legitamacy to get there is not on common ground and it should be. Furthermore I'll point out that the squat depth rule is the exact same in all federations so that's the focus of this poll. If we are are truly abiding by the same written rules then the technique and form should visibly reflect that. Obviously right now it doesn't. I'm not sure if it ever can unless someone like me brings the issue up for all to scrutinize and administrative committees review it with all referees, including the top notch ones they use for Nationals and Worlds.

Also I can see on the local and state level giving some leeway on squats that look parallel but were so fast in the rebound it was hard to determine depth. And then being stricter on National, World or All-time attempts as far as being more convincing as to depth. (i.e. if you're going to take a man's world record away, there better be no doubt)

I'm not saying this will ever change, but it would be nice if more people recognized it and enforced some kind of principles to correct it.

...so far with 188 votes almost 80% of the lifters agree with me that the IPF depth standard being enforced is much lower than their own written rule.....just as I had stated/predicted

Putt Houston.... now with more Bom Chicka Wahwahhhhhh

Define "parallel."

Paul,
While I think it a misused term (a simple legal/good or illegal/bad could be used), I think it is there to serve as a descriptive guide.

The rule in the IPF is; "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."

In suggesting that someone is above, below or parallel, seves to describe where the hip joint is prior to the ascent. It is either high (above), even (parallel) or below (legal).

Jim
Maryland Powerlifting

Lift..., what else?

Exactly, the term parallel is just a common term adhered by all lifters and should be applied exactly the way Jim described it.

Jim and Putt: I agree. However, there are those who still think it has something to do with a line through the knee joint and hip socket.

Odd, isn't it? Most Feds' rule books have a definition similar to the IPF standard, but can vary so widely in application.

I think a better poll question in this regard might be: "Which Fed adheres most closely to its own squat definition in practice?"

Paul, I would seriously like to know what some refs are looking at. It seems so easy to me, but I know some refs have a different vision of what is lining up for their own description. I would love to see a standard computer program available with split view (front and side) with person squatting. It should be user friendly where you could input how deep the lifter squats and be able to vary the speed to show that the exact same squat looks different under specific speed variables. I think it would be a good learning tool.

Putt Houston.... now with more Bom Chicka Wahwahhhhhh

That's easy, the USPF most closely adheres to it's own squat definition in practice.

It all varies from squat to squat, lifter from lifter, judge from judge. I've seen guys squat deep as hell and guys that was questionable in terms of hip crease below top of knee, however I'm not the judge so who am I to say. I've seen some squats that seem to be below parallel not get passed and squats that seem to be slightly high get passed, but like I said I am not the one to judge. Judging is such a subjective point of view and sometimes all it takes is one side judge to make a mistake. However overall IPF squats are typically deeper then squats being passed in most multi ply feds.

No excuses! Just lift it!

Paul, My answer to your question is that parellel is simply to create a parellel plain with the surface of the lifting platform and the mid axis of the thigh. Which has nothing to do with the top surface of the thigh muscles (quads). The mid-axis of the thigh is the femur (thigh bone); which is exactly the same for all lifters (lt. wt., Md. wt., or Hvwt). The femur's ends are at the hip joint (hence that wording in the rules and the knee (hence that wording). The crease of a suit (even a singlet will lead right to the hip joint since it is the pivot point. You don't even have to guess where it is at. Like Putt, I fail to see how this can be misinterpreted at all; ever! If you see that the hip joint (one end of the femur) even slightly goes below the top of the knee (other end of the femur); it is a no brainer call. As a judge calling squats is the easiest job of all to me. I find calling bench presses to be more difficult to call consistantly.